Ya, because Ryan deleted it lol.

You've not bumped into people, or millions of them, who would say the fact she gave the money back indicates she was not cheating, as cheaters rarely do, especially when the person accuses them has not produced any evidence of cheating!?

i stopped following after the first week or so bc nothing new was coming out it seemed.


So i guess that 4c/6h card switch was never confirmed?

Was there actually confirmed audio of rip saying something along the lines of "go back and get it, i cant believe you"

Has any explanation been giving for her saying she's played with garret offstream, and also attended homegames with julie when she has not done either.

Have they figured out if brian took money from anyone other than robbie, or what was up with him blocking the camera with a cabinet?


I'm not accusing her, these are just the things that were suspicious to me when i tuned out so im just asking what the new status on them is.


Fact is you will never find any hard evidence unless you catch it happening in real time, short of a confession which would make no sense to give.



Honestly tho the ppl like jacob defending her arent doing her any favors bc his takes are pretty braindead, but it doesnt matter anyway bc besides random **** posting on twitter and this thread it's over anyway.

Card switch was confirmed (4h6c)

Ver gracious of you to “let him have it”, considering she wants to play him or anyone HU for $1mm.

Regardless if she is delusional, egoistical or simply unaware it remains she’s either 1) one of those 2) lying about playing 3) charitable and doesn’t mind donating 4) outright degen gambler.

Only one that seems to fit criteria of cheat is 2.
1,3,4 are all evidence of no cheat.

If she ever does plays anyone, it would be clear and convincing evidence she didn’t cheat.

I've never seen a cheater in poker give back money to someone that accused them of cheating but I've also never seen an innocent person accused of cheating in poker give money back to someone accusing them of cheating. I've definitely seen many guilty people throughout history admit to the truth and confess their guilt throughout history.

The fact that he didn't provide any evidence yet she still gave the money back, with a backer to consider as well I might add, doesn't help her cause in the least.

well this and the cabinet seals it for me, she was cheating. she'll get away with it, but im at 99% cheating and cant really see myself being swayed from it.

If there were confirmed audio of rip saying "go back and get it, i cant believe you" i'd be at 100%.

Ive played against live whale-reg things and seen dumbshit, but there's just too many inconsistencies and too much circumstantial evidence i'm just in the camp of where there's massive plumes of smoke there's probably fire.

So she confirms she knows how to play poker rather than being some amateur, luckbox player who makes the hero of all hero calls for $109k and can't explain, or, is inconsistent in her reason for calling?

I'd say this result confirms, absent information of particular hands/results in the tournament; that she understands the game enough to cash in a $10k. If so, this decimates the argument put forth by too many that she somehow doesn't know what she is doing.

Therefore, the only argument left from the "she didn't cheat" crowd, is that she is so advanced a poker player, that not only can she play like a nit most of the night to extract value from LAGS but, she is able to revert to a maniac/soul reader in VERY specific circumstances for all the money.

I've seen some of this guys posts on twitter, he's a ****ing moron. maybe a trivia god, but either a simp or a moron. He put the "base chance" of cheating at .001, then multiplied it by the .xx she was cheating vs just whaling it off.

The problem is he just pulled the base chance out of a ****ing hat.

Dudes a clown and should be ignored.

Robbi giving the money back, or not giving it back, is not evidence of cheating, or not cheating. Which you may well know! My point here is, which is partly shaped by my telling some folks about this fascinating saga and their responses to it, if you randomly sampled 10,000 people and said person X gave money back to person Y after he accused them of cheating with no evidence, just a hunch, it would not surprise me if the majority said this suggests cheating was less probable.

If you then expanded this thought experiment to the accuser being a male, a male who was at the time quite angry, and the accused being a female, in the back room/hallway of a casino, the giving it back would be seen as even less likely to indicate a confession of cheating.

But the fact you perhaps do not share the view of the majority, is an example of why this case is so interesting.

He is very pro Robbi. At the end of the game, based on the hand in question, rest of them that evening, other players there reaction to the game overall- including the J/4 hand, Robbi's speech at the table....... I'd have estimated the cheating probability to be around 5-10%. Now appears to be around 1%. .0001% seems to be a dubious percentage to my mind. But he might be using this as a means to point out how weak, currently, the accusation appears to be.

Oh yeah. They tried all kinds of crap during the cold war. I played with a guy who worked on all the crazy psych stuff they did, like the remote viewing.

Various assassination theories suffer from the usual causes of implausibility. The killings themselves are complicated. RFK's assassin, Sirhan Sirhan was brainwashed somehow? Then you have the behind the scenes. I'm sure some people in the CIA would be OK assassinating a US president or MLK. But I'm also sure some would oppose it. How do you build this undetected faction that goes around assassinating people? Why not crash his plane or slip him some heart attack pills, rather than this complicated scenario with Oswald and Ruby?

I mean you have no idea what he base % is, anything you come up with is just a random number you've made up in your head. It was obviously not hard to cheat if you were so inclined, so it just comes down to if ppl would actually do it, you and i dont know these ppl, how can we assign a % to it.



The fact that the person seeing the cards thought she had a FD which would not be a sus call off for a rec, and had moved a cabinet to block the security camera is enough for me combined with all the inconsistencies in her story.

I'm also pretty sure she wrote that message from "bryan", i dont think it makes you a conspiracy tard to realize that ellipses and "wouldn't not" are pretty writer specific in their usage

But im not a judge, even if i were i wouldnt condemn her to any form of punishment bc i cant prove anything with hard evidence.

Only argument left?

The “No cheat” crowd is on top of the mountain with nothing to prove. The onus is on those making the accusations and with zero evidence they haven’t taken a single step toward the climb

I'm done talking with people like you as you don't think in a logical way. Poker is judged by the wins and losses from a competitive standpoint just as any other competitive competition is judged throughout time.

Sure there might be a situation where someone might feel obliged to reimburse someone for their losses out of a sympathetic type of reasoning in poker but that's not the case in this situation.

Her giving the money back is only explained through a possible admission of guilt. Either she is guilty of feeling like the dumbest poker player in the history of time for not only misreading her hand but then being ahead somehow in a massive pot and then winning the hand through two runouts or she is guilty of something more shady in the hand. I just don't see a situation where someone honestly plays the hand then feels sympathetic towards reimbursing one of the end bosses of poker because his feelings are hurt and he feels cheated otherwise. None of that makes any sense. I'm done with this stance but I have no idea how one could possibly think her reimbursing that money in this situation leads towards a higher belief in innocence than probable guilt.

He is saying that Kevin did not give the money back immediately but then decided that he should. Sounds like he wanted to have this in the show, so they tacked on the scene of him returning the money and edited it all together.

So he still returned the money in this version.

Hilarious take. Robbi already gave the money back. That means the burden of proof shifted back to her.

Go ahead and break that math down for me please.

Logical way'' is not suggesting one needs to evaluate the wins, losses....which was my suggestion here! If you do not have data at hand - here looks like Adelstein's results over 4000 games (assuming 3 or so per week) v Robbi's 200 or so - and the only data you have is based on 3 games, then 'logically' you'd use this data!!

One day you may discover your ''stance'' is more atpical than typical and not one that would be supported by a sample of Psychologists!

ps when she called the 109k raise she was behind, not ahead, 47% odds of winning it!! Facts matter!

Huh? This is about proofing someone guilty, she hasn’t asked for the money back. If proven guilty with real evidence (not a stolen necklace at age 17 or going to LV to take a lie detector test instead of CA) then there will be real consequences.

There should be consequences for Garrett if his wild accusations end up completely unfounded though. But there probably won’t be as people will just say it was an improper investigation. Ban him from the streams but not all will honor that.

And these’s not now nor ever been any innocent people in prison having confessed a crime they actually didn’t commit.

Do you see any irony in continuing claiming no evidence exists to support a cheating accusation at the same time repeatedly making totally unsubstantiated claims yourself. Please list your "proof" that rises to the level you are demanding regarding Garrett being "quite angry" in the back room / hallway and also your verifiable proof that "the majority" agree with your position. Maybe start by telling us the majority of what (i.e. the few people still following this situation, high-stakes poker players, the broader poker community) and the data you have showing the current breakdown of the cheat vs. no-cheat sentiment .

The discussion in the hallway is in dispute and absent video with audio surfacing only three people will ever know what was said. Additionally, each person can perceive the intent / state of mind of the other differently. Garrett will say she was talking nonsense / shady and Robbie will say he was aggressive / threatening. We can look at contemporaneous actions (i.e. what people said / did as it occurred) as well as what we know of both people based on past actions, but neither side can prove what objectively happened. Ryan making contradictory comments about the interaction does not help matters.

For the record, I think Garrett should have asked that the money be put in escrow rather than taking it back. I understand his concern as no one recovered losses from Mike Postle even though the consensus is he cheated and Garrett rightly inferred getting the money after the fact would be nearly impossible even if someone could prove cheating occurred; however, basic due process would suggest that the funds should have stayed with a neutral party until further investigation. Ironically, had he done that I think he could have pressed for a formal independent investigation with an agreed upon neutral arbitrator that would have enabled proper discovery vs. the current state of affairs where neither side can investigate the others claims.

Another stupid take. Her giving the money back when confronted for cheating is admission of guilt. The new story about how she didn't cheat is just a claim that she lied when she admitted guilt. She has no entitlement to presumption of innocence any more, and it's just a bunch of paid shills that are pushing the narrative that she's innocent at this point. Along with some content creators who were obviously coerced.

Not the place to examine some or any of these in detail, but my hazy recollection of looking at numerous assassination of JFK theories -years ago - is some were quite plausible, so not conspiracy theories that would meet my criteria.

In the Robbi case the notion a bunch of people sought to 'cheat' Garrrett out of 135k approx, who appear to be quite wealthy, other than 'Bryan' if involved, in a hand where their odds of winning were worse than a flip, if the river cards were not known, is probably a conspiracy theory. If the people believed to be involved were not wealthy, and/or had some animosity towards Garrett for reasons unknown, and/or were somewhat dim (if they did not know the river cards).....then it would not be.

Case isn’t rhetorical. She gave away RIP’s half of $135k Both said/agree on this post game.