The Most INSANE Hero Call In Poker History

azteca6

azteca6

Rock Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Sep 20, 2022
Total posts
233
Awards
1
MX
Chips
26
Sure, but a professional shouldn't accept being deceived.
each head is different and thinks differently, I think she said it was a bluff and the others think they tricked him:D but in the end she wasn't there at the time I can't say much but the controversy will always exist:D
 
Pokerstudy

Pokerstudy

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Total posts
1,984
Chips
0
I feel her explanation of why she called holds up IMO by playing against his tendencies. Poker mirrors real life, and when you can see patterns and can read certain people, that’s just how it is.

I don’t think her explanation makes much sense from a cards perspective on why she made her decisions but from her explanation of playing against his tendencies/exploits I can totally see it.

Also back to my thoughts on how Poker Mirrors real life, she doesn’t come across as the type to cheat, she seems to have much more class than to cheat, especially being on camera with tons of ways to be investigated (as we are seeing now) I just don’t see how she can be that skilled/not nervous to pull off a cheat of this kind so smoothly.
 
Last edited:
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,267
Awards
1
Chips
262
I feel her explanation of why she called holds up IMO by playing against his tendencies.
The issue is, that even if she think, Garrett is always bluffing with this line, she still cant call, because J4 lose to most of his bluffs. Bart Hansson did a breakdown of the equities in his last video on Youtube, and even against a range of only bluffs, she only had around 25% equity needing 40% to break even on a call. After the hand, when Garrett ask her, why she called, she said "I thought you had A high". But if Garrett had A high, she would be drawing to 6 outs at most, so why call getting only around 1,5:1? Which Garrett asked her, but without getting any answer.
 
Pokerstudy

Pokerstudy

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Total posts
1,984
Chips
0
The issue is, that even if she think, Garrett is always bluffing with this line, she still cant call, because J4 lose to most of his bluffs. Bart Hansson did a breakdown of the equities in his last video on Youtube, and even against a range of only bluffs, she only had around 25% equity needing 40% to break even on a call. After the hand, when Garrett ask her, why she called, she said "I thought you had A high". But if Garrett had A high, she would be drawing to 6 outs at most, so why call getting only around 1,5:1? Which Garrett asked her, but without getting any answer.
Right on man, I don’t think she played cards well at all here with this hand, and I don’t think she has thought about odds the way a poker player should IMO I think she just had a read on him that he didn’t have shit and ran with it lol really just seems as simple as that to me. It also reminds me of something someone told me before, if you look hard enough you will find things and make them into something, and so far it’s what I keep seeing but nothing leading to any kind of solid proof of cheating.

The simplicity in her just playing on her read holds up IMO. I would be shocked beyond belief if it is somehow proven to be anything otherwise.

One other thought is have you ever seen non-skilled actors try and act? It’s hilarious and obvious they are ‘trying’ and there is no way IMO she was acting here in this grand scheme cheat people are thinking happened.
 
Last edited:
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,267
Awards
1
Chips
262
Right on man, I don’t think she played cards well at all here, and I don’t think she has even thought about odds the way a poker player should (good chance she has not even used equilab, but I could be wrong)
The problem with this hypothesis is, someone beleived enough in her poker skills to give her 100k to play against some of the best players in the world, and she had reportedly received coaching. I have also watched around 6 hours of the first two streams, she played on, and she played pretty well. One might even say a bit conservative. She took a free showdown with a straight, when a flush was posssible, and she got bluffed in at least 3 hands, where some players might have called. She had the lowest VPIP of the entire table. So the J4 hand, and also some prior hands in the third stream, were very uncaracteristic for her. Which begs the question why? What was suddenly different, that made her totally change the way, she played?

I think, many people are a bit naive about, how these streams and high stakes poker in general work. Unlike other games in a casino you cant just go on a waiting list to join a stream. You need to be invited, and for rather obvious reasons the people making the streams prefer to invite players, who can attract viewers. The stream is after all entertainment. One of the obvious ways to get invited to streams is to be an attractive looking female. Like for instance the player known as "Poker Bunny". She played a bunch on the Hustler stream and used this to build a brand for herself. A brand which now presumably allow her to get invited to private games, where a lot of the high stakes action takes place these days.

The point here is, that "Poker Bunny" is not doing this for fun. She is doing it to make money. So she is a professional player. And by the same token for someone to invest (literally) houndreds of tousinds of dollars in promoting Robbi on the Hustler stream, they need to have faith in her ability to play poker on at least a reasonable level. Maybe she dont need to be good enough to beat the best pros. But she need to be able to beat the rich recreational players, who come on the stream and maybe more importantly in private home games. So the idea, that "LOL this is, what happen, when fish play poker" dont add up to me, when we know, she was a sponsored player.
 
Pokerstudy

Pokerstudy

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Total posts
1,984
Chips
0
The problem with this hypothesis is, someone beleived enough in her poker skills to give her 100k to play against some of the best players in the world, and she had reportedly received coaching. I have also watched around 6 hours of the first two streams, she played on, and she played pretty well. One might even say a bit conservative. She took a free showdown with a straight, when a flush was posssible, and she got bluffed in at least 3 hands, where some players might have called. She had the lowest VPIP of the entire table. So the J4 hand, and also some prior hands in the third stream, were very uncaracteristic for her. Which begs the question why? What was suddenly different, that made her totally change the way, she played?

I think, many people are a bit naive about, how these streams and high stakes poker in general work. Unlike other games in a casino you cant just go on a waiting list to join a stream. You need to be invited, and for rather obvious reasons the people making the streams prefer to invite players, who can attract viewers. The stream is after all entertainment. One of the obvious ways to get invited to streams is to be an attractive looking female. Like for instance the player known as "Poker Bunny". She played a bunch on the Hustler stream and used this to build a brand for herself. A brand which now presumably allow her to get invited to private games, where a lot of the high stakes action takes place these days.

The point here is, that "Poker Bunny" is not doing this for fun. She is doing it to make money. So she is a professional player. And by the same token for someone to invest (literally) houndreds of tousinds of dollars in promoting Robbi on the Hustler stream, they need to have faith in her ability to play poker on at least a reasonable level. Maybe she dont need to be good enough to beat the best pros. But she need to be able to beat the rich recreational players, who come on the stream and maybe more importantly in private home games. So the idea, that "LOL this is, what happen, when fish play poker" dont add up to me, when we know, she was a sponsored player.
100k is a lot of money to me and most people, but is it to them? And as talked about before with the branding, if she was wrong, we’ll that’s just another day, but if she is right in her read well you know how that has turned out :) It could very well be a gamble on a read to turn her into a instant poker star, I could see that being a strong possibility considering she felt she had a great read on him. What is a bit confusing to me is if she is good at poker then why was all of her explanations confusing for making the plays she did in this hand, was it because of nervousness about making such a big gamble after the hand was over? That is definitely one part of this I don’t understand, none of the explanations make any sense…but doesn’t learn towards cheating to me, it learns towards anxiety or being flustered after winning the hand on a gamble with a read IMO. And probably was overwhelmed with the idea that she now has to quickly explain her decisions which she apparently only had just one decision, which was playing on a read only. She played the player and not the cards, like she said.
 
Last edited:
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,267
Awards
1
Chips
262
100k is a lot of money to me and most people, but is it to them?
She was backed by RIP in the game, and RIP in turn had borrowed 175k from Nik Airball to play in the game. This is confirmed by Nik Airball. If you are so stinking rich, you dont care about 100k, then why do you need to borrow? Also we know, that RIP was very upset, after Robbi gave the money back. Why would he be upset, if 100k was nothing to him?

More importantly we have this whole thing with Bryan stealing 15k in chips from Robbi after the stream. Was it just a coincidence, that this happened in the same stream and against Robbi specifically? Or was Bryan also pissed, she gave back the money, because that would reduce his cut, and then he decided to help himself to his share? When you then add the fact, that RIP has a shady past, and Bryan has a known gambling habbit and financial problems, it is then really that far out to say, that most likely cheating is the explanation for, what happened, and not something else?
 
Pokerstudy

Pokerstudy

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Total posts
1,984
Chips
0
She was backed by RIP in the game, and RIP in turn had borrowed 175k from Nik Airball to play in the game. This is confirmed by Nik Airball. If you are so stinking rich, you dont care about 100k, then why do you need to borrow? Also we know, that RIP was very upset, after Robbi gave the money back. Why would he be upset, if 100k was nothing to him?

More importantly we have this whole thing with Bryan stealing 15k in chips from Robbi after the stream. Was it just a coincidence, that this happened in the same stream and against Robbi specifically? Or was Bryan also pissed, she gave back the money, because that would reduce his cut, and then he decided to help himself to his share? When you then add the fact, that RIP has a shady past, and Bryan has a known gambling habbit and financial problems, it is then really that far out to say, that most likely cheating is the explanation for, what happened, and not something else?
I will have to think more on this but Bryan stealing 15k seems pretty normal for a 24 year old with a gambling problem, especially being around all that money.
Check out employee stats for theft, in 2020 it accounted for 42 billion in losses.

Is your company a victim of employee theft? It may very well be, considering that 95% of businesses encounter problems with employee theft.

As for the backing of 100k, do we know that is the only 100k out there that is truly backing Robbi? Could there be an agreement that if she makes a hero call like that then she will cover the expense if it doesn’t go as hoped? who knows.

Have to sleep but will think more on it:)
 
Last edited:
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,267
Awards
1
Chips
262
I will have to think more on this but Bryan stealing 15k seems pretty normal for a 24 year old with a gambling problem, especially being around all that money.
Absolutely. Its just quite a bit of a coincidence, that this happened exactly on the controversial stream, and that he stole from Robbi and not any of the other players at the table. Bryan claim, he did not know, who he was stealing from. That could be true, but that would make it an even more risky move by him. If for instance he had accidentally stolen from Phil Ivey, would he not expect Phil Ivey to notice this and complain to the management?

We also know, that Bryan was working in the control room and could see the hole cards in real time. And that he had moved a cabinet to block the view from a camera to his desk a few weaks earlier. So we have someone with the capability to be the inside guy as well as the motive (his financial problems), and this guy then steal 15k from the player, who paid Garrett back after winning a big pot.

Sure they could all be innocent apart from the stealing of 15k chips, that was caught on camera. But its a lot of coincidences, we are asked to believe in, for this to be true. And if nothing else it has certainly been exposed, that the level of security around this high profile stream is way worse, than most people including myself would have expected.
 
jonaselloco

jonaselloco

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Aug 4, 2022
Total posts
1,539
Awards
1
AR
Chips
191
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.

Dude, I see you've seen a lot of Garrett no doubt.
I ask you a question due to my ignorance.
Of all the hands Garrett lost, did he lose a hand to a woman???:unsure::unsure::unsure:
 
AKQ

AKQ

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
May 27, 2007
Total posts
9,139
Awards
9
Chips
225
Let me tell you all something
I play stupid
I love it
She is stupid BUT
she was playing stupid that hand
You can't read that from her?
watch again
 
AKQ

AKQ

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
May 27, 2007
Total posts
9,139
Awards
9
Chips
225
she went from stupid to I'm a retard in 0.5 seconds
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,267
Awards
1
Chips
262
Dude, I see you've seen a lot of Garrett no doubt.
I ask you a question due to my ignorance.
Of all the hands Garrett lost, did he lose a hand to a woman???:unsure::unsure::unsure:
I have not watched that many hours of Garrett playing. But yes of course he has lost big pots to women, since women play on nearly all streams. And he is generally known for handling himself well at the table. This situation is not about Garrett being a bad loser, or about men vs. woman. Its about potential or even likely cheating in poker, and people need to look at all the available information objectively rather than getting caught up in emotional reactions.

Yes I understand, that to many its a more appealing story, that a woman, who is relatively new to poker, made a great hero call against a high stakes pro and/or "outplayed him". And certainly a lot more appealing than the story, she was part of a cheating ring with at least 2 scummy males. But just because something is more emotionally appealing, does not mean, its more likely to be true ;)
 
Pokerstudy

Pokerstudy

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Total posts
1,984
Chips
0
I have not watched that many hours of Garrett playing. But yes of course he has lost big pots to women, since women play on nearly all streams. And he is generally known for handling himself well at the table. This situation is not about Garrett being a bad loser, or about men vs. woman. Its about potential or even likely cheating in poker, and people need to look at all the available information objectively rather than getting caught up in emotional reactions.

Yes I understand, that to many its a more appealing story, that a woman, who is relatively new to poker, made a great hero call against a high stakes pro and/or "outplayed him". And certainly a lot more appealing than the story, she was part of a cheating ring with at least 2 scummy males. But just because something is more emotionally appealing, does not mean, its more likely to be true ;)
I don’t view it that way (personally), based on emotion etc, I just view it in the way I see it until proven otherwise :)

If there is cheating here it is the cheat of the century with crazy collusion and amazing acting skills (which I highly doubt)
 
Last edited:
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,267
Awards
1
Chips
262
If there is cheating here it is the cheat of the century with crazy collusion and amazing acting skills (which I highly doubt)
Dont think there is anything particular "crazy" about the idea, that someone in the control room (Bryan Sagbigsal) could watch the cards in real time and then send information to one or more accomplishes, who were playing at the table. In fact this is, what a lot of people speculated had happened in the Mike Postle case. And as for acting skills, I dont think, Robbi really have them. She have given a lot of different explanations, and a lot of, what she have said, makes little sense.
 
Vallet

Vallet

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Total posts
2,047
Awards
13
Chips
157
I agree that in this video the skill of reading a particular hand was demonstrated. But we shouldn't take an example. Because there is a battle of bluffs here.
This is the perfect flop for Garrett. Look at his chances with a straight draw and a flush draw. Robbi raises on the turn with J4, what's going on? If we are ready to catch the opponent on a bluff, then obviously not with such a hand. Garrett's actions look reasonable and he was closer to victory. We don't have to act like Robbi in this video.
 
Pokerstudy

Pokerstudy

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Total posts
1,984
Chips
0
I agree that in this video the skill of reading a particular hand was demonstrated. But we shouldn't take an example. Because there is a battle of bluffs here.
This is the perfect flop for Garrett. Look at his chances with a straight draw and a flush draw. Robbi raises on the turn with J4, what's going on? If we are ready to catch the opponent on a bluff, then obviously not with such a hand. Garrett's actions look reasonable and he was closer to victory. We don't have to act like Robbi in this video.
Let’s just for the sake of fun use the card selection logic VS inference of dealing with men (or anyone) that have lied before and how they may have a certain body language or tenseness when lying that comes across as obvious lying to the other person (or trying to avoid being wrong/caught) instinctually lol

I don’t have that developed skill, but others may just by a keen sense of awareness of others :)
 
Last edited:
jonaselloco

jonaselloco

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Aug 4, 2022
Total posts
1,539
Awards
1
AR
Chips
191
Let’s just for the sake of fun use the card selection logic VS inference of dealing with men (or anyone) that have lied before and how they may have a certain body language or tenseness when lying that comes across as obvious lying to the other person (or trying to avoid being wrong/caught) instinctually lol

I don’t have that developed skill, but others may just by a keen sense of awareness of others :)
Honestly I totally agree with your answer brother.
I think the same, maybe the woman had an ability to see gestures or something else inside Garrett that made him see that she was bluffing.
I also expressed it before, I think that if the hand had been discovered on the river, possibly she would have thought of some trap.
But the situation went on the turn to discover a river twice.
If you ask me if I would have paid with that J4 I tell you no.
But well the woman did it, as you say she maybe she saw a reading that we didn't see.
In short, the absolute truth is known only to her and only to her.
Cheers:):):)
 
Top