^lol, they should at least concede that if she cheated that they are the worst group of cheaters ever

The chick with the fake boobs is supposed to be the decoy, not the person getting the “your hand is best” signal. But then not smart enough to know that you should fold the jack high otherwise it might become obvious.

Finally they forgot to win money.

just so everyone knows scotch has about 1500 posts on here defending robbi

this isn't the evidence you think it is

Garrett is going to have monsters in the closet syndrome. Every time he loses a pot he's going to think he's being cheated. He's Tiger Woods after the car crash. The magic is gone. Garrett has blown his last good mental fuse and now he's off the deep end. Let the cringe show commence I guess.

And so it begins, the attack the man portion when the arguments are exposed as flimsy

It will be so hype if Santhosh or Andrew Robl stack Garrett with j4o in the return game

ive read next to nothing on this garbage but i find people who spend their lives on "general" forums to be really big fkn weirdos and any time ive looked at a topic about garret or robbi you are every 4th comment

i pointed this out because when someone shows such a gigantic bias on a subject it really invalidates anything you have to say on said subject since normal human beings will find different points on both sides of the fence which is something i cant say about you

The Bryan thing is a case study in... something. If you're scrutinizing a situation and then something seemingly weird happens, it's probably not that big a deal and a just product of you scrutinizing that subject. In this case, a chronic thief saw a stoned, rich housewife leave a pile of uncounted, unattended money and unsurprisingly took some. It seemed like a big deal because we were already thinking of the situation as suspicious/extraordinary.

Of course, if he really was in on a cheating ring that had just been exposed, he would have probably known that stream and security camera footage would later be reviewed. It would be more suspicious if he hadn't stolen the money and we just learned a guy in the booth had a criminal history and a gambling addiction.

Anyway, I agree the most plausible cheating scenario is she just saw his hand in this one instance. Or Eric saw it and mouthed something to her, just to stir up trouble. Haven't reviewed video to see if that is likely. I guess she could have noted an unintentional mark on one of Garrett's cards and known one of his cards or something like that. Probably none of that is true, but it makes more sense than all these wild theories where they like, play Ivey and Gman straight up for 2 days and then itentionally pile in money drawing dead to cover their tracks so they can ultimately GII on a flip and return the money if they win.

Post reported.

You obviously can’t keep your chit together. Keep it together

Will anyone at the tables have the balls to call out Garrett over what he did to robbi? Most of them are gutless worms so I doubt it.

There's a big difference between "insufficient evidence" and "0 evidence". I think it's pretty obvious the cheating accusation was based on insufficient evidence, and he handed it terribly afterwards.

If there's truly 0 evidence, as so many people itt insist, how do you explain that respected high stakes pros like Xeno (and others) have the initial reaction that it was very likely cheating? These guys just randomly accuse people out of nowhere for no apparent reason? That is was 0 evidence would entail.

You guys must realize just because someone is not proven guilty, doesn't mean there's 0 evidence. It's pretty funny seeing people exaggerate their own side of the argument, thinking that it helps them, but really it makes you look biased, emotional, dishonest, trolly. If you have a strong argument, you don't need to exaggerate and redefine words like evidence.

I'm not a "Garrett fanboy", I find NL hold em boring as hell. I play PLO. But I relate to what Garrett experienced because I was cheated (but my cheaters were caught)

Back in Tampa on Monday mornings they had a 1/2 PLO game with a $5 mandatory button straddle and unlimited restraddles from any position. Buyins were 200-1k. It was a wild game, lots of guys would buyin for 200-400 early and try to spin it up and you'd see lots of multi-way all-in pots.

There were two Cuban guys who always arrived at the start of the game, and they always sat in seats 1 and 6. The guy who sat seat 1 even paid another player $50 for the seat when someone beat him to the seat when the game started.

We knew these two knuckleheads would try to trap people between them for raises, but their hand selection was so piss poor that we didn't really care. However, I wound up going through a two-month long stretch where these guys would take odd betting lines against me, calling bets when I had massive equity edges and range advantage, but they were coming out smelling like roses time and time again.

I wound up doing a google search and found a post from Kristi Arnett from a year prior. It said there were two Cubans at Commerce who always sat diagonal from one another, and they were believed to be marking cards. I revived the tweet discussion and explained what I was experiencing, and was told that it sounded like them.

I sent this to the manager of the poker room and was met with "I've been in this industry for 25 years, we use a burn card, how could they possibly know the outcome of a hand???" and I said "look, I don't know what they're doing, I don't know how they're doing it, but if they're playing there, I'm not". He said he'd put a fresh deck into play on Monday and monitor it throughout the day.

I hadn't played that game for two weeks when a buddy texts me "hey, the Cubans were just escorted out by security, they're banned for life"

After doing some digging (since I knew dealers and the manager wouldn't reveal what they did) I found out they were using their fingernails to mark the outside edges of the cards, based on the value of the cards. While this wouldn't allow them to know suits and they could still lose to flushes, it would allow the guy in seat 1 to see the side of the deck and know if the deck was favoring broadway, middle or low runouts (the guy in seat 6 once put in $1200 as the 4th all-in preflop with Q976 and won both runouts because they knew the deck favored middle cards)

I had noticed these two were wearing Best Bet Jacksonville hats, so I contacted a manger up there and he said "oh yeah, we banned those guys two weeks ago". They got caught at a room in TX, they got caught at Chasers in NH.

But the thing is, when I initially brought up the cheating issue, I was met with pushback. Not only from the room manager who had "25 years of industry experience" and couldn't fathom how his operation could be cheated, but also by players in the game who were like "no, these guys just play wild and got lucky"

So arguing that "she just played bad and got lucky" or "why would they cheat on such a stupid hand to cheat on?" don't hold a ton of weight for me. Just because someone is a criminal or a cheat doesn't mean they are sophisticated. They can be greedy, desperate or full of hubris and think they're invincible.

Yes, I agree that there is no HARD PROOF that Garrett was cheated. But, there's a TON of circumstantial evidence. And in the moment, you could see Garrett as his spidey senses started tingling and he felt something was rotten, and that is exactly what I experienced when I was cheated, so I can emphasize with the situation, and with the people not believing it was possible.

I won't rehash all the J4 circumstantial evidence as it's been done to death and you guys aren't changing your minds without hard proof. But just because no proof has been found doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed.

I'm willing to give that it's POSSIBLE there was no cheating involved and you're all correct. But I think it's fair for those on your side to at least consider that it's POSSIBLE there was cheating involved, but it may never be proven.

I don't think this is a 100% black/white situation, there's lots of grey and possibilities on both sides of the belief train here.

There's zero evidence. A lot of conjecture is all.

How does one explain Xeno et al? Easy. Their emotional response is from the context of high stakes poker environments and experiences. They fail to realize how many live low stakes players think and play. Robbie is/was at the time a llsnl player with a high stakes br.

There's zero DIRECT evidence. There's plenty of CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. Your statement "there's zero evidence" is false.

I am using the term evidence in the sense that each piece of evidence increases the likelihood of guilt. The stronger the piece of evidence, the more it increases. If there is evidence against, then it decreases the chances. When you add up all the evidence for/against, you could arrive at a number like 60% likely to be guilty (after all it was a very strange hand).

As far as making accusations goes, if you say "X CHEATED ME!!!", you have to be 100% confident, because otherwise you're pretending to know something you don't know. If you say "I believe X very likely cheated me and here's why..." I think more like 95% is fine. It also depends if the person brought it upon themselves by not avoiding the appearance of impropriety. If someone is doing things that make themselves look guilty, then the thresholds lower. For someone like Martin Kabriel, he is digging in his nails, joking about marking, staring from weird angles, has a history, multiple accusers, etc. So for him it would be a much lower threshold than Robbi, who wasn't doing stuff like that.

With Robbi, when you add up the evidence for and against, then factor in if she avoided the appearance of cheating, I think Garrett's accusations were too strong. The above process is probably the fairest way to deal with these things and is generally accepted. But saying there's no evidence, as people itt say, is not really fair to Garrett.

This is not true.

Here’s the definition of circumstantial evidence according to Wikipedia:


Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

All of what we have are facts that exists. For example RIP, Robbie, and Airball partied together the night before. Using this as an example of all the facts we know (and without pointing out statements made by GA in his 2+2 thesis that indeed turned out to be false) there is no way one can logically infer “therefore they probably cheated.

The fact they partied together does make one wonder. But anyone who calls such facts circumstantial evidence doesn’t understand formal logic.

There's a lot of evidence, but none of it is both legitimate and explicitly evidence that she cheated. So, there are two kinds of evidence:

An example of the first kind is the vibrating pants, considered (at least in the past) to be the strongest evidence that Robbi was cheating. But really they were just normal pants with no artificial vibration involved. So the vibrating pants clips were evidence Robbi cheated, but not legitimate evidence. There's a lot of evidence like that in this case.

An example of the second kind of evidence were logical arguments like "that's just such an insane call to make if she's not cheating!" which, sure, is evidence that she cheated -- but, just as much, is evidence that she didn't cheat but is simply made a non-rational poker decision.

Circumstantial evidence from which a relevant fact can be inferred is admissable evidence. It need not prove the ultimate issue or even an element of the crime, simply a relevant fact.

Ex. If you wanted to prove it snowed last night, direct evidence would be a witness that testified they saw it snow, circumstantial evidence would be someone stating there was no snow on their car at night but it was covered in snow the next morning.

So you are wrong that there is no circumstantial evidence here.

Good post

Regarding the last paragraph if people think she’s so brain dead to call with jack high simply because she got the “you’re ahead” signal then surely she’s also capable of misreading her hand or simply getting confused with blockers.

Ok I’ll revise my statement since any testimony true,false or just plain nonsense is technically called evidence.

I stand by my position that all we have is facts and falsehoods. None of which can be considered circumstantial evidence. Theirs is literally now direct nexus to go from any of the facts directly to a logical proof. We CAN go from facts to hunches or connections. Big difference than evidence such as a suspects fingerprints on a bank safe after a robbery when he’s never been to the bank or in the safe as a customer.

Anything that increases the likelihood of her being guilty is evidence. If she did the hero call 10 times in a row, it would be 100% proof. Just once, is still evidence, because otherwise we wouldn't even be having the conversation, as there's nothing suspicious about the hand at all.

"just once"

Yep, that's category 2.

“Relevant” facts. Using my example of they partied the night before. How is the fact that they knew each other relevant? Because that’s all it shows us.

Are you suggestion because they met up the night before it can now be considered circumstantial evidential that they probably met up to plan the cheat?

-Robbi was accused of cheating, at which point she gave back the sum she was accused of cheating for
-When it was divulged that she gave the money back, the person accused of enabling the cheating yelled out loud
-The person accused of enabling the cheating stole chips from Robbi's stack after the game
-The person accused of enabling the cheating moved a filing cabinet to block the view of security cameras from his monitor/desk
-The person accused of enabling the cheating was asking about possible methods used to cheat at chess recently, prior to the J4 game
-Robbi denied knowing Bryan (the person accused of enabling the cheating), but this was proven wrong based on social media records
-Robbi and several others from the game met the previous night for hours
-Robbis relationship with Rip nor her backing arrangement were not divulged
-Rip raged out when he heard she gave the money back
-Hustler ran a third party review of their security measures, this review indicated that cheating was possible via the method that was accused
-Robbi took a lie detector test. The questions nor footage of the test was released.
-Robbi appeared to be wearing the exact same pair of glasses that Vertucci usually plays in in the J4 game
-After the cheating scandal and Bryan's removal from the game, Vertucci's winrate has plummeted
-One of the owners of the HCL game said he thought it was "40%" likely that she cheated
-The floorman who was subsequently accused of being involved was removed from his position
-Robbi discussed the hand after the hand and dozens of times in calls and streams after that, her explanations changed a number of times and she contradicted herself almost constantly
-If someone can clarify the issue with card replacement, that would be relevant too. It was alleged that the cards had been switched out so that Bryan's feed would have had the wrong card info for Robbi in this hand, and the actual hands would have been fixed in production.

So we get all this, including Garrett (who was a dork but one of the only intelligent players in the game at the time) insisting he was cheated, and that he would investigate and expose them.

Is any of this concrete evidence or does it prove anything? No.

Should the people who've been vehemently arguing "no cheating" since day 1 be lambasting others for having suspicions? No.

Literally tens of times in the initial thread I wasted time explaining to people that we would never get any further info whether something happened or not. Once authorities and attorneys get involved, nobody is taking to Twitter and risking lawsuits, especially since courts are more likely to make a definitive ruling in a slander/libel case than they are in a gambling decision.

Yet now we're back here again, and the same unreasonable parties are jabbing at everyone in the same tedious way. HCL has churned out preposterous scandal after preposterous scandal, and nearly everyone involved has embarrassed themselves in some way or been proven relatively fraudulent recently or in the past. They are not done yet.

If magically this Garrett/Robbi fiasco was a set of coincidences, then it (and Ben being scammed) would be the first time that there was smoke but no fire. Idk why anyone is acting like they're smart, or as if they have any concrete understanding of the day's events. If you weren't in the office/at the table/one of the parties involved, you don't know.

This thread is already exhausting to read, and will get worse. There's no fixing it either, as once the parties who troll and try to aggravate others begin, they don't stop.

Robbi probably didn't cheat, but she might've. Do we really care at this point? The last thread was enough to make me consider quitting 2+2, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Some people just come here to behave poorly, and I don't get it at all. This forum is supposed to be fun.

The semantics of what we call evidence aren't that interesting.

The fact that she played in the game means it's vastly more likely that she cheated in it than billions of other people. So i guess that's strong evidence in a sense. But who cares?

Some of the stuff you site is off. Actually, Doug Polk claimed in his vlog that someone told him that they remembered that quite a while ago Bryan moved a cabinet and speculated in hindsight that it could have been to block the camera.

Returning the money could go either way.

Etc.

IANAL but if evidence means, compelling evidence or evidence that could be used in court, it is pretty thin, though not literally non existent.