The Most INSANE Hero Call In Poker History

[Pokerstudy]

I think I talked about this before, Women are masters at knowing when men are lying or BSing. I feel this call is 100% legit! I can't believe the money was returned...What is up with that?!
I would say 5:40-5:46 is when she totally knew he didn't have shit by his facial expression, but that is just my guess lol

 

[KRANKES]

I think she put him exactly on the hand he had. She said he was spotting her before with a lot of crap, so maybe she was fed up with that and she looks rich enough to make this call. Regarding the returned money, I don't know what you're talking about, she kept it all

 

[Pokerstudy]

I think she put him exactly on the hand he had. She said he was spotting her before with a lot of crap, so maybe she was fed up with that and she looks rich enough to make this call. Regarding the returned money, I don't know what you're talking about, she kept it all

A ‘hero call,' a meltdown and a refund: The controversy rocking the poker world, explained

A lucky win or a cheating scandal? Depends who you ask.

ftw.usatoday.com

 

[manIk5]

Guess person who work @ Hustler and got fired cause he took chips of her stack had nothing to do with it , just pure soul read and knowing your opponent !

 

[Zorba]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1575745348575801344

​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1578169889788862464

 

[fundiver199]

The most insane hero call ever. Or a not very clever attempt of cheating.....

 

[finaltable1]

IMPRESSIVE

 

[Pokerstudy]

While so many want to make a conspiracy theory, I have seen it simplified before lol

 

[yuriko oyama]

I think I talked about this before, Women are masters at knowing when men are lying or BSing. I feel this call is 100% legit! I can't believe the money was returned...What is up with that?!
I would say 5:40-5:46 is when she totally knew he didn't have shit by his facial expression, but that is just my guess lol

if I won this hand played so miserably, I would walk away and never set foot in that spot again.
but I would keep my spoils of war.
I had already done the clowning, the money I would not return.

 

[jonaselloco]

He cheated??? No one can know more than her.
She couldn't spend her money thinking her hand was better??? She if she could spend it and win
The good guy looked like an idiot who was laughed at by everyone at the table???? And yes, it was.
If you watch the entire video and see the rest of the previous hands from all the players, except a few like Phil Ivey and the man sitting to his right, and then the man sitting to Garrett's right who generally call hands acceptably good or good hands, the rest including the woman call with hands 82, 62 54, 25, 93, J3 or whatever horrible card they have in their hands.
Another thing, the woman did not pay an all in seen on the river. Instead, she called him all in on the turn. If we talk so much about the mathematical laws of odds / outs Garrett, the number of cards he had on the river to win was infinite. He even had a straight flush draw. In other words, we have the right to think that the Lady believed to die that she was a bluff and we all know that when a woman has a thought it almost always happens that until she discovers that it is true, not for hahahahaha
The only thing I can criticize the woman for is that she spoke a lot in the post-hand and gave many explanations that in the end, if one analyzes them, they are not very credible, a situation that gave Garrett the opportunity to enlarge and go with great force in his statements considering an alleged trap.
One thinks, if instead of having the cards, the Lady had Phil Ivey and called, what would Garrett have argued, that Phil Ivey cheated??? I put a super bluff vs bluff by Phil Ivey as an example.
In other words, we should only consider that the Lady cheated and she did not have the intelligence or the instinct to guess a bluff ???
There are many questions, what if we know that the heartthrob was ridiculous, and in truth this is not healthy for anyone.
And well, the Casino has already had several player cheating scandals and has always acted accordingly, because this is really not good propaganda for the Casino.
What if we can ensure that, whether or not there has been a cheat, this hand ...... I remain for history!!!!
greetings friend

 

[fundiver199]

He cheated??? No one can know more than her.
She couldn't spend her money thinking her hand was better??? She if she could spend it and win
The good guy looked like an idiot who was laughed at by everyone at the table???? And yes, it was.
If you watch the entire video and see the rest of the previous hands from all the players, except a few like Phil Ivey and the man sitting to his right, and then the man sitting to Garrett's right who generally call hands acceptably good or good hands, the rest including the woman call with hands 82, 62 54, 25, 93, J3 or whatever horrible card they have in their hands.
Another thing, the woman did not pay an all in seen on the river. Instead, she called him all in on the turn. If we talk so much about the mathematical laws of odds / outs Garrett, the number of cards he had on the river to win was infinite. He even had a straight flush draw. In other words, we have the right to think that the Lady believed to die that she was a bluff and we all know that when a woman has a thought it almost always happens that until she discovers that it is true, not for hahahahaha
The only thing I can criticize the woman for is that she spoke a lot in the post-hand and gave many explanations that in the end, if one analyzes them, they are not very credible, a situation that gave Garrett the opportunity to enlarge and go with great force in his statements considering an alleged trap.
One thinks, if instead of having the cards, the Lady had Phil Ivey and called, what would Garrett have argued, that Phil Ivey cheated??? I put a super bluff vs bluff by Phil Ivey as an example.
In other words, we should only consider that the Lady cheated and she did not have the intelligence or the instinct to guess a bluff ???
There are many questions, what if we know that the heartthrob was ridiculous, and in truth this is not healthy for anyone.
And well, the Casino has already had several player cheating scandals and has always acted accordingly, because this is really not good propaganda for the Casino.
What if we can ensure that, whether or not there has been a cheat, this hand ...... I remain for history!!!!
greetings friend

Phil was the player jamming, which mean, he was bluffing, and just happened to be doing it with the best hand. This is totally different from calling, when you cant even beat most of your opponents bluffs. As I wrote elsewhere, this is NOT about, who Robbi is, its about, what she did. In fact if a good player like Phil Ivey did this, then people would think even more, he was cheating. A lot of people have actually been willing to believe, that Robbi is just really bad at poker. Which is the only reason, why someone would possibly call in that hand, unless they are cheating.

 

[MK_]

I think this whole story is absurd... if it was a guy who had called there he would be making a hero call people would be screaming about lol!, everyone who has ever been bullied knows when the person is full of it... maybe she had enough, maybe she read her hand wrong, if she's cheating then prove it or pay up!

 

[yuriko oyama]

He cheated??? No one can know more than her.
She couldn't spend her money thinking her hand was better??? She if she could spend it and win
The good guy looked like an idiot who was laughed at by everyone at the table???? And yes, it was.
If you watch the entire video and see the rest of the previous hands from all the players, except a few like Phil Ivey and the man sitting to his right, and then the man sitting to Garrett's right who generally call hands acceptably good or good hands, the rest including the woman call with hands 82, 62 54, 25, 93, J3 or whatever horrible card they have in their hands.
Another thing, the woman did not pay an all in seen on the river. Instead, she called him all in on the turn. If we talk so much about the mathematical laws of odds / outs Garrett, the number of cards he had on the river to win was infinite. He even had a straight flush draw. In other words, we have the right to think that the Lady believed to die that she was a bluff and we all know that when a woman has a thought it almost always happens that until she discovers that it is true, not for hahahahaha
The only thing I can criticize the woman for is that she spoke a lot in the post-hand and gave many explanations that in the end, if one analyzes them, they are not very credible, a situation that gave Garrett the opportunity to enlarge and go with great force in his statements considering an alleged trap.
One thinks, if instead of having the cards, the Lady had Phil Ivey and called, what would Garrett have argued, that Phil Ivey cheated??? I put a super bluff vs bluff by Phil Ivey as an example.
In other words, we should only consider that the Lady cheated and she did not have the intelligence or the instinct to guess a bluff ???
There are many questions, what if we know that the heartthrob was ridiculous, and in truth this is not healthy for anyone.
And well, the Casino has already had several player cheating scandals and has always acted accordingly, because this is really not good propaganda for the Casino.
What if we can ensure that, whether or not there has been a cheat, this hand ...... I remain for history!!!!
greetings friend

I agree 100% with you Jonas, for me the big problem/mistake of this lady is wanting to return the money later, this is ridiculous.
It's just my opinion.

 

[fundiver199]

if it was a guy who had called there he would be making a hero call people would be screaming about lol!

It is just the other way around. If it was a guy calling in that spot, then the vast majority of at least professional poker players would be convinced, he was cheating. But because she is a woman, there has been this "LOL this is just, what happen, when fish play poker" narrative from at least part of the poker community. Not so much more though, after the story about the sacked employee Bryan Sagbigsal came out.

 

[MK_]

I guess so... I mean a male player couldn't possibly be a fish, at least according to "the vast majority of at least professional poker players", none of which could possibly be female professional poker players I'm guessing.... , that attitude kinda proves my point lol

 

[fundiver199]

I guess so... I mean a male player couldn't possibly be a fish, at least according to "the vast majority of at least professional poker players", none of which could possibly be female professional poker players I'm guessing.... , that attitude kinda proves my point lol

It is utter ridicolous to turn this into a discussion about "men vs. women" or "professional vs. recreational". This is about cheating in poker, and it has nothing to do with, who Robbi is. In fact its probably not even her, who got the idea. We know already, who the likely inside guy is (Bryan Sagbigsal), and other male players, who seem likely to be involved (RIP and possibly others). The only possible explanations for, why someone would call with J4 in that hand, are:

1) They misread their hand
2) They are completely new to poker
3) They are super rich and ready to lose 100k for the sake of fame
4) They are cheating

In someone misread their hand, there will always be some kind of reaction, when they turn over their cards and realise, what happened. This is a natural reaction, which people cant control. We do not see this from Robbi, and that along with her table talk and the fact, she checked her cards, makes it highly unlikly, she misread her hand.

As for explanation 2 and 3, we know, that RIP was staking Robbi in the game, and that Nik Airball had lend RIP money to do so. You dont stake someone for 100k, if they are so new to poker, they dont know, they cant call a turn overbet jam with J high and no draw. And if she was rich enough to throw around 100k like, it was play money, she would not need to be staked.

So what we are left with is option 4, that she cheated. As Sherlock Holmes once said "when everything else has been ruled out, whatever is left, however implausible, is the expalanation." And its not only this hand. The identification of the likely inside guy, as well as all her lies and changing explanations is also evidence, that cheating very likely took place.

 

[fundiver199]

Chris Wallaces take on, why a live stream is the ideal place for someone wanting to cheat in poker:

Robbi Jade Lew and Garrett Adelstein - Are We Even Asking the Right Questions? | CardsChat

Every time I think I'm tired of hearing about the "Hustler Casino Live" scandal, something new turns up and sucks me back in. Today the needle seems to be

www.cardschat.com

 

[jonaselloco]

Phil was the player jamming, which mean, he was bluffing, and just happened to be doing it with the best hand. This is totally different from calling, when you cant even beat most of your opponents bluffs. As I wrote elsewhere, this is NOT about, who Robbi is, its about, what she did. In fact if a good player like Phil Ivey did this, then people would think even more, he was cheating. A lot of people have actually been willing to believe, that Robbi is just really bad at poker. Which is the only reason, why someone would possibly call in that hand, unless they are cheating.

Hi, friend. Honestly the only thing that makes me think it wasn't cheating is that she called it on the turn, with 2 outs and lots of odds/outs for Garrett. In truth, if the outs had gone in favor of Garrett, she would not have said anything, as much as she was crazy to pay with those cards.
In Ivey's case he held his bluff to the end, perhaps realizing that the opponent was also making a big bluff and won his strategy.
About what they discuss if the woman is a great or a lousy player, really at that cash table except Ivey I don't see great players. The game of hands is not even similar to an MTT and it is logical because in cash tables the game is different. But from there to paying hands with any stupidity, if you watch the full video of the game at the table you will realize that there are players at the table who see hands with worse cards than the one the Lady had.
There are other versions that say that the Lady is the wife or lover of a rich lawyer who told her that she wanted to see Garrett ridiculed, and there are many more versions, but they are still versions.
I'm honest brother, I don't spend a minute of my time looking at these tables, because I don't even learn anything about the game.
For me they are one more television show, that surely some TV channel all this scandal must give a lot of rating.
greetings friend

 

[Pokerstudy]

He cheated??? No one can know more than her.
She couldn't spend her money thinking her hand was better??? She if she could spend it and win
The good guy looked like an idiot who was laughed at by everyone at the table???? And yes, it was.
If you watch the entire video and see the rest of the previous hands from all the players, except a few like Phil Ivey and the man sitting to his right, and then the man sitting to Garrett's right who generally call hands acceptably good or good hands, the rest including the woman call with hands 82, 62 54, 25, 93, J3 or whatever horrible card they have in their hands.
Another thing, the woman did not pay an all in seen on the river. Instead, she called him all in on the turn. If we talk so much about the mathematical laws of odds / outs Garrett, the number of cards he had on the river to win was infinite. He even had a straight flush draw. In other words, we have the right to think that the Lady believed to die that she was a bluff and we all know that when a woman has a thought it almost always happens that until she discovers that it is true, not for hahahahaha
The only thing I can criticize the woman for is that she spoke a lot in the post-hand and gave many explanations that in the end, if one analyzes them, they are not very credible, a situation that gave Garrett the opportunity to enlarge and go with great force in his statements considering an alleged trap.
One thinks, if instead of having the cards, the Lady had Phil Ivey and called, what would Garrett have argued, that Phil Ivey cheated??? I put a super bluff vs bluff by Phil Ivey as an example.
In other words, we should only consider that the Lady cheated and she did not have the intelligence or the instinct to guess a bluff ???
There are many questions, what if we know that the heartthrob was ridiculous, and in truth this is not healthy for anyone.
And well, the Casino has already had several player cheating scandals and has always acted accordingly, because this is really not good propaganda for the Casino.
What if we can ensure that, whether or not there has been a cheat, this hand ...... I remain for history!!!!
greetings friend

I saw this clip from Phil Iveys masterclass and he discusses that he knew Paul Jackson didn’t have anything simply because of how he reacted while looking at his chips when he asked “how much” it was basically Paul showing a lack of confidence etc that have it away and that the chips looked valuable as if he was scared to lose them (I don’t remember exactly how he described it) but it was all based on the reaction to the question that let him know

 

[fundiver199]

Hi, friend. Honestly the only thing that makes me think it wasn't cheating is that she called it on the turn, with 2 outs and lots of odds/outs for Garrett.

At that point she was getting pot odds and only needed 40% equity to break even. Counting for dead cards she had 47%, but without dead cards it would have been 53%. The theory here is, that Bryan Sagbigsal was sitting in the operating room and seeing the cards in real time. However Bryan would not have the equities, we see on stream, because this can only be calculated, after the dealer has told the editor, which action each player took. This is why, the dealer in any live stream is wearing a headset.

Bryan almost certainly could not sit in real time and do accurate equity calculations manually, since he was not alone in the room. So all, he would see, is, that J4 was ahead on the turn, and then he presumably signaled her to first raise and later call. Or maybe he simply signaled "you are good". Also even if you know, you only have 47%, calling is still more profitable than folding, if you only need 40% due to pot odds. So this is NOT an argument against cheating.

Of course someone, who was very good at poker and cheating would understand, that calling with J high no draw is so far out, it might raise suspicion. So a clever cheater might have given up on J4, when Garrett unfortunately came back over the top and 3-bet jammed. But this is no different from the fact, Mike Postle got caught, because he got greedy and made it to obvious. Here that just happened much faster, because people are more alert to cheating on a stream after Mike Postle.

To be fair one single hand is it itself not enough to say with great confidence, cheating happened. But with the additional information about Bryan Sagbigsal and everything else, that has come out, I am fairly sure, cheating took place. Maybe there is still a very small chance, cheating did not happen, but the list of strange things to explain away is getting longer and longer, the more information comes out.

 

[Pokerstudy]

Jack 4 Jack high call

 

[fundiver199]

Jack 4 Jack high call

The difference is, that with this board and the lack of action on earlier streets Q high is not bluffing the river, because it has showdown value. And obviously AX as well as KX has paired up, so they are not bluffing either. So in this hand J high beat all the bluffs, whereas in the Garrett vs. Robbi hand J high was losing to most natural bluffs.

 

[azteca6]

I think that sharing a table with someone constantly lets you know more or less how they play if they bluff if they don't bluff if they're always a safe player I think the experience behind the tables for her the experience of other tables with him helped her to I know that I was lying, I am also going to cry when I lose online or they take me out of a tournament to see if they return my investment not all hands are won, a professional must know how to lose

 

[fundiver199]

Elaborating on the above its also a huge difference, that Erik Seidel just called in that hand. He did not raise AND then call off a 3-bet jam. Had he done that, then that hand would also be very suspicious, because at that point hands better than J high could certainly be bluffing. In fact GTO strategy probably has hands like KQ or KJ as potential 3-bet bluffs on AAKXX, because they block some of the boats (AK and KK).

 

[fundiver199]

not all hands are won, a professional must know how to lose

Sure but a professional must not accept to get cheated, just because the cheater is an amateur, a woman or new to the game, they are playing. As have been said many times, Garrett have lost a ton of big pots on Hustler live, and he has never reacted like this before. In this hand Garrett loses 220k, because he get caught bluffing, and his reaction is completely calm. And no. This is not, because his opponent is Daniel Negreanu. Its because Daniel called him with a reasonable bluffcatcher. If Robbi had called with A high or any pair, Garrett would just have said "nice call" and moved on to the next hand.