Is there evidence that Robbi cheated Garrett?
Hello all. My first post on here. My name is Chester Mead. I am a poker dealer for more than 15 years and a poker player
Please, anyone who believes she was not cheating... just answer this question.
Why, after min raising the turn vs Garrett's 10k bet with J4, does she ask the question...
"Hold on, let me scratch my face because that's the **** I have" ???
Do you believe Mike Postle cheated? Because the same things can be said about Mike Postle. There has never been a confession, and there is no physical evidence of him cheating, yet the general poker population knows he was cheating. Too many pieces of circumstantial evidence start to build up to only one possible conclusion.
There were dozens of hands in Postle’s case. Each individually wouldn’t convince me he was cheating, but put together, the make a compelling case.
If you want to convince me she cheated, don’t make up some elaborate story about a signalling code that somehow only worked on this specific hand. Show me more hands.
I’m pretty sure that mike postle cheated.
Probably over 99.99%
But i can’t prove it.
Now, let’s say that Postle somehow got spooked after cheating only three hands.
He decided to quit cheating.
The hands would still look suspicious.
But you could make case that it was a small sample size and the verdict would be inconclusive. You could say he was playing crazy or suboptimal.
But we all know he cheated.
Here is my theory: postle was caught because he was seen receiving the info on this phone. Cheating 2.0 with the info from the livestream card readers was modified and the information was relayed to the player, somehow signaling them either visually or something like a phone vibration, but not giving the player the holdings.
This explains Robbi’s hesitation to follow through with the call, knowing what she held.
All of her post hand behavior, especially returning the money, was damning. I did not see it in this video cut of the hand but I recall her lifting her cards for viewing multiple times before she called the shove.
I’m pretty sure that mike postle cheated.Probably over 99.99%But i can’t prove it.Now, let’s say that Postle somehow got spooked after cheating only three hands.He decided to quit cheating.The hands would still look suspicious.But you could make case that it was a small sample size and the verdict would be inconclusive. You could say he was playing crazy or su
We all know Postle cheated because there were so many suspicious hands.
If he only played three suspicious hands, I probably wouldn’t believe he cheated.
I’m sure I’ve played more than three hands in my poker career that could look “suspicious” in a vacuum.
But we aren’t even basing this on three hands. We are basing on -one- hand.
Remember that -one- hand where Phil Ivey mucked the nut flush at showdown deep in the WSOP Main Event? Certainly that looks suspicious in a vacuum as well. But no one suspects him of cheating or colluding here because it was just one hand, and everyone understands that even great players make inexplicable mistakes on occassion. It’s a much more straighforward explanation than an elaborate conspiracy that must be exactingly crafted to one specific set of facts.
This whole issue doesn't pass the smell test. Someone at this level misreading their hand (she looks at her cards repeatedly) calling with bottom pair or calling an all in with Jack high isn't plausible to me at all. If it doesn't smell right, it is probably rotten.
What is also interesting to me is the fact that she hasnt really been on any high stakes poker games since the J4 hand. If she was truly as bad as she seemed wouldnt she be getting more invites.
I was fairly certain before that Garrett had been cheated in this hand, but after reviewing this analysis, I’m now completely convinced. All the pieces fall into place, and the evidence appears overwhelming.
Robby was just too stupid and terrible at poker to realise that even if she is in front right now
A) Garrett has to have huge equity and is most likely a favorite oddswise
B) There can be no justification to her call, so doesnt matter if she is being bluffed by 45o, she's got to fold.
We are lucky the cheaters are mostly stupid and greedy, i was thinking about it and if you put the moral issues aside, if i had Potripper like ability to see the cards and had no ethical problems with cheating, pretty sure i wouldn't be caught.
You sacrifice all the coolers, just make more "excellent bluffs" and "great herocalls" with hands that make sense, not 9 high and you will be printing over a huge sample.
Robby is dumb and greedy and thats why she was exposed.
I think the issue was more the person signaling her that she would have the winning hand at showdown was the one desperate enough to jump on this spot because of the size of the pot.
Her delay and fidgeting is either waiting for the signal or her confused about calling off with Jack-high in that spot because she's worried the signal HAS to be confused, how in the hell could she be good?
We all know Postle cheated because there were so many suspicious hands. If he only played three suspicious hands, I probably wouldn’t believe he cheated.I’m sure I’ve played more than three hands in my poker career that could look “suspicious” in a vacuum.But we aren’t even basing this on three hands. We are basing on -one- hand.Remember that -one- hand where Phil Ivey mucked t
I thought ivy folded a 7 or 8 high flush on a paired board at a checked showdown when a guy showed top two.
NickMPK guy is delusional. Might play cards, but is definitely not a poker player. Giving the money back proves innocence? In what world?
His arguments imply Gman should've let her continue cheating so it would build a better case for his smooth brain.
One has to wonder how these people survive in life. Then I see the 12,000 posts 😃
Is it bad that i still want to see her tatas
There is no reason to believe she cheated but also believe it was an isolated event.
So holding the opinion that she cheated is holding the opinion that the stream is a farce
... it could well be the only time they attempted to cheat. As I said in a previous post, I've seen people who were a lot better at cheating, get detected, arrested, and trespassed, for a lot less money than this. If this is the *best* you do at it, you're not going to get very far at it.
Despite being called a casino, the Hustler is a California card room, the security level there is usually good, but it's nowhere near Las Vegas serious. There's not a single California card room that I would trust to be big enough to have security that wouldn't be in on a scam, but the Hustler is barely larger than some charity games or bar league games.
Definitely not out of the realm of possibility for people who should be involved in security to be involved in the scams in something that small. And definitely not out of the realm of possibility that they are not very smart, they recruit someone who's also not very smart, and then they get caught a couple dozen hands in.
NickMPK guy is delusional. Might play cards, but is definitely not a poker player. Giving the money back proves innocence? In what world?
His arguments imply Gman should've let her continue cheating so it would build a better case for his smooth brain.
One has to wonder how these people survive in life. Then I see the 12,000 posts 😃
I always felt that her giving the money back was the most damning evidence of her guilt, not proof of innocence. If I did nothing wrong, no f'ing way I'm returning money, and I'll go to my grave proclaiming my innocence and flashing that cash.
She, in general, seemed pretty daft and weak though, so not much of what she did/said after the hand made much sense. I landed on about a 5% chance of cheating, since no real evidence has as yet emerged, and frankly her call/read was kinda right.
BTW, what ever happened to that idiot who stole money off the table while all this was going on? I remember cops had a warrant out for him and he was AWOL, but I don't think I ever saw a follow-up.
I always felt that her giving the money back was the most damning evidence of her guilt, not proof of innocence. If I did nothing wrong, no f'ing way I'm returning money, and I'll go to my grave proclaiming my innocence and flashing that cash.She, in general, seemed pretty daft and weak though, so not much of what she did/said after the hand made much sense. I landed on about
There's a reason NickMPK hasn't responded to anyone who addressed this claim. It's the dumbest argument ever. Not a soul is going to give back 130k if they did nothing wrong, no one. This isn't a thing.
You guys have made a determination based off nothing and there is no reason to argue about giving the money back.
What could I say that would make you change your mind? Nothing? Oh, okay
There are some fairly simple truths, some reasonable assumptions, and then everything else. You guys live in everything else land
You guys have made a determination based off nothing and there is no reason to argue about giving the money back.
What could I say that would make you change your mind? Nothing? Oh, okay
There are some fairly simple truths, some reasonable assumptions, and then everything else. You guys live in everything else land
Great. Let us live in everything else land while you don't. Seems like a fair compromise no?
I'm just noting that you taking victory laps because someone doesn't want to argue something pointless with brick walls is questionable
There's a reason NickMPK hasn't responded to anyone who addressed this claim. It's the dumbest argument ever. Not a soul is going to give back 130k if they did nothing wrong, no one. This isn't a thing.
I haven’t responded because everything has been said and there’s no new evidence being presented.
In terms of how one would interpret giving the money back, it’s pretty subjective so there’s not a lot to argue about. My opinion is that if she cheated, the money she won would be owed to her backers and she wouldn’t have has the freedom to give it back. She also would have been better prepared for accusations against cheating.
That’s my take on it and I’m not sure there’s anything left to debate here unless there’s new evidence. And over several years, still no one has brought up any evidence about other hands where she cheated.
Every shoplifter caught on camera tries to give back the merchandise and claim “no harm, no foul.” Every. Single. One.
But NickMpk is correct in that there is no point in arguing it without new evidence.
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE
top kek sir. Good laughs all around
Figured it may lighten the mood a little.
You guys have made a determination based off nothing and there is no reason to argue about giving the money back.
What could I say that would make you change your mind? Nothing? Oh, okay
There are some fairly simple truths, some reasonable assumptions, and then everything else. You guys live in everything else land
Sure, I'd change my mind. It would take clear, compelling and incontrovertible evidence of cheating. All the speculation so far has fallen far, far short of that standard. But I agree with the latest statements; there is no new evidence, so years later this is just more gum-flapping about nothing.
No way did she cheat. She is just not the person you would select to explicit collude with to do such a thing in such a stupid way. It's a non starter.
The facts are she made a wild call and that's where it ends.
