.

has anyone thought to get someone reputable to check garys transaction history on stars over the past few days? u can do it by teamviewer and would obv help in verfiying if anything shady happened or w/e.

imo the 86 hand is standard, i dnt know why keeps bringing it up. The 107 hand looks a little weird, only bc villian is a 5c/10c player who jumped up in limits out of the blue.

Its not that weird to have a .5/.10 player jump into a 200nl game. I have had plenty of 100nl 6max grinders sit me at 5/10 hu nl and spew really hard for ~20 minutes. It happens.

but the timing is siiiiick and awkward

So has Gary been shipped the $$ yet ??

lol guys, I was talking to a friend reg, and he mentioned the whole thing was lol, and I didn't even realize at first: Even if it looks suspicious, this is ridiculous and OP should be paid money because

a) only 1 judge was chosen before the bet, and randomly more are introduced?

b) why did the judges release private information? Judges are chosen to be IMPARTIAL, and the bettors had a choice to make sure it's a judge who will be fair and thorough. Why is information such as OP's holecards revealed?? That's highly unethical.

Anyway, 3betting 68o? lol, I know OP (that's why I was PMed by one of the judges) and seriously, I've seen OP not just 3bet trash but call 3bets with 35s and then peel a gutshot to stack a set Is it really that bad to 3bet 68o? Is it really that bad to bluff on an Ax board? lol. T7 is weird, but didn't they find a thread where breeezzz makes a drunken post about busting roll drunk in 2009, and someone said he lost 500 or so total so he's lost some big pots to others too right? Blacksize said he insta sat out because his account was bust and he didn't have money to reload, but even if he insta sat out, well leaving when you get stacked, what's so weird about that?

you cant state your opinion sry. get out of the thread

I play nl200 and tbh that stuff does happen, especially against regs, but there has to be a history of 3betting and 4betting pre to shove there as a bluff. If it was out of the cold blue, then I'd be fairly suspicious imo.

But if OP/villain were constantly battling, shipping over that 4bet isnt a clear cut indicator of colluding imo.


Basically stop posting single HHs because they mean nothing. Show up with all the hands before/after the T7 hand.

they have played 5 hands against each other....

This is stupid. Pay the man.

GG Gary.

Well you have interest in the bet too. Why can YOU state your opinion?

I don't want to get too specific here but Gary had 3b plenty worse hands than 86o that session. By plenty I mean >30 times.

EDIT: Should read, that he 3b worse hands than 86o plenty of times.

A little timeline based on PTR. hero = OP, villain = breeezzz.

11:11pm: villain sits in at Laomedon V table for $200
11:13pm: villain's 4th hand at Laomedon is the 68o hand where he drops $48 to hero.
11:23pm: villain leaves Laomedon V table with $57.45

11:14pm: villain sits in at Ginevra II table for $200.
11:14pm: villain's 1st hand at Ginevra II table, he 5-bet shoves with T7o and drops $200 to hero.
11:14pm: villain leaves Ginevra II table with $0.

11:18pm: villain sits in at Mitaka IV table for $175.95
11:19pm: villain 4-bets and then folds versus a another $200 regular BTN vs SB.
11:23pm: villain wins a $20.95 pot bringing his current stack to $134.90. villain then buys in for $57.45 more to bring his stack to $192.35
11:25pm: villain leaves Mitaka IV table with $243.70


FWIW, this also perfectly corroborates the fact that villain was unable to reload for full at Ginevra II as he was busto.

Wraths, aren't you a judge, when will there be a result? This seems like a lot of money.

I was never an "official" judge. I volunteered to look over the hand histories sent directly from PS support. I have already stated my opinion previously in the thread.

It's not quite as simple as this because his 3betting tendencies should be opponent dependent. 3betting a hand like this I would not say was unusual. The fact that it was against an unknown makes it a bit odd. Of course this proves nothing.

Unless someone can connect Gary to breez, my attempts at this have failed, I don't think 2 hands which can have a number of reasonable explanations is enough to void the bet, much less cause a forfeit.

2 other judges were put forward and 1 additional volunteered. Wrath's has looked at things and made his decision. The 2 that were put forward I have PMed. 1 has not responded and the other said he would be willing to help look at some specific instances but not at the whole database. I've sent him the 2 hands along with relevant info and await his response.

Were any of the other garbage 3-bets consistent with this scenario. That is, OOP in a situation against an opponent he likely had no reads/stats on?

because I'm one of the bettors, and all of them should state their opinion. People that are friends with Gary should gtfo.


idc what the outcome will be, just that the correct dicition will be made

I am looking through them individually right now. I've made it through 10 or so and have found a 3b squeeze over a short opener with junk, I've also found a 3b oop against someone who has 100k hands on PTR with only 27k of those being at Gary's limit, he was also not bought in full. So, yes, so far it seems consistent enough.

wat a sick graph, clutch 19.50 win ahahhahahahahahhaha

how many hours did it take?

If that's the case then reasonable doubt seems to swing way in favor of OP just getting insanely lucky then, imo.

looool u are kidding right? It seems like you are on Garys side here. Maybe I would ask for a new judge.

The hand that needs to be investigated is the QQ vs T7 hand ldo. Why are you avoiding this?

something to remember with stuff like the 86o 3bet and other weird maybe non-standard spots is that gary is not a winning player, it's not like he's taking super standard or correct lines all the time and doing dumb spewy things at times is probably why he is not a winning player.

it seems like you guys are kind of grasping at straws here, unless there is something glaring (moreso than squeezing over a short opener with trash, gary might not have realized pfr was short or might have been tilted, etcetcetcetc) this has gone on long enough.

one more thing i'd like to mention is that immediately after the QQ hand, there was discussion in the webcam application about chip dumping by his friends...they were all kidding around but if he did have any further plans, they would have been stopped obviously

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard in this thread that breezer or whatever dude had lost money taking shots at 200nl before. If that is the case then that is a huge factor for OP. I do not care one way or the other but I would like to see the outcome as fair as possible. Just saying that breezer's previous jump(s) into higher stakes needs to be investigated.


Edit: Edited dumped money to lost money taking shots because i previously worded it wrong