Hustler Casino Live (5 Viewers)

[RainmanTrail]

There still is absolutely nothing more to this than "Garrett thinks that nobody would ever make that call without knowing his cards."

You say it like it's nothing though. But it is very much true that nobody makes that call without knowing their opponents cards. If you think this is just what donkeys do sometimes, then you don't know how donkeys play. Nobody makes this call. Nobody. Ever. Not without information. Unless they simply just have no idea whatsoever about how to play poker. Robbi might be new to poker, but she isn't new enough.

 

[ekricket]

What does this have to do with anything whatsoever?

Although I must admit. It does sound fun to send you on a wild goose chase! So I say, "yes! Prove it! Go find us that footage and be the hero we all didn't know we needed! You can do it!"

Just this. You should read the whole thread and some of the stuff you post.

A few podcasters have pointed out that Robbi and Rip very blatantly slowplayed each other in an earlier hand.

If two people came separately to your home game, and you found out they were partners afterward, and could recall even one hand where they clearly colluded, would you invite them back?

But it certainly increases the liklihood that they'd be the types of players who had no qualms about cheating, it's very relevant

This is one of the reasons that that Robbi and Rip are suspect,

They're definitely colluding.

If the premise is that they are cheating (colluding) because they slow played each other, then maybe you can see how that same logic would apply to G. But maybe you aren’t capable of that kind of logic.

Edit: Evidently you aren’t capable of that kind of logic.

 

[RainmanTrail]

The mental gymnastics people are doing to get where they can justify calling her a cheat is astonishing

This isn't far fetched stuff though Mat. You think I'm reaching because I'm saying it's very possible she might have caught a glimpse of his cards? This happens all the time. Meanwhile, you're over there holding onto the viewpoint that she just made a loose call? Let me guess, you've "seen much worse calls" than that before, right? Many times too, right? I don't think you realize how much of an outlier this call actually is. It's the most extreme outlier I've ever seen.

 

[ekricket]

This isn't far fetched stuff though Mat. You think I'm reaching because I'm saying it's very possible she might have caught a glimpse of his cards? This happens all the time. Meanwhile, you're over there holding onto the viewpoint that she just made a loose call? Let me guess, you've "seen much worse calls" than that before, right? Many times too, right? I don't think you realize how much of an outlier this call actually is. It's the most extreme outlier I've ever seen.

And what exactly does this have to do with anything? Everybody’s seen a lot of stuff. You aren’t special.

 

[CrazyEddie]

The mental gymnastics people are doing to get where they can justify calling her a cheat is astonishing

Look up Amanda Knox sometime.

 

[MatB]

Travis. No. I agree, if she absolutely knew she had J4 the it’s a holy cow of a crazy bad call
Even the drunkest me couldn’t do it. I get that

I’m basing my opinion on what I saw and heard.
I’ve watched the hand multiple times.
I’ve seen others reviews of previous hands she’s played.
Based on those things I conclude that she PROBABLY. In a strong sense. DID NOT CHEAT.

That’s it.

 

[MatB]

It’s Occams nose hair clippers principal.

If the clippers look like they are for nose hairs then that’s probably what they are for. And not for shaving your balls

You ‘she cheated ‘ guys, are taking the nose hair clippers and tying them to a spree of criminal activity

 

[CrazyEddie]

I don't think you realize how much of an outlier this call actually is. It's the most extreme outlier I've ever seen.

Since I don't realize it, can you help me understand why it's so much of an outlier?

What's the worst call you've seen that wouldn't make you think "he must have been cheating" if it nevertheless turned out to be correct?

 

[MatB]

Ok Maybe the last I’ll say on this as right now it looks like it’s 63 (no cheat) to 5 ( she cheated)

At the end of the day , Even Phil Ivey who was at the table when this happened, heard what was said. Thinks it was just a simple misread and then embarrassment.
That should be enough for most.

Peace out

 

[TheDuke]

They're definitely colluding. The question is to what extent? If you don't think they had some long talks prior to going on stream about how they would handle certain situations, then you are naive. This is also why I keep pointing to Robbi's play as being much more likely to be her either having caught a glimpse of Gman's hole cards or Rip having caught a glimpse and signaling to something to Robbi about it. I think this is much more likely than her having some sort of device that is tapped into the RFID reader, though both are possible obviously. But nobody seems to want to discuss this angle. Everyone seems to only want to entertain a Mike Postle like operation for some reason. But most cheating in poker doesn't look like that. Most cheating is from players colluding.

OK, if Rip saw Gman's cards what is he actually signaling? 8c7c? He'd have to signal the actual holdings right? Because he doesn't know Robbi's hand so he can't send her a binary good/not good signal. Or is he signaling the semi-bluff? Or just low black cards?

 

[upNdown]

OK, if Rip saw Gman's cards what is he actually signaling? 8c7c? He'd have to signal the actual holdings right? Because he doesn't know Robbi's hand so he can't send her a binary good/not good signal. Or is he signaling the semi-bluff? Or just low black cards?

He's probably thinking "I know what Garret has, which is nothing. So unless she's a total fucking idiot, she must be ahead of him since she's still in this hand."
As it turned out, she was both a total fucking idiot and ahead.

 

[Frogzilla]

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 their 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?

Every time I float that one, which is definitely top of mind for seat 2 vs seat 9, the pushback has been that this particular dealer is basically the nuts. I’m have to imagine this is one of the theories that could be ruled out or ruled possible by all the cameras.

 

[TheDuke]

Garrett has his chip stack to his right.

And the distance from the dealer's to Garrett is like 6 inches. She's more just setting the cards in front of Garrett vs pitching.

I don't see how Rip or Ronni have any chance getting a glimpse of Garrett's cards. Certainly not while the dealer is dealing them out.

 

[TheDuke]

. She'd only need about a 5 degree angle or so to pick up on that.

I think she'd need significantly more than 5 degrees.

Just some guesses in terms of the height Robbi's sight eyeline and her distance from Garrett. 18 inches from the table surface to her eyes and 6 feet away from Garrett. . I think 6 feet is being overly generous. Greater the distance the smaller the angle needed.

The cards would appear perpendicular to her sight at 14 degrees. So the pitch angle would have to be greater than that. I highly doubt this dealer is so bad as to pitch the cards that steep for a distance of 6-10 inches to Garrett's seat.

 

[Anthony Martino]

I don't think they saw his cards either, given how well he protects his hand and the various positions of players, chips, etc

 

[Josh Kifer]

Even the drunkest me couldn’t do it. I get that

This is a lie. we watched while at Dallas. I demand a mistrial!

 

[ekricket]

It just happened on my final table the other night in Omaha.

This sounds like there was cheating going on? Did they catch them? If catching a glimpse of the dealt cards on the hustler table is cheating, then it kind of sounds like someone catching a glimpse of them on your final table might have been cheating.
Maybe you meant something else. But the same logic is going to apply to any example you give.

 

[Sprouty]

I think she'd need significantly more than 5 degrees.

Just some guesses in terms of the height Robbi's sight eyeline and her distance from Garrett. 18 inches from the table surface to her eyes and 6 feet away from Garrett. . I think 6 feet is being overly generous. Greater the distance the smaller the angle needed.

The cards would appear perpendicular to her sight at 14 degrees. So the pitch angle would have to be greater than that. I highly doubt this dealer is so bad as to pitch the cards that steep for a distance of 6-10 inches to Garrett's seat.

View attachment 999128

Lol, this debate now has everything.

 

[CrazyEddie]

poker is all about math but usually it's probability and statistics, not geometry and trig

 

[MatB]

This is a lie. we watched while at Dallas. I demand a mistrial!

Ok buddy calm down. Weird request but ok …

I’ll get you some

 

[Josh Kifer]

Ok buddy calm down. Weird request but ok …

I’ll get you some


View attachment 999144

Nevermind. We good. I want a case of those.

 

[upNdown]

Lol, this debate now has everything.

 

[Budha]

How many of you have been following the chess cheating scandal from last week with Magnus Carlsen doing effectively the exact same thing as GMan? If you don't know about it yet, you should definitely look it up. Cliff Notes are that Magnus Carlsen (the best chess player in the world and the highest-rated player of all time) just withdrew from a chess tournament about a week ago after losing to another grandmaster named Hans Niemann. The chess world completely erupted trying to figure out what the hell happened, and afterward Magnus took to Twitter to accuse him of cheating and says he will not play with Niemann again. The evidence? Nothing, nada, zilch. No proof. He just said he knows it because it's not possible for Niemann to have played that well without cheating. Other grandmasters have chimed in as well, many of them saying they were also suspicious of his play.

I'm curious about your thoughts on Magnus calling him out here, particularly for those of you who think GMan is way out of line for accusing Robbi of cheating in a very similar manner.

Couple of very key differences here:

1. Hans has a proven history of cheating that is not in dispute. This is a HUGE difference.

2. Hans was recently banned from Chess.Com for cheating, of which he has not contested and they have evidence of.

3. Chess is not random, poker is. This is a huge difference, making them incomparable.

This is a stretch comparison at best. A better comparison would be why Eric Seidel’s call w/J4 was such a hero call and it’s totally inconceivable that as bad as she is, she had a read on Garrett at that particular moment, in that particular hand.

It’s not like they haven’t played each other and it’s not like he didn’t play Uber lose and aggressive against her, specifically. It’s possible….

 

[TheBigTater]

The pitchforks came out quick and I was surprised too as all I ever heard before this was praise for him

Mostly I can give him that he felt cheated, no real proof as of yet, but he's entitled to his opinion. Get up and leave the game if you feel something is not right. Speak to management if you feel the game is not on the level. But he and everyone that's on his side have doubled, tripled, quadrupled down on the cheating allegations (again with no tangible proof). She didn't play the correct/logical way, must be cheating.

Vibrating butt plugs, necklaces, rings, 5G chips in the head, had to be something.

And taking back money lost on a bet in a poker game (again without any proof of cheating, only speculation) makes you look untrustworthy to honor your debts/actions/bets anytime in the future. That is what reflects badly on him more than anything IMO.

Her actions after the fact aren't great either and can't really be defended but I'm not (and a lot of other people aren't without proof) willing to call her an outright thief/cheat based on what I saw or how other opinions feel the game should be played. People are allowed to play anyway they want even if you think it's the dumbest move ever. And nobody should have to defend/explain a move they made at the poker table no matter how crazy (as long as it's a legal move, which by all appearances, on all streets, it was). She should have just been quiet..... but the cameras you know, 15 minutes of fame etc....

This is a stretch comparison at best. A better comparison would be why Eric Seidel’s call w/J4 was such a hero call and it’s totally inconceivable that as bad as she is, she had a read on Garrett at that particular moment, in that particular hand.

Well obviously Seidel doesn't understand any idea about how to play poker, just ask anyone that know poker.

Good comparison but I'm sure the super intelligent side will pick it apart.

Since he is a seasoned pro is was lauded as a great hero call. And the elitist poker community can't imagine that a novice pro could make that call for any reason.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Since I don't realize it, can you help me understand why it's so much of an outlier?

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. I'm going to make a couple of small changes to the hand that help highlight how bad her call was a little bit better. Note that the first one, labeled "Scenario 1" is a mathematically equivalent call to the one she actually made in each of these respects.

Actual hand:
Garrett:
Robbi:
Board:

Scenario 1:
Garrett:
Robbi:

Board:

Does this change make how bad her call was any more clear? Do you understand how or why this is an equivalent call to the one she made in the actual hand with ?

Here's another change that might help highlight it. In this one, her call wouldn't be quite as bad (though still terrible of course). Do you know why this wouldn't be quite as bad?

Scenario 2
Garrett:
Robbi:
Board:

And here's another that would be even less terrible than both the real hand and the Scenario 2 hand:

Scenario 3
Garrett:
Robbi:
Board:

If you didn't catch it, all I changed were the suits in scenarios 2 & 3. The fact that the board is so draw heavy is a big part of what makes her call so bad. It's often easy to put someone on a draw. The problem here though is that if she thinks he's just trying to bully her with a draw, she has to include so many more combos in his range other than just because of the double-suited board. She now has to put all c: and h: and flush draw holdings as well as numerous flush draw holdings and even flush draw holdings, all of which would lose to even if she were right about him shoving in this spot with air. She is losing to nearly every hand she could possibly be hoping he might have here other than hands like and And this completely ignores the fact that he could also easily just have a made hand here.

 

[RainmanTrail]

OK, if Rip saw Gman's cards what is he actually signaling? 8c7c? He'd have to signal the actual holdings right? Because he doesn't know Robbi's hand so he can't send her a binary good/not good signal. Or is he signaling the semi-bluff? Or just low black cards?

Really, this is the best you can come up with? How about a simple "call" or "fold" sign? And in an effort to save us all some time, I'll just go ahead and enter the :facepalm: now for when you inevitably respond with, "well how would he know HER cards then? AHA! Gotcha!"

 

[navels]

breaking news: the dress is blue

 

[ekricket]

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. I'm going to make a couple of small changes to the hand that help highlight how bad her call was a little bit better. Note that the first one, labeled "Scenario 1" is a mathematically equivalent call to the one she actually made in each of these respects.

Actual hand:
Garrett:
Robbi:
Board:

Scenario 1:
Garrett:
Robbi:

Board:

Does this change make how bad her call was any more clear? Do you understand how or why this is an equivalent call to the one she made in the actual hand with ?

Here's another change that might help highlight it. In this one, her call wouldn't be quite as bad (though still terrible of course). Do you know why this wouldn't be quite as bad?

Scenario 2
Garrett:
Robbi:
Board:

And here's another that would be even less terrible than both the real hand and the Scenario 2 hand:

Scenario 3
Garrett:
Robbi:
Board:

If you didn't catch it, all I changed were the suits in scenarios 2 & 3. The fact that the board is so draw heavy is a big part of what makes her call so bad. It's often easy to put someone on a draw. The problem here though is that if she thinks he's just trying to bully her with a draw, she has to include so many more combos in his range other than just because of the double-suited board. She now has to put all c: and h: and flush draw holdings as well as numerous flush draw holdings and even flush draw holdings, all of which would lose to even if she were right about him shoving in this spot with air. She is losing to nearly every hand she could possibly be hoping he might have here other than hands like and And this completely ignores the fact that he could also easily just have a made hand here.

Ok I’m now convinced that you are her poker coach.

 

[RadicusScout]

breaking news: the dress is blue

 

[CrazyEddie]

The problem here though is that if she thinks he's just trying to bully her with a draw, she has to include so many more combos in his range other than just because of the double-suited board. [..] She is losing to nearly every hand she could possibly be hoping he might have here

Well, that's exactly what I thought made this a bad call; I appreciate the explanation, but it hasn't added anything. What makes this an outlier? Have you never seen anyone that's made such a bad call before? Have you never seen anyone literally throw away money at a poker table?

What's the worst call you've seen that would not make you suspect cheating if it turned out to be correct?