Hustler Casino Live Controversy

MrHachiman

MrHachiman

Visionary
Bronze Level
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Total posts
535
Awards
2
Chips
18
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.
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?
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.
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,268
Awards
1
Chips
262
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?
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.
1. Yes basically this is the hypothesis for, how cheating could potentially have taken place. And its not sophisticated. On the countrary its a rudimentary system. But in a high security stream and after the Mike Postle case, its the best, anyone could potentially do, if they wanted to cheat on a stream. And as for being biased, maybe you should take a look at yourself?

Why is it so important for you to not be open to the idea, that cheating might have taken place? Because she is a woman, and woman dont cheat? Or woman are bad at poker, so its natural, she would make a really crazy play? I cant help feeling, that if she had been a guy, a lot of peoples opinion about this incidence might have been a bit different.

2. Agree on that.

3. I agree with your definition of a recreational player. But just because someone dont play for a living, does not mean, they are clueless about poker. Bill Klein played on the previous stream. He is not a professional player, but he is almost as good as the pros, and he take the game serious. He dont come just to have fun and donate his money to the pros.

So seeing someone play pretty well in a high stakes game for hours, and then suddenly make the most crazy call ever seen on TV is certainly not normal. You can just look at Bart Hanssons natural reaction, when the hand took place. "She called????? I wonder if there is a graphics error???" And he have watched more live stream hands than anybody else, since its basically his business.
 
MattRyder

MattRyder

🍏 Tech That Works!
Platinum Level
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Total posts
8,309
Awards
15
Chips
0
Seriously, go find a clip of Garrett losing his cool in the manner Robbi has now implied (outside in a darkened corridor?) anywhere. He is renowned for taking a bad beat graciously- in part because he gives so many. Was he not shocked but calm at the table?

Garrett is so admired because he is seen as one of the most polite players who never loses his cool. I have no skin in this game, as I said I never fan boy over anyone and if someone I like disappoints me, I have no issue amending my view.

As regards Garrett talking to Ryan Feldman, of course he did because Feldman (as stated) knew this was going to go viral as it made no sense. Yes, I am sure he is prioritized as Garrett has been the biggest draw to the stream since inception- they got him to move most of his play from Live At The Bike for a reason.

The tone you took in your post meant I could only conclude you pre-judged him. I have been objective from the outset, not claimed she cheated and only pointed out she made false claims and her story changed.

Want to know who has mirrored everything I said from the outset? Doug Polk.

Polk actually concludes that he believes she likely cheated but is not 100% sure and asks people to be objective. That said. he points out how her story falls apart numerous times and she blatantly lies over whether she checked her holding. Furthermore, having just watched his clip he confirms that she has ten years of experience (Hendon Mob) so she is not a 'rookie' as everyone is pretending although her buy ins shot up since May.

Then, the plot thickens. Reliable sources told Polk that though she has said to be married, she is known to be dating RIP (Jacob) who is thought to be one of Jake Paul's managers. If that is true, then they obviously hid the fact from everyone at the table when he showed for his first session on the stream so that could be more deception. That would explain why RIP felt entitled to make it his business.

Here's Polks take for what it's worth and I'll now head over to see how Matt Berkey has concluded she cheated...

I watched Polk’s video and was struck by two things:

1) he called this “girl … dumb”, and
2) he criticized her for changing her mind/story a number of times then proceeded to change his own mind/story a number of times.
 
R

redline0004

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 15, 2022
Total posts
9
US
Chips
0
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.
Don’t forget about the Eric perrson hand when she had AK vs A8 of hearts where she raised on the turn a little over minimum when most people would fold.
 
MrHachiman

MrHachiman

Visionary
Bronze Level
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Total posts
535
Awards
2
Chips
18
1. Yes basically this is the hypothesis for, how cheating could potentially have taken place. And its not sophisticated. On the countrary its a rudimentary system. But in a high security stream and after the Mike Postle case, its the best, anyone could potentially do, if they wanted to cheat on a stream. And as for being biased, maybe you should take a look at yourself?

Why is it so important for you to not be open to the idea, that cheating might have taken place? Because she is a woman, and woman dont cheat? Or woman are bad at poker, so its natural, she would make a really crazy play? I cant help feeling, that if she had been a guy, a lot of peoples opinion about this incidence might have been a bit different.

2. Agree on that.

3. I agree with your definition of a recreational player. But just because someone dont play for a living, does not mean, they are clueless about poker. Bill Klein played on the previous stream. He is not a professional player, but he is almost as good as the pros, and he take the game serious. He dont come just to have fun and donate his money to the pros.

So seeing someone play pretty well in a high stakes game for hours, and then suddenly make the most crazy call ever seen on TV is certainly not normal. You can just look at Bart Hanssons natural reaction, when the hand took place. "She called????? I wonder if there is a graphics error???" And he have watched more live stream hands than anybody else, since its basically his business.
It's not that I'm not open to that idea, it's just that there is no evidence that points in that direction and common sense tells me the opposite.
Cheating on a 50% spot with a marginal hand doesn't make sense. As I said before, you want to call with the certainty that you are winning. Why cheat and take a flip coin as your best spot?
Assuming it's the case that she cheated, are you going to run the river twice?
Assuming you've cheated on a flip coin, win both rivers, are you going to pay the money back after taking all that risk? what kind of scammer would that be?
Mike postle's case was very different from this. This case has been an isolated event, there is literally nothing to make a case against her other than that hand and the accusation of the player who has been hero called.
I would be more open to believing that she may have cheated as I said before, if the call had been on the river or it was discovered that she had made money with controversial hands. But is not the case.
So, if there are no objective facts and no evidence, beyond an isolated and unintuitive event to cheat. Why say that it is likely that she cheated? who is biased?

And the fact that you mention that I may be biased because she is a woman, speaks more about you than me. At no time have I considered her being male or female as a factor.
 
Last edited:
R

redline0004

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 15, 2022
Total posts
9
US
Chips
0
It's not that I'm not open to that idea, it's just that there is no evidence that points in that direction and common sense tells me the opposite.
Cheating on a 50% spot with a marginal hand doesn't make sense. As I said before, you want to call with the certainty that you are winning. Why cheat and take a flip coin as your best spot?
Assuming it's the case that she cheated, are you going to run the river twice?
Assuming you've cheated on a flip coin, win both rivers, are you going to pay the money back after taking all that risk? what kind of scammer would that be?
Mike postle's case was very different from this. This case has been an isolated event, there is literally nothing to make a case against her other than that hand and the accusation of the player who has been hero called.
I would be more open to believing that she may have cheated as I said before, if the call had been on the river or it was discovered that she had made money with controversial hands. But is not the case.
So, if there are no objective facts and no evidence, beyond an isolated and unintuitive event to cheat. Why say that it is likely that she cheated? who is biased?

And the fact that you mention that I may be biased because she is a woman, speaks more about you than me. At no time have I considered her being male or female as a factor.

I went from being pretty sure she was cheating to now in the middle but I do think your wrong about there isn’t any evidence that she was cheating. You clearly see an object(possibly a phone) in her pants. She also has changed her story several times why she called. I think running it twice is smarter(especially if she knows she gonna win the 1st hand) for her whether she was cheating or not because it creates doubt. Think about how many people have made that comment if she was cheating she would only run it once.
 
R

redline0004

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 15, 2022
Total posts
9
US
Chips
0
I went from being pretty sure she was cheating to now in the middle but I do think your wrong about there isn’t any evidence that she was cheating. You clearly see an object(possibly a phone) in her pants. She also has changed her story several times why she called. I think running it twice is smarter(especially if she knows she gonna win the 1st hand) for her whether she was cheating or not because it creates doubt. Think about how many people have made that comment if she was cheating she would only run it once.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,441
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
I watched Polk’s video and was struck by two things:

1) he called this “girl … dumb”, and
2) he criticized her for changing her mind/story a number of times then proceeded to change his own mind/story a number of times.

When did calling someone dumb become a mortal offense? Polk like everyone else got on the case for clicks. Polk added some things to the wider debate, but I noted clearly he was 95% she had cheated but not sure and he had asked people to be objective.

However, I stand by everything I have personally stated since the first to reply to the OP, where (for the 2nd time) I will repeat my first sentence and then another from the outset...

'trust me, hours later I still do not have a firm opinion....I am undecided. It's easy to leap to the cheat conclusion but it could just be a really, really poorly played, spewey hand...and then Robbi felt embarrassed to the point of returning money (none of it makes sense)'.

I have not waivered since.

I appreciated the clarity with which Polk ( as opposed to 12 hours of Joey Ingram) pointed out her story changed which mirrored my opinion and the facts, and then his referring to her Hendon Mob entry which showed she has experience. I was the glad Polk also noticed her Hendon Mob was then altered 24 hours later, because I spotted the same thing - that it had shrunk to less than half without a clear explanation from HM.

I have never said she cheated but posed she appears to be a quick, even practiced liar and someone who was looking to build a brand. The fact that she offered to play Garrett or anyone naked on an Only Fans stream (serious or in jest) sort of underlines where her head is at. Apparently Robbi has now added (I am not wading through anymore of Ingrams waffle to quote her exactly) that she suffers from ADHD and she had not taken her medication for that stream. Honestly, I don't care anymore because, as I said, I think she simply wanted to build a brand and is economical with the truth.

That can be held as one belief while not being persuaded she cheated.

Regarding Polk, he doubled down on the cheating aspect (with some provision) and I never agreed with that. As regards Garrett, I have repeatedly said accusing her of cheating was a misstep and the funds should have been held independently. Further, I believe Robbi has now implied they are negotiating to play heads up which I have stated would not only create the biggest poker stream ever, it might actually put the matter to bed.

I have a history within this thread (and elsewhere) of standing up for women issues, the treatment of women in poker. However, there is a difference between advocating for such an issue in general and then questioning whether a specific individual amending their story within hours is an honest actor.

I also have a history of being very active in the threads in poker news concerning cheating - I have initiated some myself. I had no issue revising my view of a player such a Jake Schindler who was a favorite of mine until I found out he was a cheat. Even though I really like Garrett Adelstein if he does not find a way to diffuse the situation amicably then I will have no problem revising my opinion of him.
 
VMVarga

VMVarga

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Total posts
217
Chips
0
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?
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.
if they cheated, then yes, they were very bad at it. Good cheaters are the ones that are never noticed at all. **** “common sense,” we operate on critical thinking, and took college courses on it and had to read Hughes/Lavery. Inference, is what we use, and there’s a chain of it that can be followed here, which is why so many people think this was cheating. We won’t know if it actually was cheating until the law firm finishes their investigation, but I suspect that some of you will not like their findings, and will claim they defy “common sense.”
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,268
Awards
1
Chips
262
I have a history within this thread (and elsewhere) of standing up for women issues, the treatment of women in poker. However, there is a difference between advocating for such an issue in general and then questioning whether a specific individual amending their story within hours is an honest actor.
Exactly. Even though we want more women to play poker, and we want them to be treated fairly, when they do, by no means does this mean, that woman are allowed to cheat, or that they are above criticism. So we should not look at this incidence any different, just because Robbi is a woman. Her gender does not matter at all.

I watched Polk’s video and was struck by two things:

1) he called this “girl … dumb”, and
2) he criticized her for changing her mind/story a number of times then proceeded to change his own mind/story a number of times.
I actually think, Doug Polks video is out of line. Both as far as to stating he is "90% sure she cheated", and the part about calling her dumb. I dont think, anyone can be 90% sure either way at this point. And after watching around 4-5 hours of her play on two streams, I think, he is positively wrong about her being dumb. I think, there are some prejudices in play here, because she is a young woman and look the way, she do.

Don’t forget about the Eric perrson hand when she had AK vs A8 of hearts where she raised on the turn a little over minimum when most people would fold.
Yes but that was in the same stream as the controversial hand. In the previous stream she did not do anything similar in the first 3 hours. I have yet to watch the last 3 hours of that stream. I dont want to jump to firm conclusions based on so little, but it does seem like, that IF cheating took place, it was only in the last stream.
Cheating on a 50% spot with a marginal hand doesn't make sense. As I said before, you want to call with the certainty that you are winning. Why cheat and take a flip coin as your best spot?
Because the alternative of folding is worse. If she fold, she lose around 25k on the hand, but if she call, she break-even with higher variance. Of course if she knew his cards, she would likely not have picked this spot to minraise the turn. But as I already explained, IF cheating took place, is was most likely some kind of signaling system only telling her, if she was good or not.
 
MattRyder

MattRyder

🍏 Tech That Works!
Platinum Level
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Total posts
8,309
Awards
15
Chips
0
When did calling someone dumb become a mortal offense? Polk like everyone else got on the case for clicks. Polk added some things to the wider debate, but I noted clearly he was 95% she had cheated but not sure and he had asked people to be objective.

However, I stand by everything I have personally stated since the first to reply to the OP, where (for the 2nd time) I will repeat my first sentence and then another from the outset...

'trust me, hours later I still do not have a firm opinion....I am undecided. It's easy to leap to the cheat conclusion but it could just be a really, really poorly played, spewey hand...and then Robbi felt embarrassed to the point of returning money (none of it makes sense)'.

I have not waivered since.

I appreciated the clarity with which Polk ( as opposed to 12 hours of Joey Ingram) pointed out her story changed which mirrored my opinion and the facts, and then his referring to her Hendon Mob entry which showed she has experience. I was the glad Polk also noticed her Hendon Mob was then altered 24 hours later, because I spotted the same thing - that it had shrunk to less than half without a clear explanation from HM.

I have never said she cheated but posed she appears to be a quick, even practiced liar and someone who was looking to build a brand. The fact that she offered to play Garrett or anyone naked on an Only Fans stream (serious or in jest) sort of underlines where her head is at. Apparently Robbi has now added (I am not wading through anymore of Ingrams waffle to quote her exactly) that she suffers from ADHD and she had not taken her medication for that stream. Honestly, I don't care anymore because, as I said, I think she simply wanted to build a brand and is economical with the truth.

That can be held as one belief while not being persuaded she cheated.

Regarding Polk, he doubled down on the cheating aspect (with some provision) and I never agreed with that. As regards Garrett, I have repeatedly said accusing her of cheating was a misstep and the funds should have been held independently. Further, I believe Robbi has now implied they are negotiating to play heads up which I have stated would not only create the biggest poker stream ever, it might actually put the matter to bed.

I have a history within this thread (and elsewhere) of standing up for women issues, the treatment of women in poker. However, there is a difference between advocating for such an issue in general and then questioning whether a specific individual amending their story within hours is an honest actor.

I also have a history of being very active in the threads in Poker News concerning cheating - I have initiated some myself. I had no issue revising my view of a player such a Jake Schindler who was a favorite of mine until I found out he was a cheat. Even though I really like Garrett Adelstein if he does not find a way to diffuse the situation amicably then I will have no problem revising my opinion of him.
Nobody other than you characterized him calling her a dumb girl as a “mortal sin”, but it definitely implies a “macho-man” attitude that simply has no place in a respectful analysis of a significant news item in the 21st century.

I know you have an extensive history of posting and indeed reposting your views on many matters here in great detail. It’s clear you’re convinced she’s a liar. I’m not sure where you got the offer-to-play-nude-thing or the ADHD/off-her-meds-thing. I have not read completely through every item in this thread or its sister thread, so I’ve likely missed some evidence of both. Of course without that it would simply be character-bashing.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,441
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
Nobody other than you characterized him calling her a dumb girl as a “mortal sin”, but it definitely implies a “macho-man” attitude that simply has no place in a respectful analysis of a significant news item in the 21st century.

I know you have an extensive history of posting and indeed reposting your views on many matters here in great detail. It’s clear you’re convinced she’s a liar. I’m not sure where you got the offer-to-play-nude-thing or the ADHD/off-her-meds-thing. I have not read completely through every item in this thread or its sister thread, so I’ve likely missed some evidence of both. Of course without that it would simply be character-bashing.
Well, I followed the episode in close to real time which is why I was the first to reply to the OP and form an opinion of Robbi likely not cheating but patently having little problem with amending her stories.

Regarding details- yes, they are important.

As for character bashing, I believe quoting Robbi and the words out of her own mouth is not character bashing but providing an informed opinion. By way of example - Robbi twice in the hand itself says (to Mike X I believe) she does not have a pair of threes and then she does not have a three. Once the hand has played out she scrambles to justify things and is reaching for anything which makes sense. It is then when Robbi reverses and mentions having a three - that was the origin of the 'I thought I had a three' nonsense. In the midst of this she also claimed to not look back at her cards when she did so repeatedly for a span of seventeen seconds.

Further, it was at this juncture that she also stumbled with 'I thought you had an ace' to which Garrett makes his first reply of 'then why did you call with jack high?'. Talking to Joey Ingram in the aftermath Robbi stated that she had offered to pay Garrett the funds back then that story changed to Garrett had demanded she return the funds.

Note also, I said the Polk mirrored the things I said. I did not say that I agreed with everything he said and was careful to point out exactly where I stood.

Another thing which I found deceptive about her overall was the manner with which she was portrayed as a 'rookie' when it was patently obvious she was quite experienced and had a Hendon Mob profile (which as noted was somehow amended and shrank with 24 hours). Then it turned out the friend she brought to play RIP (Jacob) was in fact her partner a fact they withheld from the other players. Mike X appeared the only one to know they has something of a relationship. It was further revealed that RIP had staked her and when confronted on that manner, there was a lack of clarity as to how much. Robbi sort of confirmed it had been at least 50% then waffled on 'others' backing her. No one at the table was aware of this which is why the other players were confused when RIP injected himself into the dispute.

So, under those circumstances I believe it legitimate to question her honesty. I even bothered to state some in life are habitual and harmless liars (is this a newsflash to any adult?) and Robbi's problem was this all had played out in front of thousands, then ultimately hundreds of thousands.

Then in closing, just from my own observation of people, I did not like her spiky, even nasty tone after she won the hand when she started needling Garrett who at that point had not actually said one word and was not 'death staring' her. I can understand her fluster followed by an instinct for defense but going straight for the nasty as default mode speaks volumes about 'character'. Robbi just as easily could have turned to joking and apologizing for the fact she 'lucked out' but didn't.

And that is odd, because looking at Robbi's reaction from a behavioralist's perspective it does not make sense. One weird indicator is she both expresses no surprise when the J4 is revealed and in that same moment she also fails to express delight that the hand was won. This is precisely when micro-expressions during such a stressed moment would be something which are virtually impossible to mask. Which is where I think it is interesting if she admitted she takes drugs to treat ADHD (if that is true).

However, she was factually deceptive both in things she said and actions she took which as I have been at pains to be clear about, does not mean she cheated at the table, but that she could well be of a type.
 
Last edited:
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,268
Awards
1
Chips
262
In the latest twist of events a now former employee of Hustlers Casino was arrested for stealing 15k in chips from Robbi after the show. And this person apparently had access to the RFID information in real time. Meanwhile Garrett has donated the 135k, he got back from Robbi, to charity.

 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,441
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
In the latest twist of events a now former employee of Hustlers Casino was arrested for stealing 15k in chips from Robbi after the show. And this person apparently had access to the RFID information in real time. Meanwhile Garrett has donated the 135k, he got back from Robbi, to charity.

Yup, I caught up with this as well and, honestly, I do not know what to think at this point. Even Draft Kings seems to be underscoring what a soap opera this has turned into.

I have questioned some things emerging with the production side (if you recall, I have said there needs to be a distinction made between HCL and the Hustler Casino itself because they are not the same entity). Nick Vertucci does not have a stellar reputation. I have not brought it up here because I do not want to tip the scales. But, I actually think that they themselves have done so in order to gin up increasing interest.

For example for all the immediate drama, no one has asked HCL why they took a week to actually hire someone to investigate. At this point (like the Postle case) if anything untoward had taken place with either cards or technology it would have been disposed of. I do not necessarily believe either was in play but letting a week pass by renders any serious investigation redundant as it is now incapable of proving much of anything.

My guess was that Vertucci and Feldman were going to be informed of some tech issues they could improve and they would make a song and dance of doing so. But I guess firing an employee for theft conveniently proves they are on the job. That said...this just happened to be the first time an employee helped himself to some chips?

Also, is video tape available for the area the dispute took place or not? Robbi initially claimed it was in a dark corridor off the casino rooms but then it was stated as being where the players lockers are located, so would not not have also been under video surveillance? I doubt that would have audio but it would sure as hell clarify whether Garrett was being 'threatening' or not.

Just my conjecture, but I would guess Vertucci is trying to gauge which path maintains the most eyes on the future streams... Robbi or Garrett. Meanwhile Live At The Bike has released a clip to no doubt lure Garrett back to play on their stream. They showed Garrett taking some bad beats (one by a female) to show Garrett handles such beats well. Slow and somewhat corny couple of examples. They should have shown numerous showdowns in a rapid edit where Garrett lost the hand and took it well, as he does.
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,268
Awards
1
Chips
262
Yup, I caught up with this as well and, honestly, I do not know what to think at this point. Even Draft Kings seems to be underscoring what a soap opera this has turned into.
Obviously one can speculate, that the "stolen" chips were his payment for assisting with the cheating, and that this is then also why, she did not report him to the police. That would be a very risky and stupid way of transfering his share. But then again, if she was cheating, then making a crazy call with J high was also not a clever way of doing it. Or maybe he got scared, she would not pay him, and decided to help himself. Either way this incidence, which was apparently caught on security camera, does not help in making the suspicion of cheating go away.
 
KUN_AGUERO_KROOS

KUN_AGUERO_KROOS

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Total posts
1,252
Awards
2
Chips
156
Wow. Two days ago I was 85% sure she didn't cheat, yesterday It was a coin flip, but now the guy who stole her money sends the most suspicious message to her and she posts it on twitter.

Calling Garrett a crybaby is a dead giveaway he didn't write it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20221007_133334.jpg
    IMG_20221007_133334.jpg
    190 KB · Views: 12
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,441
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
Wow. Two days ago I was 85% sure she didn't cheat, yesterday It was a coin flip, but now the guy who stole her money sends the most suspicious message to her and she posts it on twitter.

Calling Garrett a crybaby is a dead giveaway he didn't write it.
Yet another debatable twist in a series of improbable events. Bryan Sagbigsal, the thief himself is now scheduled to appear of Joey Ingrams show...you cannot make this farce up.

See below for my weekend update.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,441
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
I am near to tapping out on this drama.

The employee theft reveal compelled me to wade through Joey Ingram’s stream one more time (at double speed and skipping parts) and I emerged the other end convinced of one thing – this is feeling more like contrived reality TV than an actual incident (s). I am not claiming fabrication as such, but rather embellishment and contradiction at every turn.

Regarding Bryan Sagbigsal (the thief), though Robbi stated he did not have a criminal record, he has an extensive one. I do not necessarily think this reflects on Robbi as she said this is what the police told her (when she did not press charges) but it does reflect on HCL. Vertucci was with the police at one point early in his career but this proves security was woeful on the stream. Not simply because Sagbigsal had responsibilities in the secure tech section with hole card information, but because the clown was playing high stakes in the casino itself before and after his shift. That’s right. A lowly paid, young employee was out on the casino floor in front of one and all regularly blowing through tens of thousands without any of the principals twigging he had a gambling habit and was a suspect employee. He had also openly searched for clarity as to how anyone could have assisted in the prior chess cheating scandal.

I honestly do not care if he wrote the tweet to Robbi (I thought he had already deleted his Twitter account). He is scheduled to appear on Joey’s next stream. You can’t make this up - the era of no shame. The thrust of this reveal meant during the first half or so of the podcast, guests came on to say this was a farce and it was tipping them towards the cheating theory. Things which have been clarified over the last couple of days.

It has now been admitted RIP (Jacob) staked her 100% with a 50/50 split of profits. Except on that stream it was with borrowed funds from yet another Hustler regular (?) as RIP claimed a cash flow problem. Additionally, Beanz got on the podcast (another Hustler player) and revealed he had had prior financial transactions with Robbi but would not reveal why or how much. Odd as she is cast as independently wealthy with a wealthy husband to boot – why is there any need for her to be staked? Further, Eric Persson confirmed no one at the table was aware of the backing deal or Robbi and RIP were in cahoots.

However, that means four people were involved in fronting large sums of money back and forth to get on the Hustler Stream. Not necessarily dubious in high stakes circles...except for the fact they all admit they had only known each other for a limited period. Then in the second half of the podcast, Robbi yet again phoned in and it was an absolute cluster****.

Shaun Deeb and Haralabus Voulgaris were on stream already. Robbi proceeded to rant for over thirty minutes attacking Shaun Deeb for trying to arrange heads up matches, forgetting she had volunteered to play anyone heads up naked to showcase her ‘poker skills’. She attacked Voulgaris with another round of ‘who the F are you?’ and did likewise to Bill Perkins. ..’who the F was he?’ In fact it was F bomb after F bomb as Robbi lashed out at all of them trying to take her down and ruin her when she was just a simple gal trying to play some poker. She stated Joey was the only one admitting he was nothing but a troll (?) and they were all piling on for the clicks and views.

Then she ran out of steam and was close to sweetness and light, conciliatory for the next thirty minutes or so. Just bizarre. However after she was done with excoriating them all for trading off her scandal to raise their own profile, she then mentioned her LA times article and the fact she is flying to Las Vegas today (Saturday) for a wedding and to meet with parties about launching her own poker channel.

That’s right. Her own poker channel.

I will repeat, once more, I still do not believe this adds up to a ‘technical’ cheating scandal. As I said from the off, I believe Robbi was determined to create a brand and a series of improbable events have fallen into her lap. From that stream, I think she, her husband and several others (such as HCL) have all tried to hype the event as though it was reality TV. Except where it all falls short is that reality television is outlined, scripted and then edited – doh! So these folks can’t keep their stories straight, motives appear sketchy and Joey Ingram might as well be Inspector Clouseau for all his stoner ‘investigating’.

Regarding anyone’s ‘truth’ I think the problem we all face is a societal one – truth is now disposable. A character such as Robbi emerges and her economy with the truth and shifting tales are jarring. Except over the longer arc, who cares anymore? Robbi has raised her profile with lightening speed and apparently now has investors interested in backing her. We’ll see. But it should be obvious that those investors aren’t concerned at all with the specifics of what took place at HCL, but whether they can potentially profit of her rocket-like profile to an audience who likely could not give a crap how she got from A to B.

I am sure many will conclude this was amazing and credible brand building.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,441
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
Okay, I guess this thing is heading to some kind of breaking point as Garrett has released at statement where he states that Robbi, RIP and Bryan were likely cheating together.

He also raises questions about Airball and Beanz playing on the Hustler stream, mixed up in the background in terms of backing/exchanging funds and potentially collaborating, all of whom it appears along with RIP having shady pasts.

Garrett has linked to various video clips which are alleged to have shown Robbi and RIP signalling to each other.

Joey Ingram has this statement but it does not appear to be released on Twitter. bSo i am trying to find out how to watch the clips.

This is bananas.
 
zorro222_zorro222

zorro222_zorro222

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Dec 26, 2019
Total posts
3,309
Awards
4
CA
Chips
169
wow, this story just gets weirder and weirder, thanks for the update!
 
zorro222_zorro222

zorro222_zorro222

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Dec 26, 2019
Total posts
3,309
Awards
4
CA
Chips
169
I can understand why many are switching from thinking 'non-cheater' to 'cheater', the latest turn is awfully suspicious. I still don't know, I just hope the truth comes out eventually.
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,268
Awards
1
Chips
262
The employee theft reveal compelled me to wade through Joey Ingram’s stream one more time
Joye Ingrams "investigation" for, what is it now, like 50+ hours, is farcical, and I am not going to spend my time watching any of it. Doug Polk and Bart Hansson have made some excellent videos about the situation, and watching them give people all the knowledge, they need to have. I rewatched the first video, Doug Polk posted, and apart from calling Robbi "incredibly dumb" it was spot on.
 
Organize a Home Poker Game Casino Reviews - Mobile Casinos - Real Money Casinos - iPhone Casinos - Android Casinos - Online Casinos - Canada Casinos - UK Casinos - href="https://www.cardschat.com/new-zealand/casinos/">NZ Casinos - href="https://www.cardschat.com/in/casinos/">India Casinos
Top