Ya that was my bad. I quickly realized there wasn’t any point in trying to rationalize with you. I’m sure you’ll piece this whole thing together in your own magical way.

You're clearly the kind of person that refuses to admit when they're wrong. And you're willing to misrepresent everything in a conversation, just to avoid doing so.

To show who actually is FOS here, where is the "context" you're claiming when you implied they were transparent in disclosing their financial arrangement, in your first two posts on this subject below?

Neither of these two posts look anything like what you're claiming they looked in your backtrack. It's just you disagreeing that everything they would have done after being accused of cheating would have been to avoid getting caught, by trying to claim they were transparent about their financial arrangement. Which they weren't.

Here's what you said.

"Also why does it matter how they look? It was very clear some people would think they were guilty, like uhhh.. the most important one? Garrett?"

How the hell is this not you saying why does it matter how they look, the way I said it? To which I stated the obvious, that they're reliant on public opinion right now. As we can see, many people disagree with Garrett. Public opinion matters a hell of a lot more than Garrett's opinion. Either way it's silly to ask why it matters how they look after being accused of cheating. You just said this, because you couldn't come up with any other reasons to dismiss the idea they might have stayed to avoid looking guilty.

LOL no your "why would they stay with devices on them" argument doesn't still apply to a situation where they DON'T HAVE THE DEVICES ON THEM.

Funny you admit your other strawman arguments by omission.

Your strawman here is after your question, when you characterized my position based off your strawman, and then told me how ridiculous it is.

"Tell me this, do you believe they continued cheating after the gman hand, that same night? Lmao, that is kind of a hilarious theory. "

No genius, not only is that an entirely different calculation for the thief, usually when shoplifters dump the merchandise after feeling the heat on them, they get stopped before they leave the store.

All of this nonsense because you can't have a normal conversion with someone, without resorting to tactics like strawman arguments, backtracks, and misrepresentations of both positions.

Do you realize what the word "exposed" means colloquially used in that context? Clearly you don't, but it implies they accidently showed their hand. You can fact check that being what I meant by looking at all the other posts I made regarding it, which you no doubt have.

If I said they did something to expose the scam, would you have taken that to mean that I said they made a formal declaration of their intent to scam everyone? You really think I'm sitting here lying about my motives/what I meant when I said that? You're a nut lmao.

Are you not a native english speaker or something?

No, you realized that I understand what a scam looks like so you started gaslighting. We all get it because you're the 15th shill account to do that. Tell me again how the investigation that HCL organized is going to prove HCL isn't corrupt. Maybe we can go back to how the lie detector test Robbi constructed proved that she never lied too.

Culture and Cognition are co-creative. A lack of trust in governance is more central to the American Psyche, since 1776 some argue. Thus the notion government/s, or Casinos, cover up or hide information is more endemic there. In Europe, by and large, governments tend to be trusted. Despite the fact the American system is more transparent than tends to be the case in Europe.

Monotheism is a conspiracy theory. Highly implausible, no supporting evidence, appeals to people seeking order or the illusion there is a 'something' in control. Popular in the USA, not popular in Europe. Religiosity and Conspiracy Ideation share cognitive patterns/features.

I'd moot the notion Robbi is part of a cheating ring/enterprise would be more widely embraced in the USA, than Europe, were one to sample a population and present them the facts of the matter, to date. Robbi, Mr Beast, etc etc (Taleb's Black Swans) playing with Professional Players believed to have an 'edge' and win most of the money is an example of or symbols of chaos, randomness which is threatening, as it demonstrates a lack of order/control in the multiverse.

Wait, are you saying now because you said they were "exposing" the financial arrangement, it wasn't you saying they were being transparent about their financial arrangement? That's so obviously not true. This is ridiculous. Have a good night.

It was used in the crux of this whole thing, the post you just quoted 5 seconds ago... and was the context you claimed was missing. You're a very confusing guy. You really misinterpret literally every sentence, you are not a native English speaker correct? Seems you are unable to detect sarcasm too, and call the use of them and hyperbole strawmans.

To remind you of what you forget within 5 minutes even after doing an entire incorrect fact check, I said "LIKE EXPOSE THEIR FINANICAL RELATIONSHIP?" which was clearly about him asking her "WHY WOULD I BE MAD" about the money right after she got accused of being a cheat.

You are acting like I used the word disclose, no... I used expose on purpose, which in most native English speakers minds with the provided context/information about the situation would know its an expose because there was something previously hidden.

Yeah and it is simply the truth. Clearly not a native speaker. Look up common usage of the word exposed, it doesn't = disclosed in most cases.

Read my edited post above if you want to see my response to your latest BS.

Clearly your point was I was wrong that everything hypothetically would have been about avoiding getting caught after being accused of cheating, because you're trying to claim they disclosed or "exposed" or whatever irrelevant semantic term you want to use, about how the truth came out about their financial arrangement.

Which is a total misrepresentation of what happened, because they didn't disclose it until Ryan pressed them on it after the game. If anyone "exposed" their financial arrangement, it was Ryan, not them. So your entire premise is wrong Mr English major. Take care.

I'll have to hand it to you, you're easily the most agitated poster in this entire thread in over 10k posts.

I respect your takes as a high stakes vet who has reacted to evidence reasonably.

So I'm curious on this point. You seem to agree cheating would very likely be for money. Not to gain SM followers or something.

The cheating ring proposed by Garrett isn't really beating the game over quite a few hands. If you add Eric, the results get even worse.

Why doesn't this lead you to believe cheating is unlikely?

Nah, there’s way more agitated people. Some people are so fragile they think the people who disagree with them must be being paid to do so.

Youre just wrong man. Not sure how you still don't know what I was saying, I even laid it out in plain english the first time you responded to it originally. I thought it was absurd to think they are masterfully evolving and handling things and preemptively spinning narratives when he literally linked himself to her crime that some strongly believe they have uncovered.

My point was they didn't act like masterful escape artists, honestly quite the contrary.

you:
Hypothetically, if there was a plan to cheat, or to set up a hero call to go viral, the entire plan would have changed after she was accused of cheating, and returned the money. From there on out, everything they did and said, would have just been to prevent getting caught.

me:
Like exposing their financial link/interest? Flip flopping stories? Staying in the building they just cheated people out of hundreds of thousands and waiting to get arrested? hmm

you:
They hid their financial relationship until Ryan "pressed them on it" after the game.

The flip flopping stories is more indicative of deception than innocence.

Staying in the building while waiting to see if they pull you from the game with evidence of cheating, and then trying to convince other players and viewers Garrett is a sore loser after they leave you in the game, is preferable to fleeing the scene after being accused of cheating. Especially if you returned the money and might not have any legal exposure.

She'd be in the same position whether she stayed or left. Leaving just makes you look more guilty.

me: Hid it? He basically announced it to the table asking her WHY WOULD I BE MAD YOU GAVE THAT MONEY AWAY?

Right after she got caught cheating (in your world view) which presumably no physical evidence and no risk of physical evidence, yet he still linked himself to her.... then even on the "pressed after the show ended" what some words made him reveal he was part of the conspiracy after eyes are on her? Lmao...

How are you confused about this?

I'm really not confident one way or the other, I was supremely confident no cheating until the chip stealing came out. That one is just to odd to me. It also sets the foundation for a possible reason as to why she was told to call (jc 6c confusion by him?). I never thought eric was in on anything but then again I haven't looked too closely at the charlie carrol signal gate.

Good evening ladies and germs, any evidence yet?

You literally just proved what I said you were saying. That not everything they would have done would have been to avoid getting caught, because you claim they exposed their own financial arrangement.

Clearly ignoring what I and others have pointed out many times now, that they didn't just do this of their own volition to be transparent. None of the producers knew their arrangement. None of the players knew. And it would have stayed that way if Ryan hadn't pressed them on it.

They only "exposed" their financial arrangement becuase they basically had no choice. They were accused of cheating. Rip flipped out. And Mike told everyone they had a business relationship. They don't get credit for disclosing or "exposing" their financial arrangement after that.

What in the hell is going on? The native english speaker question is not a jab or an insult, I write quite poorly but can read at a decent level, English is sadly the only language i know.

I bring it up because we must be lost in translation, your whole interpretation of what I was saying is incorrect.

Very simply, Rip did not seem very concerned about being accused or caught or anything of that nature, because he for no reason PREEMPTIVELY EXPOSED his financial connection with a presumed CHEAT with the conversation he had with her at the table regarding why he's so upset she gave away the money.

Being the biz partner of a cheater isn't the same as staking the person cheating in a game, obviously he threw himself under the bus acting like that. I don't even know if rip heard mike announce that.

We have some people going on endlessly "people are trying to twist every little detail to make it look like cheating!" but then they hypocritically twist things to make it look like Robbi & Rip are somehow totally honest & above-board, when in reality, they tried to hide their financial conflict of interest from the rest of the players.

Being a scumbag who's secretly staking someone else at the table isn't evidence of cheating. But it's sure as hell not evidence of honesty either.

Nope.

This is just getting further away from the very obvious fact that you were trying to say I was wrong that hypothetically everything they would have done after being accused of cheating, would have been to avoid getting caught, by wrongly giving them credit for exposing their own financial arrangement.

If there's any confusion it's 100% on your part. But I've exhausted my interest discussing this with you. We can agree to disagree. Take care.

This must be more non native speaker stuff. He essentially announced he was staking her at the table right after she was accused of cheating. This is not something people dispute. So what you are saying is not true, nobody had to press on anyone. And no I'm not giving them points for that not having had to be pressed for this information, I'm just curious what it means for the rest of the story.

He was still saying it in a coy fashion, but everyone that plays poker often knows what he meant.

If this is the main reason you switched to ‘possibly cheated’ then why didn’t you change your opinion back when you found out Robbi pressed charges against Bryan?

I feel like you don’t think they cheated, but since you changed your opinion before you’re reluctant to do it again (on paper).

Im not giving them credit. Man you really are a loon.

I don't think those charges are a big deal. I'm from LA, they are letting repeat gun crime offenders go after a few days in county.

I really thought she wasn't cheating, but now that there is a very clear opportunity in a weak staff member with all the access required and the coincidence of the chip taking, it trumps all the plausible explanations against cheating for me when it comes to the actual hand/other hands she played/how she acted/what shes said etc.

I've switched back and forth a bunch of times but the bryan thing made me go from pretty sure not guilty to probably guilty.

Fair enough, but your gut was right the first time