MattRyder
🍏 Tech That Works!
Platinum Level
EnzoRS94
Rock Star
Bronze Level
That's what I'm thinking too, giving the money back isn't an admission of guilt she just didn't want to deal with conflict and can afford it.
a cheat won't give you your money back
Joe
99.98% Kiln dried
Bronze Level
They say no publicity is bad publicity, eh..? 
Not sure about this one way or the other - lots of questions and weirdness about the hand and circumstances but nigh on impossible to draw any definitive conclusions based on what is known.
Mystery lurking in the shadows...
Not sure about this one way or the other - lots of questions and weirdness about the hand and circumstances but nigh on impossible to draw any definitive conclusions based on what is known.
Mystery lurking in the shadows...
R
redline0004
Rising Star
Bronze Level
If she would of said from the beginning I just had a gut feeling that my jack high was good I do not think we would think she was cheating. I also think Garrett would have told her good call And not even question it. Instead she has changed her story several times.
iwont20
Legend
Loyaler
It's never solely a gut feeling, it's certain level of understanding the game + gut feeling being a factor weighing in. Look how he reacted once she told she had a jack of clubs, honestly, it's an inappropriate reaction, she stopped explaining further since she was sort of shamed and cut-off. Don't expect to hear explanations if that's how you react to them, considering no one owns you them in a first place, it's a gesture. Plus she said "you don't have sh**" and further, that's basically a gut feeling.
Look at Negreanu's last tweets about the topic, where he's giving an example how some amateur players explain their moves. It's probably would've been the same, but she was not given a non- judgemental room to do so, she was already questioned and judged, and got nervous, lost, uncomfortable etc. You expect an amateur female player in this situation to give you a detailed mathematic explanation, flipping Flopzilla with equities maybe? (I'm not implying women are bad at math, I mentioned female as an additional factor of discomfort).
She had a feeling already he was playing a certain way against her and she thought he doesn't have it this time, maybe he had oesds, she had a club thought it's less likely he has a fd and j blocked higher oesd, called with her hand thinking she will beat his oesds. The End. She said "ace-high" probably just using wrong terminology meaning a no-made hand. As I said, you all suddenly expect a recreational player to operate on your level and provide you logical - to your standards - explanation once you lose and can't handle this and question their moves immediately, but you thrive on recs' inability to do so and actually that's why you win and still are in poker in general.
Shameful behaviour altogether.
Attachments
R
redline0004
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Garrett reaction is shock/confusion which I think all us would react the same way. HCL live definitely deserves an F the way they handled it that night. No player should be pulled to another room unless they can prove that player was cheating. Once Garrett believed she was cheating why wasn’t the game stopped. Was the casino notified a player thought another player was cheating. Was the gaming commission notified. HCL failed that night and is now trying to save face.
Edu1
Legend
Platinum Level
D
DS3
Legend
Loyaler
Correct.
First. There are many moments where Robbi exhibits a strange reaction to events as they play out. However, Garrett simply looks shocked and in disbelief. There is a construct that he somehow was 'intimidating' at the table...but, he essentially remained silent and then did not take even take an aggressive tone when she started needling him ('you look like you want to kill me' as Garrett was generally just looking off into the distance trying to work out what had happened). Even when she fumbled with 'I thought you had ace high', Garretts reply was 'then why did you call me with a jack?' in a questioning but not overtly angry tone.
And, as everyone has taken up sides here in the aftermath (par for the course these days) it is Bart Hanson's commentary in real time that is perhaps the most credible take on what was going on. First, he is a known and respected poker entity. He is shocked as the hand develops and is revealed. I am not saying he should have the power to say 'stop the stream' but Ryan Feldman who was monitoring the stream should have taken his reaction (let alone Garretts and Andy Stacks etc.) as an indication that the stream needed to be put on hold instantly.
Obviously, none of us can speak to the ensuing discussion off camera.
But, as you note, Hustler Casino Live (there needs to be more of a distinction made between the production company which presents the stream and the casino itself) has been sketchy over the last few days. The argument has been made that no one could imagine such a scenario therefore there was no protocol in place. Nonsense. After the Mike Postle episode at Stones Casino I would have imagined every live stream had discussed that specific scenario and how it might necessitate closing a stream instantly. As others have said, the need, for example, to instantly bag and tag all the cards in play etc. My sense is that HCL are now trying to put their finger on the scale and create a specific impression of events whereas just a few days before the initial position was all about a completely independent investigation. Now there are information tidbits here and there - but any lawyer would advise HCL to simply not discuss any details of what had taken place.
It is odd how Nick Vertucci and Ryan Feldman, though making lots of blustery statement about said independent investigation had yet (by the time of my writing this) not confirmed they had hired anyone to investigate. No doubt they will, but they were needed such a party on site that very night - in fact immediately
The issue which I and another poster first raised here regarding the Mike Postle scandal, when one and all were declaring 'guilty!' was the entire matter had been botched already. Trying the case in the court of Joey Ingram was absurd as all it did was gave weeks to Postle and whomever to dispose of any physical evidence. They should have contacted the police or FBI and conducted a sting operation. Having seen how that situation was mishandled, as I noted above, you would think each and every live stream had a protocol in place.
In fact, just read a Tweet from Bart Hanson - 'I think this is the kick in the butt live streams needed and good can come out of this'
Agree, except the Mike Postle scandal played out in technicolor so you would have thought HCL would provision for such an event. And, just to be clear (for the umpteenth time) I am not someone who leans towards Robbi having cheated.
Last edited:
Poker Orifice
FoolsTilt
Platinum Level
When are you playing next?
KUN_AGUERO_KROOS
Legend
Platinum Level
MattRyder
🍏 Tech That Works!
Platinum Level
Someday I hope to grow up to be an ultra-confident, smooth talking amateur poker player who never says the wrong thing, never stumbles on my words, never gets rattled, has the perfect clear and concise explanation for my every play at the ready at a moment’s notice even when streaming live.
Then I want to make a miracle call because I just know the other guy is BS’ing me and I just know everybody at Cardschat is going to spend a ton of time psycho-analyzing me after the fact.
Then I want to make a miracle call because I just know the other guy is BS’ing me and I just know everybody at Cardschat is going to spend a ton of time psycho-analyzing me after the fact.
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
Bart Hansson has posted a video now, where he explain both his thoughts on the hand in real time and his thoughts now, that he had time to think it over and go through the footage. In short he first thought, cheating was very likely, but now he no longer think so. Instead he think, Robbi is just so new to the game, she did not understand, she was making a long term unprofitable call against Garretts range.
The problem with this idea is, that while she is not a great poker player (from what I have seen), she is not that new either. She did for instance play the wsop main event this year and cashed. However there is another possible explanation, which you already hinted at earlier. When people play on streams, they do it partly for publicity and brand building.
So maybe she just wanted the fame, that would come from making a huge hero call against a famous player like Garrett. It would be an expensive way to buy that fame, but this is at least possible. Fame can have long term EV for a poker player, since it allow them to get invited to private high stakes games, that are often much softer than the public ones. Or get invited to other streams. Or maybe she is just a rich attention seeking person. Offering to play naked could point that way.
The reason, I think, this is at least a somewhat likely explanation, is a prior hand, where she called Garrett on the turn with a flushdraw drawing dead to his boat, and then tanked on the river with J high, when he overbet. Some like Doug Polk has pointed to this hand as suspicious, but the theory dont add up. If she had information, there is no reason, why she would only have it on the river. In the controversial hand she made her move on the turn. And if you know, you are behind on the turn, then you are obviously also behind on the river, when you failed to improve.
Furthermore it does not take a ton of time to beep somebodys vibrator or whatever, so there is no need for the tank. Much more likely she was actually considering to either call or raise the river with her J high, but then decided against it saying "you can have this one". And then when the next situation came up, where she was facing an overbet from Garrett with J high, she decided to go for it for the sake of fame and publicity.
What she had not anticipated is, that Garrett and most other pros including those at the table would see her actions as a sign of cheating. And obviously when asked about her play, she could not say "I just wanted to make a wild call on stream for the sake of fame". So instead she ended up making conflicting and inconsistent explanations, which further increased Garretts suspicion. If this is in fact, what happened, the whole situation is rather tragic. And Garrett obviously need to issue a public apology and pay her money back.
iwont20
Legend
Loyaler
I'm happy my post made you laugh for 7 hours straight since you keep on coming back to it. I'm all for it 🥰
iwont20
Legend
Loyaler
Garrett is a poker pro who made a living on winning against these kind of players and moves. Is he shocked once he wins just as much? Or is he happy to win an easy hand? Regwars have never been more profitable and are to no comparison to playing against amateurs. That's basics.
I agree that some hands are way crazier than some others, but in no way you gotta attack an amateur player like that. Can't hold of your emotions to smile at your loss or just not accuse a player right away, well then you're playing too high maybe? Or maybe your mental game is not at the level of a pro playing versus recreationals (with their "crazy" unpredictable moves). No excuses here, just no dignity behaviour.
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
I definitely think so. If you look at Andys facial expression, when she turn over her cards, he is also deeply disturbed about, what just happened, and he was not even involved in the hand. And Andy or Garrett are not disturbed, because she played poorly and won. They are disturbed, because they think, there is a high risk, something inproper just took place. Which is absolutely not a crazy thing to think given her hand and knowing about the Mike Postle case.
I have watched many hours of televised poker including the entire pokerstars "big game" series. There were also rich recreational players like Bill Perkins playing there. But I have never seen anything remotely as crazy as this hand, except when Mike Postle played on Stones. Where Garrett went wrong is, in what happened afterwards. Accepting or asking (there are different version of this) to get his money back and then stating publicly, he is 100% sure, he got cheated, is taking it to far. There is very limited evidence other than this one hand, that cheating took place. And then people should not make public accusations, like he did.
iwont20
Legend
Loyaler
I agree on the second part of your post, but disagree with the first. I wrote already thrice why. For real, for these pros a fish gotta only lose, if a fish wins, that's only due to cheating. They don't get that recreational players think different! AND their thinking is not supposed to make sense to a pro, since they win their best money because recreational game doesn't make sense. They gotta learn to face sometimes the other side of a coin. And behave. Because all these frowns on the play they don't get and immediate accusation just make them look as spoiled kids, once "a fish" dared to act outside of an image and a game strategy they are so used to assume and attach to all the new players.
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
I am sure, you can find lots of hands, where Garrett and the other pros from the stream have lost to recreational players, including hands where someone made a bad call against them, when they were bluffing. So this is not about Garrett thinking, that if a bad player win, they must be cheating. Bad players win hands all the time, and all pros know that. In fact if someone is a bad loser and handle himself poorly, its not Garrett but Phil Helmuth.
The whole controversy happened, because this call is so crazy, even for a recreational player, that the idea of faul play is fairly obvious, especially when it happen on a stream. If you think, this call is even remotely normal, then please point us to other recorded hands, where someone else did something similar. I am pretty confident, you wont be able to find any
R
redline0004
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Had HCL had a plan in place if a player accuses another player of cheating we wouldn’t be talking. They failed both players. They already had one player(skillzrocks) cheat what made them think another player wouldn’t cheat.
MrHachiman
Visionary
Bronze Level
The argument would make sense if the hand were not a flip coin at the time of the call. There was no certainty that she would win the hand with that call.I am sure, you can find lots of hands, where Garrett and the other pros from the stream have lost to recreational players, including hands where someone made a bad call against them, when they were bluffing. So this is not about Garrett thinking, that if a bad player win, they must be cheating. Bad players win hands all the time, and all pros know that. In fact if someone is a bad loser and handle himself poorly, its not Garrett but Phil Helmuth.
The whole controversy happened, because this call is so crazy, even for a recreational player, that the idea of faul play is fairly obvious, especially when it happen on a stream. If you think, this call is even remotely normal, then please point us to other recorded hands, where someone else did something similar. I am pretty confident, you wont be able to find any
I also wonder why she is forced to give an explanation that the "pro" can understand in their logic.
If she's a recreational player, and she wants to pay just out of intuition, or because she just wanted to see Garrett's cards. Why should they judge her?
It is hypocrisy in itself to ask a recreational player for a logical explanation in order to be satisfied with having lost.
If there are doubts about cheating, there will be asking for an investigation.
Accusing someone of cheating without any proof and asking for their money back is terrible behavior as a professional much more reprehensible than making a crazy call...
Shells
Moderator
Moderator
There are updates on this incident through a CardsChat article if anyone is interested.
Updates to the Hustler Live Stream - Adelstein vs Lew
KUN_AGUERO_KROOS
Legend
Platinum Level
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
A few points to be made here:
1) When Garrett jammed on her, she had already put in 20k, and there was money in the pot from the earlier streets. So the equities in the hand is not an argument, cheating made no sense.
2) Its not about "judging" someone. Its about legitimately thinking, there is a high chance, you just got cheated out of tousinds of dollars. No sane person would want to play in a high stakes game, if they thought, there was a high chance, cheating was going on. Therefore Garretts actions at the table were totally reasonable as well as his decision to leave the game. What was not so well handled by him or the management is, what happened backstage, and what he posted on social media afterwards.
3) I have now watched the first two hours of the previous stream, and nothing in the way, Robbi played on that stream, indicate to me, she is a recreational player. She is actually pretty good at poker, and she do all the same things, other good players do. She has good preflop hand selection. She 3-bet or raise over limps in situations, where recreational players would often just call. She bluffs quite a bit. She "downbet" on flops, which is very modern poker theory.
And she give up in all the spots, where other good players would also give up. Until the controversial hand that is. Then everything change, and she make a completely wild call and happen to be right. This does not prove, she was cheating. But then something else was going on other than her just being bad at poker. I have already given a suggestion of, what that could potentially have been.