ekricket
Royal Flush
Follow the money. Cui Bono.
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Hustler Casino Live (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AnteAndy
- Start date
CrazyEddie
Full House
I think it would be, although I think it would be logistically difficult. On the front end, there's gonna be a fair number of bad reads, and unless everyone scans and then waits for confirmation from the booth before pitching their cards into the muck, there will be a lot of cards where we just never know what they had. I suppose the tables could be redesigned with readers which have a red or green light built into the table surface that confirm a good read, sort of like credit card tap readers have.
On the back end, the video production workflow would have to be redone so that there's another person who's editing the already recorded stream, while it's still being recorded live, but working on the portion that's five or ten minutes old, inserting the graphics using data from the card reader from five or ten minutes before. And it would need new technology; someone's probably already made a system like this, but if they have, it's not in wide use, so the production would have to acquire it.
So not impossible, but my guess is that it's not going to happen.
LeLe
4 of a Kind
That’s no way to prove 100% Robbi cheated unless someone rat out and spilt the whole thing.
Personally, I went from 90/10 she cheating to 50/50 and down to 30/70 and back to 90/10 she cheating now.
Personally, I went from 90/10 she cheating to 50/50 and down to 30/70 and back to 90/10 she cheating now.
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
SpaceMonkey420
Full House
50 pages later. Innocent until proven guilty.
buffalojim
Royal Flush
Wow, the only thing that's definitely been proven without a doubt is that she is self admittedly neurotic and a wack job.
I think all parties can agree there's ample evidence to speak to this claim.
Or is it an act to confound her opponents?
I dont want to spoil anything but The Usual Suspects had a more believable twist!Or is it an act to confound her opponents?
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
Robbi won't let anyone speak
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
The turns have tabled!
i was leaning heavily towards cheating after garrett's post, but i honestly think she might be too dumb to cheat. or too dumb to turn down an offer to cheat. or too dumb to know how to cheat properly. bottom line, she's dumb. it hurts my brain to listen to her speak.
watching this video makes me realize she is so completely clueless, she actually could have made that call without cheating.
Last edited:
Marius L
4 of a Kind
The plot thickens!
buffalojim
Royal Flush
She's literally out of her god damn mind and has the attention span of a fruit fly. I'd be scared to play poker with her, honestly.
This doesn’t not mean anything … dude
At this point I feel like this whole saga is like an episode of those trash real housewive shows my wife watches.
Just a bunch of vapid, instagram rich narcissists arguing with eachother on silly YouTube videos. It hurt my soul to listen to Robbi for 30 seconds just then talking to whoever that Julie lady is.
Just a bunch of vapid, instagram rich narcissists arguing with eachother on silly YouTube videos. It hurt my soul to listen to Robbi for 30 seconds just then talking to whoever that Julie lady is.
RainmanTrail
Straight Flush
Cliffs:
- Robbi is scheduled to take a lie detector test tomorrow, but she is not using Persson's lie detector team and doesn't want to take the test in CA. She found a team in NV that she trusts more, so she's using them.
- She admitted to stealing a gold necklace from Macy's when she was 17 1/2 years old, and uses this example to demonstrate that she had her fill of theft already and she got it out of her system, so "why would I need to steal again?"
- She has a crush on Haralabos Voulgaris
- She hired a PR team
- She is turning her phone over to the Gardena Police Dept so that they can exonerate her in some way? (Not really sure. More word salad stuff going on here...)
- She says she is a self-admitted "kook" and "whack job", this establishing that her plays and explanations probably just won't make sense to others
- Admits the writing style similarities between herself and "Bryan" look sketchy ("wouldn't not" and the usage of a space before an elipsis)
- She went absolutely ape shit on Julie Yorn for giving her account of Robbi trying to angle shoot their table for a $5k buyin two days prior
How many people do you hear of using the expression "wouldn't not" in everyday conversation?
JScott
Flush
Julie Yorn, is an Oscar nominated producer. And, from what I’ve seen, has been nothing but a class act in all her hustler appearances, or at least the ones I’ve seen.
buffalojim
Royal Flush
This is true. I did see one stream where she insinuated Garrett was angling in a hand against her, so that fun lol.
Zero?
Somebody implied that Twitter was full of people saying that - I really don’t know, but I’ve never noticed it.
I’ll tell you this - I watched some more of her hands and the clearest thought I have is that she is just annoying AF and I would hate to be at a table with her.
buffalojim
Royal Flush
Unfortunately she comes across as your stereotypical dumb girl with a rockin' body. Personally, I don't think she's much to look at. I like it natural. She's just straight up obnoxious and everytime she speaks I feel myself getting dumber for having listened. Maybe I'm gullible but I think I'm convinced she's innocent and I don't care if I ever hear from her again. I certainly don't want to watch a poker stream with her again. Goodbye and enjoy the 15.
JScott
Flush
I forgot to comment on this earlier. But regardless of your opinion on the issue, it's good this all went down or theft at HCL could have gone unchecked for quite a while.
ninedeuce
Two Pair
I agree. This is the weakest part of the "they cheated" arguments.
Or, in order to make the cheating argument more credible, would help if facts (or a plausible theory) came out that this instance was not, in fact, the only time she/they cheated, just the most obvious time.
My late father, a physician, liked to tell this joke:
"What's the definition of a dilemma? A Christian Scientist with appendicitis."
That's how I feel about this hand/story!
In general, I'm anti-conspiracy theories, as life experiences have shown me countless times to trust Occam's Razor (prefer simpler explanations to complicated) and Hanlon's Razor (prefer stupidity to malice to explain behavior). It's not that they never happen, but it's no coincidence that the ones we find out about (e.g., Watergate, Black Sox, etc.) are the ones we found about -- it's hard for that many folks to keep a secret. I've also found that folks who propound conspiracy theories tend to be lazy thinkers averse to personal responsibility and/or poster children for cognitive biases.
And on a personal level, I play in a juicy online game with folks who are constantly saying "online is rigged!" and I have to constantly toe the line of sympathizing with them while gently refuting them so that they are reassured and keep playing lol.
But I've also found that some people are much better than other people at certain things. This is a hotly debated topic in my industry (software development), but my experience has shown me that there are programmers ten (or more) times impactful than their counterparts ("10x developers"). Not only are they more impactful, in general, they know what they are talking about. Garrett is probably better and more experienced at high stakes cash NLHE than anyone on this board is at anything. And while I don't know him, I have (sadly, lol!) watched hours of his play on various streams and listened to interviews with him on poker podcasts and he comes across as genuinely humble, always looking to improve, and a good sport. He was ready to take this beat with a smile if she flipped over J4o and exclaimed "Oh shit, I thought I had J3 (or Jc4c)!"
Thinking about this hand, one of the things that struck me was that Garrett seemed to know in an instant, as soon as she tabled the cards along with zero surprise on her part. It got me thinking about Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. I'm not the hugest Gladwell fan, but I remember the opening of the book which described how the Getty Museum ultimately purchased a questionable ancient Greek statue (due to its immaculate condition) for millions of dollars because the paperwork was all in order and because it had some geological properties of being quite old. When an expert in Greek antiquities saw the statue at the museum for the first time, they instantly knew it was a fake, and turned out to be right -- the paperwork was forged, and it turned out you could cultivate calcite in a few years vs centuries. When to trust your gut and when not to is a complicated question, but there have been studies beyond Blink that indicate folks with significant expertise in the subject matter have much better intuition about things pertaining to that subject than those that don't.
Unfortunately, my gut reaction to the hand was irreversibly colored by the fact that I encountered it in the context of a "was Garrett cheated?!" video, so the combination of the context and my feelings about Garrett strongly predisposed me to think that, "Yep, she cheated!" After reading more from smart folks I respect (including on this board, e.g., @CrazyEddie and @BGinGA), I watched more of the stream and that particular hand a few times, and, while it went against my (tainted) gut, it seemed plausible that she was just a confused person with an inflated ego who couldn't stand to ever look weak/dumb.
This was pre-Bryan revelations, and Garrett's post, which, some people, e.g., @CrazyEddie didn't think qualified as evidence.
I subscribe to the legal definition of evidence:
Evidence is an item which a litigant proffers to make the existence of a fact more or less probable.
That's it. Not proof. Just something which I argue makes something more or less probable. The other side can take the same fact and offer it as evidence for the opposite conclusion.
Or, mathematically: evidence = fact + argument.
Garrett listed lots of facts as to the unscrupulous/suspicious behavior of the parties involved, and argues that it makes cheating more likely. Unless invalidated by other reasons (e.g., hearsay), this is evidence.
Now, it's apparently not sufficient evidence for some people. But there's clearly a lot of evidence that there was cheating involved.
And, like I said before about unsuccessful conspiracy theories, the more that comes about this, a complicated explanation becomes more and more possible.
At this point I feel it's likely that Garrett is pretty much spot on, with a small chance that no cheating happened (just typical shady degen behavior).
The one thing that I don't like from Garrett is his wholehearted indemnification of Ryan and Nick V. I get it, he's friends with them and they've made him a lot of money. But if the theories being offered about Bryan's role are true, the production company is extremely negligent here. And honestly, the integrity of the entire stream is in question.
HaRDHouSeiNC
Straight Flush
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,475
- Reaction score
- 15,407
Thats my opinion since the start of this
You pick THAT spot to cheat cause you got the signal to call?
How dumb is you.
I think all three of those could be true at the same time IF
Im still 55/45 not cheating
And if her call was correct with 47% to win, then I'm right
LOFL
RainmanTrail
Straight Flush
Great post @ninedeuce
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
As much as I've been in Garretts camp from the outset, I do think his tweet recently looked REALLY stupid (the one where he says people shouldn't destroy others reputations based on unproven evidence, when he's talking about DGAF being accused because of his results in seat #2).
I think there's enough preponderance of the evidence in the Robbi scandal that cheating is most likely. However I realize that there hasn't been "hard proof". So for him to turn around and use the argument people supporting Robbi are using, to defend DGAF, seems tone-deaf to me.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
