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
[B]Respectfully, this argument is total nonsense. I don't for a second believe anyone who's innocent would give back the money. Not in a million years.
Innocent people "confess" to murder all the time when put under enough pressure.
I knew a woman who was raped by a stranger and 12 hours later was wondering if it was her fault and she was to blame.
If you don't think an inexperienced woman playing on a stream for a lot of money early in her career who was then pressured wouldn't give the money back then you have a lot to learn in life.
[B]Respectfully, this argument is total nonsense. I don't for a second believe anyone who's innocent would give back the money. Not in a million years.
Innocent people "confess" to murder all the time when put under enough pressure.I knew a woman who was raped by a stranger and 12 hours later was wondering if it was her fault and she was to blame.If you don't think an inexperien
Please note that I have absolutely no idea if there was cheating or not. I have opinions that could be changed with further information, but nothing new has come out.
My point was simply that I think a lot of people are applying their own inexperienced standard to whether or not someone would give the money back or not if innocent.
Please note that I have absolutely no idea if there was cheating or not. I have opinions that could be changed with further information, but nothing new has come out.
My point was simply that I think a lot of people are applying their own inexperienced standard to whether or not someone would give the money back or not if innocent.
I remember when Guy gave Benyamine 425k back because it was obvious how bothered Benyamine was over the money and while that is a different situation its impossible to say that Garrett throwing a massive bitch fit as one of the most famous players in the world at that time wouldn't influence someone to do something in that moment that others would find illogical
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.
This 100%, though the amount of tin foil cheating theories ITT is certainly entertaining!
Phil Ivey and Eric whatshisname think she had bottom pair in her mind and mis-read her hand. She never checks her cards. I doubt they'd do something like that, that would 100% get this kind of attention. I think it's common sense the game wasn't rigged.
If this exact hand played out the same way in a home game everyone itt would believe they were cheated.
Phil Ivey and Eric whatshisname think she had bottom pair in her mind and mis-read her hand. She never checks her cards. I doubt they'd do something like that, that would 100% get this kind of attention. I think it's common sense the game wasn't rigged.
Phil Ivey and Eric Persson, on the same night as the stream, thought she had misread her cards because that's the only thing that made sense that night. This is before any real investigation took place, it is the same night of the stream, before they had any information at all. They didn't know about Bryan taking 15k off of Robbi's stack, they didn't get to review the footage and see her constantly looking through the door every time she needs information, they didn't have time to analyze anything. Secondly, she does too re-check her cards, several times. I don't even know why you'd say something so blatantly false.
I hadn't watched the hand in forever and hilariously she had 47% equity. She wasn't even the favorite to win the hand but it was still basically a 50/50 coinflip
LIke, the prevailing theory seems to be that she was getting binary ahead/behind signals, but not every hand, but THIS was they hand Brian (or however they were doing it) was spamming the signal to GO GO GO while she was statistically BEHIND Garrett's draw
And that everyone would absolutely believe they were cheated if they lost a 50/50 flip
Hilarious stuff tbh. All around impressive deduction work from all involved in this thread.
You should go buy Garretts book. Hes got a lot of missed income to make up
There is one form of cheating that would be somewhat plausible to me in this circumstance. And that is that Garrett inadvertantly flashed his cards on this one hand to someone in the room, and that Robbi somehow got information about that. For anything more sophisticated, it’s just not sensible to me that the cheating would occur on this hand and this hand alone.
I hadn't watched the hand in forever and hilariously she had 47% equity. She wasn't even the favorite to win the hand but it was still basically a 50/50 coinflipLIke, the prevailing theory seems to be that she was getting binary ahead/behind signals, but not every hand, but THIS was they hand Brian (or however they were doing it) was spamming the signal to GO GO GO while she w
Also, cheating doesn't make sense earlier in the course of this hand. It's one point in one hand.
Another kind of fallacy with "but she gave the money back!" Is that it is unusual either way. Have you ever seen someone over seven feet tall walking out of a bank who DIDN'T rob it?
We actually do have a couple cases of people not cheating returning large pots. You mentioned one, which I'll assume is true. Kevin Hart did it. I don't know of any times someone was correct ly accused of cheating and just returned the money.
I won't pretend to be an all knowing master of psychology like the conspiracy guys. However, it does seem to me that if someone intentionally Welshes on a bet, they would probably not give you your money back just because you demand it. However, if their intention was to be fair and you felt they had cheated, they might say, "ok, fine you can have the bet back."
Anyway, here is this.
https://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/garr...
https://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/garr...
https://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/the-...
https://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/the-...
https://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/robb...
Tldr
Well, thereÂ’s a lot to summarize here, but IÂ’ll do what I can. 1)The only time Robbi or her supposed partners played in a manner consistent with cheating was 1 decision point in one hand. There were many times, including in that same hand, when they played in a manner inconsistent with cheating. 2) There are innocent explanations, the most popular being that Robbi simply misread her hand. 3) All cheating theories involve strange cheating systems that only complete fools would use. 4) Yet the cheaters masterfully covered their tracks and maintained the conspiracy. 5) Several outside investigators and poker experts suggested that cheating was unlikely. 6) The alleged cheaters did not win any money.
Are there two posts I made in the Garrett thread that pretty much explain exactly what happened. If you start with the premise that she misread her hand as J3 then you don't have to jump through a single other hoop for almost anything and everything to make sense involving the hand.
Starting with the premise that she misread her hand is jumping through a hoop in itself though, a
I see where you're going with this, and there's some logic to it, especially when you look at it from the perspective of the initial misreading of the hand. Assuming the player did indeed misread his hand as J3, then many of the subsequent actions and reactions become more consistent within that version of events, and there's really no need to go into detail about each individual moment. But at the same time, I think that might be a bit too rigid in holding to one interpretation.
In a broader sense, this is reminiscent of how, in online poker or other online gaming environments, including https://casinologin.mobi/15-dollar-depos... and $15 deposit casino and betting on games, the interpretation of an opponent's actions often depends not on just one episode, but on a long series of decisions and context that is not always obvious from the outside.
In poker, situations often look contradictory precisely because we see only fragments of behavior, and not the full context of the player's decision at the time. People can act illogically, say inconsistent things, or make strange decisions due to stress, desk pressure, or their own confidence in reading a situation. So sometimes one theory explains part of the picture, but not necessarily the whole picture. The overall picture may be more complex and multi-layered than it appears at first glance.
It doesn't make sense that she mis-read her hand at least 3 times. So her checking her cards was completely performative, because she wasn't actually doing it. Unless, as I said earlier, she was high as balls, which she doesn't appear to be, but different drugs can have all sorts of different effects, I suppose. And I'm not accusing her of being into drugs. I am saying that being high on something and unable to remember what her cards were is less likely (to me) than cheating, and more likely than her misreading her hand three times. It could be like a situation I once had where I'd been drinking quite heavily, during a very, very long session, and called thinking i had a nut flush, turned over my hand to have the wrong suit and nowhere near the nuts of it ... and the only thing I could ever come up with, was that I must've been thinking of my cards the previous hand... but I'd never know for sure since my cards weren't on TV lol .... since that day, I have never made a river or all-in call without checking my cards again 😃
But it would probably take some sort of evidence that she was not being signaled from elsewhere to convince me that she wasn't cheating. It sure looks and smells like signal cheating. With the signal being a binary "best hand" / "not best hand", not "best percentage" as someone tried to say above. The people involved aren't that smart. I'm not going to give her credit for being particularly smart, which would potentially lead to her getting involved in a scheme like that, and lead to people trying to hatch a scheme like that into looking for people like her.
The only question I have, is what was their signal mechanism?
Not as good of a point as you think it is as the same logic would apply to j3 ie why gamble it up if you are taking a shot in a huge game and you only have 2 bullets...Its not like the guy is drawing dead vs j3I dont remember all the details anymore but my initial reaction was that there was definitely something suspicious going on.
lol. she's not gambling it up, its not her mon
lol I said this an an LA home game and the sharpest guys there, all of whom you know and prob golfed with, told me I was insane and she 100% cheated lol. Bryce is one of the guys who chastised me!
lol I said this an an LA home game and the sharpest guys there, all of whom you know and prob golfed with, told me I was insane and she 100% cheated lol. Bryce is one of the guys who chastised me!
bryce would instantly tell you i read these type situations far better than he does and, much like bart hanson, most of the guys who were saying cheating then are now saying the opposite after thinking about it a little and seeing how things have played out. . I literally owned a stream and personally dealt with all of the security involved and cheating scenarios. Im coming at this from a completely different level.
Phil Ivey and Eric whatshisname think she had bottom pair in her mind and mis-read her hand. She never checks her cards. I doubt they'd do something like that, that would 100% get this kind of attention. I think it's common sense the game wasn't rigged.
Phil Ivey and Eric Persson, on the same night as the stream, thought she had misread her cards because that's the only thing th
I think you are reading far to much into her constantly looking through the door.
It is outside the poker area which means people are constantly walking past. Anyone with a view of the door is going to react to movement outside of the door. It is human nature.
If this exact hand played out the same way in a home game everyone itt would believe they were cheated.
First off you're changing the environment to one with rampant cheating to suit your case. This is like saying a guy who smiles at you in a gay bar is likely sexually interested in you so a guy smiling at you he takes your order at a restaurant is probably interested in you.
This kind of stuff is what always brings me back.
If I lost with quads in home game I'd think I was cheated. Probably more so than If this happened.
Cuz I'd think they likely just set the deck some how with quads, rather than thinking they did some bizarre cheating scheme nobody can even articulate to get a lot of money in as a dog and/or that they knew both run outs. Especially if i knew that all the possible cheaters were down or break even in the game and I was somehow able to review every other hand in that home game and no others were suspicious
I think you are reading far to much into her constantly looking through the door.
It is outside the poker area which means people are constantly walking past. Anyone with a view of the door is going to react to movement outside of the door. It is human nature.
I didn't approach my theory after seeing her looking through the doors. I thought about it logically from a poker dealer's perspective. I thought, if she were cheating, just like Postle, she would need to check for information when she needs it. So, that's what I focused on when I did my own investigation, where did her eyes go when she needed information?. So I watched her eyes. It just so happens that every time she needs information, she would look through the doors.
The problem is that she doesn't look through the doors randomly, it's specifically when she needs information, and seemingly only when she needs information. Then, when she makes the statement "hold on, let me scratch my face because that's the **** I have", it made even more sense. There is only one thing that that statement can mean. That statement is why I'm so confident that she was obtaining her signal visually.
I dont know how well Robbi and Garret are doing. It seems strange to still be discussing this event, but if they are going to keep it going the best course of action would be for Robbi to write an "if I did it" sort of dramatic (non)confession and then be able to use that in the movie that Garret is promoting. They are both masters of social media so I cant see how this wouldn't be the biggest money making conclusion to the entire saga.
I dont know how well Robbi and Garret are doing. It seems strange to still be discussing this event, but if they are going to keep it going the best course of action would be for Robbi to write an "if I did it" sort of dramatic (non)confession and then be able to use that in the movie that Garret is promoting. They are both masters of social media so I cant see how this wouldn'
Your point touches on essence of GTO sims for the prisoner's dilemma where conflict leads to cooperation. Millions of pages have been written on this exact topic across nearly everything.... but now we can apply this situation!
Once the initial conflict has played out, game theory dictates a shift toward cooperation.
In an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, early defection protects each party but long-term collaboration yields the highest mutual payoff.
For Garrett and RJL, the most profitable move now is to join forces. By pairing a dramatic "If I Did It" type non-confession with his book promotion, they can leverage their combined social media influence to fully monetize the scandal's conclusion and enjoy keeping the public interested and uncertain.
Garrett needs to be a true GTO boss and deliver the olive branch. I would assume Garrett has read about the prisoners dilemma
Your point touches on essence of GTO sims for the prisoner's dilemma where conflict leads to cooperation. Millions of pages have been written on this exact topic across nearly everything.... but now we can apply this situation!Once the initial conflict has played out, game theory dictates a shift toward cooperation. In an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, early defection protects ea
the funny part is if rjl did an "if i did it" video and basically "admitted" to all the flat earther conspiracies that have been pushed to this day (elaborate signals, gadgets in pants, hole cards spooker outside door, tweaker compatriot in the back room, hacked shuffler, etc.) these theories would look so dumb in the light of day no one would be intrigued by her "confession". She would need a new novel somewhat believable tale to capture the imaginations of chat pros and poker groupies.
What if Garrett got mad because he thought he recognized his own techniques being used against him?
What if the answer is that she played that way because she was high?
What if Garrett got mad because he thought he recognized his own techniques being used against him?
What if the answer is that she played that way because she was high?
Doens't matter anymore. That's stage one of the prisoners dilemma, GTO strategy mandates that both parties should now operate cooperatively.
Let's try to assume that both parties begin to act rationally and cooperate.
as much as I dont care about it and I kinda wish it was an "outplay" by her.
just too much smoke going on
but again same thing you can say about hans v carlsen for chess maybe
