Hustler Casino Live Controversy

[DS3]

Am I really the one bringing insinuations?

I didn't imply you were "mischaracterizing Garrett".

All I'm saying is that, as a fan, your judgment is clouded.

You're not going to find a single quote of mine saying that Garrett is not "chilled" or "gentlemanly" during the livestreams. That's pure strawman fallacy.

As I said before, people act way differently in front of a camera.

That's why, IMO, basing your conclusion on livestreams seems very naive.

Garrett wouldn't show his true colors and snap in front of his fandom.

Stuff like: " I know Garrett's character from watching him for the past few years" sounds like a fan talking about knowing her idol's character after watching a reality show.

I'm sorry, you don't know Garrett's character unless you've met him and spent time knowing him.



One last thing, you keep bringing her Hendon Mob profile as an argument. You should check that again. You will be surprised.

Okay, so explain to me factually why my judgement is clouded. Bring it with the Garrett Adelstein is actually putting on a front evidence.

Your contention about not knowing Garrett's character is comical. I have followed him from his 'Survivor' days in 2014. He laughs off setbacks, I believe a confidence that comes from being both handsome and intelligent. Surely, as you keep hammering on the 'I don't know' him, then there must be accounts of Garrett being sketchy or ill tempered that you could point us to.

Otherwise all you do is back yourself into a silly corner. None of us 'know' public figures from a distance but anyone with intelligence can at least make a read after watching them for hundreds of hours. The same cannot be said about Robbi who showed for three streams which is the point I have consistently made.

 

[DS3]

After seen the entire sequence, I have to say that Garrett acted like an idiot.
Professionalism is also knowing how to lose. All of us who have played poker for a long time know how stupid it is to get mad at a recreational player for making a bad call or play. It is precisely those types of plays that make you win money in the long run.

As for the accusations that she was cheating, it seems even lower on her part to believe that the only way they can catch a combodraw is by cheating. There is no proof of this, and the most succinct proof is that she calls on Turn, when her odds were less than 50%. If she was cheating, it's still a very marginal call.

Therefore, not only that the reaction at the table has been unprofessional. But outside the table when Garret has been able to think coldly he has continued with the meaningless accusations.
And as if it could be worse, he has accepted the money back.
I can't imagine a worse loser and a more polluting type of professional than this.

Has anyone ever wondered what would happen if he won one of the rivers or both?
would she still be cheating? or would it have just been a donk-call?

Why oh why don't some of you actually bother with the facts as they are now out everywhere.

Garrett could well have been mistaken to conclude she cheated. However, as Robbi later admitted though suspicious and unsettled, Garrett neither directly accused her of cheating or demanded her money back in the moment, at or away from the table within Hustler Casino. She suggested to give it back to lessen the drama.

Yes, Garrett did then publicly, hours later Tweet he believed she cheated (and might yet pay a consequence for that) but you are not relating events as they happened.

 

[MrHachiman]

Why oh why don't some of you actually bother with the facts as they are now out everywhere.

Garrett could well have been mistaken to conclude she cheated. However, as Robbi later admitted though suspicious and unsettled, Garrett neither directly accused her of cheating or demanded her money back in the moment, at or away from the table within Hustler Casino. She suggested to give it back to lessen the drama.

Yes, Garrett did then publicly, hours later Tweet he believed she cheated (and might yet pay a consequence for that) but you are not relating events as they happened.

no matter the order of events, he accepted the money. That just says it all.
And who is the victim here? You can't publicly accuse someone because you "think she cheated" without any proof.
I find it funny that some think that Garrett is the victim here.

 

[fundiver199]

I watched the stream until the controversial hand, and obviously that hand is completely crazy in itself. Starting with the obvious, we know from the Stones gambling Hall / Mike Postle incidence, that cheating is possible in a live stream. However Robbi did not have a phone, nor was she wearing a hat to potentially hide a bone conducting headset. So neither of the methods alledgedly used by Mike Postle to gain information about his opponents hole cards were available to Robbi.

This mean, that if cheating took place, it has to be some simpler method like a vibrator in her pocket, which would not tell her the exact cards of her opponent but only, weather or not she was ahead, or maybe a suggestion to bet/raise or not. With this hypothesis in mind, there are actually some other hands prior to the controversial one, which seem a little weird and consistent with this kind of cheating.

The hand against Garrett involved her min-raising on the turn in a situation, where most other players would have folded, because she basically had nothing, and she was facing a second barrel. Now obviously she could just have felt, that this was a good time to go for an airball bluff not even considering her cards. But in the relatively short time span of just 1h 45min, which the stream had lasted, there are two other hands, where she raised in spots, where most players would have called or folded, and all three times she happened to be ahead.

The first is a hand, where she defended her blinds with QJ and flopped top pair on a monotone board against an opponent, who had top pair worse kicker. Here she check-raised the flop, which is quite a bit of an overplay, since she could be dead to a flush, and she would also be behind to an overpair or even just AQ or KQ. But it worked out perfect for her, since her opponent happened to have Q9 and paid her off on the flop and turn. She did check the river though, so if she was cheating, she did not try to milk it for the last dollars.

The next weird hand is one, where she just call a 3-bet in position with AK. Someone else calls behind. The preflop 3-bettor has A8, and he C-bet the flop with nothing. Robby call, the third player fold. On the turn its still A8 high against AK high. A8 high C-bet again, and now Robbi raise AK in a situation, where the vast majority of poker players would just give up and fold. Its possible of course, that she just felt like turning her hand into a bluff. But it is a fact, that in a short frame of time, she managed to raise for value in 3 hands in spots, where most players would fold or call, and she happened to be right 3 out of 3 times.

This is not a huge sample of course and nowhere near, what we have on Mike Postle. She apparently played in two previous streems, and I have not gone through those. But watching 1 hour and 45 minutes, where she was not involved all that much (her VPIP was only 20%) and finding 3 unusual and perfect decisions, is a bit suspicious to me. Are those 3 hands enough evidence to say, she cheated? No. But is it possible, she cheated? Definitely yes.

Finally I want to add some comments about, what people have said in this thread about her and Garrett. Starting with Garrett, in my opinion its totally reasonable to be alert about potential cheating in streamed cash games after the Mike Postle case. Garrett clearly felt, that this hand was so fishy, that he strongly suspected cheating. And I dont see anything wrong in being vocal about that and asking the player to explaing, why they did, what they did.

As for Robbi the idea, she is just some kind of recreational player having fun and not knowing, what she is doing, I dont buy into that. This is basically the highest stakes, you can play on any live stream, and somehow she ended up here with very minimal poker history behind her. In such a sitaution its totally reasonable to ask, who was staking her and why? And if somebody is being staked, its generally not with the idea, that they are going to just gamble the money away.

Yes you do see people making really bad plays in poker. But you see that in freerolls or microstakes online. In that kind of setting seeing someone call a 3-bet shove on the turn with J high no draw might just be a player on tilt, who do not care about losing their chips. But this was a decision for $109k, and nothing in her behaviour indicate, she was drunk or on drugs.

So all in all I do think, this looks fairly fishy. I can not blaim Garrett for reacting, like he did, and I think, Hustlers casino need to investigate the matter with particular focus on those staff members, who have access to the stream in real time.

 

[MrHachiman]

As for Robbi the idea, she is just some kind of recreational player having fun and not knowing, what she is doing, I dont buy into that. This is basically the highest stakes, you can play on any live stream, and somehow she ended up here with very minimal poker history behind her. In such a sitaution its totally reasonable to ask, who was staking her and why? And if somebody is being staked, its generally not with the idea, that they are going to just gamble the money away.

Yes you do see people making really bad plays in poker. But you see that in freerolls or microstakes online. In that kind of setting seeing someone call a 3-bet shove on the turn with J high no draw might just be a player on tilt, who do not care about losing their chips. But this was a decision for $109k, and nothing in her behaviour indicate, she was drunk or on drugs.

Mate, are you aware that what for you are a lot of money for another person it can be a penny?
Do you think there can be no recreational players in high stakes? If that were true, believe me almost no one would be sitting there playing. That's why it's so important to take care of players like Robbi, and Garret attitude is toxic. What is the message you are sending? If you're recreational, you can't beat me with a crazy hand, or you'll be accused without any proof that you were cheating. Lol

 

[fundiver199]

Do you think there can be no recreational players in high stakes?

Sure there can. But then its generally known, how they earned their money. Like when Hustlers did a stream with famous Youtubers including "MrBeast". But the closest, we have gotten to an explanation about, how Robbi could afford to play in this game, is, that she is "married to a rich lawyer". So in all likelyhood she is a staked player, and staked players are supposed to do their best to win.

 

[Four Dogs]

Yes, it was a bad call.

But it makes no sense to know your opponent's cards and then decide to flip and run twice.

That would've been a terrible spot to cheat. You have to avoid tons of outs.

I'm pretty sure she doesn't really care about that amount of money and went YOLO mode or it was a brain fart.

Either way, shame on Garrett for demanding an explanation and bullying her. Grow a pair, sore loser. Give her money back.

I haven't read through the entire thread so maybe someone already commented on this but in regards to "knowing you opponents cards", you don't have to. IF she were cheating, and that's a big IF, the easiest way to pull this off would be some form of vibrator (no jokes please) that would simply alert her to whether or not she were ahead or behind. So, someone else would have information and simply convey it to her is some fashion that was not obvious to anyone but her.

I watched Doug Polks take on it, Probably WAS Cheating, and Daniel Negreanu's NOT as well as Jonathan Little's also NO. With the Mike Postle cheating scandal still fresh in our minds I can certainly understand Garrett being suspicious, and if this hand were against another Pro or even a good Rec, I might start to lean slightly towards the PWC camp as played this hand made zero sense! And her explanations made no sense either:
"I put you on Ace High" So you called with Jack high?
"I thought I had a 3" But you looked at your cards before you called.
"If my Jack wasn't a club I wouldn't have called". The jack being a club was a reason to FOLD, not to CALL. Holding an opponents possible draw card makes it more likely that he's betting for value.
"this is a pure bluff catcher". So did you think you had a small pair or not?

But the word salad is in no way indicative of cheating but IMO more in line with her being nervous and uncomfortable sitting at a table full of men, all of which are clearly more experienced than she was all the while Garrett grilling her and giving her the Evil Eye.

So if PNC than why return the money? Garrett claims she offered and he accepted taking that as admission of guilt. She claims she was cornered, intimidated and pressured by Garrett Ryan Feldman and Nick Vertucci to return the money as a way to "diffuse" the situation. Garrett denies making the ask but Feldman and Vertucci have corroborated her version of the story. According to both, Garrett initiated the pay back by suggesting the "only way" to make this right was for her to return the money.

Wow, talk about burying the lead! THIS should not have been allowed to happen and IMO was the greatest injustice of the entire fiasco. Granted the hand was suspicious but as of yet there is not the slightest bit of evidence of cheating and no credible mechanism for how it would have been done. Yes, Hustler Live should do its due diligence and undertake an investigation which may or may not bear fruit regardless of the truth of the matter. That said, Garrett was wrong to ask and wrong to accept and Hustler was wrong to allow it on their premises and indeed wrong to even allow her to be put in that position.

Very interesting story though. Really perked me up.

 

[zorro222_zorro222]

Absolutely agree.

I am getting to the point where I think it is not worth my effort - it's just another scandal/click bait episode which gathers views but not a lot else. And I do not think these exposes benefit poker in any way.

I watched Doug Polk's second update. He was yet 90% she cheated but offers no evidence. I still don't necessarily agree but he raised a few points.

The first being (as detailed) on the live stream she twice denies, after being asked by other players, if she has a three as the hand plays out in real time. That 'I thought I had a three' became a post blow up construct.

What really bugged me today as I quickly 'reviewed' things again, was when I double checked the Hendon Mob I found the page altered. I thought I was going mad. No, Doug Polk and others confirmed it. Multiple entries were removed overnight and her entries shrank from 40 to 15. The reason given (I am not sure by whom- it does not appear the Hendon Mob) is that there were two people with the same name. Really? Two 'Robbi Jade Lews'- that is ridiculous. Nonetheless she still has over $65,000 in winnings including a $20,000 first place win in LA a month ago - yet Faraz Jaka is till calling her 'new' to the game.

I am heading to the conclusion she is something of a truth black hole and not a lot more. I am not convinced it was anything but a truly dreadful play where she wants to still claim there was at least an amount of credibility behind her call. As for stating facts, there is virtually nothing in her story, on or off the table which has remained constant. The other day Berkey was using the term occam's Razor a little ham fistedly, but...I'll use the concept myself here...the simplest explanation.

The simplest explanation to me is that she one of those people who is perennially economical with the truth. A habitual and mostly harmless liar. We have all met them and in the normal course of business we just shrug our shoulders and do not take such people seriously. The problem here is it was in a fraught situation (literally and figuratively high stakes) in front of tens of the thousands watching. Like a child caught in an embarrassing situation the default mode is to start creating a tissue of dubious facts to support a more credible position.

To boot, I find her spikey and dislikable. She was pretty acid at the table after the hand had played out and she was nasty and dismissive of Shaun Deeb on Ingam's podcast when he began by asking her what was her relationship with RIP (Jacob) etc.? She sarcastically, immediately went to the 'I don't know who you are' place as if he had no right to ask her anything, as if he was some rando who just showed on Joey's stream. Within a few minutes it was obvious she knew who he was and replied as such. Again, why the web of silly lies?

Finally, though I believe I am the first person at Cards Chat who promoted Hustler Casino Live streams at launch - the production quality was excellent - I have since tired quite a bit of Nick Vertucci as a co-founder with Ryan Feldman (who keeps a lower profile). Vertucci increasingly appears to be one of those characters that finds controversy or controversy finds him. My guess is some sort of 'scandal' will keep popping up with regularity as the cast of characters is deliberately poorly vetted. On Joey's podcast one cringe moment for me was when Vertucci said he wanted to build the stream and then sell it for tens of millions in a few years - therefore why jeopardize anything? Yet I am not aware anyone had accused Hustler of being involved in any potential cheating. That's where he went. But, he admitted that dubious folks are going to show on the stream and I am sure that suits his agenda.

Then, a day ago a Hustler surrogate claimed there would be an announcement with hours about 'something seen/identified' on the stream. Nothing materialized. It all a little too click baity at this point.

100% agree, my thoughts exactly !!

 

[MrHachiman]

Sure there can. But then its generally known, how they earned their money. Like when Hustlers did a stream with famous Youtubers including "MrBeast". But the closest, we have gotten to an explanation about, how Robbi could afford to play in this game, is, that she is "married to a rich lawyer". So in all likelyhood she is a staked player, and staked players are supposed to do their best to win.

And why couldn't she be married to someone rich and be a recreational player?
If someone is rich, they don't need to win money from a staked player. Too much conspiracy is needed to make Garrett look good.. It's more liklely that she's married to someone who can fund her poker career and doesn't even care if she's doing well or not. Too much drama to cheat with such a marginal call.

 

[fundiver199]

And why couldn't she be married to someone rich and be a recreational player?

That nobody in the poker world heard about before? And suddenly she appear in the highest stakes streamed game? And with a Twitter account indicating she is some kind of professional player? This story just does not add up.

 

[Four Dogs]

That's not it. She's dating one of the players at the table and getting coaching from Faraz Jaka. One possibility that makes sense, maybe the most sense, is that she was high.

 

[Bricxjo]

It does seem like part of the story is not being told to us. Until I know that (which may never happen), I really don't know what to think.

 

[KUN_AGUERO_KROOS]

So Garrett lied on twitter.

Wrong.

Berkey contended a few things which were off such as she was a novice (he never checked her Hendon Mob profile)

Regarding Garrett lying on Twitter. Really?

Quoting you:

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

 

[KUN_AGUERO_KROOS]

I have followed him from his 'Survivor' days in 2014. He laughs off setbacks, I believe a confidence that comes from being both handsome and intelligent.

Ok. It makes sense now your willingness to defend him.

I thought you were one of those poker fanboy geeks who adore Garrett because of his plays during the livestreams.

But this is a whole new level of devotion and admiration for the guy.

Not judging you, you do you, but now it makes sense how personal it feels to read people criticizing your idol.

You take as we are cursing a relative.

 

[maestro121920]

all we can do is wait and see, this is going to be interesting in the coming days

 

[redline0004]

And why couldn't she be married to someone rich and be a recreational player?
If someone is rich, they don't need to win money from a staked player. Too much conspiracy is needed to make Garrett look good.. It's more liklely that she's married to someone who can fund her poker career and doesn't even care if she's doing well or not. Too much drama to cheat with such a marginal cal

no matter the order of events, he accepted the money. That just says it all.
And who is the victim here? You can't publicly accuse someone because you "think she cheated" without any proof.
I find it funny that some think that Garrett is the victim here.

What says it all. If you believed you were cheated wouldn’t you take the money. At the end of the day I don’t agree with how her side has handle it. She has given to many excuses why she called. This could/should be the greatest hero call of all time but to many what ifs.

 

[DS3]

no matter the order of events, he accepted the money. That just says it all.
And who is the victim here? You can't publicly accuse someone because you "think she cheated" without any proof.
I find it funny that some think that Garrett is the victim here.

Yes, he accepted the money which I think was a mistake. Garret also stated publicly on Twitter that she was guilty of cheating which I also think was a mistake.

All I am saying is if someone is going to detail a timeline of events then at least bother to get the timeline right. Garrett does not look good but the main issue I have with Robbi is her story has changed numerous times and kept evolving. Even Hustler's take on matters keeps being amended. Therefore if we are going to get any clarity on, things should be dissected accurately as they happened - from the hand itself to the immediate aftermath and beyond.

What I really don't appreciate (as many have pointed out) is people taking their sides because that is what everyone does these days. It seems obvious to me that neither Garrett or Robbi are going to look good in the longer term.

 

[DS3]

Ok. It makes sense now your willingness to defend him.

I thought you were one of those poker fanboy geeks who adore Garrett because of his plays during the livestreams.

But this is a whole new level of devotion and admiration for the guy.

Not judging you, you do you, but now it makes sense how personal it feels to read people criticizing your idol.

You take as we are cursing a relative.

You are just trying too hard.

I have said numerous times that I like Garrett but he is not looking good in this scenario and as an adult, I am not a fanboy of anyone.

Further, I have also pointed out that I am not a fan of Nick Vertucci or Ryan Feldman though I was the first person to post about the launch of Hustler Casino Live on Cards Chat to draw eyes to it. It was Robbi herself on the Joey Ingram podcast that said Garrett did not directly threaten her or demand the money back. Now Feldman (who it was stated offered no advice on the matter but just observed) is stating it was Garrett's idea and he has been backed by Vertucci I believe... who I am not sure had even managed to return to the club at that point. In fact I noticed that Vertucci could not get his own facts straight when he was detailing being informed of what had taken place on the stream and where he was and how he got back to Hustlers to deal with the drama.

Personally, there are several now involved that I don't place much stock in what they are saying...all their stories seem to be fluid apart from Garrett who has now stayed quiet but he has placed himself in an untenable position.

I am being objective and the problem with your blinkered take on me is that I have not once accused Robbi of cheating (which you studiously avoid) yet you are the one hung up on Garrett. All I have said is I like Garrett, do not know what took place therefore am not going to opine on it but will discuss what was observable to one and all, and where stories have changed

 

[DS3]

I watched the stream until the controversial hand, and obviously that hand is completely crazy in itself. Starting with the obvious, we know from the Stones Gambling Hall / Mike Postle incidence, that cheating is possible in a live stream. However Robbi did not have a phone, nor was she wearing a hat to potentially hide a bone conducting headset. So neither of the methods alledgedly used by Mike Postle to gain information about his opponents hole cards were available to Robbi.

This mean, that if cheating took place, it has to be some simpler method like a vibrator in her pocket, which would not tell her the exact cards of her opponent but only, weather or not she was ahead, or maybe a suggestion to bet/raise or not. With this hypothesis in mind, there are actually some other hands prior to the controversial one, which seem a little weird and consistent with this kind of cheating.

The hand against Garrett involved her min-raising on the turn in a situation, where most other players would have folded, because she basically had nothing, and she was facing a second barrel. Now obviously she could just have felt, that this was a good time to go for an airball bluff not even considering her cards. But in the relatively short time span of just 1h 45min, which the stream had lasted, there are two other hands, where she raised in spots, where most players would have called or folded, and all three times she happened to be ahead.

The first is a hand, where she defended her blinds with QJ and flopped top pair on a monotone board against an opponent, who had top pair worse kicker. Here she check-raised the flop, which is quite a bit of an overplay, since she could be dead to a flush, and she would also be behind to an overpair or even just AQ or KQ. But it worked out perfect for her, since her opponent happened to have Q9 and paid her off on the flop and turn. She did check the river though, so if she was cheating, she did not try to milk it for the last dollars.

The next weird hand is one, where she just call a 3-bet in position with AK. Someone else calls behind. The preflop 3-bettor has A8, and he C-bet the flop with nothing. Robby call, the third player fold. On the turn its still A8 high against AK high. A8 high C-bet again, and now Robbi raise AK in a situation, where the vast majority of poker players would just give up and fold. Its possible of course, that she just felt like turning her hand into a bluff. But it is a fact, that in a short frame of time, she managed to raise for value in 3 hands in spots, where most players would fold or call, and she happened to be right 3 out of 3 times.

This is not a huge sample of course and nowhere near, what we have on Mike Postle. She apparently played in two previous streems, and I have not gone through those. But watching 1 hour and 45 minutes, where she was not involved all that much (her VPIP was only 20%) and finding 3 unusual and perfect decisions, is a bit suspicious to me. Are those 3 hands enough evidence to say, she cheated? No. But is it possible, she cheated? Definitely yes.

Finally I want to add some comments about, what people have said in this thread about her and Garrett. Starting with Garrett, in my opinion its totally reasonable to be alert about potential cheating in streamed cash games after the Mike Postle case. Garrett clearly felt, that this hand was so fishy, that he strongly suspected cheating. And I dont see anything wrong in being vocal about that and asking the player to explaing, why they did, what they did.

As for Robbi the idea, she is just some kind of recreational player having fun and not knowing, what she is doing, I dont buy into that. This is basically the highest stakes, you can play on any live stream, and somehow she ended up here with very minimal poker history behind her. In such a sitaution its totally reasonable to ask, who was staking her and why? And if somebody is being staked, its generally not with the idea, that they are going to just gamble the money away.

Yes you do see people making really bad plays in poker. But you see that in freerolls or microstakes online. In that kind of setting seeing someone call a 3-bet shove on the turn with J high no draw might just be a player on tilt, who do not care about losing their chips. But this was a decision for $109k, and nothing in her behaviour indicate, she was drunk or on drugs.

So all in all I do think, this looks fairly fishy. I can not blaim Garrett for reacting, like he did, and I think, Hustlers casino need to investigate the matter with particular focus on those staff members, who have access to the stream in real time.

As expected from you, a sensible post.

Obviously I am in the camp the Garrett had cause to be suspicious....Andy Stacks was also mortified and Mike X said he wanted to vomit (apparently everyone was shocked as the cards were revealed).

That said, I lean towards it was nothing more than a horrendous call after which she started immediately amending her story to lend herself some credibility. In the hand she twice stated she did not have a three when questioned by other players. Now that is written is stone by her and her 'supporters' that she misread her hand, she thought she had a three. No. She Didn't. Since then her story has changed relentlessly. Actually the same starts to apply to Hustlers which at one point was saying they were making a big announcement in hours about 'activity' identified on the stream...and then Nick Vertucci had to 'admit' they had been misinformed (?). I believe many are now shapeshifting as they see which ways the wind blows and how they will benefit.

Regarding Robbi Jade Lew, I have already spent some time detailing her changing 'facts' and I am running with the idea she is not the most honest of gals. This idea she is brand new to the game is an invention, but then even her Hendon Mob page was somehow amended in the middle of the furor (don't ask me).

I believe like a million others attempting to 'brand' themselves Robbi was looking for a public profile more than anything else - literally any way to build the Twitter followers and as this situation blew up she (and her husband) have grabbed the opportunity of notoriety with both hands.

Regarding the matter of staking - that has been exposed to some degree. When she played that stream, she introduced a friend to play, RIP (Jacob). What they did not reveal was that they were actually partners and after being forced to admit it, Robbi said he had staked her at least 50%. But then it got hazy as she claimed 'many' buy pieces of her (how or why when she had only played three streams?) Prior to that it was thought her lawyer husband was bankrolling her.

That said, once I heard that she has now offered to play Garrett (or anyone) naked on an 'Only Fans' paid for stream (to prove no cheating was taking place -arf arf!) I think we all got a true spell about what she is all about and maybe one and all should stop taking this matter seriously.

But for the fact that Garrett is sat with over $139K which might not be his, and if he was sensible, I think he should hand over the funds to an independent party until that matter is adjudicated.

 

[fundiver199]

As expected from you, a sensible post.

Obviously I am in the camp the Garrett had cause to be suspicious....Andy Stacks was also mortified and Mike X said he wanted to vomit (apparently everyone was shocked as the cards were revealed).

That said, I lean towards it was nothing more than a horrendous call after which she started immediately amending her story to lend herself some credibility. In the hand she twice stated she did not have a three when questioned by other players. Now that is written is stone by her and her 'supporters' that she misread her hand, she thought she had a three. No. She Didn't. Since then her story has changed relentlessly. Actually the same starts to apply to Hustlers which at one point was saying they were making a big announcement in hours about 'activity' identified on the stream...and then Nick Vertucci had to 'admit' they had been misinformed (?). I believe many are now shapeshifting as they see which ways the wind blows and how they will benefit.

Regarding Robbi Jade Lew, I have already spent some time detailing her changing 'facts' and I am running with the idea she is not the most honest of gals. This idea she is brand new to the game is an invention, but then even her Hendon Mob page was somehow amended in the middle of the furor (don't ask me).

I believe like a million others attempting to 'brand' themselves Robbi was looking for a public profile more than anything else - literally any way to build the Twitter followers and as this situation blew up she (and her husband) have grabbed the opportunity of notoriety with both hands.

Regarding the matter of staking - that has been exposed to some degree. When she played that stream, she introduced a friend to play, RIP (Jacob). What they did not reveal was that they were actually partners and after being forced to admit it, Robbi said he had staked her at least 50%. But then it got hazy as she claimed 'many' buy pieces of her (how or why when she had only played three streams?) Prior to that it was thought her lawyer husband was bankrolling her.

That said, once I heard that she has now offered to play Garrett (or anyone) naked on an 'Only Fans' paid for stream (to prove no cheating was taking place -arf arf!) I think we all got a true spell about what she is all about and maybe one and all should stop taking this matter seriously.

But for the fact that Garrett is sat with over $139K which might not be his, and if he was sensible, I think he should hand over the funds to an independent party until that matter is adjudicated.

The whole reason, this thing exploded, is her changing and inconsistent explanations. When Garrett saw her hand, he was clearly disturbed about it. But if she had given some sort of reasonable or at least consistent explanation for, why she called, then I am pretty sure, the off stream stuff including her returning the money would not have happened.

A reasonable explanation could be, that she misread her hand and thought, she had bottom pair. But she checked her cards and said during the hand "no I dont have a 3, I have a pure bluffcatcher". Which in itself dont make much sense, since a 3 would also be a bluffcatcher. There have been other televised hands, where someone hero called with J high. But the issue with doing it on this particular board is, that many of the potential bluffs are Q high, K high or A high. Like QJ/KQ/KJ of clubs or AX of clubs.

Now she blocked QJ and KJ of clubs, which she kind of hinted on during their conversation. But to rule out 100%, that Garrett could do this with KQ of clubs or AX of clubs or ever be doing it for value would be one of the greatest soul reads of all time. And maybe she could actually have said, that this is, what happened. But this is not, what she said. Instead she made some rather incriminating statements like "I did this to you last time off stream as well" basically defending herself against accusations, that had not yet been made, at least not directly. So for me there are basically two reasonable explanations left:

1) She put Garrett on the exact combo, he had, but was unable or unwilling to take credit for one of the greatest soul reads ever on televised poker.
2) She knew, she was ahead, because she was cheating.

My opinion about this situation is not nearly as clear as my opinion about the Mike Postle case. But I do think, the most likely explanation is, that she was cheating. As for what happened behind the scene afterwards, I was not there, so I will refrain from having an opinion about it. But judging from her table behaviour she does not seem like someone, who is easily intimidated, and frankly she dont seem like a trustworthy person to me.

That being said the case has certainly not helped Garretts image either, so your idea of him handing the money over to a third party is pretty reasonable. Or perhaps donating them to cherity. At the end of the day he got into a coinflip situation, which he lost. So even if he was cheated, this is not the main reason, why he lost. For him to get his money back is kind of a freeroll, because if he had won both runs, he would not have paid her back.

 

[fundiver199]

Just as a final comment, there are people on Youtube and perhaps also in this thread, who ask "but if she was cheating, then why pick a spot, where she was flipping". And its true, that if she knew his cards, then raising the turn makes no sense. He is not going to fold to that sizing, and she is not getting value, since they are flipping. The whole spot is very strange, because normally raising with J high is a bluff, but if she was cheating, it was actually for value or equity denial. Just like it was in the AK vs. A8 hand, where she took a very similar line. Or in some hands, where Postle made, what looked like bluffraises with weak pairs, but they were actually for value, since his opponents had draws.

However if the cheating was her getting some simple "on or off" signal like a beep, telling her if she was ahead, then everything makes sense. She was technically ahead on the turn, and therefore she raised for value not knowing, that Garrett had as many as 20 outs. And apparently she had not considered the option, that Garrett might 3-bet rather than call or fold, because that put her in a very bad spot. If she had folded, she would lose the money, she already invested in the pot, and if she called, it would look really suspicious. An intelligent cheater would have folded and then tried to make the money back in other hands. But most cheaters are not intelligent, and what we saw here was most likely a dumb cheater getting caught early. Or at least thats my personal opinion.

 

[DS3]

The whole reason, this thing exploded, is her changing and inconsistent explanations. When Garrett saw her hand, he was clearly disturbed about it. But if she had given some sort of reasonable or at least consistent explanation for, why she called, then I am pretty sure, the off stream stuff including her returning the money would not have happened.

A reasonable explanation could be, that she misread her hand and thought, she had bottom pair. But she checked her cards and said during the hand "no I dont have a 3, I have a pure bluffcatcher". Which in itself dont make much sense, since a 3 would also be a bluffcatcher. There have been other televised hands, where someone hero called with J high. But the issue with doing it on this particular board is, that many of the potential bluffs are Q high, K high or A high. Like QJ/KQ/KJ of clubs or AX of clubs.....

I think this is all destined to stay murky.

I recently made a post about Patrik Antonius making an amazing call with Jack high at the Triton series to take the chip lead (and ultimately win the tourney). That however is a world class player with millions of hands under his belt - and he only did so after using all his time banks chips over many minutes at a final table with I believe four left.

However, as you were replying, I was watching yet another live breakdown of her play and body language by Matt Berkey and Christian Soto. None of it (including her demeanor) makes any sense and I left the stream when Berkey at least concluded one possibility might be...

'she's just a loon!'

This! I believe she is a questionable figure, with a dubious backstory, who made an inexplicable play so much so that Garrett leapt to an early and reasonable conclusion that something was really amiss. I honestly think one of the first actions which could pop the ridiculous scandal bubble is Garrett handing the funds to an independent party, because as I said, the impression I get is ultimately no one, intentionally, is going to get to the bottom of this. Then Garrett will be left looking like a sore loser -which I also suspect at this juncture would be intentional.

Let's see what pans out this week.

 

[fundiver199]

I agree, that we will likely never get to the bottom of this incidence. Hustler Casino has no interest in publicly announcing, that cheating happened on their stream. So if it did, they are more likely to just not invite her back. And if someone from the staff was involved, quitly get rid of them. As for hero calling with J high this is something, good players might occationally do. But they do it on very specific board textures, where J high beat the logical bluffs.

As for her just making some completely wild call with a hand, that would be drawing dead or have 5 outs, if Garrett had anything other than the exact combo, he had, it seems out of line with, how she had played up to that point. I watched the beginning of the prior stream, where she participated, and I saw no signs of her cheating.

But there was a hand, where she checked back the river after making a 4 card straight, but there were also 3 cards to a flush. This was a very conservative check-back but pretty much in line with, how people might play, if its their first time playing a high stakes game. Just taking the showdown rather than going for thin value and risk getting raised and put in a tough spot. She also only bought in for 30k, which is again in line with someone playing higher, than they had before.

But then in the very next stream she bought in for 100k and felt like putting in 109k on the turn with J high no draw as a call? This feels pretty inconsistent, and just like, when we evaluate Mike Postles hands, inconsistency is a sign of cheating. Like how could he go all-in preflop with 65 offsuit, when two opponents both had AK, and then later fold KK, when someone had AA. Either someone is a wild gambler, or they are not. It should not change that drastically from hand to hand.

 

[iwont20]

It's funny for me this got so blown-up which means the following observation is right for a lot of "poker pros" or wanna-bes.

It's funny that when there is a gap between their thinking and thinking of a recreational player which allows them to win at poker or even make a living out of it, they gonna take those winnings with no problem, a lot of times looking down at "the fish" for his/her lack of knowledge. But when this gap of knowledge shows up in a way that they got beaten, got called on a bluff (semi-bluff ok), or else, somehow these "poker pros" and their fans forget about the gap and require a believable explanation on their level or on the level which makes sense to them, otherwise it's cheating and the fish becomes a criminal. LOL too much inconsistency for pros in the mathematical game. I'm honestly pretty disgusted although not surprised, as it can be seen online all the time.

By the way for me her play makes sense on the level of a recreational and a person who can rely on the "gut feeling".

 

[Yermek]

The name of the casino is somehow pornographic