That makes sense.
I think the producers come out looking pretty bad too. If there is a dispute between two players, I don’t think the producers should get involved and especially shouldn’t be pulling a player off the table and directing them to have a private conversation with another player.
Does anyone think this plays out the same way if Robbi is a rich man?
The producers should have stopped the game for one thing. They did an awful job.
yeah this. there’s some suspicion by their most famous player that cheating has been taken place. stop the game. investigate. put out a statement.
how can garrett come back to play somewhere that allowed a cheater (in his mind) to keep playing?
everyone fucked up here.
Looks really bad for rip to get involved knowing he has a piece of her.
why? he was robbed
How would you feel as a player in this game if GMan takes money from a bad player and leaves?
Ya but seems like the right play is to wait and deal with it after. Not get in screaming match on stream.
he has a cowboy hat. do you think that’s the attire for people who wait it out?
Lol true
that also killed me in garrett’s statement.
“it’s very suspicious that rip got in my face after being nothing but cordial to me”.
i mean yeah, you’d expect him to punch you in the face when you first meet or stay quiet while i rob him of ~60k and bully his friend. anything else is sus.
Just go back and watch Garrett’s season of Survivor for a glimpse into how socially inept he is
Yah Garrets supposedly legendary social game always seemed to me like a slightly less autistic man being king in the valley of the autists.
Btw did robbi give the 100k from her stack or in chips that were not in play? If its the former then HCL statement that they were not involved in the money transaction is false. They had to approve it as a legal transaction on the table or they knowingly allowed chip dumping in their game
She cheat?
0 voters
No “Bastard” option?
She gave him extra chips she had in her bag. When she came back to the table, she still had ~$260k in front of her.
I remember when I was a new poker player. Playing the WSOP Main Event, playing nosebleed stakes on livestream, et al. I also just clicked buttons with bets the size of the median US home value.
Wait, Garrett was on Survivor?
I find this and the chess cheating thing very interesting.
At first I was thinking “well, some people are just stupid, and they do stupid things. It might have been as simple as ‘He’s bluffing, so I call.’”
But then I thought, why would someone so bad at poker be in a game this big? That made me lean a little towards cheating.
Then I hear that she has actually been playing for years, and this makes me even more suspicious. Hardly anyone with experience would ever make that call.
But still, some people are really dumb even though they have experience. I’ve seen that at work. Plus maybe the TV cameras and pros make people nervous. And her actions when they are discussing how many times to run it don’t seem very suspicious to me.
As others have said, the cheating could just be a buzzer that goes off when you have the best hand. “If I feel a buzz in my foot, I call.” Of course a smart cheater could still fold this particular hand–but we’re already considering the possibility that she’s just an idiot. This would explain the min-raise too–if we already think she’s dumb enough to call the final raise with a J, she’s also dumb enough to cheat in dumb ways. “The buzzer went off, I have the best hand, I’ll just min raise and win it” (without considering that a min raise won’t get his big draws to fold).
Giving back the money is also weird. I remember in old Tiger Stadium, I bought a beer with a 20 and the cashier gave me change back as if I had used a 10. It was obviously a way to scam drunks. I said “I gave you a 20” and she protested once, then weakly gave me back the extra 10. If she really thought I gave her a 10 initially, there’s no way she would have caved so easily. The poker situation is different obviously, but sometimes scammers give back the $ when they are caught.
On the other hand, maybe she felt bullied, that is certainly plausible. If I won that $ fair and square, no way in hell would I give it back. But I guess I’m willing to entertain that others might do differently?
So in the end I’m still a little lost. What we have in my mind is two explanations, each of which seem somewhat plausible, each at least (say) 5% to have happened, but I have no idea how to say whether an option is 5%, or 50%, or 95% to have happened. Anyone saying “x is 100%” is off base, IMO (based on the evidence we have at the moment). If I’m on a jury with just the evidence so far, it’s an easy “didn’t cheat” verdict, since it’s not past a reasonable doubt.
How live is the stream? Is there a 5 minute delay or anything? Even if there was, I guess a tech on the inside could have live info and press the buzzer in real time?
It’s a several hour delay.
No chance for cheating.