What would you say on a scale of 1 to 100 this J4 hand is as I described in the video? (only the hand itself with no backstory). 1 being no suspicion whatsoever and 100 being the most?
60%…seems very odd that every time she throws in a time chip she makes the correct decision after about 15 seconds like she’s signaling someone to tell her if she’s good. Then the vibrations after the time chip
Given all of the context (previous hand being J3, asking if he can beat a 3, probably only checking the J, her experience, what PHIL IVEY said!!!….) I have to say there is a very small chance she knew that garret had zero percent equity in the hand. Like 10%
I remember her comment "I put you on Ace high", and Garret's response was like "mmhmmm, then why did you call me with J hi?". Well, if she misread her hand and thought a pair of 3's were good, then that would justify that comment. But, I just find it impossible for her to have misread her hand after she looked at her hand several times before calling. Also, when all the chips were in the middle, she acknowledged that she did not have any sort of strength of hand. Her story is just all over the place, and that's why I think that something is up.
She could've misread her hand. You could tatto J4 on her palm and she'd misread that tattoo repeatedly. She is so stupid there's no way she's in on any cheating scam because she would've messed up by now and told the "wrong" people
@@budthebud9108 "Do you have a 3?", someone asks her before the reveal, and she responds, "no, no, I have an absolute bluffcatcher". Also, when Garett says "why did you call me with J high then?", she doesnt say "I thought I have a 3" or smthing similar, but she kind of loses her words and responds, smthing along the lines "I knew u had nothing, thats what matters"
@Nakraal you can't trust anything she says because she doesn't know what she's talking about. She wasn't even aware that garrett thought she cheated....she has 0 clue what happened so I just think it's possible that no matter how long she looked at her hand or what she said when it's still very likely she misread her hand. I personally think she thought she was drawing to a straight flush...I think she forgot how many cards are dealt on board...lol
I watched this live as it happened and I never perceived that Bart was accusing Robbi of cheating. To the contrary he was actually explaining possible reasons for her call. What's more important from a consumer standpoint was the production of this show: It was truly amazing. The camera work focusing on Garret's dismay and shock. The disjointed/awkward table talk and ensuing altercation. Was some of the best poker drama I have ever seen. Bart did an excellent job.
I think that Bart was reading into Garrett’s facial expressions. That could have been a problem if Garrett did not actually suspect cheating. In that case, Bart might have created a narrative where none existed. But obviously Bart was right so no harm was done. Since Garrett was about to accuse, it all would have gone this way regardless.
@@stt5v2002 Bart arrived at Hustler 2 hours after this hand in question. So tell me how he witnessed and commentated on this hand live. SMH 🤔 you obviously don't comprehend a delayed live stream
Guys, I mean come on... There are such things as a coincidence but I mean come on.... At what point are there too many? How could these many things go wrong for someone in a once single event? • Robbi played the hand super weird, almost an impossible hand without knowing his cards. • Tanks often in super odd/weird spots • She said "no" when someone asked her if she had a 3 (She looks at her cards right before this) • She then claimed she had a "pure bluff catcher" • She has changed her story several times. • Her mid-section was vibrating but no apparent leg moving • She gave him the money back (why would you do that if you played a legitimate hand and just called his bluff as she stated). • Guy who works in productions who had access to whole cards life just happened to "steal" 15k from her stack • Guy claimed he didn't even know who's stack it was despite being a part of production for that live stream and she was sitting to the left of the dealer so how could he just not know that after spending several hours apart of that stream • Robbi somehow didn't even notice that 15k was gone from her stack and never reported it or brought it up • When contacted by Hustlers Casino Robbie decided NOT to press charges citing she would ruin his life bc he has no criminal charges etc.. • Turns out they actually followed each other on Twitter BEFORE this yet in all of her convos she said she didn't know him • She said she asked the police officer if he had prior charges and said that the police officer went to look and then told her he didn't (Guess the police officer missed the 5+ charges he had?) • The guy does have criminal charges, actually a lot of criminal charges, Robbi still hasn't filed charges
The $15K missing from her stack - and seemingly nobody else's - taken by Bryan (the guy you noted) is very odd and the timing is even more strange that it happened on the same night shortly after this hand. If there was collusion/cheating, you can easily argue that Bryan was pissed she gave the money back to Garrett and decided to then take "his" cut. Basically he was saying if you want to give the money back that comes out of YOUR end, not mine/ours/whoever else was involved. Bryan was a known degenerate gambler who had numerous gambling debts at the time this occurred. Bryan actually didn't have direct access to the hole cards as he was a AV tech. He did work in an office that was adjoining to where the hole cards were shown for the stream in real-time and a week or so prior to this incident allegedly moved his desk to a different point in the room. His reason was it created more space for him to work, but Doug Polk IIRC reported that new desk location made it easier for anyone sitting in it to see the monitor or visual of the hole cards real-time.
@@oldegolfer5146dating? As far as i know that was a „friend“ of hers..she was married to a lawyer at that time, who wasnt at the table.. But there was definitely something fishy going on in that session.- especially because of the vibeating hip/chair thing… i mean..cmon. Maybe we dont know what exactly ,- but some sort of cheating did happen for SURE!
The problem with this whole situation is that it has blown up so big that people with little to no poker knowledge think that this is perfectly normal or they can reasonably justify the call. The people who have been ripping you for your commentary and Garrett for his reaction are these exact people.
Especially since I think he really didn’t do this just from this one hand! I think he’s seen the collusion with her and Rip as well throughout the game!
@@primitive7634 Why do you think Rip freaked out on Garrett? Robbi just gave him Rip's money, I didn't finish the video yet so not sure if Bart mentioned that he was staking her.
I have 25 years of poker experience and I don't think she cheated. Yes, it's suspect but innocent till proven guilty. I think she is just an amateur who wanted to make a play and thought she could hit a jack or 4 to win the pot on river. I'm 90% sure she didn't cheat.
LOL! Not even close. The blind leading the blind. The West is doomed to be destroyed from within by weak men who think they're intellect rules the world. Good times make weak men, weak men make hard times. Enjoy.
@@TheEriccli bet you also think 5 high takes split pot example. Lol. Over 100k, 2.5x pot bet on turn, what draw ?!?! Ummm really she’s just that bad and ooops caught a world pro in a bluff with J high. Lmfao see there’s this thing called math, gto, you know what you wouldn’t understand, there’s this thing called very basic strategy, you know what never mind. Your right.
Bart is the GOAT commentator, I’m so glad he was in the booth during this hand. His takes are always top notch! Bart, I don’t think you did anything wrong by saying that Garrett thought the hand wasn’t straight, you were just acknowledging his reaction. It would have been weird to not mention Garrett’s very uncharacteristic behavior after the hand.
If anyone made a "soul read" on Garrett on this hand, it was Bart because he correctly read Garrett's face after and said Garrett thinks this hand was not straight in some way. Which is exactly what he thought.
Mike Postle’s cheating scandal is actually what got me into poker, specifically Joey Ingram’s analysis. It made me realize how deep this game actually is and how fascinating a single hand of poker can really be. Hopefully after the dust settles this can be an incident that is good for poker and gets more people into it.
No chance. This one can't be resolved with statistics the way the Postle one was - I agree that that was "good for poker". But this one is horrible - I never want to be in the position Garett was, knowing you've just been scammed for big $, but not knowing how or what on earth you should do about it. This is definitely a live poker turn-off.
Cheating scandals are in no way good for the game. Never will be. It does the opposite of bringing ppl in. About the only thing that is good for poker about a cheating scandal are the cheaters get caught. Are you 2 smoking crack?
@@aheroictaxidriver3180 You must have misunderstood what I'm saying - my point was that I don't ever want to feel the way Garrett felt, and so I am more likely to avoid live poker because of it. Sure, it was an "abnormal event", but one that has been widely viewed by people who don't even play poker. The OP was suggesting it might bring more people into the game, the way the Postle episode did - I'm saying why I think that isn't the case.
@@aheroictaxidriver3180 Exactly. Garret is a snake and a degen like all these other pieces of trash they find. Hes probably getting crushed betting football or playing dice. Selling his action off. These people are not nice people.
I'm so glad you came out with this video. I watched it on stream as it happened and I really empathized with both parties. I can remember vividly when I accidentally slow rolled someone when I has forgotten the rank order of Full House and Flush. The embarrassment was enough that I babbled and apologized to the person I slow rolled. There's an assumption that just because you can play in the game, you should know the game well. If anything, her lack of experience should be her shield.
Robbi was completely unable to describe her strategy after playing the hand. At one time she stated she believed Garrett had Ace high (but she only held Jack high and thus should not have called). Then she also claimed she thought she had a three (not a four), but she can be clearly seen to look at her hand for easily 5 seconds. Her demeanor was also odd at the win. Almost uncomfortable. It appeared as if she asked to go twice (Garrett preferred once) so as to purposely split the pot. Garrett appeared less angry at first, but rather in utter disbelief, as if the (Poker) world had just gotten unhinged. "This is not a Poker hand" he can be heard saying. Andy was also in disbelief. Bart, who was commentating at the time was also in complete disbelief. "How can she call here?" Bart was even thinking that the telegrapher wasn't working properly. It simply didn't make sense. The way she played the hand did not make sense, her explanations did not make sense. And she gave back the money, which also did not make sense. Bad for the game!
yeah she was on the defensive saying she didnt think she would even win the hand and then said she thought he had ace high and then a few minutes later said you didnt have shit to garret implying she knew he wouldn't have a high car when she just said she thought he had ace high
I understand the dilemma, I can just relate to a beginner who doesn't need/care about the money and thinking the other guy is bluffing (which was apparent) making some long shot hero call cuz why not?
And you did a great job Bart! You really let it play out with minimal commentary. Watching live I didn’t think you took Garrett’s side. Your comment when Garrett is packing up his chips to run home - “Eric’s facial reaction is like my face in the booth” Always enjoy you on the stream and you’ve been there for the 2 biggest days of the year - the Bart effect.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
A big part of what makes her look so suspect is that she's just a really weird woman. Her mannerisms are strange and her trying to explain her reasoning is just idiotic. Bobbi: "I thought you had Ace high" Garrett: "so you called me with Jack high?" 🤯💸🤷
Anyone with a brain should realize that her constantly talking like a schizo is completely in line with her spewing nonsense when asked why she called. Half the things she says in normal conversation make no sense, people have no clue what she's even trying to say. Like when she said was scratching her face "because of the shit i got" everyone was just looking at her in complete befuddlement of her gibberish. Add to that how normal it is for people to throw out ad hoc bullshit excuses to justify terrible decisions. Just look at some of Mikki's explanations for some of his punts, it's often utter nonsense with buzzwords thrown in. Robbi just happens to be exceptionally stupid, exceptionally schizo, and in an ego battle with Garrett.
She definitely didn’t help herself with her play acting, clear lying about misreading her hand and then giving the money back. I actually disagree with Bart about the money. If she was desperate to make this go away and quiet the whole thing down she may absolutely give the money back even if she was a cheater. That’s why she was so careful to get Garrett to agree to drop it and keep playing if she gave the money back.
What look like interactions between her and RIP also seem suspicious to me. Lots of long looks, and then that very strange part where he’s mouthing to her that she should go out to talk with Garrett and Ryan. Looks like they’re partners in whatever they were doing.
@@backyardjuggler If she cheated, he's 💯 involved, probably his idea. He has a lot of money apparently, might have the contacts and resources to have the system hacked.
It’s just so hard to justify two things for Robbi. A) She clearly lied about the hand and has been telling so many different stories. During the hand, she clearly looked directly at her hole cards and said to GMan and others at the table she didn’t have a 3. B) She voluntarily gave the money back within 30 minutes of the conclusion of the hand. If you honestly thought you did nothing wrong why would you ever even consider giving that amount of money back. Regardless if Garrett asked or was intimidating.
The big question would be why then? If you had some kind of device why would you pick this spot to use it because she certainly didn't use it previously in the evening. That doesn't make any sense either
B) 100k to her may not mean the same to her as it does to you and I. Her husband is wealthy and she has her own businesses. Not only would cheating put her at risk of jail by casino but if she is deemed a cheater then her other businesses are in jeopardy as well. 100k is worth a lot less than good integrity. Plus after this investigation by Hustler casino and if she believes she didn’t cheat then she’ll get that money back.
I saw a Reddit post that said they think she was on some kind of drugs and that’s why she made the most ridiculous call ever. She was so focused on the fact she was sure he was bluffing she didn’t realize that she didn’t really have a hand that can beat most bluffs. It makes some sense with her mannerisms and her subdued reaction to winning a massive pot
I saw this when it happened. 2 + 2 will never = 5. Her play made no sense at all. Her verbal explanation made even less sense. What she did and why can NEVER EVER be done at a poker table. Garrett knew the second he saw her hand and the commentators knew during the hand. And then she gives the money back. 2 + 2 = 4. she said she was playing the man. BULLSHIT!! She cannot play the man with that hand. Even if she thinks he was bluffing. There are 25 HANDS THAT BEAT HER. Any pair (13) Q-K-A (16) J5-J6-J7-J8-J9-J10 (22) 3-9-10 (25). THE only WAY TO CALL THAT HAND IS IF YOU KNOW YOU HAVE IT WON. SHE IS A CHEAT AND A LIAR
It was only weird in the manner that she did it BUT you’ll see a lot of times in situations like that on hustler where the players tank with not even ace high and the commentators chalk it up to “he’s posturing”
But it's consistent with her genuinely wanting to call Garrett down and just not finding the courage on that particular spot. Based on everything we know about her, certain men's bluffing frequencies against her is very very high in her mind.
@Alex F agree, it was for more than profit motive. Attention seeking, look how a good a woman can play.....I got hoodwinked, thought she's really good until The Hand. She appeared to target Garrett...her comments like "you made me do it" "I'm not letting you get away with it" These comments only make sense if a player has unknown info.
Another thing that adds haziness is that while the dealer is still counting her chips and nobody has made any accusations Robbie says "I do this to you all the time off stream as well." Why say that if she thinks that Garrett was just upset because he lost?
She made a savage call, feels bad. He’s sending her daggers. He looks like an idiot. She’s already rich af, she wants publicity whether she was right or wrong with that call she getting views on her insta or OF. She won’t come out and say that, but that’s why. Crazy how stupid people are.
Someone at her level of play *(and by this I mean not having played a ton of hands)* wouldn't even have guessed that cheating was an option. She was grasping at anything to make Garrett feel better.
This is what did it for me. Projection is the ultimate admission of guilt. Yeah she played like a donkey the rest of the time but making the call isn't what makes it seem suspicious to me. It's the behavior after. Has some Mike postle vibes when she laughs in Garrett's face. "You look like you want to kill me" and all the other needles she throws his way make her look very guilty to me. Perhaps because of the postle deal, that I followed very closely, I'm a little quick to assume guilt, but her mannerisms are what makes things seem like they're not on the up and up.
The look he gave her was clear indication as to what he was implying had gone down. Words did not need to be spoken from her perspective. The look said everything. Bart in the commentary even said that "Garrett thinks something is going on" almost immediately after the hand was tabled.
I don't think I'm alone when I say I've changed my mind about this hand half a dozen times. When it happened, there's not a person alive, pro or novice, that could've convinced me that nothing shady went down. Her changing her story 5 times really just has my brain in a blender. I really hope they get to the absolute bottom of it all, although that could prove to be incredibly difficult, because the whole thing is just simply nuts
I was the opposite, live i thought Garrett was awful and i was mad ssome poor woman was bullied, the flustered spluttering rambling she made convinced me she was embarrassed about winning and wanted to justify a bad play, then i changed to thinking she was a cheat, now im coming back around again.
What did she do wrong? She just gambled. Thats poker now and days. Look at luda chris and that lil white guy with face tattoos. All they do is gamble. Poker is not the same as it use too.
@@Dezu123 Garrett lost all credibility in this situation. He was throwing a fit and accusing her of cheating with no evidence. In my view, she assumed that she had J3 instead of J4. She didn't say anything because she was embarrassed. I believe her. Even andy said the same thing @3:25. Garrett is a sore loser.
Great take, Bart. I think it’s unfair to call her stupid and use that “word salad” against her. I feel that it was just a novice, donkey play and she was trying to use her limited poker knowledge in hope of a justification. Eager to see how it plays out.
then why did she return the money? and why did she later claim both that she gave back the money because she "felt bad" that he had lost money AND that he had threatened and intimidated her into returning the money?
Um… can we stop downplaying her “limited poker knowledge..” it’s not limited, it’s pro… that’s why she’s there! She’s the NEW PRO girl on the block… she was totally trained, and if she really knew she won, wether getting “lucky” or not, you DO NOT give back the money…✔️
@@mattt.4395 I agree that part is wonky. But I don’t think that necessarily means she cheated. I think she was approached by Garret and she felt uncomfortable so she just said “ok here you go” in attempt to quickly make it go away. Little did she know that’d just make her look more guilty. She prob then talked to people about it after and they’re like “wtfff why would you give it back?” Then she got pissed about it and made it sound like Garrett bullied her.
@@alakazaam4292 no one -- especially no oneblike her (clearly a very superficial person) -- gives back over 100,000 dollars just because they "feel bad." thats ridiculous. i agree that based solely on gameplay alone, we cant conclude cheating. some people jusy want to gamble/make dumb plays. hell, i once called a 100x all-in open with no dead money with AKs. Guy had KK (I sucked out and won). but her behavior afterwards unmistakably points towards guilt.
Hi Bart, what are your thoughts of Rip sitting at the table who allegedly is Robbi's friend and business partner? His reaction to Robbi giving back the money was almost as if she gave away his own money (like she was stake by him). She was also super defensive when asked if they are friends later in the broadcast... which I found odd. It seemed like no one knew of their relationship and they wanted to keep it hidden. I just think there is huge conflict of interest if she was indeed staked by Rip and opens the door to collusion or some other type of cheating.
I am completely out of my league here as far as poker is concerned. As a complete novice I appreciate him explaining what actually happened. I actually did not see the big deal at the beginning but now I understand why this is a thing all of a sudden. I appreciate this guy and his commentary
Ok, let me explain your concern. She was not getting signal all the time, just at some specific moment, and the only two kinds of signal she got were which hand is better , yours or your opponents'. I hope you guys can think through of the whole thing better.
Can you enlighten us where you got this info, and where to get such a device from. It seems that everyone bringing this up has no proof how to actually implement this cheating device.
@@adrienspaceage1619 Device is not a big deal, It's fairly easy to get. The question is, how serious the Hustler casino restricts the electronic devices. Will they check your body? Will they double check someone when he or she went back from bathroom break.
@@adrienspaceage1619 I've been looking for ways to beat the casinos for more than ten years, and yes I have no evidence in this particular event. But I tell you what, I have been banned by a casino for advantage play personlly, and this is something I'm familiar with😀
So.. Robbie is someone who doesn’t understand that calling with J high is not the play in this situation, but apparently has been playing poker for over a decade and is playing in the same game as Phil Ivey? How does this make sense?
Bart is 100% on point here. I feel like she didn't understand that Garrett suspected her of cheating at the time and so she just thought he was mad, which thew the whole situation into a weird state.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
Why is nobody mentioning on these commentaries that she was actually not even a favorite to win this hand? She was a very slight dog. If she were cheating, why would she pick this spot, where the odds were against her? She might as well have gone to roulette and put it all on red.
Someone asked her if she had a pair of 3's, she said no. They they asked if she had a 3 and she said No. you're right if she said she misread her hand right away we wouldn't be talking about this at all. I feel like the was she was acting after is what makes her look guilty of cheating.
Hey I'm Wes and I was one of the viewers when this hand went down live. I just want to give my perspective as I watched this take place first hand. I thought Robbi was a bad player for making this call. Then I saw Garrett's face and thought maybe she was cheating. Thanks for taking the time to listen to my unique perspective. 😉
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
I thought your commentating during the hand was excellent. Very well done, considering it was so out of the ordinary. But I think there was definitely cheating going on. Her giving the money back and acting like the money doesn’t matter was very damning, to me. Among other things.
She also said to Garrett “I thought you had A’s high and I wanted to call” thats when Garrett said “then why would you call me with Jack high?” She had no answer I don’t know she was all over with her explanations🤣🤣🤣
@@Matt-np3fe Except that she said DURING THE HAND AT THE RIVER BEFORE FLIPPING HER CARDS OVER that she HAD NO 3, and was not in the least bit surprised to see her J4 appear.....so, NOT THAT.
@@CowSaysMooMoo she could have been caught in the moment and just not looked at her own cards (after all, if she "knew" she had J3 then why would she need to look)?
@@Matt-np3fe she definitely looked at her cards multiple times and did say “no pair I have a pure bluffcatcher” and “ you give me credit for a pair haha” She knows what she had and is lying
@@Gos1234567 yep. Ad she had nothing to catch the bulff. There were so many bluffs that beat her. She is either totally dumb or cheating. If she is dumb then what is she doing playing high stake poker?
I am leaning strong to no cheating. But you can't say %100, just too weird, though I really think at this point it was the just the donk call of the millennium. lol
I will preface this by saying that I don't have a dog in this fight and am more or less 50/50 whether Robbi cheated. I just want to point out that, while most of Bart's analysis is solid, at least one part of his analysis is totally illogical. At this point, I think it's clear that Robbi is not cheating in a way that allows her to know everyone's cards. The hand when Garrett has a boat with Q4 is strong evidence for that. However, that hand is NOT evidence that Robbi does not have a device that tells her if she is ahead or behind, and this is where Bart's argument is backwards. Bart even acknowledges that someone could cheat with such a device @12:40 but then goes on to make an illogical argument. So, let's pretend Robbi has this device that only lets her know if she is ahead or behind but does not tell her the opponent's exact cards: 1. Garrett flops trip Queens with Q4 and bets out. Robbi calls with backdoors. She knows from her device she's behind at the moment but thinks that one of her backdoors is good if she hits it. 2. Turn is the 4d, giving Garrett a boat and Robbi a diamond draw. Garrett bets again, and Robbi calls. This is PERFECTLY in line with someone who knows they are behind but thinks they can win a big pot if the diamond draw hits on the river. Bart acts like the fact that she calls again is ironclad proof that she isn't cheating because she's drawing dead. In her mind, she's behind but could bink the flush on the river, so she makes a standard call not knowing that Garrett already has a full house. 3. River bricks, and Garrett bets again. Robbi knows she is still behind and folds. All of this is perfectly in line with someone who simply knows they are behind but not the exact cards. @13:44 Bart claims that the river is where we get "a little bit of controversy", but I think this is the LEAST controversial. If anything, the river seems to be the only street that has any evidence that she isn't cheating because she actually tanks for a while instead of snap folding. The fact that she tanks for a while is either A) genuine and she is thinking of making a play, which is evidence that she ISN'T cheating or B) an acting job, and she wants to pretend that she is thinking about making a play, knowing that she is going to fold. In conclusion: all three streets are perfectly in line with someone who has a device that only tells them whether they are ahead or not. This hand is NOT evidence that she isn't cheating, as Bart illogically claims. Again, I don't know whether she was cheating or not. I haven't seen strong evidence that she couldn't have been using a device as described above. Hopefully the truth somehow comes out, even though that seems highly unlikely at this point.
Spot on. And the AK v A8 hand is also played exactly how you would expect someone with such a device to play it. Yet Bart has dug up these two hands to support the view that she _was not_ cheating! It's pretty clear that she did not know the exact cards her opponents held or she probably would not have called with J4 given that Garret has half the deck as outs. This is the worst call in poker history. There is no way it's legit for these stakes even if she's a billionaire.
What people are missing is that even if robbi knows shes ahead of garrett,she still has about the same amount of equity cause garrett has a monster draw,so shes still gambling that garrett doesnt hit his draw,if she was really cheating she would just call turn to see what the river is and if it bricks out she can call garrett with the best hand risk free
By her giving Garrett the money back pretty much stamped it for me. If you just won that amount of money fair and square on CAMERA you are not going to give it back just because he simply asked for it back. That tells me 1) Guilty conscious 2) She was scared of the repercussions if they did find out she was cheating. It was her way of coming clean before they really started getting deep into investigations.
@@sharkmun Oh really? So Garrett is going to get out of his seat and chase her down the hallway for something that was equivalent to $10 dollars? Mind you the guy left the building completely lol.
Or imagine a woman being cornered and fearful? You every got bullied and just gave the bully whatever to get him away? This B%$#! didn't cheat. she just d U MB AF her man/sideman shoulda stepped in and protect his B no matter what. But I guess that type of man aint him
@@noelroman7390 I meant Robbi. We don't know what she is worth but $100,000 could mean very little to her. Her husband is a crypto lawyer/investor. For example, Alan Keating is worth like $700 mil. I've seen Keating lose $1 mil and it didn't even faze him. The Door Dash founder is worth over $1 bil. I know this guy who made $2.5 bil in bitcoin investing and he spends money like it is water.
Idk the flip flopiness of her story is what really makes her seem like she cheated it's like when a child gets caught and they come up with different stories to justify themselves I'm pretty much like 60/40 on her not cheating tho
Yep, she either cheated or was doing absolutely everything in her power to make it look like she was. Hell maybe that was the strat, bait Garrett into accusing her of cheating when he couldn’t prove it and get attention and public sympathy.
Not really at all. The only rational explanation she could've given besides cheating was to admit "I'm a complete idiot that has no F'ing clue what I'm doing and I made an unbelievably stupid decision in an ego battle with Garrett". Do you honestly expect her to say that? No, she did what most people do when confronted with a horrible decision/ being an idiot, threw out random ad hoc excuses to justify her stupidity. She was trying to play it off like she bested Garrett, of course she wasn't going to just admit that she's a schizo moron.
so it was 95% cheating but she isn’t cheating??? i think people are saying it wasn’t cheating just cuz she is a girl. since they don’t want to accuse a girl of cheating and people might just say oh ur mad a girl won stuff like that. she is 99.9% cheating. First she played before and like 3 or 4 times in hustler and won everytime so i don’t think she is a bad player and doesn’t know what is going on she knows how to play. Also she looked at her hand SO MANY times and a 4 does not look like a 3 she should of said ig i thought the 4 was an ace that would be more believable. also someone said do you even have a pair and she said no. and the cherry on the top was i giving the money back. It she wasn’t cheating this would be one of the best calls in poker history so y would you just have one of the best plays in poker history and just give the money you earned back?
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
I would never ever admit that I misread my hand if it happened to me. I Prefer my opponents to think I'm a bigger fish or just keep guessing than for them to know the truth about my thought process!
One things for sure, they were lucky to have you in the booth on that day. A rationalised account of what was going on, with just enough drama to portray the magnitude of the situation, but not too much.... Bravo.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
If I remember correctly Ivy stated in an earlier statement that playing in the Hustler Games were difficult for him because of all the non standard play by the players that were not professional.
24:40 .. thank you for this rational and thorough explanation. And in terms of the "word salad", you are spot-on... I turned $80 into $350 at 1/2 in my first two weeks of ever playing a poker hand. But when I tried to explain my session to my brother, none of it made sense, and I could barely remember any of the hands, the action or how they went down. I even had people at the table giving me shit, because some of my moves were absolute genius, but then some of them made absolutely no sense, because I was lost or confused on what was going on. I think some people are so far removed from it was like to be new, they just can't fathom how someone can make this play, and not be able to explain themselves.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
Just want to say i appreciate the filming of this series. It's quite professional and 'prime time'. I'm normally put off by 'webcam' type feeds where you have low resolution and bad framing of the camera.
54 on KQ6-9-A would be a chopped pot against 23 but I get your point. Also the same people saying "she was ahead, good call" wouldn't catch that anyway .
I actually changed my mind after watching this and think that she's just a really amateurish player. My real issue with this is that a player at that level has no business on HCL streams
Bart, a small correction: around the 6 minute mark, your example with 5 high vs 32 would be a chop, not a win for 5 high. Both players would "have the board" as the strongest possible 5 card hand. I understand what you meant, but you are explaining to amateurs so it's important to make a note there to avoid confusing them.
That's even worse. 5 high calling with zero chance of winning and only hoping for a split wouldn't make much sense either. The point is still the same. Nobody would make that call.
She could have easily had a device on or inside her with someone else watching the feed buzzing her if she's ahead or behind on every street. Nothing she did or said made any sense at all. Absolutely nothing. Sorry, you can't ignore the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Have you ever done a q and a on how you got into commentating? Youre very good at it! I've been watching hcl nearly as long as they've been broadcasting and I really appreciate the QUALITY you bring! Super easy to take great commentating for granted.
I hope this earns you, as you have earned sir, another 30k subs...that is a crime that you don't have 100k+ based on your quality content...please continue the great work
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
No no no ....let me stop you there ... I don't believe there is not ONE Person that would give money back if they won it fair and square but if you got caught red handed so to speak your more likely to give it back , like people when they get caught trying to steal something at a store...and they are like oh i was gonna pay for that as they pull it out their pocket for the clerk to scan it lol
The “ONLY” way to describe the hand is this: Nobody. EVER…. “Calls” All-in here. NEVER. If she had “MOVED” All-in…. Completely different/ legit. That’s it. There. Is. No. Other. Way. To. Go. Here.
I think it’s disgusting that hustler made a video saying the most insane hero call of all time with that hand. Hustler will cover it up just so they can’t say there’s cheating in there game and don’t want to loose credibility. I feel that’s what anyone would do these days to save face. Giving the money back does not make you innocent.
Right along what I was thinking about the whole situation. However, I haven’t seen any videos that explain how getting all your money in at practically 50/50 odds and fading so many outs on two boards can be cheating. Is a call the right play in that situation even if you knew what the villain had? I think it is based on pot odds (I think around 2.5::1) and equity at around 47%, but if you could cheat wouldn’t you maybe try and set yourself up to more advantageous situations than getting all your money in in a coin flip? It seems a little more like a poor decision that actually happened to work out.
With a device that tells u u win the hand . Not what the opponent has. This has been covered by many people. U guys just seem to gloss right over it. The % are irrelevant... jeez
Garrett’s reputation has always been stellar for a reason. He always acts like a gentleman even when he loses and due to that everyone always loved him. But now that he has maybe a moment of poor character perhaps or I guess a moment of weakness and he reacted perhaps in not the best way. Suddenly all these previous garret fans turn into garret haters in an instant. This is asinine, it’s a joke and just shows the weird world we live in. I really feel for Garrett, frankly it shows how fickle and dishonest the internet world is.
It took this ridiculous situation for you to figure that out? People are always kissing garret's ass. Garrett is a snake and a degenerate gambler like all these other shit bags on this stream. These "pro" players are not great people. They usually dont even own all their action from the debts they have.
Very well put, Bart. In the moment seeing the hand it seemed nearly impossible that she wasn't cheating, but as more and more information comes out, it's really hard to indict her as a cheater considering that her just not understanding the game and making a horrifically bad play is completely plausible.
the whole point is that it was a brilliant play. She said it to Garrett: I read you. Something women are trained to do their entire lives: Read men. Edith Wharton wrote several incisive novels about just that.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
The take poker players have is just insane. They say her call didn't make any sense. But the fact that she called and won is literal proof that these poker players are wrong. Apparently, everyone is completely obsessed with game theory optimized poker nowadays, and assumes everyone else also plays that way. Additionally, even if these poker players were right about that you could never make this call, which is false, there could be tons of reasons why she would want to make this call that make no sense in terms of the game. From misreading her hand, for being intimidated, nervous, just a complete black out, just being curious to know what Garrett had, to thinking this was her lucky hand and she had to just take a stand to win. It's not that she had 72 and the board is AAAKK and her opponent overbets the pot 10 times. In her mind, misunderstanding poker, she could have convinced herself in all kinds of way that she could be calling a bluff and make a good play. She probably just took a look at Garret, convinced herself that Garrett was bluffing, saw she had a picture card, so she called. Never even putting Garrett a hand. Never considering pot odds. Never asking her which hands that she would beat. etc etc.
Agree with almost everything you said. I initially was convinced it was obviously cheating. After rewatching keys parts of the hand, other hands in the stream, and factoring in all of the information I’m certain she did not cheat, and Garrett should return the money. I actually feel bad for her. Don’t tap the glass. His reputation is great, but this is a huge misstep in my opinion. I have millions of hands of online experience in addition to thousands of hours live. One of the most compelling facts no one is talking about is that RIP finished with a 53% vpip, and is great for the game. He stood up for Robbi (who is a terrible player by the way) and Garrett felt he should leave. I thought because rip might have been backing her there could have been some incentive for them to collude, but if you watch the entire stream I think it becomes clear money just isn’t an issue to them. This is where Garrett really looks bad, and it’s like the number one offense in my opinion to have pros ruin the game for rec players, especially women. Very unfortunate situation. Also think it looks bad for HCl when all they are doing is being great ambassadors of the game.
Strange how ppl think if she did not "cheat" multiple times during the session, so she can't cheat a particular hand. A good cheat is when it's not obvious.
The thing is this was a stupid as shit hand to cheat with. You don’t spend all session creating an image that you’re a straight player and then cheat with a hand where you’re still an underdog to win. Cuz if she had lost that hand then she’d need to cheat back another 100k to break even
I think you are missing quite a big possibility here. Lets say she has a device on her that vibrates in different way depending on her being ahead or behind and she doesnt rely on it on every street as it takes a minute or so for her to get the signal. It doesnt tell her exact hand it just let her know if she is ahead or behind. Now lets have a look at those couple of hands she played. J8 she could easily called the floop due to multiple backdoors, it also wasnt massive bet or pot at that point so she didnt had to wait for signal. And even if she got signal she was behind it still doesnt stop her from calling as she might be behind ace high or small pocket pair. Now turn gives her flush draw and she gets the signal she is still behind. Well you expect to be behind with just a jack high draw anyway and since she doesnt know exactly the hand GA has she still calls to catch a diamond. Sure her thinking on the river then isnt exactly super logical since she would know she was behind on the turn and didnt improve but again she could have called both flop and turn on her own without getting a signal. The AK vs A8 hand also would make a lot of sense to raise on turn if you knew you were ahead simply to protect from all the draws. Now im not saying she did cheat but to eliminate that possibility based on how she played those two hands is rather silly. Will also add that her interview was full of clues of her being dishonest. She goes round and round with explanations, that raises all the red flags for me, truthfull people give short straight answer, people with something to hide trying to over-explain things. Same with her explanation at the table: - i thought you had ace high - why call with jack high then? - because you dont have shit 🤔🤔🤔
You hit it on the head Bart! I think what's shocking to most casual viewers is that a woman that couldn't hold her own in a 1/2 game is at a table with Phil Ivey and Garret, Andy and the rest playing for the highest stakes around. Most poker players start low to mid stakes.... Learn the game then move up .... Even Wesley was playing mid stakes when he very first started to learn the game.... To jump into these stakes and play in one hand more than what most people earn in a year with practically no knowledge or experience in the game is at best foolish and quiet frankly offensive to most people/players ... Doug is right... As far as poker skill/knowledge she is dumb dumb dumb. That doesn't make her a cheater though. Garret def shouldn't have doubled down. I'm sure he regrets it.
12 years of playing. A tournament type of players. So you must accept the fact that she did plays thousands and thousands of random hands. No experienced? I disagree. Robbi is a very solid poker player on the stream. She started from 50K--- assuming 50% is from another investor?...She is up over 100K+ so far before that extra 135K = $235 K....from her initial investment of 50K. She is a dumb , no knowledge poker player? $200 K ++ profit in less than a week on live stream at the hustler. Sometimes Player get extremely LUCKY....and they become the Legend. Like Chris the MoneyMaker...ALL-IN knocked out Phil IVEY holding a 66-Full house and hit his River for a better Full house. That was a painful loss for PHIL IVEY. But that what ignited the Poker World to the next LeveL . Ivey placed #10 spot, Chris went on to Win for World #1 that crazy Year. From ONline to #1 World Series of Poker.... :)
The cheating might have been something less technical like her looking to Rip to see what he thinks. Maybe he signals that he thinks Garrett is bluffing, but doesn't know that Robbie has J 4. I don't know, but Robbie isn't telling the truth. Her story changed and that is super sketchy.
I came up with this myself just this evening at the same time you did. Rip is keeping her afloat with staking AND collusive advice to keep her from sinking and in the + for two sessions. And Robbie has no $#@!#@$ing idea how to pull off a believable bluff-catch so she walks into a sh*tstorm instead where suck-out success is her worst enemy.
@@puzzician Yeah that's what I mean. Rip could have signalled her to call thinking she had a reasonable hand to call with, but she was too dumb to know that J 4 is a snap fold. Hard to say for sure, but something isn't right about it.
Fantastic analysis Bart. That said I hope the interview you had scheduled this trip for Nick Vertucci's podcast came BEFORE this incident. Was looking forward to your take on the old days of your work as a commentator on LATB and the years leading up to today.
She lied about thinking she had the 3, she lied about saying she thought Garrett had Ace-high, and she lied when she said she's a "bluff catcher", Garrett wasn't bluffing he had TONS of outs he was hoping for on the river. On top of all this, she gave the money back once Garrett started questioning things seriously. All signs point to cheating. I thought she gave the money back to buy off his suspicions.
She doesn't know what giving back money would signal to pros. I'm of the opinion that she didn't have a clue of what gman was accusing her of until she got home and her lawyer husband explained it to her. She doesn't know what angling/cheating even means!!! She's way out of her depth. She 100% misread her hand that's one fact I'm confident in. Imo she thought she needed a single 8 for a straight. She is so dumb She thought she had a straight draw I thinks
Missing the point Bart, whether she cheated or not is at the moment not that relevant, (highly unlikley she did, for various reasons) he accused her publicly of cheating on Twitter, but has no evidence!! He's made a massive mistake, unless Hustler can find evidence!!!
Yes good point and evidence will never be found as the casino should have shut that game down immediately and started an investigation on the spot. Then vibrators and whatever could’ve been found!!
@@Gos1234567 That was an option, however that sets a dubious precedent. Do casinos always do this when unsual plays are made? Adelstein would still look 'bad' if no cheating was found.
BTW, one "weird" hand she played was the obvious soft play hand that she and RIP played (where each had trip aces). It's at time 2:00:20 on the original feed. The SOFTEST of soft play, lol.
As time has gone on, I feel that cheating is unlikely. But rather than argue a position, I would like to suggest this. When you are evaluating this type of thing, you have to be very cautious not to over value weak evidence that bolsters a conclusion you prefer. For example, I have heard people say this "she gave back the money so that means she was cheating." I think this means nothing. Why? Because we have seen cheaters before and they do not do this! They keep the money and deny the cheating. This action does not point strongly in either direction. As far as I know, no one has even done this before so the prognostic value is completely unknown. Another thing that people latch onto is her nonsensical rambling speech. What does that mean? Nothing much. It could mean she is cheating and trying to cover it up. Or that she misread her hand, was embarrassed, and trying to hide the embarrassing mistake. Or that she was under tremendous mental strain for various reasons and not thinking clearly. People say nonsense at the table all the time and the vast majority are not cheating. Just try to be objective here. Persuasive evidence is needed, not simply events that are plausibly consistent with one hypothesis. Even Doug Polk fell into this mistake, citing things like "in some other hand she min raised when you prefer to call" and "she won in two sessions" and "her entire body and chair are shaking in this video" (that is not what a vibrating buzzer would do, would require a large powerful device, and is clearly at the frequency of someone shaking their leg in a typical fashion). Anyway, just try to stay objective and logical.
Do you have examples of players that legitimately soul-read an opponent, made a huge call, ended up being correct for the win, arrogantly taunted the opponent after the win, and then gave the money back?
jungleman said he has had two ppl give back money. one that admitted to cheating him and the other he suspected of cheating him. just think of a thief. you catch them stealing something but have no proof it belongs to you. you confront them and there is a good chance they will give it back and also a chance they will bluff and say its theirs. now if you accuse someone of stealing something that they know that they didnt steal, would they ever give you it? the doug polk buzzer theory is talking about the pants being some kind of electronic muscle stimulant medical device. there is a picture of some kind of object in her pants that she claims were just her hips also. electronic devices are not allowed in this game. the video showing her stomach contracting is much more suspicious because moving your foot wouldnt cause that.
@@whopperjaw10 actually, to give it back would be the ultimate FU to Garret. And even more so, if you suspect that he'll give it back after concluding he has not been cheated.
@@whopperjaw10 No, I don’t. Does that mean I can use that fact to conclude that she has magic glasses that can see through the cards? Or maybe it means that she is a telepath. No, that exact behavior is highly diagnostic of being a time traveler who uses her ability to cheat at poker. Or, it doesn’t mean anything specific either way. And you are also making the error of presupposing a false dichotomy. It isn’t “soul read or cheating.” There are many other possibilities. Misreading her hand is one. Misreading the board is another. Making a stupid play. Failing to understand that just because you think he is bluffing doesn’t mean you should call with a hand that doesn’t beat many bluffs. Being drunk. Being on drugs. Playing for reasons other than trying to win money. Being angry and on tilt.
I cannot understand how people are saying she is a novice and does not know the game well enough to know that J4 is a slum dunk fold in this situation even if she knows Garrett IS bluffing. Peopleeeee, she is playing against the top players in the world in a streamed show for >100K$. How the fuck can she not know even the most basic plays? She was playing « normal » poker before and would NEVER call something like this. Please stop overdefending her (and dumbing her down). She knew damn well what she was doing : CHEATING. The fact that people defend her by saying « oh she just did not know what she was doing and maybe does not know that a full house beats a flush.. »…….. this is ridiculous. we are not talking about a 1/2 game at the local casino. Also, @crushlivepoker, your first feeling changed a lot between the moment the hand was played out and now. You obviously were taking Garrett’s side in assuming she was cheating because there is a 99% chance she is, unless she is an absolute novice yo the game. Which she is NOT. (ERGO it is cheating). All of a sudden now you are much more cautious. I tend to feel like you purposely changed your opinion because you want this drama to get swept under the rug and not being portrayed as cheating, which would directly or indirectly incriminate your friends at HCL (Feldman, Vertucci etc) anddd because you are linked a lot to HCL and have a stake in the production. People are no fools, the folks at HCL dont want the bad press and prefer this to be just Robbi being « « « dumb » » » (or call it novice to the game, which no one in their right mind would believe) rather than her being a cheater (because it would reflect bad on the production, even if they potentially have nothing to do with this). It really is dishonest to present the facts and change your opinion the way you did just because it’s HCL / you are committed to them / have financial ties to them / are your friends. If it was any other poker show, you would be saying exactly what you were implying during the live commentary, just like what most poker commentators did. Please be honest with the people here. Your voice has an echo, and should not be used « politically », especially when it is purposely skewed. People in this chat praising what you said don’t understand a single thing of what is at stake and what is behind. Guys, don’t be fools. People here are defending their friends from potentially being Justin Kuraitis-ized and hung out to dry AND/OR have financial ties to HCL. What bothers me about Robbi though, is that she was reckless enough (that’s a polite understatement and euphemism of her intellectual abilities) to call bevause of the size of the pot when this is OBVIOUS cheating. It’s literally saying « I am cheating ». Yes, she was not doing anything « weird » during the other hands, but that’s maybe bevause she did not know her opponents’ holdings during those other hands and only knew that she was good againt Garrett on that specific one. I guess greed was stronger than foresight. If she had planned to cheat, it was really dumb to do it with that hand rather than with a less obvious one. Bart, please be honest with yourself and completely objective. Don’t defend someone guilty because of your friends or something. You understand poker waaaayyy tooo well to be out there saying that maybe she did not know what she was doing.
I think the J8 diamonds hand can be view a few ways. If you are floating with backdoor diamond draw, and you pick up the draw with an very innocent 4, it look suspicious to fold at that point. On flip side if you know you are going to lose you may not call turn. I think overall its hard to apply poker theory in general. The fact she was lying about her hand, return the money, accused of cheating and not being upset, plus Garrett describing the interaction when he confronted her (I tend to believe him), make me lean toward her cheating
@@davidclark6260 thats not what I said. I said i lean toward her cheating with J4. I just think Bart's example of J8 diamonds can be view different ways
@@scchicago5822 The time chip is a signal. It's basically a "is this a good time to bluff?" That's why she floats the QQ flop with J8 of diamonds (she intends to either improve her hand or bluff on the river knowing if he doesn't have a Q he will fold to a bluff) so she didn't get the signal she was good on the flop - and that's because she's losing to K high, ace high, any pair, a queen. Why does she call turn when Garrett makes a full house? It's because she doesn't know his hand - only that she is not winning....So she sees it's a diamond (she's got a flush draw now) so she calls. The river is where Garrett leads for 55k, so now it's on her and she obviously knows her J high is no good..... so what does she do? She throws in a time chip for a signal "can I bluff here? Go watch it with that observation and you'll see. Another example is the JJ hand vs Rysuke Ax of diamonds. She was winning flop, so she bet, she was winning turn, so she bet, on the river the 3rd diamond comes and she checks. Rysuke now bets, and guess what she does? Throws in a time chip to signal "hey, this a good time to bluff"? The chair then vibrates which means no. Soo.... on both occasions a time chip was used, a vibration in the chair is seen, and both times she folds/doesn't bluff and it's correct. The time chip on J4 hand is simple ....it's a "Hey, am I actually really good here, you really want me to call? And no chair vibration can be seen, meaning you're good so call.
@@elitethem possible. But seems highly unlikely to me. She wants screen time. If somebody is sophisticated enough to hack into Hustle live stream so as to cheat, don't you think they'd be a tad bit more sophisticated in hands and timing of using that sophisticated hack? It's like cracking fort knox security system only to forget gloves and leave fingerprints everywhere. Naive stupidity and lack of poker knowledge seem most likely to me
Innocent people don’t even consider giving the money back. Also, if you can be “bullied” into giving that back, stay out of the poker room. You don’t have the temperament to play at any level.
Even when you feel someone is bluffing, you still would have at least a small pair or high card of ace to call. No one would ever call for a lot of money with a jack as a high card. Even assuming a bluff, you would still assume a Ace, king or at least a Q high card in the other hand. Can't say for certain she cheated, but this is by far the strangest call I've ever seen in my 22 years of playing
Exactly that’s what a lot of people are missing here. I’ve been in spots where I have Q, J, or 10 high and I’m 100% certain they are bluffing, I still have to fold because you can’t even beat a lot of bluffs. Jack high in this spot literally beats no bluffs other than a weak flush draw
Everyone has a degree of confirmation bias. And I think this video shows Bart is no different. Those in the cheating camp would say if she did if she had a cheating device that signalled ‘best hand worst hand’ and she could not see the hole cards, that the AK/A8 against Persson is shady. She is signalled she is ahead on the turn with a Draw heavy board. She raises to either fold out and protect or get value from a draw. Same with the J8 flush draw against Garrett’s boat. She is not signalled until the River to know for sure Jack high is no good. She even uses a time bank chip (then immediately folds after using it) because she is waiting for the signal to ensure he didn’t miss a draw too. That said, I agree I don’t think she cheated. I’m just not sure his examples of it were very concrete as there seems to be reasonable counterarguments to them.
@@NguyenLinh-un4er Garrett handles himself in wins and losses better than 99% of other poker players. What in the world are you even talking about? When he was slowrolled by Dylan Gang he took it like the pro he is. If you want to hate on him for whatever reason that's your right, but saying he's emotional and takes losses badly shows that you're just completely clueless. And no I'm not a simp for Garrett, I'm just pointing out straight facts.
Bart, I have always loved your content and commentary. You really are one of the best out there. It can't be ignored however that your commentary on this might be a bit skewed in that you have a financial tie to Hustler Live and it serves your best interest to protect the integrity of this game. I have been an investigator in many different facets of my professional career and everything about her speech, actions, and body language during/after this incident is indicative of suspicious activity. Especially giving the money back. Guilty people are more apt to try and mitigate their actions by making immediate reoperations, especially if they think it will get them off the hook. I hope she's innocent and that this was just an off the rails play that she made but I truly lean the other way.
@ Patricia Clark You say that your expertise is investigations? I wonder if it isn't along the lines of a prosecuting attorney, and your job - like his/hers - is basically to look for reasons to "prove" a person guilty? I can say - and this is personal, as in: FIRST PERSON personal - that there are several reasons why she might have returned the money that are NOT because she was trying to "mitigate [her] actions by making immediate" ... I assume you meant to say restitution or amends, and not reoperations - a word which applies to business operations and not to this situation. The problem here is that you just do not understand how people - such as myself - with a condition called Asperger Syndrome operate. If you did, then you might not be so quick to judge her "speech, actions, and body language." Though it wasn't exactly the same thing, many years ago I "admitted guilt" to something not because I was guilty of what I was accused, but because I knew that I was not entirely guiltLESS as to why the other person accused me of doing what I most certainly did not do. It's called being self-aware. Maybe you might want to try looking at things from that angle, as opposed to the "guilty until proved innocent" that your job is dependent upon? She called Garrett because she called GARRETT. Maybe he himself needs to start examining that fact before he flies off the rails and starts accusing others of cheating?
Bart does make an excellent point in his opening here. And that is that a single incredible particular hand when told to 1000 poker pros in a vacuum would def be considered cheating. I say this bc several years ago I was a regular in a private game in NYC. The game was mostly Wall St guys and businessmen. We were playing $5-10 w a $25 mandatory straddle. In this specific hand I was the $25 straddle holding J-9 diamonds…UTG raised to $75 and got 6 callers!! Obv understanding the players and texture of the game I did not 3 bet but ofc called. Flop was J J 6 rainbow. It checked around to player to my left and he bet $100(lol)…everyone folded to me and I raised to $1000. He called. Turn was a 5 putting the 4th suit out. With the pot being now $2600 and I only had $3400 left I realized that it was an easy all in and if I was beat then so be it. This player literally beat me in the middle and I mean snap called with lightning speed. I only run it once so he said once to dealer and the river was a 4. Obv due to his snap call I assumed I was beat and expected to see no less than A-J or a full house. I immediately tabled my hand as I always do and of course he showed me a full house…with pocket 4’s!!!!! Im not going to lie my initial reaction was FMLife as I slid the chips towards the dealer but in my mind I was thinking cheating but knew that wasn’t the case. The reason I knew was because the game was being run by one of my very best friends and the dealer in the box was also my friend and they used real casino shuffle machines…and oh yes…the player who made the snap call with pocket 4’s on the J-J-6-5 turn board was the biggest loser ever in the game…and from what I’ve come to know, he apparently lost easily $1-2 million a year in NYC private games for roughly two decades. But that hand if told to any other Pro with no other info other than the action, then they would always say it was cheating. That being said Robbi’s whole demeanor and behavior is extremely odd so I will reserve judgement until more info comes out.
Sorry, don't think that poker hand example is a good comparison. Didn't sound like cheating to me at all. Robbi's hand is a completely different situation. If the dude called you w/ 2,3 off and blurted out incomprehensible explanations afterwards, then maybe it could be a similar situation.
@@bku9 If u don’t think that playing pocket 4’s like that in an 8 way pot with that action doesn’t sound like cheating then u should NEVER play in any private games!!! The crazy thing was that there was no cheating but in a vacuum it reeks of cheating.
Bart , Excellent video. I was originally upset during your commentating of the original Hustler stream when you had stated that you thought something nefarious had happened. This video in the closing section is excellent about the optics on Garrett and Hustler are spot on. Thank you for your unbiased opinion.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it. Unbiased!!!
Bart, great video so far, 7 minutes in and can't wait to finish it. Did you purposefully put your head on Robbi's body? I'm laugh my ass off it's near perfect @7:15
At this point, the most closure we can hope for is probably going to be a polygraph test from an extremely reputable operator. Like the best in the country. She's already agreed to take one. I think Garrett should set that up. Might cost him as much as 5 grand. And be fully committed to giving the money back as well if she passes.
She didn’t cheat lol. Wants to be on tv for publicity. That’s why she gave it back, could care less about 100k if she can’t play on stream. The stream is worth so much more to her if she wants to start an only rams or even get poker promos. Probably has more money than Garret. Or her husband does. Idk tho.
@@santaclause3487 she cheated. It's blowing up now. Her accomplice was caught. And employee with card access getting 15k from her stack and she's not pressing charges. Wake up.
Best way to bust a cheater is to search their person for a device as soon as the questionable thing happens. Nobody did that. In fact Hustler casino didn't even stop the stream. They had no intention of finding evidence of cheating then, and by waiting even longer to do this "investigation" they have helped ensure that IF there was any cheating going on, e cheaters have had plenty of time to get rid of the evidence. I don't think there was cheating. But Garrett is 100% sure there was. He must be pretty pissed off at Hustler for not dealing with it then.
I deal poker in tournaments and we get a lot of new players who play exactly like how Robbi played this hand. It’s a sign of a new player that they call down with face cards and no made hand. My real problem is that these millionaire players invite new players in knowing they are exploiting them to make money, and it backfires so they act like aggrieved brats. It’s a bad look for the pros, that they can dish it out but can’t take it, all other factors aside.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #30 ДВА В ОДНОМ [Один человек]• Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nrXy15orKhY/mqdefault.jpg)
What would you say on a scale of 1 to 100 this J4 hand is as I described in the video? (only the hand itself with no backstory). 1 being no suspicion whatsoever and 100 being the most?
90
Isn't J4 the Choctaw nuts?
90
60%…seems very odd that every time she throws in a time chip she makes the correct decision after about 15 seconds like she’s signaling someone to tell her if she’s good. Then the vibrations after the time chip
Given all of the context (previous hand being J3, asking if he can beat a 3, probably only checking the J, her experience, what PHIL IVEY said!!!….) I have to say there is a very small chance she knew that garret had zero percent equity in the hand. Like 10%
I remember her comment "I put you on Ace high", and Garret's response was like "mmhmmm, then why did you call me with J hi?". Well, if she misread her hand and thought a pair of 3's were good, then that would justify that comment. But, I just find it impossible for her to have misread her hand after she looked at her hand several times before calling. Also, when all the chips were in the middle, she acknowledged that she did not have any sort of strength of hand. Her story is just all over the place, and that's why I think that something is up.
my conclusion revisiting this is that she had some sort of signal a small handful of hands but didn’t cheat the entire game
She could've misread her hand. You could tatto J4 on her palm and she'd misread that tattoo repeatedly. She is so stupid there's no way she's in on any cheating scam because she would've messed up by now and told the "wrong" people
@@budthebud9108 "Do you have a 3?", someone asks her before the reveal, and she responds, "no, no, I have an absolute bluffcatcher". Also, when Garett says "why did you call me with J high then?", she doesnt say "I thought I have a 3" or smthing similar, but she kind of loses her words and responds, smthing along the lines "I knew u had nothing, thats what matters"
@Nakraal you can't trust anything she says because she doesn't know what she's talking about. She wasn't even aware that garrett thought she cheated....she has 0 clue what happened so I just think it's possible that no matter how long she looked at her hand or what she said when it's still very likely she misread her hand. I personally think she thought she was drawing to a straight flush...I think she forgot how many cards are dealt on board...lol
well dont cheaters usually win money?
I watched this live as it happened and I never perceived that Bart was accusing Robbi of cheating. To the contrary he was actually explaining possible reasons for her call. What's more important from a consumer standpoint was the production of this show: It was truly amazing. The camera work focusing on Garret's dismay and shock. The disjointed/awkward table talk and ensuing altercation. Was some of the best poker drama I have ever seen. Bart did an excellent job.
I think that Bart was reading into Garrett’s facial expressions. That could have been a problem if Garrett did not actually suspect cheating. In that case, Bart might have created a narrative where none existed. But obviously Bart was right so no harm was done. Since Garrett was about to accuse, it all would have gone this way regardless.
@@stt5v2002 Bart arrived at Hustler 2 hours after this hand in question. So tell me how he witnessed and commentated on this hand live. SMH 🤔 you obviously don't comprehend a delayed live stream
Garrett is a sore loser needs to return the funds
@@hugoblack3489 Garrett has taken way worse bad beats and rebought without batting an eye lash. She was clearly up to something.
@@jamesmulrey6061 you are delusional
Guys, I mean come on... There are such things as a coincidence but I mean come on.... At what point are there too many? How could these many things go wrong for someone in a once single event?
• Robbi played the hand super weird, almost an impossible hand without knowing his cards.
• Tanks often in super odd/weird spots
• She said "no" when someone asked her if she had a 3 (She looks at her cards right before this)
• She then claimed she had a "pure bluff catcher"
• She has changed her story several times.
• Her mid-section was vibrating but no apparent leg moving
• She gave him the money back (why would you do that if you played a legitimate hand and just called his bluff as she stated).
• Guy who works in productions who had access to whole cards life just happened to "steal" 15k from her stack
• Guy claimed he didn't even know who's stack it was despite being a part of production for that live stream and she was sitting to the left of the dealer so how could he just not know that after spending several hours apart of that stream
• Robbi somehow didn't even notice that 15k was gone from her stack and never reported it or brought it up
• When contacted by Hustlers Casino Robbie decided NOT to press charges citing she would ruin his life bc he has no criminal charges etc..
• Turns out they actually followed each other on Twitter BEFORE this yet in all of her convos she said she didn't know him
• She said she asked the police officer if he had prior charges and said that the police officer went to look and then told her he didn't (Guess the police officer missed the 5+ charges he had?)
• The guy does have criminal charges, actually a lot of criminal charges, Robbi still hasn't filed charges
It's obvious af but there's no reasoning with the masses of oblivious lemmings
Wasn't she dating someone at the table, too? Like a guy in a cowboy hat 2 or 3 seats from Garrett
@@bajorekjon Yup in the cowboy hat.
The $15K missing from her stack - and seemingly nobody else's - taken by Bryan (the guy you noted) is very odd and the timing is even more strange that it happened on the same night shortly after this hand. If there was collusion/cheating, you can easily argue that Bryan was pissed she gave the money back to Garrett and decided to then take "his" cut. Basically he was saying if you want to give the money back that comes out of YOUR end, not mine/ours/whoever else was involved. Bryan was a known degenerate gambler who had numerous gambling debts at the time this occurred.
Bryan actually didn't have direct access to the hole cards as he was a AV tech. He did work in an office that was adjoining to where the hole cards were shown for the stream in real-time and a week or so prior to this incident allegedly moved his desk to a different point in the room. His reason was it created more space for him to work, but Doug Polk IIRC reported that new desk location made it easier for anyone sitting in it to see the monitor or visual of the hole cards real-time.
@@oldegolfer5146dating? As far as i know that was a „friend“ of hers..she was married to a lawyer at that time, who wasnt at the table..
But there was definitely something fishy going on in that session.- especially because of the vibeating hip/chair thing… i mean..cmon. Maybe we dont know what exactly ,- but some sort of cheating did happen for SURE!
The problem with this whole situation is that it has blown up so big that people with little to no poker knowledge think that this is perfectly normal or they can reasonably justify the call. The people who have been ripping you for your commentary and Garrett for his reaction are these exact people.
Especially since I think he really didn’t do this just from this one hand! I think he’s seen the collusion with her and Rip as well throughout the game!
@@primitive7634 Why do you think Rip freaked out on Garrett? Robbi just gave him Rip's money, I didn't finish the video yet so not sure if Bart mentioned that he was staking her.
@@golfer371 yeah I know this!
I have 25 years of poker experience and I don't think she cheated. Yes, it's suspect but innocent till proven guilty. I think she is just an amateur who wanted to make a play and thought she could hit a jack or 4 to win the pot on river. I'm 90% sure she didn't cheat.
Let them be "normal" and make J high calls. Definitely gonna be +EV for us
Bart, this was the most rational and thought out discussion on the topic at hand. I hope more people view it.
Agreed. Thanks Bart. This was the opposite of the Doug (Alex Jones) Selbst analysis.
LOL! Not even close. The blind leading the blind. The West is doomed to be destroyed from within by weak men who think they're intellect rules the world. Good times make weak men, weak men make hard times. Enjoy.
yes, I agreed with Bart 100%
Read Galfonds take
@@TheEriccli bet you also think 5 high takes split pot example. Lol. Over 100k, 2.5x pot bet on turn, what draw ?!?! Ummm really she’s just that bad and ooops caught a world pro in a bluff with J high. Lmfao see there’s this thing called math, gto, you know what you wouldn’t understand, there’s this thing called very basic strategy, you know what never mind. Your right.
I like when she says i thought you were bluffing with a Ace and Garrett goes so you called with a Jack 😂
Bart is the GOAT commentator, I’m so glad he was in the booth during this hand. His takes are always top notch! Bart, I don’t think you did anything wrong by saying that Garrett thought the hand wasn’t straight, you were just acknowledging his reaction. It would have been weird to not mention Garrett’s very uncharacteristic behavior after the hand.
If anyone made a "soul read" on Garrett on this hand, it was Bart because he correctly read Garrett's face after and said Garrett thinks this hand was not straight in some way. Which is exactly what he thought.
Does someone want to explain to Bart that we don’t win with 5 high when we play the board 😂
lmfao I just commented this
It’s a chop lol u get what Bart was saying tho
Winning with 5high is difficult
It would still be 99.999% cheating online. With that .001% being misclicks and/or a possible stroke.
Just an over sight.
I just love the placement of the cam square for Bart. Well done!
Mike Postle’s cheating scandal is actually what got me into poker, specifically Joey Ingram’s analysis. It made me realize how deep this game actually is and how fascinating a single hand of poker can really be. Hopefully after the dust settles this can be an incident that is good for poker and gets more people into it.
No chance. This one can't be resolved with statistics the way the Postle one was - I agree that that was "good for poker". But this one is horrible - I never want to be in the position Garett was, knowing you've just been scammed for big $, but not knowing how or what on earth you should do about it. This is definitely a live poker turn-off.
Cheating scandals are in no way good for the game. Never will be. It does the opposite of bringing ppl in. About the only thing that is good for poker about a cheating scandal are the cheaters get caught. Are you 2 smoking crack?
@@aheroictaxidriver3180 You must have misunderstood what I'm saying - my point was that I don't ever want to feel the way Garrett felt, and so I am more likely to avoid live poker because of it. Sure, it was an "abnormal event", but one that has been widely viewed by people who don't even play poker. The OP was suggesting it might bring more people into the game, the way the Postle episode did - I'm saying why I think that isn't the case.
@@aheroictaxidriver3180 Exactly. Garret is a snake and a degen like all these other pieces of trash they find. Hes probably getting crushed betting football or playing dice. Selling his action off. These people are not nice people.
@@aheroictaxidriver3180 and that will attract people to poker... how?
I'm so glad you came out with this video. I watched it on stream as it happened and I really empathized with both parties. I can remember vividly when I accidentally slow rolled someone when I has forgotten the rank order of Full House and Flush. The embarrassment was enough that I babbled and apologized to the person I slow rolled. There's an assumption that just because you can play in the game, you should know the game well. If anything, her lack of experience should be her shield.
No but theres an assumption that if you play in a million dollar live stream game that you can play well enough to know what you're doing
@@godwin0605 Not true, I see lots of players who dont play well on the stream.
@@godwin0605 Might be your personal assumption. Having money doesn't make you good at poker.
@@dereknaito7971 she’s very experienced player.
@@Mrod16 no she isn’t ffs
Robbi was completely unable to describe her strategy after playing the hand. At one time she stated she believed Garrett had Ace high (but she only held Jack high and thus should not have called). Then she also claimed she thought she had a three (not a four), but she can be clearly seen to look at her hand for easily 5 seconds. Her demeanor was also odd at the win. Almost uncomfortable. It appeared as if she asked to go twice (Garrett preferred once) so as to purposely split the pot. Garrett appeared less angry at first, but rather in utter disbelief, as if the (Poker) world had just gotten unhinged. "This is not a Poker hand" he can be heard saying. Andy was also in disbelief. Bart, who was commentating at the time was also in complete disbelief. "How can she call here?" Bart was even thinking that the telegrapher wasn't working properly. It simply didn't make sense. The way she played the hand did not make sense, her explanations did not make sense. And she gave back the money, which also did not make sense. Bad for the game!
yeah she was on the defensive saying she didnt think she would even win the hand and then said she thought he had ace high and then a few minutes later said you didnt have shit to garret implying she knew he wouldn't have a high car when she just said she thought he had ace high
earlier she thought she had 2 pair after the river gave her a full house. total cheat. bad actress to boot.
It's almost like she's a noob huh?
@@danielbrownwood3986 ... but sitting at the grownups' table, where people are serious about the game.
I understand the dilemma, I can just relate to a beginner who doesn't need/care about the money and thinking the other guy is bluffing (which was apparent) making some long shot hero call cuz why not?
And you did a great job Bart! You really let it play out with minimal commentary. Watching live I didn’t think you took Garrett’s side. Your comment when Garrett is packing up his chips to run home - “Eric’s facial reaction is like my face in the booth” Always enjoy you on the stream and you’ve been there for the 2 biggest days of the year - the Bart effect.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
A big part of what makes her look so suspect is that she's just a really weird woman. Her mannerisms are strange and her trying to explain her reasoning is just idiotic. Bobbi: "I thought you had Ace high" Garrett: "so you called me with Jack high?" 🤯💸🤷
Anyone with a brain should realize that her constantly talking like a schizo is completely in line with her spewing nonsense when asked why she called. Half the things she says in normal conversation make no sense, people have no clue what she's even trying to say. Like when she said was scratching her face "because of the shit i got" everyone was just looking at her in complete befuddlement of her gibberish. Add to that how normal it is for people to throw out ad hoc bullshit excuses to justify terrible decisions. Just look at some of Mikki's explanations for some of his punts, it's often utter nonsense with buzzwords thrown in. Robbi just happens to be exceptionally stupid, exceptionally schizo, and in an ego battle with Garrett.
She definitely didn’t help herself with her play acting, clear lying about misreading her hand and then giving the money back. I actually disagree with Bart about the money. If she was desperate to make this go away and quiet the whole thing down she may absolutely give the money back even if she was a cheater. That’s why she was so careful to get Garrett to agree to drop it and keep playing if she gave the money back.
What look like interactions between her and RIP also seem suspicious to me. Lots of long looks, and then that very strange part where he’s mouthing to her that she should go out to talk with Garrett and Ryan. Looks like they’re partners in whatever they were doing.
33 beats ace high if she thought she had a 3 but was too embarrassed to admit the misread in the moment in front of everyone and the stream.
@@backyardjuggler If she cheated, he's 💯 involved, probably his idea. He has a lot of money apparently, might have the contacts and resources to have the system hacked.
Someone who wins FAIR & SQUARE would NEVER give the money back. Period
It’s just so hard to justify two things for Robbi. A) She clearly lied about the hand and has been telling so many different stories. During the hand, she clearly looked directly at her hole cards and said to GMan and others at the table she didn’t have a 3. B) She voluntarily gave the money back within 30 minutes of the conclusion of the hand. If you honestly thought you did nothing wrong why would you ever even consider giving that amount of money back. Regardless if Garrett asked or was intimidating.
Check out Daniel negranue take on podcasts he does. He has a based take
A) she was asked by ryusuke if she had pocket 3s after she called the all in she said no.
The big question would be why then? If you had some kind of device why would you pick this spot to use it because she certainly didn't use it previously in the evening. That doesn't make any sense either
She is fluster and wanted to talk like she knew what she was doing. I be nervous too if I made that call lol
B) 100k to her may not mean the same to her as it does to you and I. Her husband is wealthy and she has her own businesses. Not only would cheating put her at risk of jail by casino but if she is deemed a cheater then her other businesses are in jeopardy as well. 100k is worth a lot less than good integrity. Plus after this investigation by Hustler casino and if she believes she didn’t cheat then she’ll get that money back.
I saw a Reddit post that said they think she was on some kind of drugs and that’s why she made the most ridiculous call ever. She was so focused on the fact she was sure he was bluffing she didn’t realize that she didn’t really have a hand that can beat most bluffs. It makes some sense with her mannerisms and her subdued reaction to winning a massive pot
This is what I've been thinking... She just looks fucked up..probably on Xanax or something
Makes sense
Oh wow hadn't heard this. Another thing to add to the mix 😑
Xanax
I agree with this theory 100%. Robbi was high on Benzodiazapines (Xanax, vallium or ativan.
I saw this when it happened. 2 + 2 will never = 5. Her play made no sense at all. Her verbal explanation made even less sense. What she did and why can NEVER EVER be done at a poker table. Garrett knew the second he saw her hand and the commentators knew during the hand. And then she gives the money back. 2 + 2 = 4. she said she was playing the man. BULLSHIT!! She cannot play the man with that hand. Even if she thinks he was bluffing. There are 25 HANDS THAT BEAT HER. Any pair (13) Q-K-A (16) J5-J6-J7-J8-J9-J10 (22) 3-9-10 (25). THE only WAY TO CALL THAT HAND IS IF YOU KNOW YOU HAVE IT WON. SHE IS A CHEAT AND A LIAR
The most suspicious thing is when she had J8 against Garrett’s Q4 and she took SOOO long to decide to fold.
ppl do that shit all the time. ur trippin
I felt she did that for attention. She's there for it. Soaks it up.
It was only weird in the manner that she did it BUT you’ll see a lot of times in situations like that on hustler where the players tank with not even ace high and the commentators chalk it up to “he’s posturing”
But it's consistent with her genuinely wanting to call Garrett down and just not finding the courage on that particular spot. Based on everything we know about her, certain men's bluffing frequencies against her is very very high in her mind.
@Alex F agree, it was for more than profit motive. Attention seeking, look how a good a woman can play.....I got hoodwinked, thought she's really good until The Hand.
She appeared to target Garrett...her comments like "you made me do it" "I'm not letting you get away with it" These comments only make sense if a player has unknown info.
Another thing that adds haziness is that while the dealer is still counting her chips and nobody has made any accusations Robbie says "I do this to you all the time off stream as well." Why say that if she thinks that Garrett was just upset because he lost?
She made a savage call, feels bad. He’s sending her daggers. He looks like an idiot. She’s already rich af, she wants publicity whether she was right or wrong with that call she getting views on her insta or OF. She won’t come out and say that, but that’s why. Crazy how stupid people are.
Someone at her level of play *(and by this I mean not having played a ton of hands)* wouldn't even have guessed that cheating was an option. She was grasping at anything to make Garrett feel better.
This is what did it for me. Projection is the ultimate admission of guilt. Yeah she played like a donkey the rest of the time but making the call isn't what makes it seem suspicious to me. It's the behavior after. Has some Mike postle vibes when she laughs in Garrett's face. "You look like you want to kill me" and all the other needles she throws his way make her look very guilty to me. Perhaps because of the postle deal, that I followed very closely, I'm a little quick to assume guilt, but her mannerisms are what makes things seem like they're not on the up and up.
BTW I just realized you're my dad
The look he gave her was clear indication as to what he was implying had gone down. Words did not need to be spoken from her perspective. The look said everything. Bart in the commentary even said that "Garrett thinks something is going on" almost immediately after the hand was tabled.
I don't think I'm alone when I say I've changed my mind about this hand half a dozen times. When it happened, there's not a person alive, pro or novice, that could've convinced me that nothing shady went down. Her changing her story 5 times really just has my brain in a blender. I really hope they get to the absolute bottom of it all, although that could prove to be incredibly difficult, because the whole thing is just simply nuts
absolutely!!! And she lied about everything that happened during the hand And Then she gives the money back…
I was the opposite, live i thought Garrett was awful and i was mad ssome poor woman was bullied, the flustered spluttering rambling she made convinced me she was embarrassed about winning and wanted to justify a bad play, then i changed to thinking she was a cheat, now im coming back around again.
What did she do wrong? She just gambled. Thats poker now and days. Look at luda chris and that lil white guy with face tattoos. All they do is gamble. Poker is not the same as it use too.
@@G_Money_ but they are playing this pure gamble style all the time. She's playing kinda normal
@@Dezu123 Garrett lost all credibility in this situation. He was throwing a fit and accusing her of cheating with no evidence. In my view, she assumed that she had J3 instead of J4. She didn't say anything because she was embarrassed. I believe her. Even andy said the same thing @3:25. Garrett is a sore loser.
Great take, Bart. I think it’s unfair to call her stupid and use that “word salad” against her. I feel that it was just a novice, donkey play and she was trying to use her limited poker knowledge in hope of a justification. Eager to see how it plays out.
then why did she return the money?
and why did she later claim both that she gave back the money because she "felt bad" that he had lost money AND that he had threatened and intimidated her into returning the money?
Um… can we stop downplaying her “limited poker knowledge..” it’s not limited, it’s pro… that’s why she’s there! She’s the NEW PRO girl on the block… she was totally trained, and if she really knew she won, wether getting “lucky” or not, you DO NOT give back the money…✔️
@@mattt.4395 I agree that part is wonky. But I don’t think that necessarily means she cheated. I think she was approached by Garret and she felt uncomfortable so she just said “ok here you go” in attempt to quickly make it go away. Little did she know that’d just make her look more guilty. She prob then talked to people about it after and they’re like “wtfff why would you give it back?” Then she got pissed about it and made it sound like Garrett bullied her.
@@alakazaam4292 no one -- especially no oneblike her (clearly a very superficial person) -- gives back over 100,000 dollars just because they "feel bad." thats ridiculous.
i agree that based solely on gameplay alone, we cant conclude cheating. some people jusy want to gamble/make dumb plays.
hell, i once called a 100x all-in open with no dead money with AKs. Guy had KK (I sucked out and won).
but her behavior afterwards unmistakably points towards guilt.
What type of poker player would agree to refund (1/2) the pot? especially when its over $100,000 right after the hand?
Hi Bart, what are your thoughts of Rip sitting at the table who allegedly is Robbi's friend and business partner? His reaction to Robbi giving back the money was almost as if she gave away his own money (like she was stake by him). She was also super defensive when asked if they are friends later in the broadcast... which I found odd. It seemed like no one knew of their relationship and they wanted to keep it hidden. I just think there is huge conflict of interest if she was indeed staked by Rip and opens the door to collusion or some other type of cheating.
The best conversation so far! Very level headed and fair. Thanks.
I am completely out of my league here as far as poker is concerned. As a complete novice I appreciate him explaining what actually happened. I actually did not see the big deal at the beginning but now I understand why this is a thing all of a sudden. I appreciate this guy and his commentary
Ok, let me explain your concern. She was not getting signal all the time, just at some specific moment, and the only two kinds of signal she got were which hand is better , yours or your opponents'. I hope you guys can think through of the whole thing better.
Can you enlighten us where you got this info, and where to get such a device from. It seems that everyone bringing this up has no proof how to actually implement this cheating device.
@@adrienspaceage1619 Device is not a big deal, It's fairly easy to get. The question is, how serious the Hustler casino restricts the electronic devices. Will they check your body? Will they double check someone when he or she went back from bathroom break.
@@adrienspaceage1619 I'm sorry that English is not my first language, but I still hope you understand my statement below
@@adrienspaceage1619 I've been looking for ways to beat the casinos for more than ten years, and yes I have no evidence in this particular event. But I tell you what, I have been banned by a casino for advantage play personlly, and this is something I'm familiar with😀
So.. Robbie is someone who doesn’t understand that calling with J high is not the play in this situation, but apparently has been playing poker for over a decade and is playing in the same game as Phil Ivey? How does this make sense?
Bart is 100% on point here. I feel like she didn't understand that Garrett suspected her of cheating at the time and so she just thought he was mad, which thew the whole situation into a weird state.
she wasfeeling him out,, hoping he didnt know
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
Why is nobody mentioning on these commentaries that she was actually not even a favorite to win this hand? She was a very slight dog. If she were cheating, why would she pick this spot, where the odds were against her? She might as well have gone to roulette and put it all on red.
Someone asked her if she had a pair of 3's, she said no. They they asked if she had a 3 and she said No.
you're right if she said she misread her hand right away we wouldn't be talking about this at all.
I feel like the was she was acting after is what makes her look guilty of cheating.
Hey I'm Wes and I was one of the viewers when this hand went down live. I just want to give my perspective as I watched this take place first hand. I thought Robbi was a bad player for making this call. Then I saw Garrett's face and thought maybe she was cheating. Thanks for taking the time to listen to my unique perspective. 😉
Felix are you alive?
Insightful content as per usual bart. Thanks 👍
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
I thought your commentating during the hand was excellent. Very well done, considering it was so out of the ordinary. But I think there was definitely cheating going on. Her giving the money back and acting like the money doesn’t matter was very damning, to me. Among other things.
The main point is that she gave the money back and nobody will ever give her action again. Problem solved.
She also said to Garrett “I thought you had A’s high and I wanted to call” thats when Garrett said “then why would you call me with Jack high?”
She had no answer
I don’t know she was all over with her explanations🤣🤣🤣
that would support her explamation of misreading her hand as J3...
@@Matt-np3fe Except that she said DURING THE HAND AT THE RIVER BEFORE FLIPPING HER CARDS OVER that she HAD NO 3, and was not in the least bit surprised to see her J4 appear.....so, NOT THAT.
@@CowSaysMooMoo she could have been caught in the moment and just not looked at her own cards (after all, if she "knew" she had J3 then why would she need to look)?
@@Matt-np3fe she definitely looked at her cards multiple times and did say “no pair I have a pure bluffcatcher” and “ you give me credit for a pair haha”
She knows what she had and is lying
@@Gos1234567 yep. Ad she had nothing to catch the bulff. There were so many bluffs that beat her. She is either totally dumb or cheating. If she is dumb then what is she doing playing high stake poker?
This is the correct take on what happened. 100% no cheating, she’s a novice player that got lucky.
Is he 100%?
Although, she wound up being very unlucky!
I am leaning strong to no cheating. But you can't say %100, just too weird, though I really think at this point it was the just the donk call of the millennium. lol
If she didnt cheat why give the money back? That's what threw me off
so this clown says she didnt cheat because she didnt cheat in every hand lol
Solid take, but 45 does not beat 23 on KQ69A - it's a CHOP
Lol yes it does
It’s your top 5 cards. And the board has the top 5
I will preface this by saying that I don't have a dog in this fight and am more or less 50/50 whether Robbi cheated. I just want to point out that, while most of Bart's analysis is solid, at least one part of his analysis is totally illogical.
At this point, I think it's clear that Robbi is not cheating in a way that allows her to know everyone's cards. The hand when Garrett has a boat with Q4 is strong evidence for that.
However, that hand is NOT evidence that Robbi does not have a device that tells her if she is ahead or behind, and this is where Bart's argument is backwards. Bart even acknowledges that someone could cheat with such a device @12:40 but then goes on to make an illogical argument.
So, let's pretend Robbi has this device that only lets her know if she is ahead or behind but does not tell her the opponent's exact cards:
1. Garrett flops trip Queens with Q4 and bets out. Robbi calls with backdoors. She knows from her device she's behind at the moment but thinks that one of her backdoors is good if she hits it.
2. Turn is the 4d, giving Garrett a boat and Robbi a diamond draw. Garrett bets again, and Robbi calls. This is PERFECTLY in line with someone who knows they are behind but thinks they can win a big pot if the diamond draw hits on the river. Bart acts like the fact that she calls again is ironclad proof that she isn't cheating because she's drawing dead. In her mind, she's behind but could bink the flush on the river, so she makes a standard call not knowing that Garrett already has a full house.
3. River bricks, and Garrett bets again. Robbi knows she is still behind and folds. All of this is perfectly in line with someone who simply knows they are behind but not the exact cards. @13:44 Bart claims that the river is where we get "a little bit of controversy", but I think this is the LEAST controversial. If anything, the river seems to be the only street that has any evidence that she isn't cheating because she actually tanks for a while instead of snap folding. The fact that she tanks for a while is either A) genuine and she is thinking of making a play, which is evidence that she ISN'T cheating or B) an acting job, and she wants to pretend that she is thinking about making a play, knowing that she is going to fold.
In conclusion: all three streets are perfectly in line with someone who has a device that only tells them whether they are ahead or not. This hand is NOT evidence that she isn't cheating, as Bart illogically claims.
Again, I don't know whether she was cheating or not. I haven't seen strong evidence that she couldn't have been using a device as described above. Hopefully the truth somehow comes out, even though that seems highly unlikely at this point.
Spot on. And the AK v A8 hand is also played exactly how you would expect someone with such a device to play it. Yet Bart has dug up these two hands to support the view that she _was not_ cheating! It's pretty clear that she did not know the exact cards her opponents held or she probably would not have called with J4 given that Garret has half the deck as outs.
This is the worst call in poker history. There is no way it's legit for these stakes even if she's a billionaire.
What people are missing is that even if robbi knows shes ahead of garrett,she still has about the same amount of equity cause garrett has a monster draw,so shes still gambling that garrett doesnt hit his draw,if she was really cheating she would just call turn to see what the river is and if it bricks out she can call garrett with the best hand risk free
By her giving Garrett the money back pretty much stamped it for me. If you just won that amount of money fair and square on CAMERA you are not going to give it back just because he simply asked for it back. That tells me 1) Guilty conscious 2) She was scared of the repercussions if they did find out she was cheating. It was her way of coming clean before they really started getting deep into investigations.
You have to realize that $100,000 is basically $10 to them.
@@sharkmun Oh really? So Garrett is going to get out of his seat and chase her down the hallway for something that was equivalent to $10 dollars? Mind you the guy left the building completely lol.
@@sharkmun Bullshit, she isn't that wealthy.
Or imagine a woman being cornered and fearful? You every got bullied and just gave the bully whatever to get him away? This B%$#! didn't cheat. she just d U MB AF her man/sideman shoulda stepped in and protect his B no matter what. But I guess that type of man aint him
@@noelroman7390 I meant Robbi. We don't know what she is worth but $100,000 could mean very little to her. Her husband is a crypto lawyer/investor. For example, Alan Keating is worth like $700 mil. I've seen Keating lose $1 mil and it didn't even faze him. The Door Dash founder is worth over $1 bil. I know this guy who made $2.5 bil in bitcoin investing and he spends money like it is water.
Idk the flip flopiness of her story is what really makes her seem like she cheated it's like when a child gets caught and they come up with different stories to justify themselves I'm pretty much like 60/40 on her not cheating tho
Yep, she either cheated or was doing absolutely everything in her power to make it look like she was. Hell maybe that was the strat, bait Garrett into accusing her of cheating when he couldn’t prove it and get attention and public sympathy.
@@iambadatpickingusernames6669 and the earth is flat right ?
Not really at all. The only rational explanation she could've given besides cheating was to admit "I'm a complete idiot that has no F'ing clue what I'm doing and I made an unbelievably stupid decision in an ego battle with Garrett". Do you honestly expect her to say that? No, she did what most people do when confronted with a horrible decision/ being an idiot, threw out random ad hoc excuses to justify her stupidity. She was trying to play it off like she bested Garrett, of course she wasn't going to just admit that she's a schizo moron.
so it was 95% cheating but she isn’t cheating??? i think people are saying it wasn’t cheating just cuz she is a girl. since they don’t want to accuse a girl of cheating and people might just say oh ur mad a girl won stuff like that. she is 99.9% cheating. First she played before and like 3 or 4 times in hustler and won everytime so i don’t think she is a bad player and doesn’t know what is going on she knows how to play. Also she looked at her hand SO MANY times and a 4 does not look like a 3 she should of said ig i thought the 4 was an ace that would be more believable. also someone said do you even have a pair and she said no. and the cherry on the top was i giving the money back. It she wasn’t cheating this would be one of the best calls in poker history so y would you just have one of the best plays in poker history and just give the money you earned back?
That’s the most balanced take in the whole poker world!! Great job bart
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
I would never ever admit that I misread my hand if it happened to me. I Prefer my opponents to think I'm a bigger fish or just keep guessing than for them to know the truth about my thought process!
One things for sure, they were lucky to have you in the booth on that day. A rationalised account of what was going on, with just enough drama to portray the magnitude of the situation, but not too much.... Bravo.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
If I remember correctly Ivy stated in an earlier statement that playing in the Hustler Games were difficult for him because of all the non standard play by the players that were not professional.
24:40 .. thank you for this rational and thorough explanation. And in terms of the "word salad", you are spot-on... I turned $80 into $350 at 1/2 in my first two weeks of ever playing a poker hand. But when I tried to explain my session to my brother, none of it made sense, and I could barely remember any of the hands, the action or how they went down. I even had people at the table giving me shit, because some of my moves were absolute genius, but then some of them made absolutely no sense, because I was lost or confused on what was going on.
I think some people are so far removed from it was like to be new, they just can't fathom how someone can make this play, and not be able to explain themselves.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
Yeah…. People that don’t know how to play can win for sure. In fact they can get more action because of risky play seen by the table.
Just want to say i appreciate the filming of this series. It's quite professional and 'prime time'. I'm normally put off by 'webcam' type feeds where you have low resolution and bad framing of the camera.
Speaking of Postle, hilarious how now on Twitter he is "liking" so many tweets that point to her not cheating.
Anyone else notice Barts head on Robbie’s body? Lmfao too fkn funny
54 on KQ6-9-A would be a chopped pot against 23 but I get your point. Also the same people saying "she was ahead, good call" wouldn't catch that anyway .
noted added some text to clarify
Was looking at the comments to see of anyone wrote about it- did not understand the explanation
I actually changed my mind after watching this and think that she's just a really amateurish player. My real issue with this is that a player at that level has no business on HCL streams
Bart, a small correction: around the 6 minute mark, your example with 5 high vs 32 would be a chop, not a win for 5 high. Both players would "have the board" as the strongest possible 5 card hand. I understand what you meant, but you are explaining to amateurs so it's important to make a note there to avoid confusing them.
That's even worse. 5 high calling with zero chance of winning and only hoping for a split wouldn't make much sense either. The point is still the same. Nobody would make that call.
noted. Added some text to clarify
She could have easily had a device on or inside her with someone else watching the feed buzzing her if she's ahead or behind on every street. Nothing she did or said made any sense at all. Absolutely nothing. Sorry, you can't ignore the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Have you ever done a q and a on how you got into commentating?
Youre very good at it! I've been watching hcl nearly as long as they've been broadcasting and I really appreciate the QUALITY you bring! Super easy to take great commentating for granted.
I hope this earns you, as you have earned sir, another 30k subs...that is a crime that you don't have 100k+ based on your quality content...please continue the great work
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
No no no ....let me stop you there ... I don't believe there is not ONE Person that would give money back if they won it fair and square but if you got caught red handed so to speak your more likely to give it back , like people when they get caught trying to steal something at a store...and they are like oh i was gonna pay for that as they pull it out their pocket for the clerk to scan it lol
The “ONLY” way to describe the hand is this:
Nobody. EVER….
“Calls” All-in here.
NEVER.
If she had
“MOVED” All-in….
Completely different/ legit.
That’s it.
There. Is. No. Other. Way. To. Go. Here.
I think it’s disgusting that hustler made a video saying the most insane hero call of all time with that hand. Hustler will cover it up just so they can’t say there’s cheating in there game and don’t want to loose credibility. I feel that’s what anyone would do these days to save face. Giving the money back does not make you innocent.
Right along what I was thinking about the whole situation. However, I haven’t seen any videos that explain how getting all your money in at practically 50/50 odds and fading so many outs on two boards can be cheating.
Is a call the right play in that situation even if you knew what the villain had? I think it is based on pot odds (I think around 2.5::1) and equity at around 47%, but if you could cheat wouldn’t you maybe try and set yourself up to more advantageous situations than getting all your money in in a coin flip? It seems a little more like a poor decision that actually happened to work out.
All the people that think cheated seem to skip over this fact, they think she’s a bad cheater not a bad caller.
With a device that tells u u win the hand . Not what the opponent has. This has been covered by many people. U guys just seem to gloss right over it. The % are irrelevant... jeez
Doyle Brunson said it best in his Super System series: "Never bluff an idiot".
Garrett’s reputation has always been stellar for a reason. He always acts like a gentleman even when he loses and due to that everyone always loved him.
But now that he has maybe a moment of poor character perhaps or I guess a moment of weakness and he reacted perhaps in not the best way.
Suddenly all these previous garret fans turn into garret haters in an instant. This is asinine, it’s a joke and just shows the weird world we live in. I really feel for Garrett, frankly it shows how fickle and dishonest the internet world is.
He knew he lost, and were cool about it. The moment Garret saw her hand he were wtf is going on
It took this ridiculous situation for you to figure that out? People are always kissing garret's ass. Garrett is a snake and a degenerate gambler like all these other shit bags on this stream. These "pro" players are not great people. They usually dont even own all their action from the debts they have.
Very well put, Bart. In the moment seeing the hand it seemed nearly impossible that she wasn't cheating, but as more and more information comes out, it's really hard to indict her as a cheater considering that her just not understanding the game and making a horrifically bad play is completely plausible.
How can you play at that stake and not understand the game?
the whole point is that it was a brilliant play. She said it to Garrett: I read you. Something women are trained to do their entire lives: Read men. Edith Wharton wrote several incisive novels about just that.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it.
The take poker players have is just insane. They say her call didn't make any sense. But the fact that she called and won is literal proof that these poker players are wrong. Apparently, everyone is completely obsessed with game theory optimized poker nowadays, and assumes everyone else also plays that way. Additionally, even if these poker players were right about that you could never make this call, which is false, there could be tons of reasons why she would want to make this call that make no sense in terms of the game. From misreading her hand, for being intimidated, nervous, just a complete black out, just being curious to know what Garrett had, to thinking this was her lucky hand and she had to just take a stand to win.
It's not that she had 72 and the board is AAAKK and her opponent overbets the pot 10 times. In her mind, misunderstanding poker, she could have convinced herself in all kinds of way that she could be calling a bluff and make a good play. She probably just took a look at Garret, convinced herself that Garrett was bluffing, saw she had a picture card, so she called. Never even putting Garrett a hand. Never considering pot odds. Never asking her which hands that she would beat. etc etc.
I agree. I think it was a case of beginner's luck that just has terrible optics for her. But she could have cheated who knows
Agree with almost everything you said. I initially was convinced it was obviously cheating. After rewatching keys parts of the hand, other hands in the stream, and factoring in all of the information I’m certain she did not cheat, and Garrett should return the money. I actually feel bad for her. Don’t tap the glass. His reputation is great, but this is a huge misstep in my opinion. I have millions of hands of online experience in addition to thousands of hours live. One of the most compelling facts no one is talking about is that RIP finished with a 53% vpip, and is great for the game. He stood up for Robbi (who is a terrible player by the way) and Garrett felt he should leave. I thought because rip might have been backing her there could have been some incentive for them to collude, but if you watch the entire stream I think it becomes clear money just isn’t an issue to them. This is where Garrett really looks bad, and it’s like the number one offense in my opinion to have pros ruin the game for rec players, especially women. Very unfortunate situation. Also think it looks bad for HCl when all they are doing is being great ambassadors of the game.
Strange how ppl think if she did not "cheat" multiple times during the session, so she can't cheat a particular hand.
A good cheat is when it's not obvious.
Terrible straw man, my friend.
The thing is this was a stupid as shit hand to cheat with. You don’t spend all session creating an image that you’re a straight player and then cheat with a hand where you’re still an underdog to win. Cuz if she had lost that hand then she’d need to cheat back another 100k to break even
what if $135k means 25cents to you, would she care about any of this? i'd snap call j4o for no reason at 5c/10c NL too
I think you are missing quite a big possibility here. Lets say she has a device on her that vibrates in different way depending on her being ahead or behind and she doesnt rely on it on every street as it takes a minute or so for her to get the signal. It doesnt tell her exact hand it just let her know if she is ahead or behind. Now lets have a look at those couple of hands she played.
J8 she could easily called the floop due to multiple backdoors, it also wasnt massive bet or pot at that point so she didnt had to wait for signal. And even if she got signal she was behind it still doesnt stop her from calling as she might be behind ace high or small pocket pair. Now turn gives her flush draw and she gets the signal she is still behind. Well you expect to be behind with just a jack high draw anyway and since she doesnt know exactly the hand GA has she still calls to catch a diamond.
Sure her thinking on the river then isnt exactly super logical since she would know she was behind on the turn and didnt improve but again she could have called both flop and turn on her own without getting a signal.
The AK vs A8 hand also would make a lot of sense to raise on turn if you knew you were ahead simply to protect from all the draws.
Now im not saying she did cheat but to eliminate that possibility based on how she played those two hands is rather silly. Will also add that her interview was full of clues of her being dishonest. She goes round and round with explanations, that raises all the red flags for me, truthfull people give short straight answer, people with something to hide trying to over-explain things. Same with her explanation at the table:
- i thought you had ace high
- why call with jack high then?
- because you dont have shit
🤔🤔🤔
You hit it on the head Bart! I think what's shocking to most casual viewers is that a woman that couldn't hold her own in a 1/2 game is at a table with Phil Ivey and Garret, Andy and the rest playing for the highest stakes around. Most poker players start low to mid stakes.... Learn the game then move up .... Even Wesley was playing mid stakes when he very first started to learn the game.... To jump into these stakes and play in one hand more than what most people earn in a year with practically no knowledge or experience in the game is at best foolish and quiet frankly offensive to most people/players ... Doug is right... As far as poker skill/knowledge she is dumb dumb dumb. That doesn't make her a cheater though. Garret def shouldn't have doubled down. I'm sure he regrets it.
12 years of playing. A tournament type of players. So you must accept the fact that she did plays thousands and thousands of random hands. No experienced? I disagree. Robbi is a very solid poker player on the stream. She started from 50K--- assuming 50% is from another investor?...She is up over 100K+ so far before that extra 135K = $235 K....from her initial investment of 50K. She is a dumb , no knowledge poker player? $200 K ++ profit in less than a week on live stream at the hustler. Sometimes Player get extremely LUCKY....and they become the Legend. Like Chris the MoneyMaker...ALL-IN knocked out Phil IVEY holding a 66-Full house and hit his River for a better Full house. That was a painful loss for PHIL IVEY. But that what ignited the Poker World to the next LeveL . Ivey placed #10 spot, Chris went on to Win for World #1 that crazy Year. From ONline to #1 World Series of Poker.... :)
@@edwardlopez1176 .... Eddie.
Dude I have an igloo I am selling if you're interested
this was fixed! she cheated!! somehow she knew she was infront. not to mention her BF is on the other side of the table.
its so refreshing hearing a level-headed take from a repected poker player about this
Agree! Tired of hearing of the chair vibrations theory lol
The cheating might have been something less technical like her looking to Rip to see what he thinks. Maybe he signals that he thinks Garrett is bluffing, but doesn't know that Robbie has J 4. I don't know, but Robbie isn't telling the truth. Her story changed and that is super sketchy.
I came up with this myself just this evening at the same time you did. Rip is keeping her afloat with staking AND collusive advice to keep her from sinking and in the + for two sessions. And Robbie has no $#@!#@$ing idea how to pull off a believable bluff-catch so she walks into a sh*tstorm instead where suck-out success is her worst enemy.
@@puzzician Yeah that's what I mean. Rip could have signalled her to call thinking she had a reasonable hand to call with, but she was too dumb to know that J 4 is a snap fold. Hard to say for sure, but something isn't right about it.
Fantastic analysis Bart. That said I hope the interview you had scheduled this trip for Nick Vertucci's podcast came BEFORE this incident. Was looking forward to your take on the old days of your work as a commentator on LATB and the years leading up to today.
Yea, bart REALLY NAILED THIS ONE! hahahaaha Fucking online poker shill bart fooled you buddy
I laughed really hard at 7:13ish where Bart put his head over Robbie's body. That's my only comment on this video.
This comment is the only one that I 👍 on this video.
14:56 this one imo beats it =)
LMAO
It's no coincidence he's taking her side.
She lied about thinking she had the 3, she lied about saying she thought Garrett had Ace-high, and she lied when she said she's a "bluff catcher", Garrett wasn't bluffing he had TONS of outs he was hoping for on the river.
On top of all this, she gave the money back once Garrett started questioning things seriously.
All signs point to cheating. I thought she gave the money back to buy off his suspicions.
She didn't even have a bluff catcher.
Yeah the "I thought you were A high" comment got me "so why did you call?". Exactly
She doesn't know what giving back money would signal to pros. I'm of the opinion that she didn't have a clue of what gman was accusing her of until she got home and her lawyer husband explained it to her. She doesn't know what angling/cheating even means!!! She's way out of her depth. She 100% misread her hand that's one fact I'm confident in. Imo she thought she needed a single 8 for a straight. She is so dumb She thought she had a straight draw I thinks
Missing the point Bart, whether she cheated or not is at the moment not that relevant, (highly unlikley she did, for various reasons) he accused her publicly of cheating on Twitter, but has no evidence!! He's made a massive mistake, unless Hustler can find evidence!!!
Yes good point and evidence will never be found as the casino should have shut that game down immediately and started an investigation on the spot.
Then vibrators and whatever could’ve been found!!
@@Gos1234567 That was an option, however that sets a dubious precedent. Do casinos always do this when unsual plays are made? Adelstein would still look 'bad' if no cheating was found.
BTW, one "weird" hand she played was the obvious soft play hand that she and RIP played (where each had trip aces). It's at time 2:00:20 on the original feed. The SOFTEST of soft play, lol.
As time has gone on, I feel that cheating is unlikely. But rather than argue a position, I would like to suggest this. When you are evaluating this type of thing, you have to be very cautious not to over value weak evidence that bolsters a conclusion you prefer. For example, I have heard people say this "she gave back the money so that means she was cheating." I think this means nothing. Why? Because we have seen cheaters before and they do not do this! They keep the money and deny the cheating. This action does not point strongly in either direction. As far as I know, no one has even done this before so the prognostic value is completely unknown. Another thing that people latch onto is her nonsensical rambling speech. What does that mean? Nothing much. It could mean she is cheating and trying to cover it up. Or that she misread her hand, was embarrassed, and trying to hide the embarrassing mistake. Or that she was under tremendous mental strain for various reasons and not thinking clearly. People say nonsense at the table all the time and the vast majority are not cheating.
Just try to be objective here. Persuasive evidence is needed, not simply events that are plausibly consistent with one hypothesis. Even Doug Polk fell into this mistake, citing things like "in some other hand she min raised when you prefer to call" and "she won in two sessions" and "her entire body and chair are shaking in this video" (that is not what a vibrating buzzer would do, would require a large powerful device, and is clearly at the frequency of someone shaking their leg in a typical fashion). Anyway, just try to stay objective and logical.
Do you have examples of players that legitimately soul-read an opponent, made a huge call, ended up being correct for the win, arrogantly taunted the opponent after the win, and then gave the money back?
jungleman said he has had two ppl give back money. one that admitted to cheating him and the other he suspected of cheating him. just think of a thief. you catch them stealing something but have no proof it belongs to you. you confront them and there is a good chance they will give it back and also a chance they will bluff and say its theirs. now if you accuse someone of stealing something that they know that they didnt steal, would they ever give you it?
the doug polk buzzer theory is talking about the pants being some kind of electronic muscle stimulant medical device. there is a picture of some kind of object in her pants that she claims were just her hips also. electronic devices are not allowed in this game. the video showing her stomach contracting is much more suspicious because moving your foot wouldnt cause that.
@@whopperjaw10 actually, to give it back would be the ultimate FU to Garret. And even more so, if you suspect that he'll give it back after concluding he has not been cheated.
@@whopperjaw10 No, I don’t. Does that mean I can use that fact to conclude that she has magic glasses that can see through the cards? Or maybe it means that she is a telepath. No, that exact behavior is highly diagnostic of being a time traveler who uses her ability to cheat at poker. Or, it doesn’t mean anything specific either way. And you are also making the error of presupposing a false dichotomy. It isn’t “soul read or cheating.” There are many other possibilities. Misreading her hand is one. Misreading the board is another. Making a stupid play. Failing to understand that just because you think he is bluffing doesn’t mean you should call with a hand that doesn’t beat many bluffs. Being drunk. Being on drugs. Playing for reasons other than trying to win money. Being angry and on tilt.
I cannot understand how people are saying she is a novice and does not know the game well enough to know that J4 is a slum dunk fold in this situation even if she knows Garrett IS bluffing. Peopleeeee, she is playing against the top players in the world in a streamed show for >100K$. How the fuck can she not know even the most basic plays? She was playing « normal » poker before and would NEVER call something like this. Please stop overdefending her (and dumbing her down). She knew damn well what she was doing : CHEATING. The fact that people defend her by saying « oh she just did not know what she was doing and maybe does not know that a full house beats a flush.. »…….. this is ridiculous. we are not talking about a 1/2 game at the local casino.
Also, @crushlivepoker, your first feeling changed a lot between the moment the hand was played out and now. You obviously were taking Garrett’s side in assuming she was cheating because there is a 99% chance she is, unless she is an absolute novice yo the game. Which she is NOT. (ERGO it is cheating). All of a sudden now you are much more cautious.
I tend to feel like you purposely changed your opinion because you want this drama to get swept under the rug and not being portrayed as cheating, which would directly or indirectly incriminate your friends at HCL (Feldman, Vertucci etc) anddd because you are linked a lot to HCL and have a stake in the production. People are no fools, the folks at HCL dont want the bad press and prefer this to be just Robbi being « « « dumb » » » (or call it novice to the game, which no one in their right mind would believe) rather than her being a cheater (because it would reflect bad on the production, even if they potentially have nothing to do with this). It really is dishonest to present the facts and change your opinion the way you did just because it’s HCL / you are committed to them / have financial ties to them / are your friends. If it was any other poker show, you would be saying exactly what you were implying during the live commentary, just like what most poker commentators did. Please be honest with the people here. Your voice has an echo, and should not be used « politically », especially when it is purposely skewed.
People in this chat praising what you said don’t understand a single thing of what is at stake and what is behind. Guys, don’t be fools. People here are defending their friends from potentially being Justin Kuraitis-ized and hung out to dry AND/OR have financial ties to HCL.
What bothers me about Robbi though, is that she was reckless enough (that’s a polite understatement and euphemism of her intellectual abilities) to call bevause of the size of the pot when this is OBVIOUS cheating. It’s literally saying « I am cheating ». Yes, she was not doing anything « weird » during the other hands, but that’s maybe bevause she did not know her opponents’ holdings during those other hands and only knew that she was good againt Garrett on that specific one. I guess greed was stronger than foresight. If she had planned to cheat, it was really dumb to do it with that hand rather than with a less obvious one.
Bart, please be honest with yourself and completely objective. Don’t defend someone guilty because of your friends or something. You understand poker waaaayyy tooo well to be out there saying that maybe she did not know what she was doing.
This was an enlightening moment for Garrett. I loved the look on his face. It was absolutely delightful.
I think the J8 diamonds hand can be view a few ways. If you are floating with backdoor diamond draw, and you pick up the draw with an very innocent 4, it look suspicious to fold at that point. On flip side if you know you are going to lose you may not call turn. I think overall its hard to apply poker theory in general. The fact she was lying about her hand, return the money, accused of cheating and not being upset, plus Garrett describing the interaction when he confronted her (I tend to believe him), make me lean toward her cheating
Sus to fold the diamond draw but this J4 is normal really your going with that?
@@davidclark6260 thats not what I said. I said i lean toward her cheating with J4. I just think Bart's example of J8 diamonds can be view different ways
@@scchicago5822 The time chip is a signal. It's basically a "is this a good time to bluff?" That's why she floats the QQ flop with J8 of diamonds (she intends to either improve her hand or bluff on the river knowing if he doesn't have a Q he will fold to a bluff) so she didn't get the signal she was good on the flop - and that's because she's losing to K high, ace high, any pair, a queen.
Why does she call turn when Garrett makes a full house? It's because she doesn't know his hand - only that she is not winning....So she sees it's a diamond (she's got a flush draw now) so she calls.
The river is where Garrett leads for 55k, so now it's on her and she obviously knows her J high is no good..... so what does she do? She throws in a time chip for a signal "can I bluff here?
Go watch it with that observation and you'll see.
Another example is the JJ hand vs Rysuke Ax of diamonds. She was winning flop, so she bet, she was winning turn, so she bet, on the river the 3rd diamond comes and she checks. Rysuke now bets, and guess what she does? Throws in a time chip to signal "hey, this a good time to bluff"? The chair then vibrates which means no.
Soo.... on both occasions a time chip was used, a vibration in the chair is seen, and both times she folds/doesn't bluff and it's correct.
The time chip on J4 hand is simple ....it's a "Hey, am I actually really good here, you really want me to call? And no chair vibration can be seen, meaning you're good so call.
@@elitethem possible. But seems highly unlikely to me. She wants screen time. If somebody is sophisticated enough to hack into Hustle live stream so as to cheat, don't you think they'd be a tad bit more sophisticated in hands and timing of using that sophisticated hack? It's like cracking fort knox security system only to forget gloves and leave fingerprints everywhere. Naive stupidity and lack of poker knowledge seem most likely to me
Innocent people don’t even consider giving the money back. Also, if you can be “bullied” into giving that back, stay out of the poker room. You don’t have the temperament to play at any level.
Even when you feel someone is bluffing, you still would have at least a small pair or high card of ace to call. No one would ever call for a lot of money with a jack as a high card. Even assuming a bluff, you would still assume a Ace, king or at least a Q high card in the other hand. Can't say for certain she cheated, but this is by far the strangest call I've ever seen in my 22 years of playing
Exactly that’s what a lot of people are missing here. I’ve been in spots where I have Q, J, or 10 high and I’m 100% certain they are bluffing, I still have to fold because you can’t even beat a lot of bluffs. Jack high in this spot literally beats no bluffs other than a weak flush draw
It's obvious af at this point with all the evidence
If Phil Ivey made that call he'd be called a genius
He is a genius... she is not...
No it wasnt even a good call. I mean she was behind. And thats the strange part about this hand.
Everyone has a degree of confirmation bias. And I think this video shows Bart is no different. Those in the cheating camp would say if she did if she had a cheating device that signalled ‘best hand worst hand’ and she could not see the hole cards, that the AK/A8 against Persson is shady. She is signalled she is ahead on the turn with a Draw heavy board. She raises to either fold out and protect or get value from a draw.
Same with the J8 flush draw against Garrett’s boat. She is not signalled until the River to know for sure Jack high is no good. She even uses a time bank chip (then immediately folds after using it) because she is waiting for the signal to ensure he didn’t miss a draw too.
That said, I agree I don’t think she cheated. I’m just not sure his examples of it were very concrete as there seems to be reasonable counterarguments to them.
Yea Polk explained that J8 hand she tanked for ages on the river for some weird reason. I think innocent but I can see why people think her shady af
I wouldn’t have given any $ back, especially to Garrett!!!
Great commentary Bart. I agree if after the smoke clears, Robbi wasn’t cheating, this is going to be a bad look for Garrett.
G man deserve this bad look because sometimes he does not take it well when he loses pots. He is all about himself, still very emotional.
@@NguyenLinh-un4er Garrett handles himself in wins and losses better than 99% of other poker players. What in the world are you even talking about? When he was slowrolled by Dylan Gang he took it like the pro he is. If you want to hate on him for whatever reason that's your right, but saying he's emotional and takes losses badly shows that you're just completely clueless. And no I'm not a simp for Garrett, I'm just pointing out straight facts.
Bart, she clearly tells Andy that she doesn’t have a 3 and “purely a bluff catcher” right after she calls the all in. Pay attention to video
Bart, I have always loved your content and commentary. You really are one of the best out there. It can't be ignored however that your commentary on this might be a bit skewed in that you have a financial tie to Hustler Live and it serves your best interest to protect the integrity of this game. I have been an investigator in many different facets of my professional career and everything about her speech, actions, and body language during/after this incident is indicative of suspicious activity. Especially giving the money back. Guilty people are more apt to try and mitigate their actions by making immediate reoperations, especially if they think it will get them off the hook. I hope she's innocent and that this was just an off the rails play that she made but I truly lean the other way.
@ Patricia Clark You say that your expertise is investigations?
I wonder if it isn't along the lines of a prosecuting attorney, and your job - like his/hers - is basically to look for reasons to "prove" a person guilty?
I can say - and this is personal, as in: FIRST PERSON personal - that there are several reasons why she might have returned the money that are NOT because she was trying to "mitigate [her] actions by making immediate" ... I assume you meant to say restitution or amends, and not reoperations - a word which applies to business operations and not to this situation.
The problem here is that you just do not understand how people - such as myself - with a condition called Asperger Syndrome operate. If you did, then you might not be so quick to judge her "speech, actions, and body language."
Though it wasn't exactly the same thing, many years ago I "admitted guilt" to something not because I was guilty of what I was accused, but because I knew that I was not entirely guiltLESS as to why the other person accused me of doing what I most certainly did not do.
It's called being self-aware.
Maybe you might want to try looking at things from that angle, as opposed to the "guilty until proved innocent" that your job is dependent upon?
She called Garrett because she called GARRETT.
Maybe he himself needs to start examining that fact before he flies off the rails and starts accusing others of cheating?
@@tomemeigh5338 I sure do hate it when I'm right. All your "triggered" rhetoric and here we sit, more evidence that she cheated.......
Bart does make an excellent point in his opening here. And that is that a single incredible particular hand when told to 1000 poker pros in a vacuum would def be considered cheating. I say this bc several years ago I was a regular in a private game in NYC. The game was mostly Wall St guys and businessmen. We were playing $5-10 w a $25 mandatory straddle. In this specific hand I was the $25 straddle holding J-9 diamonds…UTG raised to $75 and got 6 callers!! Obv understanding the players and texture of the game I did not 3 bet but ofc called. Flop was J J 6 rainbow. It checked around to player to my left and he bet $100(lol)…everyone folded to me and I raised to $1000. He called. Turn was a 5 putting the 4th suit out. With the pot being now $2600 and I only had $3400 left I realized that it was an easy all in and if I was beat then so be it. This player literally beat me in the middle and I mean snap called with lightning speed. I only run it once so he said once to dealer and the river was a 4. Obv due to his snap call I assumed I was beat and expected to see no less than A-J or a full house. I immediately tabled my hand as I always do and of course he showed me a full house…with pocket 4’s!!!!! Im not going to lie my initial reaction was FMLife as I slid the chips towards the dealer but in my mind I was thinking cheating but knew that wasn’t the case. The reason I knew was because the game was being run by one of my very best friends and the dealer in the box was also my friend and they used real casino shuffle machines…and oh yes…the player who made the snap call with pocket 4’s on the J-J-6-5 turn board was the biggest loser ever in the game…and from what I’ve come to know, he apparently lost easily $1-2 million a year in NYC private games for roughly two decades. But that hand if told to any other Pro with no other info other than the action, then they would always say it was cheating. That being said Robbi’s whole demeanor and behavior is extremely odd so I will reserve judgement until more info comes out.
Sorry, don't think that poker hand example is a good comparison. Didn't sound like cheating to me at all. Robbi's hand is a completely different situation. If the dude called you w/ 2,3 off and blurted out incomprehensible explanations afterwards, then maybe it could be a similar situation.
@@bku9 If u don’t think that playing pocket 4’s like that in an 8 way pot with that action doesn’t sound like cheating then u should NEVER play in any private games!!! The crazy thing was that there was no cheating but in a vacuum it reeks of cheating.
Bart , Excellent video. I was originally upset during your commentating of the original Hustler stream when you had stated that you thought something nefarious had happened. This video in the closing section is excellent about the optics on Garrett and Hustler are spot on. Thank you for your unbiased opinion.
Yea, Bart really fucking nailed this one! This video is him shilling for online poker and coming up with bullshit reason after bullshit reason about why she DIDNT cheat! And you fucking fell for it. Unbiased!!!
Bart, great video so far, 7 minutes in and can't wait to finish it. Did you purposefully put your head on Robbi's body? I'm laugh my ass off it's near perfect @7:15
At this point, the most closure we can hope for is probably going to be a polygraph test from an extremely reputable operator. Like the best in the country. She's already agreed to take one. I think Garrett should set that up. Might cost him as much as 5 grand. And be fully committed to giving the money back as well if she passes.
Polygraph isn’t even admissible in court
She didn’t cheat lol. Wants to be on tv for publicity. That’s why she gave it back, could care less about 100k if she can’t play on stream. The stream is worth so much more to her if she wants to start an only rams or even get poker promos. Probably has more money than Garret. Or her husband does. Idk tho.
Polygraph is basically worthless
Polygraph is junk science and would prove nothing
@@santaclause3487 she cheated. It's blowing up now. Her accomplice was caught. And employee with card access getting 15k from her stack and she's not pressing charges. Wake up.
Garrett should give the lady money back. No cheating here. Sometimes u makes a fool call in poker.
Best way to bust a cheater is to search their person for a device as soon as the questionable thing happens. Nobody did that. In fact Hustler casino didn't even stop the stream. They had no intention of finding evidence of cheating then, and by waiting even longer to do this "investigation" they have helped ensure that IF there was any cheating going on, e cheaters have had plenty of time to get rid of the evidence. I don't think there was cheating. But Garrett is 100% sure there was. He must be pretty pissed off at Hustler for not dealing with it then.
My question is what system do you need to know which cards are getting dealt?
Garret was only..,I repeat ONLY pissed because he lost
@@suchabadbeat2617 of all the dumb takes, this is the dumbest. So congrats I guess
Hot take
She's the best live poker player of all time.
So what if she called a few small bets in other hands
That’s what you would do to make it look like you definitely weren’t cheating
I deal poker in tournaments and we get a lot of new players who play exactly like how Robbi played this hand. It’s a sign of a new player that they call down with face cards and no made hand. My real problem is that these millionaire players invite new players in knowing they are exploiting them to make money, and it backfires so they act like aggrieved brats. It’s a bad look for the pros, that they can dish it out but can’t take it, all other factors aside.
This is cope MY son
You’ve never seen someone call an all in with J high no draw. Especially for 100 grand lol. Stfu