Hustler Casino Live (3 Viewers)

[TheBigTater]

Can’t believe how quickly people turned on Gman. Guy has been nothing but professional in every stream I’ve ever watched.

I also don’t think people realize that $130k for Gman is the equivalent to a $50 pot for most of us playing .25/.50 so it has nothing to do with the money.

There is literally 0 motivation for him to create an issue unless he genuinely believed there was something wrong with the hand.

He can believe what he wants but without any verified proof taking back money he lost in a poker game is a super bad look, then doubling down by making a for-show donation with money that's not his will just makes him look worse.

Standing behind you beliefs is one thing but the "taking the money back" thing is what is going to ride his rep into the ground if he continues to hold this line.

The whole thing is just a freakin' train wreck for poker in the public's eye especially the casual observers.

 

[Xzk1]

Can’t believe how quickly people turned on Gman. Guy has been nothing but professional in every stream I’ve ever watched.

I also don’t think people realize that $130k for Gman is the equivalent to a $50 pot for most of us playing .25/.50 so it has nothing to do with the money.

There is literally 0 motivation for him to create an issue unless he genuinely believed there was something wrong with the hand.

Obviously its not about the money for him.
If he genuinely believes he was cheated he lets the investigation start/continue without trying to damage a poker novice' reputation .

Like I said , if this was against a pro poker player ,he would get way more backlash than he is getting.
If this was against a Phil Ivey , Daniel Negreanu he either sends the proofs immediately or stops getting invited to any game.

But because its against a novice poker player, which happens to be a girl with plastic surgeries, apparently playing a lot of hands cluelessly the criticism is only 50/50.
There are people that prefer to trust the pro's intuiton based on this , obviously her answers don't help her either.

Regardless of how "dumb" she may look and the questionable answers she gave Garrett was 100 time worse with his behaviour.

 

[upNdown]

I’m on the fence and keep flip flopping.
I agree that Garret obviously thinks he was cheated. I believe he’s sincere.
But
And I don’t believe there was any kind of technological cheating going on.

So okay, but what the hell, with this Rip guy? Why the hell is he backing her to begin with? How could that be a sound investment? And why is he at the table himself, shortstacked?
Could this be some narrow scheme, where they were just targeting Garrett specifically?
I remember when Daniel was on high stakes poker with Jen Tilley and Garret, and Daniel said his strategy was that:
1) Garrett would go after Jen, light. So
2) when when that happened, Daniel would go after Garret

So was this some kind of setup? Did they know Garret would go after Robbi, so they came up with a scheme to take advantage of that? Even if it was just in the hopes of catching a hole card a couple of times a night?
I dunno.
It’s all sketchy!!

 

[AH77]

He can believe what he wants but without any verified proof taking back money he lost in a poker game is a super bad look, then doubling down by making a for-show donation with money that's not his will just makes him look worse.

Standing behind you beliefs is one thing but the "taking the money back" thing is what is going to ride his rep into the ground if he continues to hold this line.

The whole thing is just a freakin' train wreck for poker in the public's eye especially the casual observers.

For me, the “giving the money back” thing is kind of a wash. He looks bad if he asked for the money back and she looks bad for giving it back. They both probably could’ve handled that better in the moment.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Looks like Robbi and Rip kept their staking arrangement a secret based on her response at the end of this clip

 

[Anthony Martino]

Ok so at the 7:15:30 mark of Joeys video we get this exchange:

SHAUN DEEB: So Robbi, I think that you never answered, did Rip have any of your action in this cash game?


ROBBI: Rip is very, very well-financed by himself and he stakes several poker players (notice how she again dodges the question, trying not to answer that she was staked)

SHAUN DEEB: Including you?

ROBBI: Yup

SHAUN DEEB: So did anyone in the game know that he was staking you in this game?

ROBBI: Yeah


And then in this video at the end she appears to be upset that now people know she was staked (you know, the people who were supposed to already know that these two were financially tied together in this game)

 

[TheDuke]

Looks like Robbi and Rip kept their staking arrangement a secret based on her response at the end of this clip

Super shady to not disclose to the table.

Also there's a clear hand where they softplayed.

But still, neither is evidence of cheating in that hand.

Has HCL provided an update on their investigation?

 

[JMC9389]

Super shady to not disclose to the table.

Also there's a clear hand where they softplayed.

But still, neither is evidence of cheating in that hand.

Has HCL provided an update on their investigation?

Mike X seemed to know what was up, but the rest of the table didn't by the look of it.

 

[TheDuke]

Could this be some narrow scheme, where they were just targeting Garrett specifically?
I remember when Daniel was on high stakes poker with Jen Tilley and Garret, and Daniel said his strategy was that:
1) Garrett would go after Jen, light. So
2) when when that happened, Daniel would go after Garret

That's just being aware at the table and taking advantage of how someone is playing. That's not unethical nor cheating.

Where the situation is unethical is where they didn't disclose the staking arrangement to the table.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Super shady to not disclose to the table.

Also there's a clear hand where they softplayed.

But still, neither is evidence of cheating in that hand.

Has HCL provided an update on their investigation?

What I'm trying to show is that on the stream she seems clearly upset that Rip is letting the cat out of the bag about their staking arrangement by his comments.

But then when questioned about it on Joeys show (you know, when she's not "cornered in a dark hallway by scary men"), she tries to first dance around the question (which she had avoided earlier in the stream to claim Shaun attacks women and doesn't like them) and then she answers that she was indeed staked and others in the game were aware of it.

So it CLEARLY shows she's a liar here, which further calls into question this whole mess.

As far as HCL goes, last I saw they had said they were hiring a some lawyers and a cybersecurity firm to conduct an investigation which would take a long time. I don't expect we'll get anything for months at the earliest.

 

[upNdown]

That's just being aware at the table and taking advantage of how someone is playing. That's not unethical nor cheating.

That’s true. Why did you edit out the part where I suggested they Robbi and Rip maybe had similar thoughts but decided to mix in a little cheating as well?

 

[TheDuke]

That’s true. Why did you edit out the part where I suggested they Robbi and Rip maybe had similar thoughts but decided to mix in a little cheating as well?

So was this some kind of setup? Did they know Garret would go after Robbi, so they came up with a scheme to take advantage of that? Even if it was just in the hopes of catching a hole card a couple of times a night?
I dunno.
It’s all sketchy!!

Because it was basically the same point repeated.
Are there any hands where they went 3 handed in the stream and Rip reraised Garrett in a hand?

 

[upNdown]

Because it was basically the same point repeated.
Are there any hands where they went 3 handed in the stream and Rip reraised Garrett in a hand?

I didn’t say that’s how they did it. Maybe they were waiting for that opportunity.

Maybe they were hoping to catch a glimpse during the pitch, as @RainmanTrail suggested.

Maybe they were just going to share as much information as possible.

Maybe they’d have a third operative trying to poach his hole cards.

I have no idea. Like I said, I keep flip flopping. But there’s something about the entire Robbi and Rip situation that smells bad. And if Garret’s willing to put his reputation on the line over this, then yeah, I’d look at this situation with a pretty wide angle lense.

 

[MatB]

Definitely turning into the dumbest thread on PCF

Right after ‘Are Hotdogs sandwiches’

I’ll keep reading though. Carry on

 

[Taghkanic]

Now I’m curious, are hotdogs sandwiches?

…

…

Anyway…

Robbi claims that Rip is very well rolled for this game. But as I recall, he bought in short.

If he’s so flush, why wouldn’t he buy in for the max? Why give her way more BB than himself?

Seems like yet another instance of Robbi continuing to say whatever she thinks is best for her at that moment, regardless of past statements or actions.

 

[Taghkanic]

P.S. I don’t get all the high dudgeon about Garrett giving the money to charity.

Obviously, he’s doing that to show that it’s not about the cash for him.

Would you prefer that he bought a Mercedes G-wagen with the money and road around live-streaming in it, boasting that Robbi “paid” for it?

If he thinks he was cheated and cares more about the principles involved than the money, donating it to charity is consistent with his position all along.

 

[Jake14mw]

P.S. I don’t get all the high dudgeon about Garrett giving the money to charity.

Obviously, he’s doing that to show that it’s not about the cash for him.

Would you prefer that he bought a Mercedes G-wagen with the money and ride around boasting that Robbi “paid” for it?

If he thinks he was cheated and cares more about the principles involved than the money, donating it to charity is consistent with his position all along.

Yes. As long as he's willing to give her back HER money if after the investigation there is no proof that she cheated.

 

[RadicusScout]

‘Are Hotdogs sandwiches’

 

[TheDuke]

I didn’t say that’s how they did it. Maybe they were waiting for that opportunity.

Maybe they were hoping to catch a glimpse during the pitch, as @RainmanTrail suggested.

Maybe they were just going to share as much information as possible.

Maybe they’d have a third operative trying to poach his hole cards.

I have no idea. Like I said, I keep flip flopping. But there’s something about the entire Robbi and Rip situation that smells bad. And if Garret’s willing to put his reputation on the line over this, then yeah, I’d look at this situation with a pretty wide angle lense.

The entire stream is available.

If you want to know if Rip went after Garrett, you can find it. The hands and hand histories are available. Let us know when you find it.

Let's follow the evidence. Of which there is none showing Robbi cheated.

At this point people are making up stuff wholly unrelated to the situation.

@RainmanTrail raised his idea about catching a glimpse of the cards. But I'd like some actual factual information beforehand. Not stories about billions of hands played, decades of dealer experience, pros he's currently sitting with at a stud tourney; and then just assurances that he's smarter than everyone as evidence or facts.

We have the entire stream to examine. Let's see some more footage of hands where Robbi played in a manner where she knew Garrett's hand. Other than this one hand in question.

 

[Taghkanic]

Yes. As long as he's willing to give her back HER money if after the investigation there is no proof that she cheated.

Too late for that, right?

He must be very confident in his position.

He also does not have to accept HCL’s results. They may do a thorough job of investigating—I hope they do. But they would appear to have a pretty big incentive not to find any wrongdoing. We’ll see.

 

[Jake14mw]

Too late for that, right?

He must be very confident in his position.

He also does not have to accept HCL’s results. They may do a thorough job of investigating—I hope they do. But they would appear to have a pretty big incentive not to find any wrongdoing. We’ll see.

If he wants to donate a certain amount of money in his hands to charity, that's his business. Whether he "owes" her money back is a separate issue.

 

[MatB]

Not saying Garret is shady, or dishonorable, but how hes handling the money thing is weird and looks bad.

He can have his suspicions, as do some here on PCF.
But keeping the money, even if you go with the lame 'she gave it back to him' argument looks bad.

Doing the right thing here would be one of 2 things.

1) he gives the money back to her and says ' I have my suspicions but I can't obviously prove anything, we’re done playing together'

2) he gives the money to be held by a 3rd party pending the results of the HCL review. Honoring the decision that if there was NO cheating in that hand she gets the money back.

And no : "oh she took a snickers bar in 2007 and didn't pay for it , I heard from a friend of a friend that knows she took it and knew she didn't pay, and they are professional snicker suppliers and knew something was shady, but they have no proof, but im just saying..."

THAT HAND. Was there cheating in that hand that helped her win. That's it.

 

[buffalojim]

Not saying Garret is shady, or dishonorable, but how hes handling the money thing is weird and looks bad.

He can have his suspicions, as do some here on PCF.
But keeping the money, even if you go with the lame 'she gave it back to him' argument looks bad.

Doing the right thing here would be one of 2 things.

1) he gives the money back to her and says ' have my suspicions but I can't obviously prove anything, were done playing together'

2) he gives the money to be held by a 3rd party pending the results of the HCL review. Honoring the decision that if there was NO cheating in that hand she gets the money back.

And no : "oh she took a snickers bar in 2007 and didn't pay for it , I heard from a friend of a friend that knows she took it and knew she didn't pay, and they are professional snicker suppliers and knew something was shady, but they have no proof, but im just saying..."

THAT HAND. Was there cheating in that hand that helped her win. That's it.

This makes too much sense. Please leave the thread.

 

[Anthony Martino]

 

[MatB]

More important than the content of this episode, you may find that a better camera angle for your podcast looks more professional, right now it looks like its being shot on a ring camera.

 

[MatB]

but back to the content, parsing out random comments from everything done and said over the last week to make a 'she's lying' point in a 3 minute clip is low hanging fruit and screams of click bait.

 

[raynmanas]

Not saying Garret is shady, or dishonorable, but how hes handling the money thing is weird and looks bad.

He can have his suspicions, as do some here on PCF.
But keeping the money, even if you go with the lame 'she gave it back to him' argument looks bad.

Doing the right thing here would be one of 2 things.

1) he gives the money back to her and says ' have my suspicions but I can't obviously prove anything, were done playing together'

2) he gives the money to be held by a 3rd party pending the results of the HCL review. Honoring the decision that if there was NO cheating in that hand she gets the money back.

And no : "oh she took a snickers bar in 2007 and didn't pay for it , I heard from a friend of a friend that knows she took it and knew she didn't pay, and they are professional snicker suppliers and knew something was shady, but they have no proof, but im just saying..."

THAT HAND. Was there cheating in that hand that helped her win. That's it.

We need vague anecdotal un provable theories in this thread or didn’t you get the memo?

 

[MatB]

Im an Octacontrarian

 

[aggie]

In this week's episode, catching poker players lying!

 

[MatB]

I feel like im on To Catch a Predator,, again.

me showing up for poker night: : Hey guys just showed up with some treehouse and snacks, where is everyone?

Chris Hanson: Come in matt , have a seat...
you said on day 3 this, but we have you saying this on day 5,,, can you explain yourself?

me: look I just want to go all in.

Chris Hanson: