I'm not the one who's pretending that reality doesn't exist in order to protect a scam.

You are entering Pointless Words territory. It seems like all of your takes are way off and your tone is negative to an unreasonable degree.

I know this advice hasn't worked its way into your head yet, but I am willing to give it one more shot. Grow up. Don't insult people in an unhelpful way. Control your emotions. Drop the ad-homs. Focus on how you would like yourself to be perceived by others and act in a way that furthers that end.

If you have the data and it's as bad as you say then you should be on the high road 100% of the time. So far we just see you being a dick to everyone. You are droning on about how the cheaters with be exposed any day now(for months) and we have 0% of the data you are releasing. Why should someone believe anything you say just because you say that your evidence is devastating?

I'd shut my mouth. I'd argue points, if needed. If I see something that is false then I'd lay out my argument for it. I wouldn't say a word about the person making the argument if I wanted to be taken seriously. But you do you.

Please grow up. <3

Garrett seems pretty happy with the report according to his Twitter. He is so satisfied with the report that he is open to play in the games again. This same report states:

If he is satisfied with the thoroughness of the report and believes HCL will enact the updated security measures then it follows that he should also be satisfied with the lack of evidence that they found that she cheated. Therefore he should return the money to Robbi and everyone can move on from this incident. At the very least a follow up to this thread in which he started seems warranted.

I don't think enough people have understood that message. Seems like some people were going to take that report in a binary fashion. Guilty or not guilty. It's far more nuanced than that.

Bolded is hilarious coming from the self proclaimed conspiracy theorist.

I'm just having fun with you and Costco. Hopefully you guys are just having a bit of fun with your "investigation".

The public was never getting those first two things. Laughable to think we were. Maybe hands/stats are/were possible. You guys expected way too much.

The report basically makes certain ways of cheating much less likely and highlights the lack of evidence that Robbi cheated. It also shows that there were security vulnerabilities (none of which point to Robbi cheating however).

It's very hard to prove a negative which is why we as a society don't ask people to prove their innocence but rather the onus is on the claimants to prove guilt.

Is he, or has he offered up an apology to Robbi? I mean he accused her of cheating, with zero evidence, in a game where a cheater is the worst thing you can call someone.

It was really gross how this all went down, and I truly hope all the people (really I should say men), will reflect on how they functioned, and grow from this situation. There was A LOT of very transparent misogyny going on, by many high profile poker players, vloggers and bloggers.

No, that isn't how logic works.

Is there a limit to the number of times daft directives can/should be stated?

And do you think this honest investigation saw the musical? And if so, were they paid to care?

Not even sure what you're saying here. Character destruction on the shills is necessary in order to delegitimize them. Generally they degenerate it into personal attacks first when they realize they can't effectively gaslight. I don't get how you literally understand that there's a disinformation campaign going on, legitimizing it's effectiveness, but don't understand how countering it can also have an effect.

I don't know about you, but if I truly believe I was cheated in a hand and the company whose game it was releases a statement saying they found no evidence I was cheated in that hand then I certainly wouldn't be gung ho to jump right back into that game.

Do you happen to think that logic works by someone having to prove a negative?

I think they are saying that your attempts at "character destruction" just make you sound angry and unhelpful. Which is most likely a widely held belief around here. Certainly someone with stone cold proof on their side wouldn't get nearly as defensive as you do.

Ya, well the problem is that people like you are overtly acting in bad faith, and unless someone points that out, casual observers might believe the false narrative you're constructing. If it didn't work, you wouldn't be doing it.

But you have stone cold proof. Why would anyone believe anything other than this 100% conclusive proof? Someone with actual proof would not be concerning themselves with the things you do.

K, but you have no evidence or proof supporting your position and won't even acknowledge that it's possible for the game to be a scam. That means you're disingenuous. Not to mention the constant gas lighting and feigning mental illness in order to justify your positions.

****ing Garrett is literally winning at the highest win rate ever seen outside of Postle and Potripper, and you're just out here pretending nothing is wrong lol. The show runner is up 3/4 of a million dollars in his own game, and has no evidence of being able to win when he plays without the dealers that he hired, but nothing could possibly be wrong with that!

Just give out some lie detectors and pay someone 100k to write a little science report and it's proof that everything is on the up and up!

Asking this question in 2022? Do you live under a rock? Rhetorical question btw dont respond

No, on balance I think it is much more likely she cheated than she didn't, but if I was on a jury and I had to make a decision right now I would vote Not Guilty in an English court, as I am in England, and I would vote Not Proven if I was in a Scottish court.

There are many cases where someone is guilty but it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty, so you therefore have to find them Not Guilty.

A bigger question than if she is guilty, now that the case is effectively closed, is do you Roger Ramjet have some kind of seat scripting type software that alerts you every time someone in this thread posts anything that is 10% or more in disagreement with your point of view?

I think this needs an investigation!

Prove that you don't beat your wife. That's not an insult, I'm sure you don't, but it's pretty hard to prove. That's why the onus is not on a person to prove their innocence.

I think the problem with your winrate argument has already been explained ITT. I'm not going to rehash it. But looking forward to the data you claim is going to be indisputable.

You wish it was. I know that in your mind, every piece of evidence was debunked, but that's because you're disingenuous. The win rate is definitely impossible. The investigation cleared Postle too, just like it cleared HCL. I bet you still trust it though. Postle must have been innocent.

And he was the first person voted off, and ummm... didn't exactly exhibit behavior of a good human being on that show.

Do you even get residuals on a reality show? I know they get set amounts depending on where they place and if they do other side shows. I've applied a few times in the past.

That's in criminal court. In civil you just need to be more certain than not of her guilt. (At least that is how it is in NA, assuming it is similar in Europe).

In light of the Bulletproof report, what is your theory as to how she cheated?

What investigation cleared Postle? The one I see on this forum showed the statistical deviance of his play was like 1 to the amount of atoms in the universe. Also, pretty much nobody in that thread is saying there isn't enough evidence that Postle is guilty. You could actually learn a lot from how that evidence was presented.

Ya, I have no idea. Seems unlikely he'd get much of anything.

Could you do me a solid and summarize what his point is that he's trying to prove? Or point to a thread of sorts. It seems to be buried fairly deep in here.

Proving you're disingenuous again. I was pointing out that your position is equivalent to pretending Postle didn't cheat, but you're pretending to not understand because you are aware that it highlights the fact that you don't have a real position and are acting in bad faith.

Upon an initial read-through, the report seems pretty thorough and unbiased. My one reservation is that the investigation seems to gloss over Bryan's possible involvement, despite acknowledging that the production booth was highly vulnerable and easily exploitable. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the investigation, but I feel like they should have a section debunking/detailing the potential for an insider threat.



Their investigation into Bryan seems to end with an informal interview and the discovery that he has no prior, discernible relationships to Robbi. They don't mention that he had been following Robbi on social media prior to the incident. A small, possibly benign detail, but imo it's worth mentioning and exploring. Furthermore, they do not delve into Bryan's relationships with other HCL members such as DGAF. We know that Bryan had a previous financial relationships with DGAF, evidenced by him handing DGAF 8k(?) in poker chips on stream.

They don't explicitly state it, but you can glean from the report that it's unlikely that their investigation methods would uncover a well established insider threat. From my understanding, none of the channels they tested would have been explicitly required if there is an insider with high level access. Ig. testing USB devices, malware, MITM attacks, etc. I don't think they are being dishonest, but the scope of their investigation seems a bit limited to just the Robbi/J4 hand, while concluding that HCL was riddled with security flaws and highly vulnerable to other cheating incidents.