Hustler Casino Live (4 Viewers)

[Anthony Martino]

So, if I steal $15,000 from someone and quickly spend it, I can’t be charged with theft? Good to know

Also, if you ask someone if they're a cop they HAVE to tell you, saw it on tv

 

[Taghkanic]

One question: if he steals $15k of chips from her stack where is he cashing it in at??

Supposedly he almost immediately went to gamble with it, and lost it all quickly at Hustler.

 

[Highli99]

Instead of the 72 bounty game, I’m going to institute the J4o game. If you win the pot with J4 and only J high, you scoop the pot, but have to give it back to the player you beat.

This is hysterical. So you win bounties but have to give back the pot?

 

[justsomedude]

Instead of the 72 bounty game, I’m going to institute the J4o game. If you win the pot with J4 and only J high, you scoop the pot, but have to give it back to the player you beat.

 

[upNdown]

And here is his website with the properties under his organization

https://www.maverickgaming.com/

Cool. When did you first hear of him being a poker personality?

 

[TheB00T]

Someone confirm the cheating with gematria so I can rest easy.

 

[CrazyEddie]

And here is his website with the properties under his organization

https://www.maverickgaming.com/

need to plan a meetup here

 

[CrazyEddie]

Facts are no longer really important for decision making. Just go with your gut and worry about facts later.

 

[umbkcshah]

Well, hopefully there are cameras in the peak room/control room. This could/should provide some actual evidence if signaling was occurring with an inside man.

Also I would hope these streams record any action taken through the system such as muting mics in place to allow a recreation/simulation of events.

As Berkey noted, these companies need to operate under the assumption that something terrible (cheating/hacking) will happen.

 

[CrazyEddie]

With over $200k in bounties to be made now, only a matter of time.

For $200k I'll turn myself in.

 

[timinater]

What got me thinking is the 15k in chips the guy stole.
Police won’t prosecute because Robbi won’t press charges

But….. aren’t the chips the property of Hustler Casino?
At least until you exchange them back for cash.
So wouldn’t HC be able to contend they were the victim of the crime?
Stealing chips from a player is the same as stealing from the casino
Might be a stretch. But still.

Do police in the USA need the cooperation of the victim to press charges??. Precedent in Canada is that you don't need a victim to cooperate to proceed with charges. If a crime occurs and there is sufficient probable cause or evidence police/prosecutors can proceed without any input from a victim.

 

[justsomedude]

For $200k I'll turn myself in.

Yep... and as somebody already noted, catching Bryan and putting out that press release about his theft is probably just the first of other dominos to fall.

It's almost a certainty they're working with him now on other aspects of the game and trying to determine what, if any other criminal activity, was taking place. If that is indeed the case, and he is presented with any kind of immunity or plea deal regarding other/additional crimes, we're just beginning to scratch the surface of this shit show.

 

[TheBigTater]

Just throwing __it at the wall.... like everyone else.

How many of you are convinced that HCL is still going to be credible at this point with performing an investigation that could indicate itself? Sounds like the police are out at this stage.

 

[monkeydog]

positive energy? I DON'T KNOW WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE! She's a fucking bitch, fuck her. Can't wait for the accomplice to turn

Whoosh

 

[CrazyEddie]

That one piece of evidence is also a theory. A very believable theory.

Criminal trials often do not present more than circumstantial evidence, plus theories which bind them together as a coherent narrative of what happened. The question is not whether any one piece of evidence is 100% proof, but what a reasonable person would conclude based on the totality of all facts and plausible interpretations.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence testifying as to the circumstances in which a crime may have occurred. "I saw him walk in carrying a gun, I heard a gunshot, I saw him walk out carrying a smoking gun." A person can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence if the circumstances themselves show beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime occurred as alleged. In that example, if there were further evidence such as: the surveillance tapes show that nobody else had entered or left the room other than the victim, the bullet that killed the victim matched the gun the suspect was carrying, and there was only one gunshot heard - then in that case, the circumstance established by the several pieces of circumstantial evidence leaves no reasonable doubt that the suspect shot the victim.

There could still be doubt - "well, maybe someone ninja'd through the ceiling tiles, shot the victim, and hypnotized the suspect to pick up the gun and walk out with it" - but such doubts would not be reasonable. With the lack of reasonable doubt, the burden of proof has been met to convict.

The important question about circumstantial evidence is whether the circumstances established rule out other explanations. In the gunshot example, they do. In the cheating question, they do not. Not so far, anyway. There are plenty of other conclusions that are consistent with the circumstances established so far and which could reasonably be considered. The facts which people are tossing around and calling "circumstantial evidence" don't rule out anything; accordingly, they can be used to generate theories but not to draw conclusions.

 

[upNdown]

Do police in the USA need the cooperation of the victim to press charges??. Precedent in Canada is that you don't need a victim to cooperate to proceed with charges. If a crime occurs and there is sufficient probable cause or evidence police/prosecutors can proceed without any input from a victim.

No they don’t. At least not in my state. I would think the laws are similar there. But if the alleged victim doesn’t care, why would they? We’re talking about a non-violent crime, and it could be difficult to actually get a conviction without a victim on board. I’m sure they’ve got plenty else to do.

 

[justsomedude]

But if the alleged victim doesn’t care, why would they? We’re talking about a non-violent crime, and it could be difficult to actually get a conviction without a victim on board. I’m sure they’ve got plenty else to do.

I'm honestly a little shocked that Hustler or the CGCC doesn't seem to have a horse in this race. That seems a little odd to me.

 

[Darson]

I still don't understand how people think there is cheating going on when even if she knew exactly what cards Garret had, she was still a 47% dog when she made the call. Is that how you cheat? Pick a spot where you only have a coin flip chance of winning?

No way that RFID can tell you what the exact next cards are in the stub. If anyone knew the run-out was going to be in her favour, then as a minimum the dealer is also involved.

So we have high tech cheating with dealer collusion for a coin flip?

If Garrett had won just one of the run-outs this wouldn't even have been mentioned and here we are 10 pages in.

 

[jpietrella]

Glad to see this debate still has a full head of steam. Where are we on the anal scam?

 

[justsomedude]

I still don't understand how people think there is cheating going on when even if she knew exactly what cards Garret had, she was still a 47% dog when she made the call. Is that how you cheat? Pick a spot where you only have a coin flip chance of winning?

No way that RFID can tell you what the exact next cards are in the stub. If anyone knew the run-out was going to be in her favour, then as a minimum the dealer is also involved.

So we have high tech cheating with dealer collusion for a coin flip?

If Garrett had won just one of the run-outs this wouldn't even have been mentioned and here we are 10 pages in.

The going theory is that we have a retarded-greedy tech signaling a retarded-greedy player.

No odds. No knowing the runouts. Just, "you're ahead; we're gonna take this pot down" kind of thinking. There's also a possibility the tech thought she had Jc6c due to a card switch a few hands prior, which almost gives a nefarious-call a little more creedence.

But generally speaking, math, logic, and poker skills don't apply here.

Stupidity and greed are one hell of a dangerous combination.

 

[justsomedude]

Glad to see this debate still has a full head of steam. Where are we on the anal scam?

Right about here...

All I know is I pray to god that Bluetooth vibrators are involved in this.

https://www.lovense.com/

 

[CrazyEddie]

I still don't understand how people think there is cheating going on when even if she knew exactly what cards Garret had, she was still a 47% dog when she made the call. Is that how you cheat? Pick a spot where you only have a coin flip chance of winning?

Like I said in the other thread:

It was a profitable call even being behind, given the money already in the pot. She had to call $109k to win a $161k pot. That's 40%. Her 47% equity in the hand was enough to call... but only if she knew her equity was 47% i.e. only if she knew what both hands were.

Anyone on the production staff who had access to the real-time information, such as the thief and felon who was hired to do exactly that job, would, with computer assistance, have been able to know that she would be making a profit by calling. Not a huge profit, but a profit nevertheless, and of course poker is a game of small edges producing small profits in the long run which are disguised by huge profits and losses in the short run in order to distract fools, suckers, and the mathematically illiterate.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Cool. When did you first hear of him being a poker personality?

First I heard of him was when he played Hellmuth headsup

I still don't understand how people think there is cheating going on when even if she knew exactly what cards Garret had, she was still a 47% dog when she made the call. Is that how you cheat? Pick a spot where you only have a coin flip chance of winning?

No way that RFID can tell you what the exact next cards are in the stub. If anyone knew the run-out was going to be in her favour, then as a minimum the dealer is also involved.

So we have high tech cheating with dealer collusion for a coin flip?

If Garrett had won just one of the run-outs this wouldn't even have been mentioned and here we are 10 pages in.

There is speculation that a card was changed out in the deck, the and he may have seen her as holding in error because of the card switch, which would be over 70% equity against Garret in that spot.

 

[upNdown]

There is speculation that a card was changed out in the deck, the and he may have seen her as holding in error because of the card switch, which would be over 70% equity against Garret in that spot.

I keep wanting to repeat this theory, but then when I think about it, it doesn’t make sense. If the card was displayed on the stream as a 4, why would the control room guy think it’s a 6? Is that something that could be fixed between the time the hand played and when it streamed?

 

[Darson]

The going theory is that we have a retarded-greedy tech signaling a retarded-greedy player.

No odds. No knowing the runouts. Just, "you're ahead; we're gonna take this pot down" kind of thinking. There's also a possibility the tech thought she had Jc4c due to a card switch a few hands prior, which almost gives a nefarious-call a little more creedence.

Math, logic, and poker skills don't apply.

Stupidity and greed are one hell of a dangerous combination.

So we're happy to say they stupidly cheated but not they stupidly played J4? I'm much more inclined to say that she doesn't know what she's doing rather than some mission impossible type villainy (for a coin flip).

Like I said in the other thread:

Your hypothesis is only valid is this is a systematic pattern of cheating over multiple games for the tiny odds in her favour to play out as profitable. Really? Otherwise it's just a coin flip.

 

[CrazyEddie]

There is speculation that a card was changed out in the deck, the and he may have seen her as holding in error because of the card switch, which would be over 70% equity against Garret in that spot.

At the time in question the graphic was showing the right cards, so at the time in question he would have known what the right cards were.

 

[JScott]

There is speculation that a card was changed out in the deck, the and he may have seen her as holding in error because of the card switch, which would be over 70% equity against Garret in that spot.

No longer speculation. Ryan Feldman himself confirmed that they switched out the 6c because it was reading incorrectly. So there’s a good chance the booth would have seen it as jc6c. The graphics change after.

 

[Kain8]

There is speculation that a card was changed out in the deck, the and he may have seen her as holding in error because of the card switch, which would be over 70% equity against Garret in that spot.

This has been a pretty compelling piece for me. If Brian saw when the cards were being seen live in the control room, "Holy shit! She has a BETTER flush draw than Garrett here! She can stack off and it can look like she's gambling, when in fact she's utterly crushing! I have to send the signal now!!!"

Robbi (whether with Rip's mic pack or her own going off and on) checks her cards again and again in utter disbelief that she has to call off her stack with jack high, no draw, but the spotter has given me the signal, I have to do it. This could explain her complete reluctance to make the call, and flounders about having a 3 as she tries to improvise in the horrific circumstance she finds herself in the moment afterwards.

 

[JScott]

I keep wanting to repeat this theory, but then when I think about it, it doesn’t make sense. If the card was displayed on the stream as a 4, why would the control room guy think it’s a 6? Is that something that could be fixed between the time the hand played and when it streamed?

Yes, that’s exactly it. It could have been changed by the team after to the correct card, but in the moment it would have read as jc6c.

But this is still just a guess. But even Ryan said that was possible.

 

[CrazyEddie]

I keep wanting to repeat this theory, but then when I think about it, it doesn’t make sense. If the card was displayed on the stream as a 4, why would the control room guy think it’s a 6? Is that something that could be fixed between the time the hand played and when it streamed?

No. The graphics and video (including things like selecting which shots and cameras to show) are baked in during the live recording and are done by the staff that have access to the live feed. The commentators watch the video on delay when it's streamed.