each head is different and thinks differently, I think she said it was a bluff and the others think they tricked him
but in the end she wasn't there at the time I can't say much but the controversy will always exist 
The issue is, that even if she think, Garrett is always bluffing with this line, she still cant call, because J4 lose to most of his bluffs. Bart Hansson did a breakdown of the equities in his last video on Youtube, and even against a range of only bluffs, she only had around 25% equity needing 40% to break even on a call. After the hand, when Garrett ask her, why she called, she said "I thought you had A high". But if Garrett had A high, she would be drawing to 6 outs at most, so why call getting only around 1,5:1? Which Garrett asked her, but without getting any answer.
Right on man, I don’t think she played cards well at all here with this hand, and I don’t think she has thought about odds the way a poker player should IMO I think she just had a read on him that he didn’t have shit and ran with it lol really just seems as simple as that to me. It also reminds me of something someone told me before, if you look hard enough you will find things and make them into something, and so far it’s what I keep seeing but nothing leading to any kind of solid proof of cheating.
The problem with this hypothesis is, someone beleived enough in her poker skills to give her 100k to play against some of the best players in the world, and she had reportedly received coaching. I have also watched around 6 hours of the first two streams, she played on, and she played pretty well. One might even say a bit conservative. She took a free showdown with a straight, when a flush was posssible, and she got bluffed in at least 3 hands, where some players might have called. She had the lowest VPIP of the entire table. So the J4 hand, and also some prior hands in the third stream, were very uncaracteristic for her. Which begs the question why? What was suddenly different, that made her totally change the way, she played?
100k is a lot of money to me and most people, but is it to them? And as talked about before with the branding, if she was wrong, we’ll that’s just another day, but if she is right in her read well you know how that has turned out
It could very well be a gamble on a read to turn her into a instant poker star, I could see that being a strong possibility considering she felt she had a great read on him. What is a bit confusing to me is if she is good at poker then why was all of her explanations confusing for making the plays she did in this hand, was it because of nervousness about making such a big gamble after the hand was over? That is definitely one part of this I don’t understand, none of the explanations make any sense…but doesn’t learn towards cheating to me, it learns towards anxiety or being flustered after winning the hand on a gamble with a read IMO. And probably was overwhelmed with the idea that she now has to quickly explain her decisions which she apparently only had just one decision, which was playing on a read only. She played the player and not the cards, like she said.
She was backed by RIP in the game, and RIP in turn had borrowed 175k from Nik Airball to play in the game. This is confirmed by Nik Airball. If you are so stinking rich, you dont care about 100k, then why do you need to borrow? Also we know, that RIP was very upset, after Robbi gave the money back. Why would he be upset, if 100k was nothing to him?
I will have to think more on this but Bryan stealing 15k seems pretty normal for a 24 year old with a gambling problem, especially being around all that money.
Absolutely. Its just quite a bit of a coincidence, that this happened exactly on the controversial stream, and that he stole from Robbi and not any of the other players at the table. Bryan claim, he did not know, who he was stealing from. That could be true, but that would make it an even more risky move by him. If for instance he had accidentally stolen from Phil Ivey, would he not expect Phil Ivey to notice this and complain to the management?
Dude, I see you've seen a lot of Garrett no doubt.
Erik Seidel is cheating. You have to denounce him and get all the money he earned, return itJack 4
I have not watched that many hours of Garrett playing. But yes of course he has lost big pots to women, since women play on nearly all streams. And he is generally known for handling himself well at the table. This situation is not about Garrett being a bad loser, or about men vs. woman. Its about potential or even likely cheating in poker, and people need to look at all the available information objectively rather than getting caught up in emotional reactions.Dude, I see you've seen a lot of Garrett no doubt.
I ask you a question due to my ignorance.
Of all the hands Garrett lost, did he lose a hand to a woman???
I don’t view it that way (personally), based on emotion etc, I just view it in the way I see it until proven otherwiseI have not watched that many hours of Garrett playing. But yes of course he has lost big pots to women, since women play on nearly all streams. And he is generally known for handling himself well at the table. This situation is not about Garrett being a bad loser, or about men vs. woman. Its about potential or even likely cheating in poker, and people need to look at all the available information objectively rather than getting caught up in emotional reactions.
Yes I understand, that to many its a more appealing story, that a woman, who is relatively new to poker, made a great hero call against a high stakes pro and/or "outplayed him". And certainly a lot more appealing than the story, she was part of a cheating ring with at least 2 scummy males. But just because something is more emotionally appealing, does not mean, its more likely to be true
Dont think there is anything particular "crazy" about the idea, that someone in the control room (Bryan Sagbigsal) could watch the cards in real time and then send information to one or more accomplishes, who were playing at the table. In fact this is, what a lot of people speculated had happened in the Mike Postle case. And as for acting skills, I dont think, Robbi really have them. She have given a lot of different explanations, and a lot of, what she have said, makes little sense.
Let’s just for the sake of fun use the card selection logic VS inference of dealing with men (or anyone) that have lied before and how they may have a certain body language or tenseness when lying that comes across as obvious lying to the other person (or trying to avoid being wrong/caught) instinctually lol
Honestly I totally agree with your answer brother.Let’s just for the sake of fun use the card selection logic VS inference of dealing with men (or anyone) that have lied before and how they may have a certain body language or tenseness when lying that comes across as obvious lying to the other person (or trying to avoid being wrong/caught) instinctually lol
I don’t have that developed skill, but others may just by a keen sense of awareness of others
