You're talking about 2 guys cheating for months on end. With Robbi we have her hole cards for the entire (multiple?) streams and yet not one other suspicious hand from the "cheater". Amazing.

I'm sure if you had the hole cards from these 2 Cubans you'd see countless clear examples of cheating.

I'm perfectly fine with her being looked into after this one crazy hand. Makes total sense. And yet here we are what 15 months later and still crickets.

We did however have Garret and some internet sleuths tell us how close they were to producing proof ages ago including a database analyzing all of her hand histories and that went about as well as expected.

Now look people should protect themselves. if you think you're being cheated leave. The amount of money you can be cheated out of if you're right and play is way higher than what you can win if you keep playing and the game was honest.

By your account you admit you knew these 2 always played together, would whipsaw people, always needed to be in the same seats and would even pay for those seats. If I know all of that I'm never playing in that game. I don't care how stupid I think they are. On top of that if you think you're being cheated it's always going to be in the back of your mind. You're never going to play well with that lurking.

If you take a random poker player and a random hand they play, the likelihood of cheating is 0.0000000001%. This is the default likelihood because there's no evidence of cheating to increase the chances. Here there are many things that increase the chances (compared to a random hand from a random player), so there is at least some evidence. Does anyone seriously think there isn't at least a 2% chance? Well normally a random hand from a random player is much less than 2%. The difference is the amount of evidence being 0 vs not 0.

There was also the issue of people claiming Robbi was "rich" so why would a rich person cheat for money. Well, Winona Ryder had a compulsion to steal, she didn't necessarily need the money.

With Robbi, she had changed jobs from one company to a different company and I believe a different role. And based on my research at the time, the new position on average paid almost half what her previous job paid (it was something like the old job paid 325K/year on average and the new job "only" paid 175k/yr). So there was a significant reduction in the income of this woman who clearly likes to "keep up with the joneses" with all that plastic surgery and her attempts to pass off that she is "rich". And she lives in an area where there is wealth so that desire to keep up appearances exists as well, and her income might just be getting by in the area she lived with the lifestyle she was trying to live.

That's no smoking gun, but it could give some motivation for wanting to try cheating, in addition to all the things you mentioned.

Since you asked I’ll take the under on 2%. Not including Garrett accidentally flashing his hand from one seat. Very very low probability of that but given everything even this very small chance is greater than cheating.

I don’t recall her being “too rich” to cheat ever being a big focal point. She was staked though, which does mean she probably cares less about the proceedings

Let me put it this way. If She had claimed she didn't know them socially outside the game or claimed she put up her own buy-in and it was shown otherwise, would you be able to infer anything from such evidence?

Garrett cheated

Lying about buying yourself in means nothing. Not many people like to admit that they don’t have enough money on their own to play poker

No one has appointed you the arbiter of what is true or what means something.

You can ignore common sense if you choose and still consider completely common behavior as “evidence”.

Absolutely. That’s exactly how circumstantial evidence works.

Now will you answer my question?

Or give real examples like yours with real information we know. Btw it’s still not proven if she knew Bryan despite another poster saying the social media stuff proved they did. Not enough info to be sure.

Lol if they said they knew each because of possibly “following” each other on Twitter

No I'm talking about the hand with an ace on the river and she calls a 129k bet with jack high. So of course we all agree it was at least 2% chance of cheating in that hand, due to the fact that jack high is not a realistic hand to call there with.

In all seriousness I don't know all the evidence but I doubt most poker pros would put it anything close to 2%.

"not a realistic hand to call with there"

wtf does that mean?

Yes I don’t care what others put it at. You could list thousands of people, doesn’t impact me. I think for myself.

It’s a rare event but I’ve seen some very ridiculous things in poker. But it’s not a complete rarity to misread a hand or a novice getting wrapped up in thinking someone has nothing before realizing they don’t either. Those two things are obviously much more common than some conspiracy of one hand.

First, the context in which the facts get presented is important. No one is bringing a criminal case, Garrett would be insane to sue her bc he got his money back and she hasn't sued anyone. Some facts may or may not be relevant under these different scenarios and parties can make facts relevant with factual claims they make. For example, if Robbi says I have never cheated anyone in my life, they may "open the door" to present prior bad acts of cheating that may have been considered irrelevant or inadmissable. Amber heard opened up the door to such evidence on depp v heard.

Imo, The "best" circumstantial evidence is her offering to give back the $ and her giving it back off camera. One could infer she was caught cheating and giving back $ would stop Garrett. Other inferences as certainly possible as well.

Well if experts at live poker overwhelmingly disagreed, I would assign a lower likelihood than if they overwhelmingly agreed. That is a part of the overall evidence. If you completely ignore what experts in a given field think, that is similar to being a bigfoot believer.

Bigfoot is also a rare event. I swear I saw him the other day, but I didn't have my glasses on. I know all the experts say his existence is only 0.0000000001%, but personally I think it's more like 50%. I think for myself.

Any circumstantial evidence that doesn’t lead one to only one conclusion is worthless. In fact I have to correct myself again. I agree if they said they never met, I’d infer cheat. If they lied about the stake, I can’t infer cheat as a number of reasons come to mind.

People who say we aren’t in a court of law are basically saying I’m going with my gut on this one.

Just one example of anything that actually would be admissible in a civil case would make my night.

I get called by unrealistic hands by fish all the damn time. lol. She was just a female who made an emotional dumb call, nothing to see here no grand cheating conspiracy for 1 hand. Just give it up your impulse was wrong.

I don't really know what you mean by this because any good attorney will offer up another conclusion to a harmful inference.

No, just because they saw your wife and Mr. X leaving the bar arm in arm doesn't mean she was cheating. She was under the influence, had high heels on and it was icy - he was just helping keep her steady.

No what I am saying is that to decide what is relevant and admissable you need to understand what needs to be proven. Civil cases allow for sworn testimony in depositions, criminal cases don't. If Robbi had to testify in a deposition as to what happened, after learning her version of the facts, you would use direct and circumstantial evidence to try to disprove certain testimony.

I think this is a decent list of circumstantial facts that would come into evidence if someone tried to prove Robbi, RIP and Bryan cheated together. Although some is too speculative (requires to many inferences to have reliability)
[QUOTE=RosaParks1;58371504]-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.
I wouldn't necessarily jump right to inferring cheating, but I would infer she was being dishonest. And her dishonesty could make me not believe other disputed parts of her story. Just like if it was proven she got her stake from airball after claiming it was her own money, one could infer they were cheating partners. Just like playing with two relatives at the same table makes people question if they are playing partners.

So it's been thoroughly debunked in your eyes. Weird because the experts overwhelmingly disagree that it's been thoroughly debunked. I guess you either a) don't consider them experts, b) consider yourself an even bigger expert, or c) don't understand the dunning kreuger effect.

Can you link some of the expert analysis you're talking about? I haven't seen it.

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

That's not what I'm claiming. I'm saying I would be very confident that if you polled top winning hs players, they would overwhelmingly put it at >2% that she cheated. This was to make the points that a) there's not 0 evidence, and b) if you consider it fully debunked, you are probably experiencing the dunning kreuger effect.

It's true I didn't cite a paper proving that's what most hs pros would say, but I don't need to because to me it's a very fair assumption.

If we were arguing about bigfoot, I would start out by pointing out most experts think he doesn't exist. I would only need to cite a paper if I wanted to convince someone who disagreed with that premise.

The first half of this post is unbelievably dumb and misleading. jfc.