Hustler Casino Live (4 Viewers)

[ekricket]

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!!

Lol, when Daniel does it it’s called “strategy.”

If these people do something similar it’s called a “scheme”.

Maybe overcoming positive bias for “pros”and negative bias for “not pros” is the hardest part for anyone.

It’s easy to cast doubt and suspicion on individuals we classify as sub-human. After all, they are just animals.

 

[buffalojim]

She's obviously a bit of a weird bird and quite defensive. I can't say I'd blame her. She's probably getting threats and accusations lobbed at her from all over, probably a fair amount of support as well. Being staked by another dude in the game isn't a great look, doesn't mean she cheated but it also doesn't help her.

 

[TheDuke]

We know she's contradicted herself many times during the stream and the immediate aftermath.

Getting staked and not disclosing is shady. But it's not evidence she cheated.

Smoking gun? More like smoldering turd.

 

[Xzk1]

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.

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.

Sheesh, look at this guy with his logical thinking

 

[jr8719]

As they say: do charity silently — or else you are the charity. Seems pretty apt for Gman here.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

 

[RainmanTrail]

1) Some pros on podcasts have mentioned instances where Robbi and Rip appear to be mouthing hands to each other. Pretty clumsy if true.

2) Why would Rip go apeshit? Maybe because his rage over losing the winnings from that hand overcame his ability to restrain himself to keep up appearances.

Kessler mentioned that too in our conversation. He said they definitely caught them colluding on other hands by mouthing information to each other.

 

[Kain8]

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:

Now it says here in the chat that you'd like to.... "Go all-in on her backdoor nut blocker while Nick Vertucci watches us.."

What did you mean by that?

 

[upNdown]

Lol, when Daniel does it it’s called “strategy.”

If these people do something similar it’s called a “scheme”.

Maybe overcoming positive bias for “pros”and negative bias for “not pros” is the hardest part for anyone.

It’s easy to cast doubt and suspicion on individuals we classify as sub-human. After all, they are just animals.

It’s possible I didn’t communicate my thought well enough, but considering the way you’ve been ripping through this thread, I think you just decided to ignore my point so you could go off again.

Nobody said they’re sub-human or animals.
You don’t have to entertain my thoughts on the matter, but try not to twist my words.

 

[ekricket]

It’s possible I didn’t communicate my thought well enough, but considering the way you’ve been ripping through this thread, I think you just decided to ignore my point so you could go off again.

Nobody said they’re sub-human or animals.
You don’t have to entertain my thoughts on the matter, but try not to twist my words.

Sorry man, wasn’t beating on you. Just in general they are trashed so of course we can believe anything about them.

That was a general observation, not directed at you but spurred on by your casual phrasing. It’s basically what they are getting drug through, they seem to be “not good” people so anything can be attributed to them

Lighten up Francis. It’s just the internet. But it could just be your bias towards me, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder.

 

[upNdown]

Sorry man, wasn’t beating on you. Just in general they are trashed so of course we can believe anything about them.

That was a general observation, not directed at you but spurred on by your casual phrasing. It’s basically what they are getting drug through, they seem to be “not good” people so anything can be attributed to them

Lighten up Francis. It’s just the internet.

Yeah, sorry to overreact, but you were the second guy who kinda twisted around the Daniel analogy I was trying to make.

This whole debate has me totally spun around. I agree that we have zero evidence of cheating. But I can’t get over the idea that something stinks here. And that’s after watching a 40 minute interview with Robbi, where I thought she came off as sincere and maybe even sympathetic.

 

[Mandos]

As Berkey pointed out on his latest podcast, part of the issue with this whole thing is that Robbi wants to have her cake and eat it too.

We can easily dismiss this as just terrible play by an incompetent player who thinks "he bluff I call" without thinking about what bluffs she can beat, or she can be a competent poker player and it's super suspicious. But she doesn't seem to understand this and insists in all of her interviews on trying to come across as skillful and pretending to be able to theoretically justify her call, while saying ridiculous things like justifying the call by the fact that she had another 140k off the table so she wouldn't be out of the game. I'm leaning towards she's just really really incompetent as a cash player but wants to come across as skillful and so doesn't want to admit that there really wasn't a theoretical justification to min-raise turn and then call it off.

And I was willing to entertain "it makes sense if she had J3" until I saw that the four was the top card when they flipped, meaning it was the bottom card blocking the other card when she peaked. It's practically impossible to "just check if I had the jack of clubs" without seeing the 4 the way those cards were on the table.

 

[krafticus]

I'm just interested to see if either of these 2 clowns will be invited back, or if the secret backing has them ousted.

 

[JScott]

I'm just interested to see if either of these 2 clowns will be invited back, or if the secret backing has them ousted.

Imagine if Garrett is banned from HCL... it'll be fucked. I think he'll just quit poker, he almost did last year.

 

[Rieguy]

I'm just interested to see if either of these 2 clowns will be invited back, or if the secret backing has them ousted.

Imagine if Garrett is banned from HCL... it'll be fucked. I think he'll just quit poker, he almost did last year.

They're about to have more viewers than ever if I had to guess, just like chess has been seeing after the Neiman controversy. People want drama; just look at this thread. I would be shocked if HCL does anything besides play this up for more clicks/views.

 

[Kain8]

I'm just interested to see if either of these 2 clowns will be invited back, or if the secret backing has them ousted.

Hustler (and by extension all venues that do streaming) should be doing a LOT more due diligence towards new players that they have on their broadcasts and in general.

Interview new players prior to letting them play on stream. Find out if they're going to be entertaining on stream or if they're colossal douchebags that we've seen in the past on the high stakes streams.

If they're local to the venue, stipulate that X hours need to be played at a regular table beforehand to ensure that inconsistencies don't present themselves from surveillance footage. (Could be a flawed idea admittedly.)

Backers are not allowed to play with their horses at the same streamed table. (Again, could be easy to keep quiet about, but at least make it known.)

 

[TheDuke]

Imagine if Garrett is banned from HCL... it'll be fucked. I think he'll just quit poker, he almost did last year.

Garrett would be welcomed with open arms to LATB. They love him there. They put out a video supporting him. There's nothing stopping him from playing anywhere else.

HCL is not going anywhere. This is going to help it become even more popular.

 

[JMC9389]

Garrett would be welcomed with open arms to LATB. They love him there. They put out a video supporting him. There's nothing stopping him from playing anywhere else.

HCL is not going anywhere. This is going to help it become even more popular.

Which puts me even more in the camp that this whole thing was engineered by them. I didn't watch, but I saw that their ordinary 5/5/100 Wednesday night stream with their regulars had 9,000 viewers. 9,000! They couldn't pull 1/4 of that a few months ago.

 

[ekricket]

Hustler (and by extension all venues that do streaming) should be doing a LOT more due diligence towards new players that they have on their broadcasts and in general.

Interview new players prior to letting them play on stream. Find out if they're going to be entertaining on stream or if they're colossal douchebags that we've seen in the past on the high stakes streams.

If they're local to the venue, stipulate that X hours need to be played at a regular table beforehand to ensure that inconsistencies don't present themselves from surveillance footage. (Could be a flawed idea admittedly.)

Backers are not allowed to play with their horses at the same streamed table. (Again, could be easy to keep quiet about, but at least make it known.)

They could easily do this. It’s pretty common anymore.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

 

[TheBigTater]

Cage match, be there Sunday, Sunday, Sunday........

 

[Anthony Martino]

Garret should box Rip for charity

 

[Eriks]

I’m not wading through every page but I guess Doug’s video has been posted here somewhere. I fully agree with his main points:

- leaning towards cheating in some form
- still acknowledging it’s plausible it’s somehow legit and just stupid and wanting to see more evidence before pitch forks come out.
- her reasoning makes no sense whatsoever
- there’s pretty much nothing wrong with how Garrett handled the situation as good as could be expected in such a situation and if no evidence of cheating is found, he will likely make good.
- everyone saying this hand is not that big of a deal, and that they’ve seen it countless times from fish just don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Remember the play money ”cash”tables in online poker where everybody went all-in left and right? This is a play money call but for 109,000 fucking dollars from someone that is being backed to play in the game.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Wow, dude donated somebody else's money? Pretty ridiculous honestly. Seems like an obvious attempt to get public opinion on his side.

Is it working?

Technically I would say he donated his own money. Because there is still a realistic chance that he's going to have to give her back her money.

 

[justsomedude]

Which puts me even more in the camp that this whole thing was engineered by them.

Ugh, this one hits me.

I've been dodgy on streams for a few months now. It seems like every other week there's a brand new BIGGEST POT EVER or CRAZIEST HAND EVER bold-neon-font update on these channels. Hitting specifics, none of Alan Keating's bizarro "hero" play has made any damn sense to me.

And yes, my tinfoil hat is nice and comfy. But in a world run by clicks-and-views and fake news, nothing would surprise me. If any of this is engineered, it would seem like livestream poker is merely the semi-scripted Bachelorette or Real Housewives of Beverly Hills for the opposite sex. It's the same trainwreck trash TV but for bored beerbelly men.

 

[buffalojim]

Which puts me even more in the camp that this whole thing was engineered by them. I didn't watch, but I saw that their ordinary 5/5/100 Wednesday night stream with their regulars had 9,000 viewers. 9,000! They couldn't pull 1/4 of that a few months ago.

Seriously, if that's the case...

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Technically I would say he donated his own money. Because there is still a realistic chance that he's going to have to give her back her money.

I expect there will be pressure to give it back, absolutely, but why say he will HAVE to give it back? Who would step in and put that pressure on?

 

[umbkcshah]

I expect there will be pressure to give it back, absolutely, but why say he will HAVE to give it back? Who would step in and put that pressure on?

Anyone who plays with him will have the some free needles... Not exactly pressure, but annoyance.
You know if I call you aren't getting the money back.
So are we going to have to talk with Feldman?
Wow, Robbi was right... Just play the man. So easy

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Anyone who plays with him will have the some free needles... Not exactly pressure, but annoyance.
You know if I call you aren't getting the money back.
So are we going to have to talk with Feldman?
Wow, Robbi was right... Just play the man. So easy

Oh, 100%, no doubt. Just wondering about de facto vs de jure on the money return.

Yeah he seems well put together but if Persson decides to put some salt in the wound...ugly!

 

[buffalojim]

My opinion is this is about as staged as Chris Rock getting bitch slapped was. Oh yeah, remember that? That was fun. Not all publicity is good.

 

[JScott]

Garrett would be welcomed with open arms to LATB. They love him there. They put out a video supporting him. There's nothing stopping him from playing anywhere else.

HCL is not going anywhere. This is going to help it become even more popular.

I don't disagree, and didn't say the opposite, it would just be fucked since him and the HCL guys are all good friends.

I haven't watched a single LATB stream since HCL started. JJ is just so damn annoying.