• 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 (5 Viewers)

Anthony Martino said:
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.
Click to expand...
100% agree. I don't know what he was thinking there.
 
JScott said:
100% agree. I don't know what he was thinking there.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that from his vantage point he is as certain as he could possibly be that Robbi cheated. But that the other theories about others involved are far more speculative. The tone-deaf part is that even his supporters in this aren't 100% convinced. We're more like 90%, or 95%, or 98%.

I said earlier that I'm 98% convinced that she cheated. However, I will say I am 99.9999% convinced that Robbi did not misread her hand when she made the call and tabled it. I couldn't possibly be more certain of that.
 
ninedeuce said:
Evidence is an item which a litigant proffers to make the existence of a fact more or less probable.
Click to expand...
A better conception of evidence is this:

A fact X is evidence that a theory Y is true if and only if Theory Y being true makes Fact X more likely to have happened relative to the case where Theory Y is false.

Consider this case: There was a robbery in Queens. Suspect Hockney was spotted in Queens the night of the crime. Is the fact that Hockney was spotted in Queens evidence that Hockney committed the robbery? In this case, no, it's not, because of some further information that came to light: it turns out Hockney lives in Queens. Since he lives there, it's just as likely that he would be spotted there if he did commit the robbery or if he didn't commit the robbery.


We can also talk about the strength of evidence, and conceptualize it as follows: the more likely Fact X is if Theory Y is true relative to how likely Fact X is if Theory Y is false, the stronger evidence Fact X is of Theory Y. In other words, Fact X doesn't have to be absolute proof of Theory Y to be useful evidence; it can be strong without being proof, or it can be weak but still at least somewhat persuasive. The stronger it is, the more we should be convinced.

Say there was a jewel heist, and the thief who took the diamond and escaped out the window left behind Size Ten footprints. The cops round up the usual suspects, and Suspect McManus turns out to wear Size Ten shoes. Is this evidence against him? Yes. If he didn't steal the diamond (i.e. if Theory Y is false) then the chances that the thief would be someone who sore Size Tens (Fact X) would be, say, one in five, going on an estimate that one in five men wear Size Ten shoes. But if he did steal the diamond (i.e. if Theory Y is true) then the chances that the thief would leave behind Size Ten footprints would be 100% since he would be the thief and that's his shoe size. That's a pretty big change in probability, from 20% to 100%.

But wait! That's not all there is to evaluating evidence. If the cops picked him up because he's one of a handful of well-known jewel thieves, that's one thing. But if the cops picked him up by flipping open the phone book and bringing in some random schmoe to check his shoe size, that's something completely different. The shoe size is strong evidence against McManus but it's weak evidence against Joe Schmoe, because the probability of McManus being the thief is high and the probability of Joe Schmoe being the thief is very low, before considering the shoe size evidence. Evidence operates on our prior beliefs. If we already have reason to believe Theory Y is true even without Fact X, then Fact X can be enough to move us from somewhat convinced of Theory Y to strongly convinced of Theory Y. Whereas if we have little reason to believe Theory Y (how likely is it that a name literally chosen at random from the phone book is the one who stole the diamond?) then Fact X may do almost nothing whatsoever to make Theory Y more convincing (So what if he wears Size Tens? Lots of guys wear Size Tens!).

My stance has been, and continues to be, that almost all of the facts leveled against Bobbi and her hypothetical conspirators are no more likely under the theory that they cheated than they are under the theory that they didn't cheat; they all have perfectly reasonable explanations that don't include cheating. Accordingly, they aren't evidence of cheating. And moreover, for any that are more likely under the cheating theory than they are under the no-cheating theory, the strength of that evidence is weak and the prior probability of cheating is small, such that adding the weak evidence to an unlikely theory still leaves the theory unlikely.
 
RainmanTrail said:
I've seen someone write "wouldn't not" exactly twice in my life. Once from Robbi. Once from "Bryan", allegedly writing to Robbi.
Click to expand...
I'm an English teacher. I've been teaching high school English for approximately 12 years now. I also taught English as a second language in South Korea for 3 years prior to that. I can't even fathom how many paragraphs, essays, stories, tests, etc. I have marked in my lifetime. I have never seen "wouldn't not" even with all of my English as a second language students. I've also never seen it in my day to day reading outside of work. Take that for whatever it is worth.

Since I'm posting, I might as well ask all the people who are arguing that she misread her hand and thought she had J3 (after staring at it for at least 10 seconds on the river with the 4 on the bottom of her hole cards) and that she just amazingly had no reaction when it was turned over (I've never seen someone not react in even the slightest way to a misread hand like this ever), and that she simply didn't want to look foolish at the moment on a live stream so she word-vomited a bunch of crap to save face - why the hell would she not simply stick to the "true story" that she misread her hand afterwards once everything blew up over the internet? Is your argument that she is simply that self-centered and/or dumb to not just tell the truth? Honestly curious. She doesn't seem the brightest, but is it really better to lie when all of this is blowing up online instead of just admitting she brain-farted?

For the record, I'm undecided on if she cheated, but there are a hell of a lot of strange coincidences that are very hard to ignore in this situation.
 
trigs said:
For the record, I'm undecided on if she cheated, but there are a hell of a lot of strange coincidences that are very hard to ignore in this situation.
Click to expand...
I’m just kidding here, but you should read about John Kennedy if you are into strange coincidences. There’s a lot of material written about them and pretty much nobody believes them.
It’s just Gematria without the numbers really.
 
CrazyEddie said:
A better conception of evidence is this:

A fact X is evidence that a theory Y is true if and only if Theory Y being true makes Fact X more likely to have happened relative to the case where Theory Y is false.

Consider this case: There was a robbery in Queens. Suspect Hockney was spotted in Queens the night of the crime. Is the fact that Hockney was spotted in Queens evidence that Hockney committed the robbery? In this case, no, it's not, because of some further information that came to light: it turns out Hockney lives in Queens. Since he lives there, it's just as likely that he would be spotted there if he did commit the robbery or if he didn't commit the robbery.


We can also talk about the strength of evidence, and conceptualize it as follows: the more likely Fact X is if Theory Y is true relative to how likely Fact X is if Theory Y is false, the stronger evidence Fact X is of Theory Y. In other words, Fact X doesn't have to be absolute proof of Theory Y to be useful evidence; it can be strong without being proof, or it can be weak but still at least somewhat persuasive. The stronger it is, the more we should be convinced.

Say there was a jewel heist, and the thief who took the diamond and escaped out the window left behind Size Ten footprints. The cops round up the usual suspects, and Suspect McManus turns out to wear Size Ten shoes. Is this evidence against him? Yes. If he didn't steal the diamond (i.e. if Theory Y is false) then the chances that the thief would be someone who sore Size Tens (Fact X) would be, say, one in five, going on an estimate that one in five men wear Size Ten shoes. But if he did steal the diamond (i.e. if Theory Y is true) then the chances that the thief would leave behind Size Ten footprints would be 100% since he would be the thief and that's his shoe size. That's a pretty big change in probability, from 20% to 100%.

But wait! That's not all there is to evaluating evidence. If the cops picked him up because he's one of a handful of well-known jewel thieves, that's one thing. But if the cops picked him up by flipping open the phone book and bringing in some random schmoe to check his shoe size, that's something completely different. The shoe size is strong evidence against McManus but it's weak evidence against Joe Schmoe, because the probability of McManus being the thief is high and the probability of Joe Schmoe being the thief is very low, before considering the shoe size evidence. Evidence operates on our prior beliefs. If we already have reason to believe Theory Y is true even without Fact X, then Fact X can be enough to move us from somewhat convinced of Theory Y to strongly convinced of Theory Y. Whereas if we have little reason to believe Theory Y (how likely is it that a name literally chosen at random from the phone book is the one who stole the diamond?) then Fact X may do almost nothing whatsoever to make Theory Y more convincing (So what if he wears Size Tens? Lots of guys wear Size Tens!).

My stance has been, and continues to be, that almost all of the facts leveled against Bobbi and her hypothetical conspirators are no more likely under the theory that they cheated than they are under the theory that they didn't cheat; they all have perfectly reasonable explanations that don't include cheating. Accordingly, they aren't evidence of cheating. And moreover, for any that are more likely under the cheating theory than they are under the no-cheating theory, the strength of that evidence is weak and the prior probability of cheating is small, such that adding the weak evidence to an unlikely theory still leaves the theory unlikely.
Click to expand...
Did you put that together yourself, Einstein? What, do you got a team of monkeys working around the clock on this?
 
CrazyEddie said:
A better conception of evidence is this:

A fact X is evidence that a theory Y is true if and only if Theory Y being true makes Fact X more likely to have happened relative to the case where Theory Y is false.
Click to expand...

You say this as if this isn't the case though with respect to the J4 cheating allegations. The fact that Bryan let out a yell when Robbi gave the money back, and then subsequently stole $15k from her stack is absolutely more likely to have occurred if the "they cheated" theory were true than it is if the "they cheated" theory were false. You would need to otherwise demonstrate something like Bryan just has Tourette syndrome, and thus repeatedly lets out yells at random throughout the day, and that he stole chips from every stack at the table in order to state that these actions are no more true under the "they cheated" theory than they are of the "they did not cheat" theory.
 
CrazyEddie said:
My stance has been, and continues to be, that almost all of the facts leveled against Bobbi and her hypothetical conspirators are no more likely under the theory that they cheated than they are under the theory that they didn't cheat; they all have perfectly reasonable explanations that don't include cheating. Accordingly, they aren't evidence of cheating. And moreover, for any that are more likely under the cheating theory than they are under the no-cheating theory, the strength of that evidence is weak and the prior probability of cheating is small, such that adding the weak evidence to an unlikely theory still leaves the theory unlikely.
Click to expand...

"No more likely under the theory that they cheated than they are under the theory that they didn't cheat" ??? Either you're trolling now, or you have a remarkable inability to process information.

Every single crazy twist and turn this story has taken over the past 2 weeks has absolutely increased the likelihood of cheating having actually occurred (as if the hand itself wasn't already enough to determine this with a high likelihood). This is Bayesian statistics living out right before your very eyes. If your Bayesian prior was 50/50 she cheated/didn't, then it just got bumped way the fuck up when Bryan was caught stealing $15k from Robbi's stack (and no one else's). It also got bumped up when Bryan was heard letting out a yell the moment he saw her giving the money back to Garrett. It also got bumped up when you see her and Rip gesturing and mouthing things to each other at the table. It also got bumped up with we saw that Bryan has a criminal record that includes at least one count of robbery. It also got bumped up when Robbi revealed that she was caught stealing a necklace from Macy's a few months before her 18th birthday. It also got bumped up when Robbi flip-flopped on her explanation for why she played the hand the way she did. It also got bumped WAY the fuck up when she reaches for her mic shortly after the hand and says, "just testing" with an inquisitive vocal inflection that suggests she is attempting to communicate with someone on the other end of the mic to ensure she is being heard correctly. It also gets bumped way up when shortly after the hands are tabled and everyone is talking about what happened, Rip says, "it's almost like there was some voice from outer space telling you to call there, haha". It also got bumped up when we learned that Robbi was caught trying to angle shoot her $5k buyin by not paying for it in the session with Julie Yorn just 2 days prior. And so much more. The list goes on and on. Each of these actions increases the likelihood that she was in fact cheating. Statisticians refer to this as "informing the prior".
 
Last edited:
RainmanTrail said:
"No more likely under the theory that they cheated than they are under the theory that they didn't cheat" ??? Either you're trolling now, or you have a remarkable inability to process information.

Every single crazy twist and turn this story has taken over the past 2 weeks has absolutely increased the likelihood of cheating having actually occurred (as if the hand itself wasn't already enough to determine this with a high likelihood). This is Bayesian statistics living out right before your very eyes. If your Bayesian prior was 50/50 she cheated/didn't, then it just got bumped way the fuck up when Bryan was caught stealing $15k from Robbi's stack (and no one else's). It also got bumped up when Bryan was heard letting out a yell the moment he saw her giving the money back to Garrett. It also got bumped up when you see her and Rip gesturing and mouthing things to each other at the table. It also got bumped up with we saw that Bryan has a criminal record that includes at least one count of robbery. It also got bumped up when Robbi revealed that she was caught stealing a necklace from Macy's a few months before her 18th birthday. It also got bumped up when Robbi flip-flopped on her explanation for why she played the hand the way she did. It also got bumped WAY the fuck up when she reaches for her mic shortly after the hand and says, "just testing" with an inquisitive vocal inflection that suggests she is attempting to communicate with someone on the other end of the mic to ensure she is being heard correctly. It also gets bumped way up when shortly after the hands are tabled and everyone is talking about what happened, Rip says, "it's almost like there was some voice from outer space telling you to call there, haha". It also got bumped up when we learned that Robbi was caught trying to angle shoot her $5k buyin by not paying for it in the session with Julie Yorn just 2 days prior. And so much more. The list goes on and on. Each of these actions increases the likelihood that she was in fact cheating. Statisticians refer to this as "informing the prior".
Click to expand...

But everyone who still thinks she's innocent be like

beef.gif
 
JScott said:
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.
Click to expand...

Julie Yorn might be a terrific lady, but almost winning an award is not a useful measure of her character.

According to Wikipedia, Harvey Weinstein actually won an Oscar and several Tony awards.
 
TheDuke said:
Julie Yorn might be a terrific lady, but almost winning an award is not a useful measure of her character.

According to Wikipedia, Harvey Weinstein actually won an Oscar and several Tony awards.
Click to expand...
I was literally just responding to @Perthmike's comment on Julie saying:
Perthmike said:
whoever that Julie lady is.
Click to expand...

I mentioned "AND, from what I've seen... etc" regarding her character.

And you had the nerve earlier to shit-talk my reading comprehension? :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
JScott said:
I was literally just responding to @Perthmike's comment on Julie saying:


I mentioned "AND, from what I've seen... etc" regarding her character.

And you had the nerve earlier to shit-talk my reading comprehension? :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I didn't actually bother listening to Julie. I got bored at Robbi, I just saw her name was Julie. So she will forever remain whoever that Julie lady is to me lol
 
Results likely won't sway people's opinions one way or the other.

She should have done this on an episode of Maury Povich with the entire cast present: Garrett, Bryan, Rip, DGAF, Vertucci, Feldman.

Paternity tests administered as well. It would have ended with Garrett being the father of her child. The rest of her litter are currently bastards though. And Robbi finally admitting she cheated because he was behind in child support.

Finally @RainmanTrail rushes the stage and knocks over Maury to tell the PCF dolt crew they're all stupid and he was right! He wouldn't not recommend they ever log into PCF for the shaming they would face.

1665757405952.png
 
A lie detector test wasn't going to sway those who didn't believe her since they aren't considered reliable

I caught a bit of Joeys show where Tom Dwan was supposed to be allowed to ask her some hard questions but she kept interupting him to go on 5 minute-long diversions where she'd ramble nonstop

She won't let anyone else speak and she still uses the "I feel attacked!" excuse to avoid answering any real questions when they're asked of her.
 
Dwan comes on around the 1 hour 56 minute mark. I haven't seen the whole conversation yet but saw a good chunk of her interrupting and talking over Dwan, and then changing subjects and avoiding answering

 
Anthony Martino said:
Dwan comes on around the 1 hour 56 minute mark. I haven't seen the whole conversation yet but saw a good chunk of her interrupting and talking over Dwan, and then changing subjects and avoiding answering

Click to expand...

Not sure the timestamp but Dwan asks Robbi if she ever gave Beanz permission to record a phone conversation they had and she gets an "oh fuck" look on her face and takes a bit to process before she answers no

Dwan either knows something or he's playing chess while she plays checkers, casting doubt and causing the conspirators to turn on each other
 

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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

Santa123
Hustler Casino Live brings back clay
Replies
6
Views
307
bananapeel
B
M
New Cards on Hustler Casino Live?
Replies
5
Views
593
RocAFella1
RocAFella1
Santa123
New Chips @ Hustler Casino Live
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
LeLe
LeLe
C
Hustler Casino Live Chips.
Replies
13
Views
1K
seyff45
seyff45
L
Hustler Casino new chips
Replies
8
Views
600
Santa123
Santa123
Back
Top Bottom