ftw.usatoday.com
if I won this hand played so miserably, I would walk away and never set foot in that spot again.
Phil was the player jamming, which mean, he was bluffing, and just happened to be doing it with the best hand. This is totally different from calling, when you cant even beat most of your opponents bluffs. As I wrote elsewhere, this is NOT about, who Robbi is, its about, what she did. In fact if a good player like Phil Ivey did this, then people would think even more, he was cheating. A lot of people have actually been willing to believe, that Robbi is just really bad at poker. Which is the only reason, why someone would possibly call in that hand, unless they are cheating.He cheated??? No one can know more than her.
She couldn't spend her money thinking her hand was better??? She if she could spend it and win
The good guy looked like an idiot who was laughed at by everyone at the table???? And yes, it was.
If you watch the entire video and see the rest of the previous hands from all the players, except a few like Phil Ivey and the man sitting to his right, and then the man sitting to Garrett's right who generally call hands acceptably good or good hands, the rest including the woman call with hands 82, 62 54, 25, 93, J3 or whatever horrible card they have in their hands.
Another thing, the woman did not pay an all in seen on the river. Instead, she called him all in on the turn. If we talk so much about the mathematical laws of odds / outs Garrett, the number of cards he had on the river to win was infinite. He even had a straight flush draw. In other words, we have the right to think that the Lady believed to die that she was a bluff and we all know that when a woman has a thought it almost always happens that until she discovers that it is true, not for hahahahaha
The only thing I can criticize the woman for is that she spoke a lot in the post-hand and gave many explanations that in the end, if one analyzes them, they are not very credible, a situation that gave Garrett the opportunity to enlarge and go with great force in his statements considering an alleged trap.
One thinks, if instead of having the cards, the Lady had Phil Ivey and called, what would Garrett have argued, that Phil Ivey cheated??? I put a super bluff vs bluff by Phil Ivey as an example.
In other words, we should only consider that the Lady cheated and she did not have the intelligence or the instinct to guess a bluff ???
There are many questions, what if we know that the heartthrob was ridiculous, and in truth this is not healthy for anyone.
And well, the Casino has already had several player cheating scandals and has always acted accordingly, because this is really not good propaganda for the Casino.
What if we can ensure that, whether or not there has been a cheat, this hand ...... I remain for history!!!!
greetings friend
I agree 100% with you Jonas, for me the big problem/mistake of this lady is wanting to return the money later, this is ridiculous.He cheated??? No one can know more than her.
She couldn't spend her money thinking her hand was better??? She if she could spend it and win
The good guy looked like an idiot who was laughed at by everyone at the table???? And yes, it was.
If you watch the entire video and see the rest of the previous hands from all the players, except a few like Phil Ivey and the man sitting to his right, and then the man sitting to Garrett's right who generally call hands acceptably good or good hands, the rest including the woman call with hands 82, 62 54, 25, 93, J3 or whatever horrible card they have in their hands.
Another thing, the woman did not pay an all in seen on the river. Instead, she called him all in on the turn. If we talk so much about the mathematical laws of odds / outs Garrett, the number of cards he had on the river to win was infinite. He even had a straight flush draw. In other words, we have the right to think that the Lady believed to die that she was a bluff and we all know that when a woman has a thought it almost always happens that until she discovers that it is true, not for hahahahaha
The only thing I can criticize the woman for is that she spoke a lot in the post-hand and gave many explanations that in the end, if one analyzes them, they are not very credible, a situation that gave Garrett the opportunity to enlarge and go with great force in his statements considering an alleged trap.
One thinks, if instead of having the cards, the Lady had Phil Ivey and called, what would Garrett have argued, that Phil Ivey cheated??? I put a super bluff vs bluff by Phil Ivey as an example.
In other words, we should only consider that the Lady cheated and she did not have the intelligence or the instinct to guess a bluff ???
There are many questions, what if we know that the heartthrob was ridiculous, and in truth this is not healthy for anyone.
And well, the Casino has already had several player cheating scandals and has always acted accordingly, because this is really not good propaganda for the Casino.
What if we can ensure that, whether or not there has been a cheat, this hand ...... I remain for history!!!!
greetings friend
It is just the other way around. If it was a guy calling in that spot, then the vast majority of at least professional poker players would be convinced, he was cheating. But because she is a woman, there has been this "LOL this is just, what happen, when fish play poker" narrative from at least part of the poker community. Not so much more though, after the story about the sacked employee Bryan Sagbigsal came out.
It is utter ridicolous to turn this into a discussion about "men vs. women" or "professional vs. recreational". This is about cheating in poker, and it has nothing to do with, who Robbi is. In fact its probably not even her, who got the idea. We know already, who the likely inside guy is (Bryan Sagbigsal), and other male players, who seem likely to be involved (RIP and possibly others). The only possible explanations for, why someone would call with J4 in that hand, are:
Hi, friend. Honestly the only thing that makes me think it wasn't cheating is that she called it on the turn, with 2 outs and lots of odds/outs for Garrett. In truth, if the outs had gone in favor of Garrett, she would not have said anything, as much as she was crazy to pay with those cards.
I saw this clip from Phil Iveys masterclass and he discusses that he knew Paul Jackson didn’t have anything simply because of how he reacted while looking at his chips when he asked “how much” it was basically Paul showing a lack of confidence etc that have it away and that the chips looked valuable as if he was scared to lose them (I don’t remember exactly how he described it) but it was all based on the reaction to the question that let him knowHe cheated??? No one can know more than her.
She couldn't spend her money thinking her hand was better??? She if she could spend it and win
The good guy looked like an idiot who was laughed at by everyone at the table???? And yes, it was.
If you watch the entire video and see the rest of the previous hands from all the players, except a few like Phil Ivey and the man sitting to his right, and then the man sitting to Garrett's right who generally call hands acceptably good or good hands, the rest including the woman call with hands 82, 62 54, 25, 93, J3 or whatever horrible card they have in their hands.
Another thing, the woman did not pay an all in seen on the river. Instead, she called him all in on the turn. If we talk so much about the mathematical laws of odds / outs Garrett, the number of cards he had on the river to win was infinite. He even had a straight flush draw. In other words, we have the right to think that the Lady believed to die that she was a bluff and we all know that when a woman has a thought it almost always happens that until she discovers that it is true, not for hahahahaha
The only thing I can criticize the woman for is that she spoke a lot in the post-hand and gave many explanations that in the end, if one analyzes them, they are not very credible, a situation that gave Garrett the opportunity to enlarge and go with great force in his statements considering an alleged trap.
One thinks, if instead of having the cards, the Lady had Phil Ivey and called, what would Garrett have argued, that Phil Ivey cheated??? I put a super bluff vs bluff by Phil Ivey as an example.
In other words, we should only consider that the Lady cheated and she did not have the intelligence or the instinct to guess a bluff ???
There are many questions, what if we know that the heartthrob was ridiculous, and in truth this is not healthy for anyone.
And well, the Casino has already had several player cheating scandals and has always acted accordingly, because this is really not good propaganda for the Casino.
What if we can ensure that, whether or not there has been a cheat, this hand ...... I remain for history!!!!
greetings friend
At that point she was getting pot odds and only needed 40% equity to break even. Counting for dead cards she had 47%, but without dead cards it would have been 53%. The theory here is, that Bryan Sagbigsal was sitting in the operating room and seeing the cards in real time. However Bryan would not have the equities, we see on stream, because this can only be calculated, after the dealer has told the editor, which action each player took. This is why, the dealer in any live stream is wearing a headset.
The difference is, that with this board and the lack of action on earlier streets Q high is not bluffing the river, because it has showdown value. And obviously AX as well as KX has paired up, so they are not bluffing either. So in this hand J high beat all the bluffs, whereas in the Garrett vs. Robbi hand J high was losing to most natural bluffs.Jack 4
not all hands are won, a professional must know how to lose
Sure but a professional must not accept to get cheated, just because the cheater is an amateur, a woman or new to the game, they are playing. As have been said many times, Garrett have lost a ton of big pots on Hustler live, and he has never reacted like this before. In this hand Garrett loses 220k, because he get caught bluffing, and his reaction is completely calm. And no. This is not, because his opponent is Daniel Negreanu. Its because Daniel called him with a reasonable bluffcatcher. If Robbi had called with A high or any pair, Garrett would just have said "nice call" and moved on to the next hand.not all hands are won, a professional must know how to lose
