Hustler Casino Live (4 Viewers)

[MatB]

I put you on A high. J3 makes sense

I have A bluff catcher. J3 makes sense

3s no good? J3 makes sense

I knew you had shit. J3 makes sense

I have a shit hand. J3 makes sense.

That’s why I ran it twice. J3 makes sense

And yes. There’s other stuff that doesn’t make sense. But there’s enough there for me to think she had J3

 

[Anthony Martino]

It’s funny how many of the. ‘But she said this’ comments can all be explained away by her having J3
Which she has said she thought she had

Which audio evidence at the actual game proves she said ‘3s no good?’

Which was also verified by Phil Ivey and Perrson. Who were … guess what ? At the table at the time

I agree with you that IF she thought she had J3 I can understand her calling to pick off a bluff, that makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is that IF she actually thought she had J3 she shows NO reaction to the realization when she flips her hand over that she actually has J4, none. She just has that smug smirk.

Yes she does ask if a 3 would be good prior to calling, which could be her thinking she has J3, or it could be her using speechplay on Garrett.

But if you watch the video by Bart Hansen you'll see he tears down her various responses and shows that even he doesn't buy that she misread her hand, and he's a commentator for the frigging show and was in the booth that day.

She doesn't even try spinning the J3 narrative until WAY later, most likely after talking with her co-conspirators and deciding that lie would be the most believable.

But then after the scandal goes down she's on Joeys show and she returns to her "I was playing the player, not the cards" angle and doesn't use the misread story.

How can you trust ANYTHING out of her mouth? It's all a jumbled mess

 

[CrazyEddie]

DEFINITIVE PROOF PLEASE? I hope you aren't just taking anyone at their word!

During typical streams the graphics sometimes show blanks. The booth calls to the dealer and the dealer asks the player to retry holding their cards in the RFID reader spot (i.e. to hold them in the square drawn on the felt). The player does so, and the graphics get updated.

If the producers had the logistics in place to update the graphics after some particular moment has been captured live but before the video is shown via delayed stream then they would be doing so for these intermittent card reader failures. But they don't. The delayed stream includes the initial graphics from the initial failed read. The reason they don't later substitute in the corrected graphics is because the video production workflow doesn't allow for it.

It's not technically impossible to add the graphics later and to use corrected graphics when doing so, but it's logistically difficult, because the standard workflow for video of live events - whether being broadcast live or intended for subsequent broadcast on a delay (but still broadcast in its entirety, uninterrupted, as if it were being broadcast live) - will have the producers mixing all the different available video feeds into a single video stream which is recorded on the fly and then played back after a delay. Everything live is done this way, including your local newscast and your favorite ball game. Doing it differently would require different technology, different processes, and additional staff. There's absolutely no way that HCL did that for this one hypothetical instance of the cards being misread as J6 when they don't do so for all the other routine, run-of-the-mill card read failures.

 

[Marius L]

I put you on A high. J3 makes sense

I have A bluff catcher. J3 makes sense

3s no good? J3 makes sense

I knew you had shit. J3 makes sense

I have a shit hand. J3 makes sense.

That’s why I ran it twice. J3 makes sense

And yes. There’s other stuff that doesn’t make sense. But there’s enough there for me to think she had J3

Looking at her holecards preflop. J3 makes sense I guess.

Looking at her hand again on the flop. J3 makes very little sense.

Looking at her holecards yet again on the turn after Gmans allin, before making the call. J3 makes zero sense.

 

[umbkcshah]

Ok, how would they do this in the Italian Job... During one of a zillion private tours of the control room, someone hides a small camera which shows the monitors in live time. Partner plays in low stakes game near live table. Claims to be watching old stream. Stands up or leaves table when good. Easy game.

 

[CrazyEddie]

It's just clear as fucking day to me that these scumbags are lying through their fake overly-white teeth and it's positively mind-boggling that people have blinders on and refuse to see it still at this point.

Agreed, there's plenty to suggest that the people involved are dishonest.

None of that is evidence that any of them cheated.

Consider that I could accuse them of making me lose the last tournament I was in. Someone might reasonably ask me "Well, okay, what's your evidence?" I could then point to all of the very same things to show that they are suspicious, shady, our even outright dishonest, not to mention literal thieves caught red-handed stealing from each other! But none of that is evidence that they cheated me out of my tournament win. It's likewise not evidence that any of them cheated Garrett in that hand.

The only evidence of that has been, and so far remains, the fact that she made a very poor call, one which many people believe could not ever, ever, ever be made by someone who didn't know Garrett's hand.

 

[CrazyEddie]

hell anyone that played in the game could have cheated with HCL's security issues that have been brought forward

Which security issues are you referring to? The two I've seen mentioned so far are a) having several people in the control booth and b) using unsecured comms. I pointed out earlier that neither of those would make it easier for someone to cheat, and in fact the first one would make it harder.

 

[CrazyEddie]

• No explanation of her call, talked gibberish
• Gave back money (if you think her personality is one to get scared and give back money because she was threatened, you haven't seen her on stream since)
• Gets caught lying and changing stories over so many things I lost count
• Rip turns out to be her undisclosed backer, loses mind over her giving back money
• Bryan steals from her what just happens to be roughly 10% of the pot she returned to Garrett
• She doesn't press charges on Bryan due to him not having a record (call with Detective is unorthodox)
• Deck inconsistencies confirmed by Ryan to explain why production would have thought she had better equity
• "Bryan" sends her the DM
• Witnesses say Bryan screamed when Robbi gave back money
• Bryan had access to hole cards, and can communicate with players through mic, or directly with Camera operators.

Every one of those things would also very plausibly be true if Robbi simply made a bad call without knowing the hole cards.

Accordingly, every one of those things is not evidence of cheating. Evidence for Thing X is something that would be very likely to happen if X is true and very unlikely to happen if X is false. All of those things you listed would be likely to happen regardless of whether Robbi cheated or not, given everything else that's happened.

 

[Kain8]

Paging @timinater @detroitdad

 

[TheDuke]

Both Robbi and Bryan used "wouldn't not" in their tweets.

How anyone can think they didn't work together to craft the story of that fake-ass message and instead believe it's just an insane coincidence is positively mind-boggling to me

AND that he only took chips off her stack and no one elses. Coincidence after coincidence

So is that your main 'evidence'? Poor grammar? And poor grammar that is not even unique?

Here's a quick exercise. Do a search on twitter for the key phrase "wouldn't not".

Is this only an error committed by just Robbi and Bryan? Or will it come up with hundreds/thousands of posts? Hint: It's the latter.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Agreed, there's plenty to suggest that the people involved are dishonest.

None of that is evidence that any of them cheated.

Consider that I could accuse them of making me lose the last tournament I was in. Someone might reasonably ask me "Well, okay, what's your evidence?" I could then point to all of the very same things to show that they are suspicious, shady, our even outright dishonest, not to mention literal thieves caught red-handed stealing from each other! But none of that is evidence that they cheated me out of my tournament win. It's likewise not evidence that any of them cheated Garrett in that hand.

The only evidence of that has been, and so far remains, the fact that she made a very poor call, one which many people believe could not ever, ever, ever be made by someone who didn't know Garrett's hand.

Nope, this is like apples and oranges. You're trying to use a tournament you played in to a LIVE STREAMED GAME where there was the LONGEST-TENURED employee of Hustler Casino Live caught ON CAMERA post-stream taking $15,000 off Robbis stack.

This same employee would have the knowledge and access to hole card info, microphones, etc. and would be in a position to relay that information to provide signals to a player (or players) on the table to permit them to cheat.

People constantly bring up "oh, it would be STUPID to cheat like this" but completely ignore that Bryan took chips off Robbis stack post-stream WITH ALL THE CAMERAS AROUND.

Just because a cheating approach makes no sense or is completely stupid and obvious doesn't mean a criminal won't do it. We have clear evidence that Bryan wasn't so smart in taking those chips because he got caught. Greed, ego and desperation can all combine to make people do stupid shit.

Anyway, I've said more than my piece and I REALLY need to get work on my own vlog done, this is eating up too much of my time and it's clear neither side is going to budge at this point.

 

[Anthony Martino]

So is that your main 'evidence'? Poor grammar? And poor grammar that is not even unique?

Here's a quick exercise. Do a search on twitter for the key phrase "wouldn't not".

Is this only an error committed by just Robbi and Bryan? Or will it come up with hundreds/thousands of posts? Hint: It's the latter.

I wouldn't not think so.

 

[upNdown]

So I guess what I see here is.

A) she may have cheated and we don’t know. This group can be anywhere from meh.. maybe but doubtful to wow she seems sketchy but we do t know.

B) she absolutely cheated

C) she absolutely didn’t cheat

For group C. I do t think there’s anyone in that group.
For group A there a LOT of people
For group B. Thai is the group I have a problem with, I think there are a couple here in this group.

They see a theory on how someone could cheat and think that this bolsters their claim to absolute certainty
They hear about a 3rd hand connection to another shady character involved in HCL or poker in general and think that that bolsters their claim.
They parse out the anecdotal stories and ideas and speculate on devices, or signal systems, without any confession or actual proof and yet they stil stay 100% in group B.

Why ? I have no idea.

I’d love an explanation how someone can be 100% on so much 3rd and 4th hand information.

And not just a list of 3rd and 4th hand anecdotal evidence from ‘respected vloggers’. Who were not even at the game

I’m still in group A, but my reasoning may leave me in a group of my own. I’m basically in the same place I was the day after this happened - what persuaded me the most is Garrett’s reaction from the moment she tabled her cards. I know that sounds stupid. But it’s interesting to me that there are people who say that he ruined his reputation in one night - if he had such a great reputation, why aren’t you willing to give that some consideration?

And I know it’s not worth much, but Bart actually said that he’s persuaded by this - he’s asked around LA and everybody who knows Garrett agrees that he’s never been wrong about anything. Yes, I know that sounds ridiculous. But that’s pretty much where I am. (And then all that circumstantial crap makes it a lot easier to believe in Garrett.)

 

[TheDuke]

but completely ignore that Bryan took chips off Robbis stack post-stream WITH ALL THE CAMERAS AROUND.

An interesting point that was raised (but I do not think has been substantiated), that this theft may have taken place away from the set.

At some point after the game had ended, the players racked their chips and all went off set into the casino. They all set their chips aside while they were taken to another area to be explained what happened during the stream. It has been theorized that it was during this time that Bryan stole the chips. So he likely wouldn't have known which rack belonged to which player. It may have been just an opportunity and an impulse. And not a targeted theft.

Unless you can point to some info that it was done on set?

 

[Marius L]

Actual evidence might never come up, unless someone on the inside does admit guilt and tells everything.

However what makes cheating likely to have taken place is the fact that all of these wierd "coincidences" happen in that one game.

1) Robbi makes a horrible call (lets say this could theoretically happen as an honest call)

2) Bryan changing the setup in the controll room to be able to see the holecard info from his seat by the desk, and to cover for a camera.

3) Bryan "stealing" from Robbis stack after the game. He claims it was from a random stack, but interesting coincidence.

4) Robbi not pressing charges for the theft.

5) twitter DM from Bryan to Robbi using the exact same WIERD writing style that Robbi is using in her posts. "Wouldn't not"(is that even a thing?), and a space before writing ...

All of the above could theoretically be random, but damn that's some real crazy coincidences if you ask me.

Add on the shady handling after the fact by Robbi, the undisclosed staking agreement with RIP and several other smaller things, it all adds up.

The likelihood of all these things lining up like this if there isn't any cheating going on must be abysmal.

I was originally in the "probably not a cheat"-camp. Figured she was just horrible at poker and got embarrassed after realising her mistake and therefore struggling with making up a story to save face. However when I see all the other shit that has been unearthed, especially that Bryan took that cash from her stack and she didn't wanna press charges it puts me pretty far into the "she probably cheated/something shady is going on"-camp.

 

[Lemonzest]

I wonder what the future of the live stream style games is. Cameras reading hole cards in real time naturally creates some avenue for cheating. We had the scandal at Stones and now this at Hustler.

I don't think the poker world appreciates how bad it is for the high stakes scene. We may never see the nosebleeds ever again that we enjoyed back in the poker boom because wealthy rec players aren't going to put down 100K+ buyins when there is a decent % chance they are being cheated.

It could become much harder to build up the player pool and increase the stakes when trust has become so tarnished. We need a more reputable operator to create a live stream brand.

paging @Windwalker

 

[Eriks]

Actual evidence might never come up, unless someone on the inside does admit guilt and tells everything.

However what makes cheating likely to have taken place is the fact that all of these wierd "coincidences" happen in that one game.

1) Robbi makes a horrible call (lets say this could theoretically happen as an honest call)

2) Bryan changing the setup in the controll room to be able to see the holecard info from his seat by the desk, and to cover for a camera.

3) Bryan "stealing" from Robbis stack after the game. He claims it was from a random stack, but interesting coincidence.

4) Robbi not pressing charges for the theft.

5) twitter DM from Bryan to Robbi using the exact same WIERD writing style that Robbi is using in her posts. "Wouldn't not"(is that even a thing?), and a space before writing ...

All of the above could theoretically be random, but damn that's some real crazy coincidences if you ask me.

Add on the shady handling after the fact by Robbi, the undisclosed staking agreement with RIP and several other smaller things, it all adds up.

The likelihood of all these things lining up like this if there isn't any cheating going on must be abysmal.

I was originally in the "probably not a cheat"-camp. Figured she was just horrible at poker and got embarrassed after realising her mistake and therefore struggling with making up a story to save face. However when I see all the other shit that has been unearthed, especially that Bryan took that cash from her stack and she didn't wanna press charges it puts me pretty far into the "she probably cheated/something shady is going on"-camp.

I don’t know, just seem like a bunch coincidences to me

 

[upNdown]

I wonder what the future of the live stream style games is. Cameras reading hole cards in real time naturally creates some avenue for cheating. We had the scandal at Stones and now this at Hustler.

I don't think the poker world appreciates how bad it is for the high stakes scene. We may never see the nosebleeds ever again that we enjoyed back in the poker boom because wealthy rec players aren't going to put down 100K+ buyins when there is a decent % chance they are being cheated.

It could become much harder to build up the player pool and increase the stakes when trust has become so tarnished. We need a more reputable operator to create a live stream brand.

paging @Windwalker

It’s a fair question. I have a couple of thoughts

1) Does it matter? Do these streams drive the poker economy? I don’t find the stakes particularly compelling. I’d rather watch known poker personalities play a $10k buy-in than watch a bunch of unknowns play a $100k buy-in. I’m probably in the minority there, but maybe not.

2) Maybe they just need to do it better. They’ve been using hole card cameras at the WSOP for like 20 years, and there’s never been a technology related scandal, as far as I know. Pokergo regularly runs nosebleed tournaments (and cash games) and I haven’t heard a negative whiff about those. Maybe the Stones and Hustler people are just half-assing it, and getting exploited. Do it better!

 

[umbkcshah]

Fun audio clip of the back of house issues. People not working hanging out, etc. Berkey not making any friends at HCL.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579681302390767616

 

[CrazyEddie]

I’m still in group A, but my reasoning may leave me in a group of my own. I’m basically in the same place I was the day after this happened - what persuaded me the most is Garrett’s reaction from the moment she tabled her cards.

I'm completely convinced that he's completely convinced.

... but that doesn't convince me.

If there's one thing this episode has convinced me of, it's to not trust other people's epistemic judgement. Not even Garrett's. For example, Garrett posted that ridiculous laundry list of Bad Things About His Opponents as if it bolstered his claim of them cheating; that's pretty strong evidence that he (like most people) are terrible at evaluating evidence.

And I know it’s not worth much, but Bart actually said that he’s persuaded by this - he’s asked around LA and everybody who knows Garrett agrees that he’s never been wrong about anything. Yes, I know that sounds ridiculous. But that’s pretty much where I am. (And then all that circumstantial crap makes it a lot easier to believe in Garrett.)

This just further reminds me to discount almost everyone's epistemic judgement.

... not that I ever gave it much credence before, mind you.

 

[Marius L]

It’s a fair question. I have a couple of thoughts

1) Does it matter? Do these streams drive the poker economy? I don’t find the stakes particularly compelling. I’d rather watch known poker personalities play a $10k buy-in than watch a bunch of unknowns play a $100k buy-in. I’m probably in the minority there, but maybe not.

2) Maybe they just need to do it better. They’ve been using hole card cameras at the WSOP for like 20 years, and there’s never been a technology related scandal, as far as I know. Pokergo regularly runs nosebleed tournaments (and cash games) and I haven’t heard a negative whiff about those. Maybe the Stones and Hustler people are just half-assing it, and getting exploited. Do it better!

According to that latest video from Berkey discussed a bit up in this thread, he claimed that Pokergo is the leader of the field of streamers by a long margin. Partly because of Nevada gaming regulations, and partly because Pokergo has by far the biggest bugdet. They have real strict secutiry policy. Even other streams, such as the Lodge and others have more solid security than Hustler Live.

I wonder what the future of the live stream style games is. Cameras reading hole cards in real time naturally creates some avenue for cheating. We had the scandal at Stones and now this at Hustler.

I don't think the poker world appreciates how bad it is for the high stakes scene. We may never see the nosebleeds ever again that we enjoyed back in the poker boom because wealthy rec players aren't going to put down 100K+ buyins when there is a decent % chance they are being cheated.

It could become much harder to build up the player pool and increase the stakes when trust has become so tarnished. We need a more reputable operator to create a live stream brand.

paging @Windwalker

In the same video Berkey and the others also discuss alternatives such as having the card readers read the cards AFTER the hand is finished. The main problem with doing this seems to be for production to be working blind with their camerawork, not knowing who has the interesting hands. Might mean more cameras are needed, and more editing work. Still might be worth it to ensure the integrity of the game. Not having a computer or a person knowing your hand sounds pretty safe at least.

 

[Lemonzest]

Do these streams drive the poker economy?

My assumption is that the highest stakes cash and tourney games are what creates interest and brings in new players. Back in the day HSP and PAD were awesome and made people that had never played poker want to get in the mix.

 

[CrazyEddie]

I wonder what the future of the live stream style games is. Cameras reading hole cards in real time naturally creates some avenue for cheating. We had the scandal at Stones and now this at Hustler.

I don't think the poker world appreciates how bad it is for the high stakes scene. We may never see the nosebleeds ever again that we enjoyed back in the poker boom because wealthy rec players aren't going to put down 100K+ buyins when there is a decent % chance they are being cheated.

Anyone who would play in a high-stakes underground game but would turn down a live stream at a casino because there might be cheating is the all-time king of idiots.

It must be literally a hundred times easier (if not more) to cheat someone in a game at some house in whereverthefuck LA than at a casino that has surveillance, gaming commission oversight, and investors who care about the place's reputation.

 

[upNdown]

I'm completely convinced that he's completely convinced.

... but that doesn't convince me.

If there's one thing this episode has convinced me of, it's to not trust other people's epistemic judgement. Not even Garrett's. For example, Garrett posted that ridiculous laundry list of Bad Things About His Opponents as if it bolstered his claim of them cheating; that's pretty strong evidence that he (like most people) are terrible at evaluating evidence.


This just further reminds me to discount almost everyone's epistemic judgement.

... not that I ever gave it much credence before, mind you.

I agree with all that. I was shocked that Garrett’s book contained nothing. Either he’s holding something back or this was more of an instinctual thing on his part. Or he’s wrong.

 

[raynmanas]

i fucking love this thread

 

[ekricket]

Nope, this is like apples and oranges. You're trying to use a tournament you played in to a LIVE STREAMED GAME where there was the LONGEST-TENURED employee of Hustler Casino Live caught ON CAMERA post-stream taking $15,000 off Robbis stack.

This same employee would have the knowledge and access to hole card info, microphones, etc. and would be in a position to relay that information to provide signals to a player (or players) on the table to permit them to cheat.

People constantly bring up "oh, it would be STUPID to cheat like this" but completely ignore that Bryan took chips off Robbis stack post-stream WITH ALL THE CAMERAS AROUND.

Just because a cheating approach makes no sense or is completely stupid and obvious doesn't mean a criminal won't do it. We have clear evidence that Bryan wasn't so smart in taking those chips because he got caught. Greed, ego and desperation can all combine to make people do stupid shit.

Anyway, I've said more than my piece and I REALLY need to get work on my own vlog done, this is eating up too much of my time and it's clear neither side is going to budge at this point.

You make this sound like there’s a big argument. Some people are saying they aren’t sure, more concrete evidence would help. That’s as far as their defense of any of these people goes.

Some people are saying they are sure they cheated, and they are pretty rabid and fanatical about it. Everything under the sun that these people touched, said, thought, looked at, didn’t look at, people they didn’t talk to, money they spent, everything under the sun is drug out yo support one theory or another. Great. Just don’t make it sound like there is two rabid and fanatical sides to this - theres only one.

Edit: Nobody on team “reasonable proof” is making 8 hour documentary’s. For some reason they don’t feel the need.

 

[cpac54]

 

[ChipEnvy]

i fucking love this thread

There is no proof of that. You could be posting in this thread just to post in the thread. You haven't shown any true emotion that makes me believe you love this thread. Everything you said could be said by someone who didn't love this thread.

I'm not saying you don't love this thread. I am just saying I am not convinced.

 

[MatB]

There is no proof of that. You could be posting in this thread just to post in the thread. You haven't shown any true emotion that makes me believe you love this thread. Everything you said could be said by someone who didn't love this thread.

I'm not saying you don't love this thread. I am just saying I am not convinced.

Fuck you’re right. At first I was like. Oh Raymanas loves this thread.
But now you’ve raised some doubts, I’m not so sure.

 

[TheDuke]

There is no proof of that. You could be posting in this thread just to post in the thread. You haven't shown any true emotion that makes me believe you love this thread. Everything you said could be said by someone who didn't love this thread.

I'm not saying you don't love this thread. I am just saying I am not convinced.

Super sus.

I think @raynmanas = @ChipEnvy