MrHachiman
Visionary
Bronze Level
1) So basically your argument is that she was given some kind of green light to call by telling her to "go ahead" when in reality she only had a 50% chance of winning the pot, and that the person who gave her the green light, in turn he know that given the money she had already put in the pot, that call was better than folding?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.
Wow, what a sophisticated way to cheat.
I imagine that if she were to cheat, she would prefer to go to the river more often to make calldowns, than to be in a situation of this type
But no matter what common sense says, when you are biased to see a certain situation one way or another, you can come up with sophisticated conspiracy theories to back up your position.
2) It does become "judging" when you make public statements claiming that someone has cheated. Before the casino has investigated the case.
3) So your argument is that a recreational player can't know a preflop hand selection and play decently and sometimes just blow the pot? Your stereotype of a recreational player is that he has to make crazy plays all the time?
I do not agree at all. My concept to define a recreational player is that unlike Garrett, she doesn't live from poker. As simple as that.