Hustler Casino Live (6 Viewers)

[jpietrella]

This is well said, and point well made. Thank you!

Your interpretation/explanation comes across a little bit more palatable vs the “to not agree with me, is to not agree with science” approach .

Her having seen one or both of his cards is certainly a possibility, however not an absolute by any means. As common as flashed cards in the 9 spot may be, I’d wager my house on plain old bad decisions are a LOT more common- lol.

Therefore I don’t dismiss @RainmanTrail’s theory as impossible, however based on the currently available evidence, I choose to remain open to other equally likely possibilities.

Exactly. Literally anything is possible, I suppose. But it seems way more likely and plausible that some way less interesting things are at play.

 

[SiouxperStack]

I’m not sure if you all have discussed the backer buy in amount yet. Rip bought in for significantly less than Robbi. Berkey has a good take on it.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRuJX2Gq/

 

[upNdown]

I’m not sure if you all have discussed the backer buy in amount yet. Rip bought in for significantly less than Robbi. Berkey has a good take on it.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRuJX2Gq/

Yeah, I've mentioned how bizarre it is that she was backed in this game at all and I think that's a point that hasn't gotten much attention. But now you tell me her backer buys in short? This story does get strange.

 

[CrazyEddie]

How is this NOT an outlier? Do you really need me to come up with a mathematical formula that measures how many standard deviations away from normal a call is in order to recognize that this is as an outlier?

No need for a formula, but it would help a lot if you could give me an example of the worst call you've seen that you would not consider cheating if it turned out to be correct.

That would help calibrate the levels of badness under consideration: a) bad, but common enough to be normal or at least not suspicious, and b) so bad that it could never, ever, ever happen unless someone were cheating.

I would have put Robbi's bet in Category A, but you don't. You've seen a lot more hands than I have, so I'm trying to learn from your experience.

 

[CrazyEddie]

This is another of the more plausible possibilities how they could have cheated. Rip strongly believes that Garrett is on a draw, and assumes Robbi has a better hand that she actually does. You know, because she's still in the hand... Since he's backing her, he somehow signals her to call, thinking she's probably further ahead.

It's not enough to assume that Rip or Robbi knew Garrett was on a draw. For the presumption of cheating to hold, Robbi had to know - whether on her own or through signals - that Garrett held an eight high or worse. If all she knows is that he's on a draw, then her play still doesn't make sense, as @RainmanTrail showed earlier. There's too many drawing hands that beat her for that to be a good call against "a drawing hand", it has to be a call against a hand known to be behind Jack high (and given the tens and nine on the board, that has to be an eight).

Or, you could presume as the rest of us have been doing, that it was just a bad call rather than an impossible call.

 

[bergs]

I'm actually surprised that more people aren't discussing the possibility of her catching a glimpse of his cards from the dealer's pitch. She very easily could have seen just enough of his cards to know that he was dealt two small black cards at the very least, and possibly even two small clubs. She'd only need about a 5 degree angle or so to pick up on that. It's not like the cards would have to completely flash. When I used to train dealers back in the day, I was constantly getting on them about this. It's way more common than most players realize. Maybe they're just not paying attention, but it doesn't take much to at least be able to tell if someone was just dealt a face card or if they were just dealt a small red card or a medium black card even if you don't know exactly what it was.

If Robbi knew that Garrett had two small black cards in this hand, that would be enough info for her to make the call. Perhaps this is actually why she was so hung up on the 3h turn card. Maybe she was trying to figure out if Garrett actually had the 3c, knowing he had two smallish clubs or two smallish black cards?

Sure, this is possible, but it doesn’t fit the Lex Luther master hacking narrative that most here are pushing. I’m not even 100% that it’s cheating if the dealer inadvertently flashed a card.

 

[bergs]

I solved the riddle.

When Robbi got the fake boobs installed, she connected them to her optic never in a procedure rarely performed outside or Rwanda called “Boobopticalology”.

This is how we solve the remainder of the Pythagorean problem before us regarding acute angles.

She doesn’t need the acute angle. Her boobs are everything.

Think about it. It fits perfectly, so to speak.

 

[TheDuke]

OK. Well, clearly you're the expert then. You would know. Please disregard everything I've said on the topic. I'm just pulling this all out of thin air.

Well you certainly haven't provided any evidence of this dealer exposing cards to Ronni except showing a video of the top of dealers head and assurances of: 'Trust me, I'm an expert and all you guys know shit all.'

My example actually shows the dealer pitching to Garrett effortlessly without the intense labor/adjustment you claim it requires to deal to seat 9.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

It's not enough to assume that Rip or Robbi knew Garrett was on a draw. For the presumption of cheating to hold, Robbi had to know - whether on her own or through signals - that Garrett held an eight high or worse. If all she knows is that he's on a draw, then her play still doesn't make sense, as @RainmanTrail showed earlier. There's too many drawing hands that beat her for that to be a good call against "a drawing hand", it has to be a call against a hand known to be behind Jack high (and given the tens and nine on the board, that has to be an eight).

Or, you could presume as the rest of us have been doing, that it was just a bad call rather than an impossible call.

I'm not presuming anything. I had asked the question earlier of some who were convinced that she DID cheat to explain HOW she could have cheated. All these ideas about electronic signals and hacking the shuffling machine seem way too complicated to be likely. And as others have said, if she did have access to to hole card information, she picked a piss poor hand to use it. So don't think that I'm in the camp that thinks she did cheat. I'm just trying to understand plausible ways that they could have cheated. I tried to make that obvious with my use of bold text. Guess it didn't work.

My post above is an attempt to understand how she might have ended up calling the all in with such a horrible hand. It's a possibility, not something I'm purporting to have actually happened. It's conjecture and nothing more.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Sure, this is possible, but it doesn’t fit the Lex Luther master hacking narrative that most here are pushing. I’m not even 100% that it’s cheating if the dealer inadvertently flashed a card.

I agree. I also think the likelihood that she's tied into the card reader like Postle was is extremely low. Especially given the way she played other hands in the session. I think it's fairly safe to rule that out.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Well you certainly haven't provided any evidence of this dealer exposing cards to Ronni except showing a video of the top of dealers head and assurances of: 'Trust me, I'm an expert and all you guys know shit all.'

My example actually shows the dealer pitching to Garrett effortlessly without the intense labor/adjustment you claim it requires to deal to seat 9.

I'm not saying this is indeed what happened. I'm simply sharing what I learned from being a dealer and answering the question of how this *could* happen. I'm also saying it's far more common than most players realize.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I solved the riddle.

When Robbi got the fake boobs installed, she connected them to her optic never in a procedure rarely performed outside or Rwanda called “Boobopticalology”.

This is how we solve the remainder of the Pythagorean problem before us regarding acute angles.

She doesn’t need the acute angle. Her boobs are everything.

Think about it. It fits perfectly, so to speak.

The way she presents and carries herself are certainly strong arguments for the "she didn't cheat, she's just that stupid" camp. Somebody has to be the person who makes the worst call in poker history. She certainly seems like a good candidate.

But it is very much the worst call I've ever seen when comparing against my sample size of a few million hands. Of that I'm certain.

... And she just so happened to be up against 8 high while making it...

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

To me
Ollie calling off with no pair on a board with trips showing was way worse
IDK which of those two are worse

 

[RainmanTrail]

To me
Ollie calling off with no pair on a board with trips showing was way worse
IDK which of those two are worse

I don't know what happened in that specific hand, but I've called with no pair on a board with trips countless times. Certainly several hundred times in my life at least.

 

[ekricket]

I'm saying about 5 degrees additional to her line of sight. But the exact degree necessary isn't the point. It doesn't matter what the angle needed is. The point is that this is very common. Just watch the cards come off the deck next time you play poker. Watch every dealer that rotates through. Especially if you are in the 2 or 3 seats and pay particular attention to when they pitch to seat 9 (or 10 if 10-handed). But they can do it to any seat. I bet you even money that you could catch a glimpse of at least one card from at least one dealer in every 8 hour session you play at almost any card room across the country. That's how common this is.

Are you encouraging us to cheat? This is like a tutorial on how to peek cards. Now I know you are her coach.

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

I don't know what happened in that specific hand, but I've called with no pair on a board with trips countless times. Certainly several hundred times in my life at least.

The way it went down with like just ding ding ding jam the guy obviously had the joint
I think he had quads if I remember
It was so long ago
It wasn’t some limit garbage hand

 

[Marius L]

Are you encouraging us to cheat? This is like a tutorial on how to peek cards. Now I know you are her coach.

Thanks for always providing your useful thoughts. Very helpful to the discussion.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Are you encouraging us to cheat? This is like a tutorial on how to peek cards. Now I know you are her coach.

I was trying to remember why I had you on my ignore list. Thanks for the reminder. Stay awesome, good sir.

 

[ekricket]

Thanks for always providing your useful thoughts. Very helpful to the discussion.

Lol discussion??? You do realize that these theory’s make the UFO guys look like the Pope. As far as I can see it’s a bunch of straw grasping and yelling about how stupid we are because we don’t believe some random internet guy is the worlds expert on peeking angles. Those kind of “contributions” are not only unhelpful, they are downright insulting to anyone that has half a reasoning brain.


ROFL that you are looking for “useful” comments in this discussion. It’s just a bunch of nut jobs speculating on witchcraft. It’s not even a real discussion.

 

[ekricket]

I was trying to remember why I had you on my ignore list. Thanks for the reminder. Stay awesome, good sir.

Typical loser response.

Look if you can’t handle crazy theory’s then just stfu. You are proposing the most luducrous “arguments” possible and just grasping at straws. The desperation in your posts smells all the way over here to Europe.

Pretty soon you are going to decide that “we are too stupid to understand your genius” and that you arent going to post in here anymore because it’s just a waste of your time. It’s typical loser shit, you can’t win a normal debate and when someone calls you out and makes fun of your lunacy you just slap a derogatory label on them and pretend anybody cares.

This isn’t our first rodeo with you.

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

I was trying to remember why I had you on my ignore list. Thanks for the reminder. Stay awesome, good sir.

Maybe he liked Steve Wynns tournament chips alot in 2017

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

Typical loser response.

Look if you can’t handle crazy theory’s then just stfu. You are proposing the most luducrous “arguments” possible and just grasping at straws. The desperation in your posts smells all the way over here to Europe.

Pretty soon you are going to decide that “we are too stupid to understand your genius” and that you arent going to post in here anymore because it’s just a waste of your time. It’s typical loser shit, you can’t win a normal debate and when someone calls you out and makes fun of your lunacy you just slap a derogatory label on them and pretend anybody cares.

This isn’t our first rodeo with you.

No just block everyone you think is Hitler till you have another echo chamber

 

[BGinGA]

Softplaying is collusion and is straight-up cheating.

Softplaying in a tournament is cheating, because it potentially harms other players (who desire that players are eliminated, and thus put chips at risk).

But softplaying in a cash game is cheating only if it also involves actions that force other players out of the hand (especially so if those players already had money in the pot).

Otherwise, unspoken softplaying heads-up in a cash game is not cheating, as no players are harmed by the action -- the only potential loser is the house (via lost rake).

One common and obvious scenario is players who discuss and/or agree to chop the blinds ‐- this collusion is allowed in cash games, but is illegal in tournaments. It's also far from being the only example of no-harm slowplay when playing cash vs. tourney play.

It might be collusion, but not all slowplaying is "straight-up cheating".

 

[RainmanTrail]

Typical loser response.

Look if you can’t handle crazy theory’s then just stfu. You are proposing the most luducrous “arguments” possible and just grasping at straws. The desperation in your posts smells all the way over here to Europe.

Pretty soon you are going to decide that “we are too stupid to understand your genius” and that you arent going to post in here anymore because it’s just a waste of your time. It’s typical loser shit, you can’t win a normal debate and when someone calls you out and makes fun of your lunacy you just slap a derogatory label on them and pretend anybody cares.

This isn’t our first rodeo with you.

OK, so I just want to make sure I'm reading your take correctly here. I certainly wouldn't want to miss your contributions to this conversation.

1. I'm a loser
2. My theories are "crazy"
3. I just want everyone else to "STFU" if they disagree with me
4. My arguments are ludicrous "luducrous"
5. I'm "just grasping at straws"
6. My posts reek of desperation (which travels far)
7. I think that you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying
8. I think I'm a genius
9. I'm going to stop posting now because I'm just wasting my time
10. I'm a loser (again)
11. I'm a lunatic
12. I'm name-calling anyone who first calls me a lunatic for sharing my (very relevant) experiences as a dealer
13. Rinse and repeat
14. The most passive-aggressive two-faced member on the site heartily agrees
15. Oh, and I almost forgot... I also "encourage cheating"

Did I miss anything?
I'll give you #7. But we might have to agree to disagree on the rest.

Good luck on the felt though! Although, I'm sure you don't need it. You sound like someone who reads souls.

 

[BGinGA]

It's not about the rank of her highest card (in this case, a Jack), but rather it's about the number of hands she could reasonably think she might be ahead of, combined with how far ahead of those hands she might be, and the stack to pot ratio involved. It is these 3 things combined that make this the worst call I've ever seen.

Sure, worst call ever -- IF she's a player who thinks about things like that.

But she's not.

I think AT BEST, she only thought that 1) he is bluffing, 2) he has low cards (or ace-high vs her J3 pair, a totally reasonable assumption although incorrect), and/or 3) she is 50/50 in the hand (she either wins or loses, lol) and is willing to gamble to possibly pick him off since it's not her money at risk. Regardless, I'm 100% convinced that she didn't consider ANY of the things you listed above.

Not everybody is a poker genius. Just take a glance at her backers as a great example.

Parting thought:
Think of a person you know well who you think is of average intelligence. Now realize that half of the people in the world are more stupid than that guy.

 

[ekricket]

OK, so I just want to make sure I'm reading your take correctly here. I certainly wouldn't want to miss your contributions to this conversation.

1. I'm a loser
2. My theories are "crazy"
3. I just want everyone else to "STFU" if they disagree with me
4. My arguments are ludicrous "luducrous"
5. I'm "just grasping at straws"
6. My posts reek of desperation (which travels far)
7. I think that you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying
8. I think I'm a genius
9. I'm going to stop posting now because I'm just wasting my time
10. I'm a loser (again)
11. I'm a lunatic
12. I'm name-calling anyone who first calls me a lunatic for sharing my (very relevant) experiences as a dealer
13. Rinse and repeat
14. The most passive-aggressive two-faced member on the site heartily agrees
15. Oh, and I almost forgot... I also "encourage cheating"

Did I miss anything?
I'll give you #7. But we might have to agree to disagree on the rest.

Good luck on the felt though! Although, I'm sure you don't need it. You sound like someone who reads souls.

You’ve got it right!
If you read your ramblings, which the rest of us are forced to do, you will see that your list is 100% correct.
I don’t know why you bother responding to any of this since this is obviously beneath you. I’m trying to figure out why you crave this attention and the drama that goes with it.
Why do you need to convince us so much? Why are you encouraging us to peek cards? It may be how you win your games, but it’s not something most of us want to hear about.

 

[ekricket]

RainmanTrail said:
OK, so I just want to make sure I'm reading your take correctly here. I certainly wouldn't want to miss your contributions to this conversation.

I may be obnoxious, but I don’t advocate cheating like you do. Your behavior bleeds into other things here as well, and I’m not surprised to hear that you conduct business just like you “play” poker.

You want to be an expert at something so bad, but usually when people have to convince you that they are an expert its because they really are not.

I’m convinced that you are an expert at maximizing profit from your friends and community. But that’s all.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Sure, worst call ever -- IF she's a player who thinks about things like that.

But she's not.

I think AT BEST, she only thought that 1) he is bluffing, 2) he has low cards (or ace-high vs her J3 pair, a totally reasonable assumption although incorrect), and/or 3) she is 50/50 in the hand (she either wins or loses, lol) and is willing to gamble to possibly pick him off since it's not her money at risk. Regardless, I'm 100% convinced that she didn't consider ANY of the things you listed above.

Not everybody is a poker genius. Just take a glance at her backers as a great example.

Parting thought:
Think of a person you know well who you think is of average intelligence. Now realize that half of the people in the world are more stupid than that guy.

I hear you. I think this is a fair take. I'm definitely warming up to the idea that she just might be the person who made "the worst call in poker history".

 

[BGinGA]

I may be obnoxious, but I don’t advocate cheating like you do. Your behavior bleeds into other things here as well, and I’m not surprised to hear that you conduct business just like you “play” poker.

You want to be an expert at something so bad, but usually when people have to convince you that they are an expert its because they really are not.

I’m convinced that you are an expert at maximizing profit from your friends and community. But that’s all.

Huh? What did I do?

 

[ekricket]

Huh? What did I do?

Lol sorry, wrong quote!!!! Your fine!!!