-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Hustler Casino Live (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter AnteAndy
- Start date
TheDuke
Full House
Lol.
Folks shouldn't be too critical of this woman's play when they don't know the difference between trips and a set or think a straight is possible on a
board.
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
Crazy theory incoming
What if she’s backed by rip, hates rip, wants to lose. Calls off with Jack high to lose it. Somehow not dead. Somehow wins both run outs. Goes to hallway, “really you should have won that hand, here take this money and please come back take more.”
What if she’s backed by rip, hates rip, wants to lose. Calls off with Jack high to lose it. Somehow not dead. Somehow wins both run outs. Goes to hallway, “really you should have won that hand, here take this money and please come back take more.”
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
This is also consistent with her encouragement of his marijuana toothpaste endeavor.
She wants him broke
She wants him broke
Crazy yes, but I'll say this - it's the best explanation for her giving garret the money.
People say "a cheater would NEVER give back the money" and though I understand the sentiment, don't give me that bullshit about what somebody would never do - everybody is different, every situation is different, blah blah blah. The obvious counter to that (which I'm surprisingly not hearing much of) is an honest player would never give money back that they won fair and square. I feel pretty strongly about that one, but again, people are strange and capable of doing anything.
But this whacko theory explains it perfectly.
TheDuke
Full House
There are much much easier ways to lose without drawing suspicion. Especially on a stream where the backer can review hand history easily. Example, calling raises or 3 betting preflop and then folding on the flop or turn.
If she lost the runouts, she would have had to explain herself to Rip.
Plus there's the AQ v AQ hand where they definitely softplayed. If she hated him, she wouldn't have softplayed. She would try to take as much off of him and then dump it to someone else.
Last edited:
It was pretty sketchy for Robbi and Rip to fail to notify the table up front that he has a large piece of her action.
As Polk, Berkey and others have noted, it’s standard to make that disclosure at the start of a game.
That doesn’t prove that she was cheating. But it does prove that they are less than ethical players... which makes it a little easier to believe the allegations.
As Polk, Berkey and others have noted, it’s standard to make that disclosure at the start of a game.
That doesn’t prove that she was cheating. But it does prove that they are less than ethical players... which makes it a little easier to believe the allegations.
OP
OP
AnteAndy
Straight
umbkcshah
Two Pair
Not interested in an article that can't even put out an accurate headline AKA bad when YouTube has better 'journalism'
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
There are definitely much much easier hands to cheat without drawing suspicion. And maybe she’s not all that worried about suspicion if the scheme is to just dump rips money vs try to run a massive cheating op on a very public platform
She also could’ve just panicked and made a dumb decision without thinking it through. She could’ve gotten signaled that she had the best hand and felt obligated to call out of fear of missing out on potentially the biggest score of the night.
If one WERE to be cheating, they’d be waiting all night for a big spot like that and in the heat of the moment, that thought might override the thought of how it will look when all the cards are on the table.
I think if a top tier GTO player were to attempt to cheat in a similar manner, they would be much more astute in realizing which spots would look absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic whereas Robbie is still fairly new to the game and may not be able to process all of that info in real time under the pressure of all the lights and cameras while ALSO trying to conceal some kind of scam IF that’s what was going on.
Her appeal is that she appears to be a ditzy, fun, recreational player so if she makes a ridiculous play and wins it seems less suspicious than if a GTO wizard did the same thing. I think she underestimated just HOW ridiculous it would look to call with J high in that spot.
Last edited:
She is now saying she misread her hand but that makes zero sense bc she denied that the first 12 hours. My god this is a mess lol
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
Maybe.. but “she could have gotten signaled” is an insanely high bar, the Hustler has security around its live stream, and it’s not trivial to get a device since they have a no phone policy. And then the whole “that’s how you might cheat, wait for a big spot to get it in 50/50”…no. That’s not how anyone on the entire planet would cheat.
In fact the only reason people are entertaining the cheating is because she is being so weird after the hand, giving money back, changing the story, clearly lying about certain aspects. That’s why Garrett walked off…not because she called with Jack high, but because she had such a weird response to his questions after the fact.
Her trying to dump explains all of it.
The one thing that she does have going for her is that she did have J3 in the previous hand.
I don’t think the ONLY reason people are suspecting cheating is because of her behavior after the hand. What seems to be getting lost in the conversation is Garrett’s reaction after the hand (before she even starting acting weird).
It’s not as if Garrett is some random rec off the street with a history of accusing people of cheating. There must be thousands of hours of Garrett playing live at this point and he’s never had a reaction like he did immediately after the cards were turned over.
I don't have a side in this, it's all too muddy to make a call at this point, but why is everyone assuming that the cheating stops with knowledge of what the hole cards are?
Yes, 50/50 would be a crazy time to call, but if (and it's a big if) they know the hole cards, what is to stop them from knowing the runout of the deck?
Yes, 50/50 would be a crazy time to call, but if (and it's a big if) they know the hole cards, what is to stop them from knowing the runout of the deck?
With all the shit she has said since the beginning of that hand, she could tell me the sky was blue and I wouldn’t believe her.
I could have sympathy for her, if the truth was that she played straight up and she’s just stupid. Being accused of cheating for simply playing like an idiot is not cool. I have a lot of room in my heart for idiots. But idiots with big mouths? Eff them.
I don't buy that. We know how the table scans the hole cards for the stream - that information is 100% there for somebody to steal, by any single rogue on staff or maybe by a clever hacker. But how would they know the runout? Even if a deckmate shuffler was hacked to stack (because we know that's possible) that feels like a MUCH more complex cheat requiring more confederates. Or they snuck in a deck with marked edges and a device to read them? Again it feels a lot more complicated and risky.
I don't know anything for sure, of course, but if this was a cheat, I'd bet a bunch it was just the hole cards.
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
100% no one who knows anything would be seriously entertaining cheating allegations if she had normal responses after the hand. It’s just such a high bar. Even if you presume cheating, the choice of this spot to deploy the cheat is, to quote doug on Chicago joeys podcast this morning, “baffling”. Nothing about Postle was baffling. You’ve got to simultaneously believe that she’s got an extremely high level cheating op and she’s the worst possible executor of said high level op. Phil Ivey and Eric Perrson aren’t dumb, they’re there in person, and they thought it was ridiculous even after seeing the strange behaviors at showdown and after hand.
TheDuke
Full House
That's not true at all.
In her interview, about an hour after the hand, she first made the claim she thought she had J3.
Too much misinformation being tossed around.
On the pod w Joey and Deeb she didn’t say she misread it.
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
And during the hand, before rivers dealt, Andy asked her do you have a 3 and she says no
TheDuke
Full House
And in the hand, she asks Garrett if 3s are good.
She's flip flopped. Many things she's said are contradictory.
Asking her what her thought process was won't yield any answers. All of the evidence outside of her story needs to be reviewed. There are multiple cameras, footage that didn't make the stream. Of the hand. Prior to the hand. Everything needs to be reviewed.
At this point, her explanations are of the least importance. None of it is reliable.
Every ‘she cheated ‘ argument ignores this.
She’s embarrassed.
Also Hendon Mob just updated her poker winning stats. She’s much newer to poker than people realize
Here’s what’s odd about the signal theory: she was a slight under-dog. If you’re a coin flip, what signal does she get? Why signal her to call in that position? [Edit: after the turn, when a win isn’t certain.] Why jump at this opportunity?
How does the RFID signal identify the next cards in the deck?
Garret has used his stacks to push people around, and has done so with crappy hands. If she saw a leak or was just pressing her luck in pushing back, and think it only natural to give convoluted stories to hide what you know.
If we wanted to test the signal theory, it would be interesting to pull up each case where she threw in a time chip, time her delay, and check her actions against the odds. Also, it would be interesting to observe her play in hands when the their table reader wasn’t working.
But I don’t care enough to do all that.
How does the RFID signal identify the next cards in the deck?
Garret has used his stacks to push people around, and has done so with crappy hands. If she saw a leak or was just pressing her luck in pushing back, and think it only natural to give convoluted stories to hide what you know.
If we wanted to test the signal theory, it would be interesting to pull up each case where she threw in a time chip, time her delay, and check her actions against the odds. Also, it would be interesting to observe her play in hands when the their table reader wasn’t working.
But I don’t care enough to do all that.
Last edited:
“At this point, her explanations are of the least importance. None of it is reliable.”
Except she’s had 48-72 hours to finally come clean what she was thinking and it still doesn’t make sense. Her only plausible explanation is the moment got to me, I blacked out, called bc I thought he was bluffing and didn’t really think what I had, I’m an idiot.
But instead she’s changed her narrative to what appears the most logical explanation way too late.
I’m back to 50/50 again lol
Last edited:
CrazyEddie
Full House
Also, none of it matters.
When you sit down at a table, you don't owe a god damned soul any explanation of what you played, how you played, why you played it, or what you were thinking. You are free to make shit up, babble like an idiot, contradict yourself twenty times, and/or shut the hell up. Table talk is meaningless, always has been, always will be, and if anyone ever thinks otherwise then they have a giant leak in their game that you should ruthlessly exploit.
When Garrett challenged her about her play she started talking crazy talk because of course she did, you probably should as well if you ever find yourself in that spot. And good for you if you find someone who will believe it.
umbkcshah
Two Pair
Just say 'I figured it was 50/50 so I had to call.' when they look quizzically, add 'i was either good or I wasn't'
horseshoez
4 of a Kind
Lol.
Folks shouldn't be too critical of this woman's play when they don't know the difference between trips and a set or think a straight is possible on a
You get my point. I didn’t even re-watch to see what the board was. He knew full well that if she calls, he’s not exactly unhappy with a call there. I just think the biggest surprise was when he saw what she called with. Baffling really.
Last edited:
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
