Poker Players Opinion

[hateraid]

Watch


https://youtu.be/VxJM2WQGSmY

Just having a debate with my poker friends

Is this a legit call?

Would you do this play?

[hateraid]

Video removed
Here's another


https://youtu.be/9NNKjWscKWo

[dankok8]

The best poker players are really good in cold reads meaning they can usually tell what the other person has which obviously greatly influences their decision whether to stay in the hand or not. They can do this because of a lot of experience plus very meticulous study of the game.

[Wally450]

I wouldn’t have called, but I just stared at her tits the whole time.

[hateraid]

The best poker players are really good in cold reads meaning they can usually tell what the other person has which obviously greatly influences their decision whether to stay in the hand or not. They can do this because of a lot of experience plus very meticulous study of the game.

It was a terrible call, despite the reads. Even her reasoning had holes.

[3ba11]

Garrett is s f'ing baby for this

He should be cancelled especially because he had an encounter with her afterwards where he bullied her to get the money back (and succeeded)

How many times has someone gotten stubborn, mad, or shook in a hand and decided not to fold??

Any experienced player will see this happen several times in their career and I'm sure this isn't the first time some yahoo or bimbo decided to take a stand against Garrett

For him to get mad and accuse of cheating is immature and childish.. The fact that he bullied her to return the money is cancellable.

Ultimately, the message is that no one can outplay Garrett or play like a donkey against him..... or you will be accused of cheating... It's absurd

And why can't she put him on 87 specifically - that's the only realistic draw if we give credence to her blockers to QJ... If someone wants to think this crap and call with J-high, who is Garrett to say they're cheating?

[Axe]

Garrett is s f'ing baby for this

He should be cancelled especially because he had an encounter with her afterwards where he bullied her to get the money back (and succeeded)

How many times has someone gotten stubborn, mad, or shook in a hand and decided not to fold??

Any experienced player will see this happen several times in their career and I'm sure this isn't the first time some yahoo or bimbo decided to take a stand against Garrett

For him to get mad and accuse of cheating is immature and childish.. The fact that he bullied her to return the money is cancellable.

Ultimately, the message is that no one can outplay Garrett or play like a donkey against him..... or you will be accused of cheating... It's absurd

And why can't she put him on 87 specifically - that's the only realistic draw if we give credence to her blockers to QJ... If someone wants to think this crap and call with J-high, who is Garrett to say they're cheating?
1-9

[ZenMaster]

It was a terrible call, despite the reads. Even her reasoning had holes.

She thought she had J3 instead of J4, but probably remembered her jack was the jack of clubs, which both limited the range of the opponent and gave her a blocker in case he had a flush draw.
That's my guess based on one of the YT comments which said she had J3 the hand before this one and her asking if he had a ace high flush draw before any of them turned their hand.

Still a pretty gutsy call with bottom pair, but I'd assume Garret's range is also pretty polarized with the paired bord, close to nuts or draw - and it that case the jack of clubs is a pretty good card to hold. I didn't watch him much though and I've never played against him, so maybe his range here is wider idk, but her thinking J3 is only thing I can get to make sense based on what's said in the hand.

[iamgine]

Meh, he's just acting shocked to get more attention. Phil Helmuth make a living doing this. If you play poker, this happens to you so many times that it's impossible to be shocked when it happens.

[Bill Gates]

Meh, he's just acting shocked to get more attention. Phil Helmuth make a living doing this. If you play poker, this happens to you so many times that it's impossible to be shocked when it happens.
I play poker. Hero calls like this are not normal. This is one of the crazier hands I've ever seen. I've seen things of this nature from novice players or players new to the game but that is not what Robbi Jade is. I do not believe she cheated here because if she were aware of his draw she would have known she couldn't get him off the hand making it pointless to call down with J4. She got very lucky that he didn't hit running 2x. I think she had a brain fart of some sort. Either that or she read his bluff and was just fed up with being bluffed. She comments that "guys always bluff me". So she called out of sheer frustration.

[hateraid]

I play poker. Hero calls like this are not normal. This is one of the crazier hands I've ever seen. I've seen things of this nature from novice players or players new to the game but that is not what Robbi Jade is. I do not believe she cheated here because if she were aware of his draw she would have known she couldn't get him off the hand making it pointless to call down with J4. She got very lucky that he didn't hit running 2x. I think she had a brain fart of some sort. Either that or she read his bluff and was just fed up with being bluffed. She comments that "guys always bluff me". So she called out of sheer frustration.

Pretty bad emotion call though. Especially Jack high. Hold a 4 is not a good option with blocker. She's blocking a straight when a flush and trips on the board? That's a total emotion call. Not final table worthy

[Bill Gates]

Pretty bad emotion call though. Especially Jack high. Hold a 4 is not a good option with blocker. She's blocking a straight when a flush and trips on the board? That's a total emotion call. Not final table worthy

The entire episode can be seen here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ

I've watched it all. She goes on to say that she misread her hand as J3 and Ivey was later interviewed and he reads the situation as the same. It's a believable story. She does look at her cards several times but my thoughts are that she is looking without really thinking about it. It's an anxious movement she is used to doing in the middle of a hand, like shuffling chips. She's just looking while contemplating the call and not really looking at her cards, she's already mentally clocked in that she has J3.

I think part of the problem was that she was too embarrassed to admit she misread her hand which is completely understandable because she's on TV with some of the greatest poker players there are. But then when Garrett left and accused her of cheating she realized the severity of the situation and fessed up.

[hateraid]

The entire episode can be seen here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ

I've watched it all. She goes on to say that she misread her hand as J3 and Ivey was later interviewed and he reads the situation as the same. It's a believable story. She does look at her cards several times but my thoughts are that she is looking without really thinking about it. It's an anxious movement she is used to doing in the middle of a hand, like shuffling chips. She's just looking while contemplating the call and not really looking at her cards, she's already mentally clocked in that she has J3.

I think part of the problem was that she was too embarrassed to admit she misread her hand which is completely understandable because she's on TV with some of the greatest poker players there are. But then when Garrett left and accused her of cheating she realized the severity of the situation and fessed up.

Even if 3, bottom pair enough to call all in? I think it was a woman who's ego surfaced and refused to back down at the wrong time. She did say she was feeling bullied.

[AKA_AAP]

She thought she had J3 instead of J4, but probably remembered her jack was the jack of clubs, which both limited the range of the opponent and gave her a blocker in case he had a flush draw.
That's my guess based on one of the YT comments which said she had J3 the hand before this one and her asking if he had a ace high flush draw before any of them turned their hand.

Still a pretty gutsy call with bottom pair, but I'd assume Garret's range is also pretty polarized with the paired bord, close to nuts or draw - and it that case the jack of clubs is a pretty good card to hold. I didn't watch him much though and I've never played against him, so maybe his range here is wider idk, but her thinking J3 is only thing I can get to make sense based on what's said in the hand.

I don't want to give away my identity by talking too much about poker, but Jc (Jack of clubs) is actually one of the worst cards she can hold. When hero calling, you want to UNBLOCK, not block your opponent's bluffing range. In non-poker terms, you want your opponent to be holding Jc (Jack of clubs) so that it puts more bluffs in their range...you do NOT want to be holding that card in Robbi's spot, ever. You're throwing out these poker terms and using them incorrectly.

[GimmeThat]

proof that therapy doesn't work.

[ZenMaster]

I don't want to give away my identity by talking too much about poker, but Jc (Jack of clubs) is actually one of the worst cards she can hold. When hero calling, you want to UNBLOCK, not block your opponent's bluffing range. In non-poker terms, you want your opponent to be holding Jc (Jack of clubs) so that it puts more bluffs in their range...you do NOT want to be holding that card in Robbi's spot, ever. You're throwing out these poker terms and using them incorrectly.

I know what you're saying, but given her apparent explanation and if she thinks she has a pair of 3s and is calling down so specific as to hoping opponent is on a ace high flush draw the, Jc is a good card to hold in her mind as it's both a club and a card where she can ensure opp doesn't have QJc.
E.g vs A4c she's +60% favorite on the turn if she had J3 with Jc, but vs QJc it would be even money with her herself not holding the Jc.

That was on the basis of her apparent explanation and asking about ace high flush draw. After having rewatched this and some other hands from that game, she's babbling all over the place and I'd be more inclined to think she was cheating - it would also make sense as to why she apparently gave the money back, which is pretty fcked up by itself.
The whole hand is messed up and she sounds like an idiot with all the stuff she says and no matter if this is how she plays or if she's cheating, she should probably get out of poker.

I've played a lot of poker at quite high levels both online and live around the world, and I don't just throw these terms out there randomly I promise you, but I'm just going by what I thought that she could have been thinking at the time. If her hope was that she was up against AXc, the Jc would be a good blocker. It's a very specific read though, but like I said, I'm now more inclined to think she was cheating.

[Bill Gates]

The angle of cheating seems nonsensical to me for a couple of reasons. For one if she can see others hands there are way safer gambles for her to take with her entire pot than running it twice on a huge draw. Cheating or not she dodged a bullet at the end and got lucky. Another reason is that would mean the shows producers are the real cheaters because they are the only ones who can see the cards. I doubt that they would put their own credibility at risk to split some poker winnings up. And if they are willing to do that I doubt that they would choose Robbie Jade Lew as their player to run the scam. She is more or less a rich socialite who not many take seriously as a professional poker player. I think they would have approached one of the male players who is desperate for money and not a rich girl.

[Bill Gates]

I don't want to give away my identity by talking too much about poker, but Jc (Jack of clubs) is actually one of the worst cards she can hold. When hero calling, you want to UNBLOCK, not block your opponent's bluffing range. In non-poker terms, you want your opponent to be holding Jc (Jack of clubs) so that it puts more bluffs in their range...you do NOT want to be holding that card in Robbi's spot, ever. You're throwing out these poker terms and using them incorrectly.

This is false

[hateraid]

I don't want to give away my identity by talking too much about poker, but Jc (Jack of clubs) is actually one of the worst cards she can hold. When hero calling, you want to UNBLOCK, not block your opponent's bluffing range. In non-poker terms, you want your opponent to be holding Jc (Jack of clubs) so that it puts more bluffs in their range...you do NOT want to be holding that card in Robbi's spot, ever. You're throwing out these poker terms and using them incorrectly.

MacMac?

[Charlie Sheen]

IMO what happened in the hand isn't the story. 3ball hit it out of the park with his post.:applause:


Garrett is s f'ing baby for this

He should be cancelled especially because he had an encounter with her afterwards where he bullied her to get the money back (and succeeded)

How many times has someone gotten stubborn, mad, or shook in a hand and decided not to fold??

Any experienced player will see this happen several times in their career and I'm sure this isn't the first time some yahoo or bimbo decided to take a stand against Garrett

For him to get mad and accuse of cheating is immature and childish.. The fact that he bullied her to return the money is cancellable.

Ultimately, the message is that no one can outplay Garrett or play like a donkey against him..... or you will be accused of cheating... It's absurd

And why can't she put him on 87 specifically - that's the only realistic draw if we give credence to her blockers to QJ... If someone wants to think this crap and call with J-high, who is Garrett to say they're cheating?


I quoted it since he might be on ignore for a lot of folks :lol

[GimmeThat]

The angle of cheating seems nonsensical to me for a couple of reasons. For one if she can see others hands there are way safer gambles for her to take with her entire pot than running it twice on a huge draw. Cheating or not she dodged a bullet at the end and got lucky. Another reason is that would mean the shows producers are the real cheaters because they are the only ones who can see the cards. I doubt that they would put their own credibility at risk to split some poker winnings up. And if they are willing to do that I doubt that they would choose Robbie Jade Lew as their player to run the scam. She is more or less a rich socialite who not many take seriously as a professional poker player. I think they would have approached one of the male players who is desperate for money and not a rich girl.

you think only when someone screws with another persons girlfriend/boyfriend then proceeds to blackmail them as cheating, when it's cheating as it is without the blackmailing.

the blackmailing just happens when they get needy, and, they will.

[hateraid]

I don't want to give away my identity by talking too much about poker, but Jc (Jack of clubs) is actually one of the worst cards she can hold. When hero calling, you want to UNBLOCK, not block your opponent's bluffing range. In non-poker terms, you want your opponent to be holding Jc (Jack of clubs) so that it puts more bluffs in their range...you do NOT want to be holding that card in Robbi's spot, ever. You're throwing out these poker terms and using them incorrectly.

I agree with this all. Jc is probably the worst card. She says in the interview she had a running straight and and a running flush? That's not capable worthy at all with full house and straight flush sitting on the board. That 4 is the kicker in all this and makes it confusing. To mistake it for a 3 is amateur. So many holes in what she was saying.

[Bill Gates]

What are you guys talking about? Jc is a legit "blocker" for her at the river. Garrett is on a straight flush draw which means he needs a J or a club to hit on the river. That fact that she is holding Jc takes away his outs. That is why she says her Jc was a big part of her call because she is holding his outs. Only she thought she had a 3 and not a 4.

[hateraid]

What are you guys talking about? Jc is a legit "blocker" for her at the river. Garrett is on a straight flush draw which means he needs a J or a club to hit on the river. That fact that she is holding Jc takes away his outs. That is why she says her Jc was a big part of her call because she is holding his outs. Only she thought she had a 3 and not a 4.

The J 4 were off suited. Not a real blocker there

[Bill Gates]

The J 4 were off suited. Not a real blocker there
Her Jc is blocking HIM from hitting a flush or a straight. She put him on a draw and she knew she was holding a key card that could hit for him on the river. She assumed that her pair of 3s was good. Do you get it?

[hateraid]

Did you also take into account the straight could have gone the opposite way? She wasn't connected to the 7. Garrett was on a legit straight and flush draw. On the river a 7 or club hits he wins.

[Bill Gates]

Did you also take into account the straight could have gone the opposite way? She wasn't connected to the 7. Garrett was on a legit straight and flush draw. On the river a 7 or club hits he wins.
Yes he still had plenty of outs, but she knew she was holding at least 2 of them with the Jc, maybe 3 if he had a J which blocks him from making a pair of Jacks.

[Bill Gates]

The fact that Garrett had so many outs is why cheating makes no sense here. She got lucky that he didn't hit a straight or flush running it twice on the river. If she did know his hand she likely would have folded after the flop because she would have understood that with a draw that huge Garrett would be in the hand no matter what and she would have to get lucky to win it.

[ZenMaster]

MacMac?

Poker was never talked about much here, but from some past posts of his, the only person on this board that I know of to probably have played higher stakes than myself, it's MacMac. Maybe AKA_AAP is in that category as well.


Did you also take into account the straight could have gone the opposite way? She wasn't connected to the 7. Garrett was on a legit straight and flush draw. On the river a 7 or club hits he wins.

Her holding Jc makes it so she knows that Gareth doesn't have QJc, it removes an out if he has Ax flush draw and it removes an out if she's up against 87.
Even being up against the 87 straight flush draw, she's still 47% to win the hand as the runout happens. With all the money already in the pot, 47% is OK by itself if you're going to be all in.
Of course this is all predicated on her mistaking her hand for J3, which could happen, but of course unlikely.


The angle of cheating seems nonsensical to me for a couple of reasons. For one if she can see others hands there are way safer gambles for her to take with her entire pot than running it twice on a huge draw. Cheating or not she dodged a bullet at the end and got lucky. Another reason is that would mean the shows producers are the real cheaters because they are the only ones who can see the cards. I doubt that they would put their own credibility at risk to split some poker winnings up. And if they are willing to do that I doubt that they would choose Robbie Jade Lew as their player to run the scam. She is more or less a rich socialite who not many take seriously as a professional poker player. I think they would have approached one of the male players who is desperate for money and not a rich girl.

Cheating can happen in many different ways and it might not be exactly like you imagine it, and being close to even money in a big pot, a lot of people would be inclined to run it twice to even out variance.

I'd argue that she could be giving the money back because of the accusation itself and her not wanting to deal with that, or it could be because she actually did cheat and realized she was close to getting caught.
In any case, it's messed up that she gave the money back.


https://youtu.be/xPQUarLEr9A

[Bill Gates]

https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1577067039750963200

There aren't many in the poker world siding with Garrett on this. And many hands are being shown from Robbi's past that are consistent with the call she made like this one. (https://twitter.com/Joeingram1/status/1577313958058291200)

If you watch the entire episode you will see Phil Ivey who many consider to be the best poker player in the world read the situation as her misreading her had as a J3.

A vibrating chair is absurd as the entire table would hear it and it could very easily be looked into.

[AKA_AAP]

I know what you're saying, but given her apparent explanation and if she thinks she has a pair of 3s and is calling down so specific as to hoping opponent is on a ace high flush draw the, Jc is a good card to hold in her mind as it's both a club and a card where she can ensure opp doesn't have QJc.
E.g vs A4c she's +60% favorite on the turn if she had J3 with Jc, but vs QJc it would be even money with her herself not holding the Jc.

That was on the basis of her apparent explanation and asking about ace high flush draw. After having rewatched this and some other hands from that game, she's babbling all over the place and I'd be more inclined to think she was cheating - it would also make sense as to why she apparently gave the money back, which is pretty fcked up by itself.
The whole hand is messed up and she sounds like an idiot with all the stuff she says and no matter if this is how she plays or if she's cheating, she should probably get out of poker.

I've played a lot of poker at quite high levels both online and live around the world, and I don't just throw these terms out there randomly I promise you, but I'm just going by what I thought that she could have been thinking at the time. If her hope was that she was up against AXc, the Jc would be a good blocker. It's a very specific read though, but like I said, I'm now more inclined to think she was cheating.

Yeah, I went back and forth on whether she misread her hand or not. Misreading her hand as J3 makes 10000000x more sense than having J4 high, both would be a horrendous continue by the way. But she did stare at the bottom card for a long time...and her bottom card was the offsuit 4, so it's a bit hard for me to think she misread her hand as J3. But her previous hand was J3, so maybe she got confused?

Also, I need to watch the ENTIRE stream. Apparently, she is very bad at poker and was willing to punt the whole session especially with Garrett. I just don't have time to watch hours of that session, so I'll just wait until more info progressively comes out.

[AKA_AAP]

MacMac?

No. I use to post on ISH in the early 2000's as "allaroundplaya".

[AKA_AAP]

What are you guys talking about? Jc is a legit "blocker" for her at the river. Garrett is on a straight flush draw which means he needs a J or a club to hit on the river. That fact that she is holding Jc takes away his outs. That is why she says her Jc was a big part of her call because she is holding his outs. Only she thought she had a 3 and not a 4.

Lowest IQ post in this thread. You don't want to hold a card that you want your opponent to be bluffing with when you're bluff catching. You're completely using the term "blocker" incorrectly.

[Bill Gates]

Lowest IQ post in this thread. You don't want to hold a card that you want your opponent to be bluffing with when you're bluff catching. You're completely using the term "blocker" incorrectly.
You do not play poker. Blockers are cards that "block" hands. Everyone at that table pointed out that Robbi was holding a blocker. She put him on a draw of some sort and her Jc is "blocking" him from catching it on the river. Hence the call. :facepalm

https://www.splitsuit.com/blockers-in-poker-guide

[hateraid]

You do not play poker. Blockers are cards that "block" hands. Everyone at that table pointed out that Robbi was holding a blocker. She put him on a draw of some sort and her Jc is "blocking" him from catching it on the river. Hence the call. :facepalm

https://www.splitsuit.com/blockers-in-poker-guide

She's relying on a blocker for a specific hand while holding nothing. So she went all in on a one ended blocker holding a shitty kicker? The board had a multitude of possibilities to rely on the one "blocker". Not a great play if that's her reasoning. Does the j block a 6?
It was a shitty call all based on emotion. I've seen examples on her plays and she's folded with much stronger cards in the past. The only hand she could have put him on was q 8. And still a poor call with a high card. I'm not buying she thought she had a 3 when she looked multiple times and said it was a bluff catcher.

[Bill Gates]

She's relying on a blocker for a specific hand while holding nothing. So she went all in on a one ended blocker holding a shitty kicker? The board had a multitude of possibilities to rely on the one "blocker". Not a great play if that's her reasoning. Does the j block a 6?
It was a shitty call all based on emotion. I've seen examples on her plays and she's folded with much stronger cards in the past. The only hand she could have put him on was q 8. And still a poor call with a high card. I'm not buying she thought she had a 3 when she looked multiple times and said it was a bluff catcher.
She thought she had a pair of 3s which beats a busted draw of any kind. If she did have a J3 Garrett would have just said "great call" and that would have been that.

Looking back at it I think she was looking at her cards to make sure her Jack was a club and a "blocker" to his draw and ignored her other card.

Phil Ivey read the situation as her misreading her hand as J3 when interviewed after. If there is anyone in the poker world that should be taken seriously it is him he is the GOAT.

[Bill Gates]

Robbi says "I wouldn't have called if my jack wasn't a club" which makes 100% perfect sense if she is holding J3. When she realizes she has J4 she becomes flustered and just starts in with the "it's not about what I have" and "I knew you didn't have shit" lines.

[hateraid]

Robbi says "I wouldn't have called if my jack wasn't a club" which makes 100% perfect sense if she is holding J3. When she realizes she has J4 she becomes flustered and just starts in with the "it's not about what I have" and "I knew you didn't have shit" lines.

Meaning she played a messy hand.

What are you more fixated on defending? That she didn't cheat or are you justifying her call? Because that was a horrible call and she had so many holes in her dialogue it was embarrassing. You can't be a serious poker player if you think that was a decent call. No body bets their tournament lifeline on that mess

[hateraid]

She thought she had a pair of 3s which beats a busted draw of any kind. If she did have a J3 Garrett would have just said "great call" and that would have been that.

Looking back at it I think she was looking at her cards to make sure her Jack was a club and a "blocker" to his draw and ignored her other card.

Phil Ivey read the situation as her misreading her hand as J3 when interviewed after. If there is anyone in the poker world that should be taken seriously it is him he is the GOAT.

She played the hand after saying it was a bluff catcher, meaning she was aware it wasn't a 3. She messed up and now covering up with poor dialogue.

[Bill Gates]

She played the hand after saying it was a bluff catcher, meaning she was aware it wasn't a 3. She messed up and now covering up with poor dialogue.
What are you taking about, calling a pot that huge with nothing but a pair of 3s is still definitely a hero call and putting Garrett on nothing but a draw of some kind. She was catching him on a bluff.

If you watch the hand with her holding a J3 everything she said and did makes perfect sense.

Did you watch the interview after?

[ZenMaster]

Yeah, I went back and forth on whether she misread her hand or not. Misreading her hand as J3 makes 10000000x more sense than having J4 high, both would be a horrendous continue by the way. But she did stare at the bottom card for a long time...and her bottom card was the offsuit 4, so it's a bit hard for me to think she misread her hand as J3. But her previous hand was J3, so maybe she got confused?

Also, I need to watch the ENTIRE stream. Apparently, she is very bad at poker and was willing to punt the whole session especially with Garrett. I just don't have time to watch hours of that session, so I'll just wait until more info progressively comes out.

Maybe yes, in any case the whole dialogue after the hand is funny as hell.

Why did you call?

Oh I had some runner straight and flush draw..

No no, on the turn, why did you call?

Because you don't have shit Garret.


She sounds like a moron and from what I've seen I do agree that she seems very bad at poker.


Meaning she played a messy hand.

What are you more fixated on defending? That she didn't cheat or are you justifying her call? Because that was a horrible call and she had so many holes in her dialogue it was embarrassing. You can't be a serious poker player if you think that was a decent call. No body bets their tournament lifeline on that mess

These guys aren't playing a tournament homie, it's cash game and they can reload.

[AKA_AAP]

You do not play poker. Blockers are cards that "block" hands. Everyone at that table pointed out that Robbi was holding a blocker. She put him on a draw of some sort and her Jc is "blocking" him from catching it on the river. Hence the call. :facepalm

https://www.splitsuit.com/blockers-in-poker-guide

I know this is a troll account, but you're probably being serious here. You're coming off as a $2 and $3 BB player that min buys and tells bad beat stories all day. People at the table pointing out she had a "blocker" were trolling. The J4 "blocker" is now been a MEME in the mid stakes scene and home game scene the last few days, the only time people take that msnbc crap seriously are playing the low stakes game where they don't have a grasp of poker (I'll play $3 BB while waiting for $5, $10 and $20 BB games). There are poker shirts out there that have J4 and "I have blockers" as a MEME.

Come to think of it, you're a walking MEME. 88 posts in this alt, and you've been wrong in everyone I've seen. Are you related to AlwaysWrongbladefd?

[AKA_AAP]

Robbi says "I wouldn't have called if my jack wasn't a club" which makes 100% perfect sense if she is holding J3. When she realizes she has J4 she becomes flustered and just starts in with the "it's not about what I have" and "I knew you didn't have shit" lines.

It makes zero sense to anyone that has a fundamental grasp of basic poker. She doesn't, and you don't either.

Let's just assume she misread her hand as Jc3x, so pair of 3's. Having the Jc is bad because you want Garrett to have the Jc so it puts more bluffs in his range. Having the Jc in her hand means Garrett can no longer have some straight draws containing the Jc and can no longer have ANY combo draws or flush draws containing the Jack of clubs. I hope I made that simple enough to understand, but I think I'm drawing dead for you to understand anything outside of the msnbc garbage that has given you brain worms.

Stop defending her msnbc of that hand. Her reasoning was either really bad or fake (to cover up cheating). She could not beat just about every draw (except for what Garrett had, and 87hh for the OE plus BDFD), and drawing very slim to stone dead on all his value hands.

[Bill Gates]

You don't know what a blocker is and you don't play poker. I gave you a link to the definition, read it. No one disputes the blocker part and several at the table acknowledged it. I'm not sure what the existence of a t-shirt has to do with anything here.

[AKA_AAP]

You do not play poker. Blockers are cards that "block" hands. Everyone at that table pointed out that Robbi was holding a blocker. She put him on a draw of some sort and her Jc is "blocking" him from catching it on the river. Hence the call. :facepalm

https://www.splitsuit.com/blockers-in-poker-guide

:roll:

[Bill Gates]

AKA_AAP claiming to be a poker expert is a worse bluff than Garrett's :oldlol:

[AKA_AAP]

What are you guys talking about? Jc is a legit "blocker" for her at the river. Garrett is on a straight flush draw which means he needs a J or a club to hit on the river. That fact that she is holding Jc takes away his outs. That is why she says her Jc was a big part of her call because she is holding his outs. Only she thought she had a 3 and not a 4.

You're butchering the concept of blockers. :lol

Blockers aren't for "blocking the river". :roll: Blockers are for eliminating hand combos from your opponents' range.

[Bill Gates]

Yes everyone at that table is misusing the term blocker chief.

[AKA_AAP]

Yes everyone at that table is misusing the term blocker chief.

Already pointed out that they were trolling/being sarcastic. "blocking the river" :roll::facepalm

[Bill Gates]

No they weren't you're just a horrible read.

Her having to Jc means he doesn't have it. She wouldn't want him holding that card going into the river. Obviously.

[AKA_AAP]

No they weren't you're just a horrible read.

Her having to Jc means he doesn't have it. She wouldn't want him holding that card going into the river. Obviously.

If Garrett were to be bluffing, she would want Garrett to be holding the Jack of clubs (assuming she misread her hand as a pair instead of J4 high) which puts a lot more bluffs in Garrett's range. Please tell me where you got the "blocking the river" bit, that's comedy. Everyone going to have a laugh at this in the games I play in. You're exposing yourself as a YouTube poker chat pro rather than someone that actually knows poker.

[Bill Gates]

Why would she want Garrett to hold Jc going into the river running twice? :oldlol:

The joke is that she would call with ONLY a blocker. No disputes that it is a blocker.

Read the definition.

[AKA_AAP]

Why would she want Garrett to hold Jc going into the river running twice? :oldlol:

The joke is that she would call with ONLY a blocker. No disputes that it is a blocker.

Read the definition.

The bolded part, the fact that you're asking this literally ends our conversation.

I don't need to read the definition, it's been a term that has been increasingly popular for the last 4-6 years or so. You just knew about it this week, and you're using the concept of blockers completely wrong. MacMac probably plays a little bigger stakes than me, he would already know I'm wasting my time talking poker with a $1-$2 no limit player. I'm out.

[Bill Gates]

You don't play poker

[hateraid]

It makes zero sense to anyone that has a fundamental grasp of basic poker. She doesn't, and you don't either.

Let's just assume she misread her hand as Jc3x, so pair of 3's. Having the Jc is bad because you want Garrett to have the Jc so it puts more bluffs in his range. Having the Jc in her hand means Garrett can no longer have some straight draws containing the Jc and can no longer have ANY combo draws or flush draws containing the Jack of clubs. I hope I made that simple enough to understand, but I think I'm drawing dead for you to understand anything outside of the msnbc garbage that has given you brain worms.

Stop defending her msnbc of that hand. Her reasoning was either really bad or fake (to cover up cheating). She could not beat just about every draw (except for what Garrett had, and 87hh for the OE plus BDFD), and drawing very slim to stone dead on all his value hands.

Exactly.
He's pretty much justifying "well that's poker for ya!" Type of mentality.

[hateraid]

AKA_AAP claiming to be a poker expert is a worse bluff than Garrett's :oldlol:

How so? He's not defending a horrible play like you are. Your dialogue is starting to even sound like Robbi

[Bill Gates]

:facepalm

Garrett needs a Jack to hit a straight
Garrett needs a Club to hit a flush
Her JC is literally "blocking" him from hitting those things on the river.

She is holding a "blocker" the way most use the term and that is a fact.

She put him on a draw of some sort and she thought her pair of 3s was good (she would have been correct)

Making a hero call with a small pair is not uncommon. But making a hero call with just a Jack high? That is unheard of and the reason it went viral. And for this to happen several factors had to take place including her getting very lucky on the river.

[ZenMaster]

The angle of cheating seems nonsensical to me for a couple of reasons. For one if she can see others hands there are way safer gambles for her to take with her entire pot than running it twice on a huge draw. Cheating or not she dodged a bullet at the end and got lucky. Another reason is that would mean the shows producers are the real cheaters because they are the only ones who can see the cards. I doubt that they would put their own credibility at risk to split some poker winnings up. And if they are willing to do that I doubt that they would choose Robbie Jade Lew as their player to run the scam. She is more or less a rich socialite who not many take seriously as a professional poker player. I think they would have approached one of the male players who is desperate for money and not a rich girl.

Like I said, cheating doesn't necessarily happen the only way you are capable of imagining:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/garrett-adelstein-report-likely-cheating-hustler-casino-live-1813491/

[macmac]

:facepalm

Garrett needs a Jack to hit a straight
Garrett needs a Club to hit a flush
Her JC is literally "blocking" him from hitting those things on the river.

She is holding a "blocker" the way most use the term and that is a fact.

She put him on a draw of some sort and she thought her pair of 3s was good (she would have been correct)

Making a hero call with a small pair is not uncommon. But making a hero call with just a Jack high? That is unheard of and the reason it went viral. And for this to happen several factors had to take place including her getting very lucky on the river.

That’s called having one of his outs, a blocker is like a naked ace on a flush board. It’s a card that helps you represent a hand.

As AKA said, her holding the Jc takes away a lot of his drawing combos

[Overdrive]

That’s called having one of his outs, a blocker is like a naked ace on a flush board. It’s a card that helps you represent a hand.

As AKA said, her holding the Jc takes away a lot of his drawing combos

I rarely play poker, so I can't really grasp how it would help her if he had more outs?
Let's say she has Jack of hearts and the 3 she claimed she thought she had. Wouldn't that raise the chances of losing even more if she assumed he had the Jc?

[ZenMaster]

I rarely play poker, so I can't really grasp how it would help her if he had more outs?
Let's say she has Jack of hearts and the 3 she claimed she thought she had. Wouldn't that raise the chances of losing even more if she assumed he had the Jc?

You can't know for sure what another player has until cards are actually turned over, poker is not about assuming, but applying probability.
Take into consideration that Gareth could have made a hand already and not been on a draw at all.

Her having the Jc increases the probability that Gareth isn't on a draw and that it's a hand where he needs outs to win.

[macmac]

Based on his betting pattern he is polarized. He either has trips / quads/boats or a big draw like 87cc, 8jcc jqcc. Kjcc. Since she is hero calling him (assuming she thinks she has the 3) she wants him to be on the draw and not on a made hand, and so holding the J of clubs in this instance hurts her because it takes away a bunch of drawing hands in his potential range.

[Bill Gates]

If she has already put him on a draw she views the Jc as his outs. But you know what, I'll concede defeat on that topic even though I do not agree.

Tell me this, how could she be cheating when she is the underdog to his draw? Let's say that through collusion or something else she knows he is holding that monster draw. Then she would also know he is the favorite to win the hand. Theoretically Garrett should take that bet every time.

I do not dismiss that collusion happens but I do think the examples Garrett sights are weak. I just do not believe cheating makes sense for Robbi in that hand.

[Bill Gates]

When she calls his all in push (her entire stack) she is 47% to win vs Garrett 53%.

Running it 2x she is under 25% to dodge his draw both times.

This is the primary reason I find cheating difficult to believe. At the end of the day she was lucky to win the hand. If she knew what his hand was she would have been out after the river knowing it would be impossible to get him off a draw that big.

[Bill Gates]

Should also be noted that through the casinos investigation they found one of their employees stole $15k worth of chips from Robbi.

Poker players can be too trusting leaving their stacks sitting at the table.

[AKA_AAP]

If she has already put him on a draw she views the Jc as his outs. But you know what, I'll concede defeat on that topic even though I do not agree.

Tell me this, how could she be cheating when she is the underdog to his draw? Let's say that through collusion or something else she knows he is holding that monster draw. Then she would also know he is the favorite to win the hand. Theoretically Garrett should take that bet every time.

I do not dismiss that collusion happens but I do think the examples Garrett sights are weak. I just do not believe cheating makes sense for Robbi in that hand.

I’m typing on my phone, so might not address the whole post. Just too tilting scrolling back and forth. I’ll give you advice, stop reading Twitter comments for news both political and apolitical.

If you’re cheating, and you know you have Jack 4 high vs 87cc, that doesn’t mean you also know the equity with one card to go. She’s obviously a low stakes donk like you, you think she would know the percentages in every situation? Or even most situations? Or this situation in an extremely non standard hand? I would bet a lot she didn’t know the percentages, just that she has Jack high vs 8 high with one card to go, and I would lay decent odds. I’m sure most winning regs in $5 and $10 BB wouldn’t know off the top of their head that Garrett was the slight favorite.

Garrett would never of acted the way he did had he not know a lot more information about Robbi and/or this whole incident. He’s never acted like that, so he definitely knows more behind the scenes information. Probably a lot more. I’ll catch up a little when I get back to California.

[AKA_AAP]

Should also be noted that through the casinos investigation they found one of their employees stole $15k worth of chips from Robbi.

Poker players can be too trusting leaving their stacks sitting at the table.

We all leave thousands of dollars in our stack because there are hundreds of cameras. It’s very secure and almost always safe.

An HCL employee taking 15k off of Robbi’s stack, with all the cameras around, is just pure stupidity. Also very incriminating and should push anyone undecided into believing Robbi was cheating. I think think this is a very good sign that they may have someone on the inside. Supposedly, this guy works with the production side. Where they have access to the RFID in real time…

[AKA_AAP]

If she has already put him on a draw she views the Jc as his outs. But you know what, I'll concede defeat on that topic even though I do not agree.

Tell me this, how could she be cheating when she is the underdog to his draw? Let's say that through collusion or something else she knows he is holding that monster draw. Then she would also know he is the favorite to win the hand. Theoretically Garrett should take that bet every time.

I do not dismiss that collusion happens but I do think the examples Garrett sights are weak. I just do not believe cheating makes sense for Robbi in that hand.

By the way, that’s a good concede. You got two posters who regularly play mid to high stakes poker vs you (a low stakes recreational player that will never play anything higher than $3 BB due to having an unsubstantiated overinflated ego). Please stop reading Twitter and taking everything on there seriously. Consider your sources, and Twitter has a lot of bad sources.

[macmac]

I think conceding an argument on a message board is a good sign of maturity , no reason to trash the dude.

If she had access to the rfid tech I don’t know why she would run it twice, as usually that cheating method tells you who has best hand on river of first board. I’ve been cheated like that in a private game before, and the cheater would always run it once and kept telling dealer to deal players even if they were off the table that hand, so he wouldn’t have to adjust his settings

[AKA_AAP]

I think conceding an argument on a message board is a good sign of maturity , no reason to trash the dude.

If she had access to the rfid tech I don’t know why she would run it twice, as usually that cheating method tells you who has best hand on river of first board. I’ve been cheated like that in a private game before, and the cheater would always run it once and kept telling dealer to deal players even if they were off the table that hand, so he wouldn’t have to adjust his settings

You made a good point about the RFID and why she would run it twice instead of once. Haven’t thought about that much, but…you know how the dealer sometimes request for the player to put his or her cards in a specific area of the table in these stream games? I think that’s for the cards to be read. So there are specific areas at the table that reads the cards for production. So most likely, if she were to cheat, she wouldn’t know the cards in the stub or in the dealer’s hand to put it more simply. She wouldn’t know the burn cards either. Basically, she wouldn’t know the runout of the board. Also, even if this is somehow known, running it twice also masks any cheating.

[ZenMaster]

I think conceding an argument on a message board is a good sign of maturity , no reason to trash the dude.

If she had access to the rfid tech I don’t know why she would run it twice, as usually that cheating method tells you who has best hand on river of first board. I’ve been cheated like that in a private game before, and the cheater would always run it once and kept telling dealer to deal players even if they were off the table that hand, so he wouldn’t have to adjust his settings

You didn't question this as it was happening? I'm assuming that the cheater was the host of the game?

I think the main theory about how the cheating at Hustler would have happened, is a production worker(a degenerate in debt) with access to the whole cards in real time and then relaying a simple signal to partner(s) at the table, either visually or using a device, which could be either something hidden or by muting the mic packs the partners use, turning a light on there from green to red.

[macmac]

It was in a game I played a bunch of times before. Big stakes. Guy was advertised as some crazy gambler Albanian visiting from Europe, that just seemed angry and mean as hell but giving so much action that you would put up with his antics. He sat in middle seat and had his phone on the table pointed at the deck of cards. And probably had something strapped to his leg or an earpiece that would tell him which seat had 1, 2 and 3rd strongest hand . So if 1st and 2nd folded preflop he would know he had the best hand on the river as 3. Which is why he would make these insane floating calls on flops to get there . He would mumble that too many players are going to smoke too often and to just deal them in. It is weird, but there’s games that deal everyone in until the missing players is in the blinds so I didn’t think too much of it.

In retrospect, it should have been more obvious, but I had never heard of that type of cheating until then. That was a good 8 years ago

[ZenMaster]

It was in a game I played a bunch of times before. Big stakes. Guy was advertised as some crazy gambler Albanian visiting from Europe, that just seemed angry and mean as hell but giving so much action that you would put up with his antics. He sat in middle seat and had his phone on the table pointed at the deck of cards. And probably had something strapped to his leg or an earpiece that would tell him which seat had 1, 2 and 3rd strongest hand . So if 1st and 2nd folded preflop he would know he had the best hand on the river as 3. Which is why he would make these insane floating calls on flops to get there . He would mumble that too many players are going to smoke too often and to just deal them in. It is weird, but there’s games that deal everyone in until the missing players is in the blinds so I didn’t think too much of it.

In retrospect, it should have been more obvious, but I had never heard of that type of cheating until then. That was a good 8 years ago

I'm well aware of the environment in these kind of games, I've played up to 50/100 a little bit, but a lot more at 25/50, had some WSOP and EPT sponsorships too. The excuse about people smoking I suppose is a pretty good one in real time.
Interesting story, the guy must have had some affiliation to the host though in order to pull this off, no? Or was there a specific reason you were playing with RFID cards instead of using regular cards with occasional deck changes?

You're obviously a big boy, but it's a good lesson to always be weary of players wanting to change the setup of a game that runs a certain way, I'd assume it was one of the things you took away from it at the time.

[Bill Gates]

Do I think even in cheating she would know the exact percentages? no, but even a amateur player would know that an open ended straight flush draw would be close to 50/50. If she were cheating there are a plethora of better situations for her to get her stack in on than that situation where she was an underdog to win and got lucky especially running it 2x. If she was cheating then she sucks at it and needed luck to bail her out.

[Bill Gates]

Also if she put him on a draw then through her words I believe she viewed her Jc as I did, as holding his outs. I do not play poker for a living, I am an amateur, so maybe I view that situation incorrectly, I'm fine admitting that. But I think she does as well. I also think others at the table viewed it as I did. That Robbi was legitimately holding a blocker but in order to call you need an actual hand in addition to that.

[AKA_AAP]

Do I think even in cheating she would know the exact percentages? no, but even a amateur player would know that an open ended straight flush draw would be close to 50/50. If she were cheating there are a plethora of better situations for her to get her stack in on than that situation where she was an underdog to win and got lucky especially running it 2x. If she was cheating then she sucks at it and needed luck to bail her out.

Almost everyone knows that OESDFD is a favorite over any one pair holdings (let's say vs an overapair) with two cards to go, but fewer people know how much of a significant underdog it is with one card to go (vs say an overpair). J4 high vs Garrett's 87 high with one card to go, J4 high is actually a slight favorite so your incorrect narrative that you're getting from Twitter gets thrown out the window. The reason why the %'s are different in HCL stream is because they account for the already known cards. So basically, there's no way a player would know the exact %'s even if they were cheating unless it was being relayed to them from someone inside the production team. I don't think they would go that far, but rather signal whether the person has the best hand or not.

And...Robbi is a low stakes player, like you. She doesn't know what she's talking about, yet you keep doubling down on everything she says. :lol Just stop, this thing is way over your head.

[AKA_AAP]

Also if she put him on a draw then through her words I believe she viewed her Jc as I did, as holding his outs. I do not play poker for a living, I am an amateur, so maybe I view that situation incorrectly, I'm fine admitting that. But I think she does as well. I also think others at the table viewed it as I did. That Robbi was legitimately holding a blocker but in order to call you need an actual hand in addition to that.

You're viewing it very incorrectly. And you're using the concept of blockers completely wrong. Both you and Robbi have no business explaining any hands, both of you are low stakes players that don't have enough understanding of poker. Just stop doubling down on this "blocking the river" idea. The people in this thread that actually know poker already pointed out that Jc is a horrible card to have in your hand to continue with a call. It's probably the absolute worst card in fact.

Read this 100 times: When you're bluff catching, you don't want to block your opponent's bluffing range. You want to UNBLOCK their cards, not block. Jack of clubs blocks Garrett's bluffs.

[Bill Gates]

One thing I will not concede is how Robbi used the term "blocker". I can see your term making sense POST RIVER then yes she would want Garrett to hold the Jc knowing his draw busted, but not pre-river running it 2x. She claims her Jc served as a blocker and I do not see anyone calling her out on that. Can you show me one example of a poker player saying her Jc was not a blocker?

Also you can stop pretending you're some big shot poker stud, how many rings and bracelets you got? I've been playing years but neither of us are playing in a late night high stakes game with $250k in the pot.



I think if anyone is doubling down on ignorance here it is Garrett who is now willing to die on the hill he put himself on and is now labeling half the table as cheaters. Robbi was the underdog to win that hand and if he had to take that bet again I am sure he would. His +6% odds of winning at the river is about the same skew casinos have over the field to make their entire fortunes.

[Bill Gates]

Many are also bringing up that Robbi Jade Lew is married to Charles Lew who apparently is the head of some law firm and is mega wealthy. That doesn't bode well for those claiming she is a cheat. What is she doing it for the thrills?

[hateraid]

Many are also bringing up that Robbi Jade Lew is married to Charles Lew who apparently is the head of some law firm and is mega wealthy. That doesn't bode well for those claiming she is a cheat. What is she doing it for the thrills?

You ate literally scraping ANY angle to validate yourself lol

[Bill Gates]

You ate literally scraping ANY angle to validate yourself lol
I am presenting the angles that I believe lean toward her being innocent yes. I wouldn't call her being wealthy "scraping" either. It makes much less sense for someone loaded with money to cheat at poker.

I'll say this. Is it possible she cheated? sure. I'm not going to pretend I know for fact she is innocent. And I will also say that I can understand why Garrett felt the way he did at first. If that happened to me I would be in state of shock just like he was. I would probably also suspect that something fishy could be going on. But after looking at everything I heavily lean toward innocent I'd say around 90%-10%. Maybe she cheated but I seriously doubt it.

I believe that Garrett has now gotten himself into a situation that he can back down from. And I also feel sorry for both of them, it was an unfortunate occurrence for both of them. Garrett now has many in the poker world who hate him and want him to give the money back, and Robbi now has many who believe she is a cheater. They both now have hate groups.

[Johnny32]

The best poker players are really good in cold reads meaning they can usually tell what the other person has which obviously greatly influences their decision whether to stay in the hand or not. They can do this because of a lot of experience plus very meticulous study of the game.

lol

[3ba11]

The problem that I have is that this whole situation puts limits on the game - aka no one in the world of 7 billion people can put Garrett on 8-high (his most likely draw) and it's cheating if they do

that goes against what the game is about.. the game is played with hole cards face down and you're supposed to use any information possible to determine what they have.. plays like Robbi's are supposed to be possible even if she herself choked on that particular hand.

Didn't Tom Dwan call a big bet on the river with 9-high or something on the latest season of High Stakes Poker?.. He put his opponent on a missed 6-high gutshot or something.. That's what the game is all about - you can't take that possibility away

[AKA_AAP]

The problem that I have is that this whole situation puts limits on the game - aka no one in the world of 7 billion people can put Garrett on 8-high (his most likely draw) and it's cheating if they do

that goes against what the game is about.. the game is played with hole cards face down and you're supposed to use any information possible to determine what they have.. plays like Robbi's are supposed to be possible even if she herself choked on that particular hand.

Didn't Tom Dwan call a big bet on the river with 9-high or something on the latest season of High Stakes Poker?.. He put his opponent on a missed 6-high gutshot or something.. That's what the game is all about - you can't take that possibility away

A river bluff followed by a super hero call with 9 high on the river is completely different than min raising a pot size bet on the turn, then calling off a 3-bet jam with the worst blocker possible and no pair no draw (also 3 to 1 underdog to ALL of Garrett's bluffing range and can only beat two bluffs)...then saying she thought she had J3 for a pair, then changing her story to saying she had Jack high, then flip flopping once again saying she misread her hand as J3 instead of J4, then the fact that she looked at her bottom card (which was the 4) for a very long time, then in showdown never acted surprise when she flipped over her J4 hand (anyone would of been like "oh shit, I THOUGHT I had a pair of 3's rather than just looking at her hand with zero reaction). Then add to the fact that there has been suspect things prior to the hand, the vibrating device, the person in production with a long criminal record stealing $15k from Robbi's stack (could be a form of payment, or pure coincidence), the seemingly fake texts Robbi has been sending, and the shady cast of characters that have formed a collusion ring in LA. I'm days behind all the new information, but this is now looking bad on Robbi. The hand itself, if anyone has any basic understanding of poker, is already extremely suspect...then you add all the context to it, it's 100% cheating.

The problem with this is, it will be near impossible for Garrett to prove it. Everyone in the poker world and their moms know Mike Postle was cheating on the Stones Stream, but with a jury full of non-poker players like "Bill Gates", a guilty verdict will never get through. Maybe with a bunch of texts, but no one is that stupid to leave such a paper trail. Collusion in poker streams is discussed in person, not via texts.

[AKA_AAP]

lol

Yeah, that's pretty funny. Only amateurs think poker is about reading souls rather than forming a very good exploitative strategy AND a good GTO game and knowing the tendencies, threshold, and deviations their opponents make when they are winning, losing, upstuck, getting close to even after being stuck a lot, etc etc.

[Overdrive]

You can't know for sure what another player has until cards are actually turned over, poker is not about assuming, but applying probability.
Take into consideration that Gareth could have made a hand already and not been on a draw at all.

Her having the Jc increases the probability that Gareth isn't on a draw and that it's a hand where he needs outs to win.

I see, thanks.

[Bill Gates]

Robbi just willingly took a polygraph test and passed it. Almost everyone in the poker world believes she is innocent including Ivey. And reminder that she was the underdog going into the river the odds were against her to win after stacks were pushed.

[PistonsFan#21]

Robbi just willingly took a polygraph test and passed it. Almost everyone in the poker world believes she is innocent including Ivey. And reminder that she was the underdog going into the river the odds were against her to win after stacks were pushed.

I dont care how rich i am i am not giving someone $135K back right after winning if i didn't cheat and had nothing to hide. Would she get the same mercy if she ended up losing the hand and said she misread her hand?

Never in the history of Poker have i seen someone make a hero call and then giving it back. Why not just fold in that case? It's not like Garrett threatened her to give it back. Maybe i just have a different thought process than her but the whole thing doesn't make sense.

[hateraid]

I dont care how rich i am i am not giving someone $135K back right after winning if i didn't cheat and had nothing to hide. Would she get the same mercy if she ended up losing the hand and said she misread her hand?

Never in the history of Poker have i seen someone make a hero call and then giving it back. Why not just fold in that case? It's not like Garrett threatened her to give it back. Maybe i just have a different thought process than her but the whole thing doesn't make sense.

Exactly. Why even defend Robbi? Either way she looks like a cheat or an idiot. Or both

[AKA_AAP]

Robbi just willingly took a polygraph test and passed it. Almost everyone in the poker world believes she is innocent including Ivey. And reminder that she was the underdog going into the river the odds were against her to win after stacks were pushed.

From what I've heard from other poker players following the latest news, it was an unverified polygraph test that her PR team conducted. You've been wrong on so many things here, I'm starting to believe your real username is AlwaysWrongBladefd.

Reminder: Jc4h is a 54.5% favorite over 87cc on TT93hcch board with one card to go.

Also: If you were to cheat, you wouldn't need to know what the equity is in all spots. You just need to know if your Jack high or pair of 3's on the turn is ahead or not through some sort of signal (another reminder, she went back and forth from saying she misread her hand to knowing she has Jack high).

Also: the stream will say 87cc is a 53% favorite because in the HCL stream, they account for the cards that have been read by the RFID.

No idea why you keep repeating a bunch of msnbc crap in this situation.

[AKA_AAP]

Exactly. Why even defend Robbi? Either way she looks like a cheat or an idiot. Or both

This guy is defending Robbi with his Twitter sources that don't know anything about poker. :oldlol: And the icing on the cake, he is butchering the concept of blockers as far as one can ever butcher it. :oldlol:

Then he links the definition of what a blocker is, not realizing I didn't say the definition is wrong, rather the application and concept of blockers is being used incorrectly (he is literally using Robbi's and other Twitter users butchered application of what a blocker is). "blocking the river", if that statement ever goes public, it will become one of the biggest memes in poker.

[AKA_AAP]

I dont care how rich i am i am not giving someone $135K back right after winning if i didn't cheat and had nothing to hide. Would she get the same mercy if she ended up losing the hand and said she misread her hand?

Never in the history of Poker have i seen someone make a hero call and then giving it back. Why not just fold in that case? It's not like Garrett threatened her to give it back. Maybe i just have a different thought process than her but the whole thing doesn't make sense.

Exactly, it's very suspect. And a lot of things are outside the hand itself. She has also flip flopped on whether she misread her hand too, until finally sticking with the "I had a pair of 3's" angle because it would make the most sense in favor of her.

[Bill Gates]

I dont care how rich i am i am not giving someone $135K back right after winning if i didn't cheat and had nothing to hide. Would she get the same mercy if she ended up losing the hand and said she misread her hand?

Never in the history of Poker have i seen someone make a hero call and then giving it back. Why not just fold in that case? It's not like Garrett threatened her to give it back. Maybe i just have a different thought process than her but the whole thing doesn't make sense.
It makes way less sense from the other angle, that her and group of other players at the table cheated and schemed just to return their earnings. These crooks plotted all that out just for Robbi to give it back?

She misread her hand as J3, saw Garrett's head explode and leave, and felt bad about and didn't want the drama. She's a multimillionaire who just plays for fun like Jennifer Tilly, she cares more about the social status of it all than the earnings.

[Bill Gates]

This guy is defending Robbi with his Twitter sources that don't know anything about poker. :oldlol: And the icing on the cake, he is butchering the concept of blockers as far as one can ever butcher it. :oldlol:

Then he links the definition of what a blocker is, not realizing I didn't say the definition is wrong, rather the application and concept of blockers is being used incorrectly (he is literally using Robbi's and other Twitter users butchered application of what a blocker is). "blocking the river", if that statement ever goes public, it will become one of the biggest memes in poker.
I used Daniel Negreanu and Phil Ivey :oldlol:

Where are the pros defending Garrett?

[Bill Gates]

https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1577067039750963200

This guy doesn't know anything about poker?

[AKA_AAP]

I used Daniel Negreanu and Phil Ivey :oldlol:

Where are the pros defending Garrett?

A lot of pros are going back and forth, and with the new information out, they are leaning towards cheating now.

Also, to cite the Mike Postle cheating incident, there was a counter sue where Mike Postle sued a bunch of known poker players with a platform. Cheating in poker will be impossible to hold in the court of law, because you'll have a jury of people with zero to low poker IQ (like you). This time around, there won't be many poker pros that will publicly say she was cheating just to avoid any possibility of getting sued.

[AKA_AAP]

https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1577067039750963200

This guy doesn't know anything about poker?

That tweet is from October 3rd. And Daniel tweets how their is faulty logic in thinking that giving the money back proves she is a cheat. Daniel doesn't go out to say, "this proves she is innocent". You can't even read surface level meaning on tweets. You're quite low IQ. :roll:

This whole thing is way over your head, log back into your main account. You're pulling an AlwaysWrongBladefd post after post.

[Bill Gates]

Okay so I have Phil Ivey and Daniel Negreanu and you have nobody and instead just want strawman a blocker debate and pretend the internet is full of blocker memes :oldlol:

Good thing you aren't a lawyer. "Your honor there are memes that say otherwise!"

[hateraid]

Okay so I have Phil Ivey and Daniel Negreanu and you have nobody and instead just want strawman a blocker debate and pretend the internet is full of blocker memes :oldlol:

Good thing you aren't a lawyer. "Your honor there are memes that say otherwise!"

You seriously are going way out of your way to defend what is universally seen as a shitty call and the most outrageous hand ever televised.

[Bill Gates]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFHU6Mzkoc

Good watch that sums up my thoughts. If she was cheating then she wouldn't have called that and run it 2x as an underdog. It makes no sense.

[Bill Gates]

You seriously are going way out of your way to defend what is universally seen as a shitty call and the most outrageous hand ever televised.

Exactly! That's what I'm saying it was. A shitty call. :oldlol:

And not a brilliant scam.

[AKA_AAP]

Okay so I have Phil Ivey and Daniel Negreanu and you have nobody and instead just want strawman a blocker debate and pretend the internet is full of blocker memes :oldlol:

Good thing you aren't a lawyer. "Your honor there are memes that say otherwise!"

Your Daniel Negreanu tweet doesn't say that he thinks she is innocent, it just says that he thinks giving the money back isn't a sign of guilt. Link Phil Ivey, your low IQ probably misinterpret something there as well just like how you have misinterpret everything. You've spent days defending Robbi, and citing a Negreanu tweet, BUT you misinterpret everything. Let that sink in.

I've literally spent a few minutes outside of listening to a handful Joe Ingram investigation podcasts while I'm driving. I'm not up to date with the most recent news, so I won't be able to give you links on what specific poker influencers think. After the whole Mike Postle incident, which is deeper than this case, I've learned to just stop spending too much time on it from the start and just wait for everything to come out. It will take months.

You pretending to know anything about poker is quite entertaining though, especially coming from someone that plays the smallest stakes at a casino (if you even play anything outside of home game micros).

[AKA_AAP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFHU6Mzkoc

Good watch that sums up my thoughts. If she was cheating then she wouldn't have called that and run it 2x as an underdog. It makes no sense.

That is some broken logic there. :lol

[Bill Gates]

Negreau has loads of tweets defending her, scroll down his Twitter. :facepalm

Ivey said she misread her had as a J3, he said in an interview after the hand. The entire episode was posted in here.

[Bill Gates]

https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1577367310196621312

https://twitter.com/ToddWitteles/status/1576918346158571520


there you go from kid poker

[AKA_AAP]

Negreau has loads of tweets defending her, scroll down his Twitter. :facepalm

Ivey said she misread her had as a J3, he said in an interview after the hand. The entire episode was posted in here.

I don't care that Ivey said she misread her hand.

I care that Robbi said she misread her hand as J3, then say she didn't misread her hand and knew she had Jack high, then went back to saying she misread her hand as J3 after realizing it would make the most sense. Then there's the fact that before making the call, she spent a lot of time looking at her bottom card (which was the 4 btw). Then the fact that she literally had zero reaction when she flipped over her J4 on showdown, rather than saying "oh shit, I thought I had a pair of 3's" which every poker player would react in that way if they misread their hand.

Yes, it makes 100% more sense IF she misread her hand as J3 for a pair. But there are many signs pointing to her not misreading her hand...and the flip flopping on her part is VERY suspect.

Also quite hilarious that I knew you were eating up everything from Twitter, before you linked anything from Twitter, while me not having a Twitter account. So predictable how ****ing stupid and stubborn you are. :lol

[Bill Gates]

The entire episode can be seen here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ

I've watched it all. She goes on to say that she misread her hand as J3 and Ivey was later interviewed and he reads the situation as the same. It's a believable story. She does look at her cards several times but my thoughts are that she is looking without really thinking about it. It's an anxious movement she is used to doing in the middle of a hand, like shuffling chips. She's just looking while contemplating the call and not really looking at her cards, she's already mentally clocked in that she has J3.

I think part of the problem was that she was too embarrassed to admit she misread her hand which is completely understandable because she's on TV with some of the greatest poker players there are. But then when Garrett left and accused her of cheating she realized the severity of the situation and fessed up.

Phil Ivey @ 4:26:51

[Bill Gates]

You got Eric Persson saying the same thing in that clip and labeling it "Occam's Razor" because her misreading as J3 is WAY WAY WAY more likely than elaborate scam during a televised game where she calls as an underdog causing an uproar and then goes on to pass a polygraph.

[AKA_AAP]

By the way, Daniel Negreanu has had many wrong takes on some obvious things poker related. Like when he had some random take on how easy it would be for him to beat $25/$50 online if he studied for a short period of time, this was before the Doug Polk heads up match when Doug Polk was retired from poker. Yeah, Doug Polk came out of retirement and proved him completely wrong.

This kind of stuff, you wouldn't be able to find through Twitter. :lol

[AKA_AAP]

You got Eric Persson saying the same thing in that clip and labeling it "Occam's Razor" because her misreading as J3 is WAY WAY WAY more likely than elaborate scam during a televised game where she calls as an underdog causing an uproar and then goes on to pass a polygraph.

Her misreading her hand is definitely more likely. But when you bring forth all the context to it, she is 100% cheating and she has partners in the scam.

[AKA_AAP]

I would like you to bring forth the most recent news, rather than tweets you misinterpret and real time opinions from that game. The real time statements from that day doesn't prove anything, no one with a huge platform will instantly accuse her of cheating because it would bring such a shit storm way too early and they wouldn't know any information outside of one hand in showdown where it initially looks like she misread her hand (again, there are many signs that point to her NOT misreading her hand). But her misreading her hand makes the most sense in real time.

Garrett is the only one that instantly accused her of cheating, and that's because prior to that hand, he had a lot of info and background on her and her shady network of people that got her in that game.

[AKA_AAP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHD8AXtxpIM

Just found this video right now, the best take I've seen on it so far. Bart Hanson on point. From October 10th.

Garrett finally breaks his silence, October 7th. https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/garrett-adelstein-report-likely-cheating-hustler-casino-live-1813491/

I'll have to reread it late tonight (long read). And the thread is 242 pages long now, I'm not going to go through it, so have fun reading. Get off Twitter too, AlwaysWrongBladefdJr.