The old throw it all against the wall and see what sticks prosecution.

Pretty sure it was Ryan who said view wasn’t fully blocked and Nick said something like I never noticed or something equally dumb. No idea time stamps or episodes. No shot I’m looking.

Regardless you can’t use Bryan stole as a nexus and also include if not him then others. That’s the wall test. Not saying you are using it. Seems like you are loading both stones on the board to crush the witch. (cf Salem Witchcraft Trials.)

Phil Gafond HS poker player more respected than Garrett went from 80/20 not cheat to 80/20 because Bryan stole.

Just to be clear. Hypothetically if something were to convince you they didn’t know Bryan until they played. You’d ignore it and move to the other 5. Correct?

Really hard to have a reasonable discussion when you focus on semantics and hyperbole rather than trying to have a rational exchange. My definition of "independent" would exclude a party that was identified and paid for solely by one side of the issue. Not sure how that is a "conspiracy". Also, are you saying that some one other than Robbie crafted the questions and if so who is this person? It is either Robbie or Robbie with the examiner, but in any case they leave too much ambiguity to address the underlying substance.

Your last statement just illustrated my point - Hustler Casino Live Poker games could mean lots of things and that is the exact reason if this was law enforcement they would have had much more specificity. One could read that as live poker games at Hustler Casino vs. the HCL stream. Not saying that is what happened, but a good example of why polygraph questions need to be carefully considered so the respondent is addressing the core issue at hand.

This guy nailed it imo:

Robbi and her team signed off and crafted the questions.

I called the guy that administered test and made up some bs story that I needed to get a lie detector test and he said I get to craft the questions. Think cost was 400$. I said my girl is suspicious of me, and he said that I’ll have to come up with question and the wording is very important.

I offered him more and said my budget was 1.5k he kind of hesitated and said that is completely unacceptable and not something he does. I said I really need to pass this test but that I’m pretty sure I’ll fail. Like 15 seconds of
Silence and I hung up.

Take that as you will. Random but apparently he specializes in sex crimes type polygraphs.

Another example why the questions are poorly structured is the third question:

"Did you conspire with anyone during the Hustler Casino Live poker game to cheat?"

As worded as long as the act of conspiring was not done during the game (i.e. the conspiring is usually done in advance) you could answer no and not show deception. Specifically, she and RIP could have spent the entire night at Javier's planning / conspiring and she could answer this question in the negative. Not saying that is what happened or that is how she interpreted / crafted the question, but I was immediately suspicious when I saw the questions as I could think of several ways to circumvent. Crafting the questions is really the most important step of the process.

I have no opinion on the polygraph examiner other than what I have seen on the website and his linkedin profile. I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that someone from Los Angeles could have found someone at least as qualified in the area.

Really just need an agreement between the two parties, which would be trivially easy:
Robbie: "Hey Garrett, I am more than happy to take a lie detector test. Here is the deal: You send me a list of 3 agencies you would consider reputable and agree to pay for the test. I'll pick one, have the test recorded, and publish both the recording and test results. Agreed"?


Broader questions are a very poor practice. The less specific you are, the less accurate the results.
A competent polygrapher should never ask something like "Have you ever cheated on your husband"? The question should be structured more along the lines of: "Since you became married, have you had sexual intercourse with someone other than your husband"?
Or perhaps better: "On September18th of this year. did you engage in sexual activity with someone other than your spouse"?

ETA: Also, in my experience, having taken 3 of these tests, 4 hours for a 3-4 question test is super-standard. Because that is where - before the test is administered - you would agree on things like a specific definition of the term "sexual activity" for the purposes of the test question. Which is another reason why it's hard to know how accurate this test was, since we don't know if any control questions were asked, how terms were specifically defined, etc, etc.

No its not throwing spaghetti at the wall, its accumulating evidence whether circumstantial or not (obviously SOME is). We didn't know about the lack of security in the control room until well after the Bryan story came out. Now that we know its wide the **** open, it opens up a million more ways the cheat could have happened. And you are brushing them off as "throwing things at the wall". That's silly mang.

Just because Phil Galfond or whoever else changed their % to cheat doesn't mean jack to me lol. The fk I care what he thinks? I was 95% cheat before the Bryan story even came out so.....

You're making philosophical arguments. I'm here to discuss evidence & potential evidence. Security of the control room is 100% relevant & if its crap (which we know it is), it of course makes it more likely cheating occurred given the context.

There are plausible reasons/scenarios where Bryan didn't do anything aside from steal the chips, but cheating still occurred. To think otherwise is really close minded (w/ all respect).

Also when I called he said he doesn’t accept credit cards. Only cash money baby. Maybe money order too

Even if Robbi and the team knew the deck/river cards, why only cheat on that hand (not much suspicion other hands were dubious) and lose others that evening. Why not cheat in a more normative way and make lots more money? Why cheat on a hand that would raise eyebrows, but not make a lot of money in hands that would not?

You do know that there’s a huge difference between being admissible in court and meaningless, right?

I love how people say she should have gone to a more reputable company and have Garrett write the questions (as if he’s a polygraph expert) when it’s quite clear that even if she had the response would be “derp can’t bring it into the court!”. So no, she shouldn’t do that.

How many times you gonna keep posting this ish?

Big Mikey Tommo …

Everytime the thread goes off on an irrelevant tangent!

Honestly if people falsely accuse Robbi of cheating and ban her from every establishment from gambling, she is extremely lucky. Think about all the money she will save!!

Big Tommo out here trying to figure out 1+1 while the rest of the class is doing calculus. I don't think he's understood a word he's read over these 330 pages.

Hope he/she is getting paid well for 500+ posts in a month

I've explained this to YOU specifically at least 2 times & this is the last time. That's why I put you on the ignore list you're just wasting ****ing time which is probably your only goal:

"Normative way" of cheating lmao? I keep saying this, just because someone doesn't cheat exactly how YOU think they should doesn't make it less likely. Cheating in a bunch of hands is exactly how to get caught in a highly watched stream for the world to see vs top pros like Ivey & Garrett. Only a complete fool would do it. You'd pick 1 or 2 big pot spots & that is all you'd need. Besides, I told you I think she did it to go viral & build her brand/profile etc not for the $.

As a 20% vpip player the J8 hand is very suspect & I explained why. She all the sudden started playing any J rag that came her way. Not that playing J8s is loose, but the call down to the river was extremely loose. Then she puts in the time chip w/ J high on river & then folds to Garretts boat rather quickly.

I think she blew it & either wasn't supposed to make the call, or she made the mistake of making the call at the wrong time. Or she was afraid she wouldn't get the spot again for the sick hero call.

Literally at the top of this page.

This presupposes that poloygraph testers are biased towards the person who sourced them and not independent completely . This is a huge conspiracy claim in case you did not realize. Zero evidence of this.


The examiner obviously crafts the questions because the questions are the most vital part of the test. Robbi obviously told him what the point of the test is but there is no way an examiner lets her craft the questions. You will need to provide evidence this is how polygraphs work. I would be shocked.

Oh please tell is all the other things it could mean other than the poker games Robbi played.

That is the same thing. The HCL stream is live poker games at hustler casino! lol. The notion Robbi is some psychological mastermind who would create this distinction to beat a lie detector is hilarious and again shows your desperation.



Sure you did. lol

Cool story. What's wrong with the second question, which to me covers everything.


This is assumes non reputable polygraph places exist. I have no idea if that is a thing, you will need strong evidence to support that.



If a question is too narrow you can also escape it, much harder to escape certain broad questions like 'did you ever cheat on your wife'

Cope.

Exactly nothing, lol. She rubbed her chin (literally and figuratively feeling herself). I don't have to make up reasons for that and I was not agreeing with the premise that it is 100% a signal.

If it's a signal, I don't know what it could mean. I actually think cheaters wouldn't do anything visible like that once it's obvious the situation is going to be examined thoroughly.

Anyway, actual learning in this thread ceased about 350 pages ago. The same arguments are being rehashed. It's like the Twilight zone with tits.

This shows us the security was vulnerable – that’s opportunity. I’m fine with that.


Of course there are many scenarios one can theorize cheating can occur. Because scenarios are possible adds nothing other than again opportunity.

Someone robs a bank. I can list a number of ways it could have been done. What does that get me?


You literally just said “There are plausible reasons/scenarios…but cheating still occurred.

You literally can’t have an argument that proves anything, because there is no proof of cheating. I’ve seen nothing but conjecture, i.e. hunches.

People who reference their ignore list are tools.

Why not give us your definition of an independent third party instead of only saying what it excludes?

Especially because you said some things that leads me to wonder if you think of it as a mutually agreed upon party.

You honestly have no clue what you are talking about if you actually believe this (which of course, you don't). You are literally just making **** up to win an argument now. But I will humor you with an example:

In my previous example: let's say it turns out that the person being questioned in this case has a secret their husband doesn't know about: A couple of years before their marriage, when they had only been dating a few weeks, she was at a party with an ex, got a bit drunk, and ended up blowing the guy after he gave her a ride back to her apartment. Her and her now-spouse had not at that point had any discussion about whether they were "dating exclusively". Did she cheat on her husband?

2 perfectly reasonable people can come to entirely opposite conclusions about whether the answer here is "yes" or "no". Which is why it is such a poor question. Surely you see that now, yes?

No? OK, nevermind. Please go back to just making **** up.

Typically would be a party that is mutually agreed upon and whose fee is split evenly between the parties.

Someone posted that’s how it works SOMEWHAT. I’m thinking she crafted it, poly guy reads it and edits so it’s useful per how polys work. I’d think Charles prolly actually draft it. And not to be a trick question. To get to what everyone wants to know. Did she cheat?



The theories she or whoever drafted trick questions is in the vein of crossing your fingers behind your back and seems silly to me. But I’m no expert in polys. Fiaily good at common sense though.

That's fine and agree that's how things are done in arbitration, civil cases etc.

However it doesn't really get to the real issue at hand - the integrity of the polygraphist.

Mutually agreed upon, chosen unilaterally, or by random our of a hat - what is needed is a mutually agreed upon poly guy both agree to trust and agree to the results and what that means e.g. they both agree that's the verdict or w/e.

You and I can agree to a guy. You might actually have him in your pocket and I don't know him from the man in the moon.

This is all very simple after the fact. Especially given that no shot GA would have agreed to accept results from any poly.

Just vette the guy who did it post results if one wants to admit it into the court of 2by2.