Hm, I guess. When I was teaching my wife, I’d basically stand over her shoulder telling her what to do and why. This could be considered ghosting I guess, as she was having minimal input at the very start.
sure, now do this on unregulated apps playing 500-1000 and you have a bigger issue. did he do it? no clue. would i put the odds at more than 1%? absolutely.
That’s just saying he made it up with more steps.
In recent times it’s been more the people who the marginal gains matter to.
Obviously all matter of people do dumb things, take unnecessary risks with poor rewards but it’s usually now done by those where the marginal gains matter.
It’s like a 1bb/100 poker player cheating. If you’re crushing for 15bb/100, cheating is dumb.
Umm no it’s not.
1 Like
Watched the video once and basically read only enough to find the video. I’d put big money on her not cheating.
I don’t think you guys realize how bad the bad players are and how spaghettied up someone’s thoughts/reactions can get during high stress times playing poker.
6 Likes
No, I said the thought had crossed my mind, and I said I put it at 0.0%.
I would disagree with this. I would change the wording to, “It doesn’t get less stupid if we assume cheating.”
Calling 2.3x pot jams w/ J high no draw losing to at least half the draws is a 12/10 on the weird scale. Once we’re on the cheating side of the Venn Diagram, the subset of cheaters who do stupid shit to get caught is relatively high, so this would only be like an 8/10 on the cheating weirdness scale.
I’m talking about cheating on the live streams. As to the 1% take, depends on what you define as cheating. There are gray areas that some people consider totally fine and others consider totally cheating, so…
1 Like
I said that I have sent/received texts about suspected cheating that hasn’t been proven to give a warning to people to keep an eye out on it in gray area situations. Clovis replied and said on two occasions that I completely made it up, and now says he never accused me of lying or making any personal experiences up. He’s gaslighting me about it.
Like I heard some stories about a private game that I’m like 99.9% confident there was cheating in. But I was never there, and the people doing the cheating were connected to organized crime so no way I was calling them out directly or publicly. But I texted a friend who could potentially get an invite and said, “Hey, heads up, between you and me I wouldn’t play in this game…” I heard about it in a similar fashion.
1 Like
That’s what I thought… and lol ofc you’ve gotten that kind of stuff. Anyone playing live for a period of time would.
1 Like
I don’t remember the Dwan discourse 12+ years ago, did he get accused of cheating as well?
I am pretty sure I understood what you were implying. The difference here is that we have a massive sample size of Garrett being intelligent and poker savvy. If he was cheating on stream and thought someone else was cheating on the same stream, possibly in the same way, he’d have to be a complete buffoon to call it out and trigger an investigation and massive drama. His reaction here basically removes any possibility he’s cheating on streams, which was already an extraordinarily unlikely event.
I don’t think there’s any sexism in saying the odds he’s been cheating are 0.0% and the odds Robbi cheated are far higher.
Sure, I mean, before this incident if someone said what are the odds he’s cheating I’d say like 1% because someone somewhere is crushing some game to oblivion by cheating, but I have no reason to suspect other than he’s a beast… and his results are within the bounds of what I would expect to be possible in the games he’s in.
I just think the odds someone that smart would bring a shitstorm of scrutiny down on live stream cheating while live stream cheating is 1% so now we’re in like 1% of 1% territory.
This is a good point, I mean, I don’t think Doug Polk is super sexist or anything, but he’s obviously not super progressive in general, so he could definitely have some biases. I rarely watch Joey Ingram stuff, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he was more on the gamer bro side of the poker world, so to speak.
If I saw the vibration thing but not the hand, I’d just say it’s super weird but whatever, probably some weird leg movement that’s somehow not moving her upper legs. I think when you start piling weird events on top of each other, the odds that they’re related start to go up.
Obviously going through it with a fine tooth comb, you have to be careful. There’s a ring theory going around that I didn’t repeat because I think the evidence being used is ridiculous. I did say at the beginning that a bunch of accessories/clothing items, including rings would be possible methods for transmitting info, but the Internet sleuth ring theory based on video clips is absurd.
At the end of the day, I really hope HCL runs an actually good independent investigation, but I think they missed the window to sequester possible evidence right off the bat and that’s going to make it tougher. Hopefully the combo of surveillance cameras and their cameras can provide a definitive outcome either way. Obviously it would be better if she didn’t cheat.
Anyone who watches streams in the past 5 years has seen Garrett lose a ton of big hands and take it very well.
This is his first major blow up afaict.
1 Like
$500 – $1000 Limit Hold’em
Seat 1: eastsideslim (big blind)
Seat 2: TexasLimitKing (small blind)
TexasLimitKing raises to $1,000
eastsideslim calls $500
FLOP: Qc – 2d – 6h
eastsideslim checks
TexasLimitKing bets $500
eastsideslim raises to $1,000
TexasLimitKing calls $500
TURN: Qc – 2d – 6h – Qs
eastsideslim bets $1,000
TexasLimitKing calls $1,000
RIVER : Qc – 2d – 6h – Qs – 6d
eastsideslim bets $1,000
TexasLimitKing calls $1,000
SHOW DOWN:
eastsideslim shows 3s-3d (two pair, Queens and Sixes)
TexasLimitKing shows 4d- 4c (two pair, Queens and Sixes)
TexasLimitKing wins the pot ($7,999.50) with two pair, Queens and Sixes
I think your grievances against Clovis in this thread are largely legitimate; however, I think you’re off base with this part:
I think this is just a misunderstanding. You talked about possible warning texts, and when he said that was “fantasy land stuff” or whatever, I thought it was clear that he meant it was just pure speculation as it relates to this HCL situation. He wasn’t questioning whether it had ever happened to you, just whether there was any reason to think your experience was at all relevant. His subsequent posts seem to agree with this interpretation.
4 Likes
Came to say the same thing. CW and Clovis are talking past each other. Clovis is under the impression CW suggested that type of text was involved in the Garrett/robbi situation. CW is under the impression Clovis is talking about his (CWs) lived experiences when saying “you’re making that up” when in reality Clovis is referring to the stream. This miscommunication seems fairly obvious to a 3rd party, but seems you both are so heated in this spat that neither of you can see it.
4 Likes
That makes sense @TheDuker and @Coasterbrad, thanks. I thought it was clear what I meant in the subsequent posts as I kept referring to my personal experience, but I don’t think he read more than a few words of those before responding to them. So that probably explains that exchange.
Yeah I never suggested it was involved, I just said it would make Garrett’s reaction make a ton of sense if it was, and that stuff like that could be a reason why who bought her in is relevant - that’s what was being discussed at the moment. I was setting up a hypothetical about why her backer matters, not trying to suggest that hypothetical was likely - and that’s only one of the hypotheticals why it matters.
I can say definitively that when these types of scandals happen, private/semi-private group chats that involve high profile players tend to have more info than those people are sharing publicly. During the RTA scandal I was in a group chat with some of the people who were publicly accusing the perpetrators, and they were sharing stuff in the group chat that they believed but didn’t have quite enough proof to put out publicly.
I think it’s very reasonable to assume that Doug, Berkey, Joey, etc, have been hearing things they aren’t saying publicly yet. There’s a good chance something like 75% of it is total bullshit going through the grapevine, but there’s also a good chance some of the rest is accurate.
This rumor that’s been floating around quietly in the poker community about the hacked shufflers in Texas is a great example. Clearly some high profile/respected people believe it and know more than they have said publicly, but I haven’t been able to find the full story and I’ve been looking for it to know what to guard against if I’m ever in a position to be concerned about that possibility. It just hasn’t trickled into my circles yet.
Yes, I was extremely heated earlier as I viewed that as like the 9th personal attack in 2 days, so when I snapped I was snapping for all of them.
Never would’ve guessed that someone calling with J hi would lead to me learning the Doug Polk has no idea about chairs, apparently.
4 Likes
There have been a ton of posts in here, so maybe I’ve missed it, but has there been any discussion about Robbi’s VPIP? I was just watching part of the Hustler stream and around the 1hr 48 min mark, they show the VPIP stats and she was the lowest in the game at 20%. If you had a cheating device, AND the image of the recreational fish/dead money in the game, wouldn’t you want to be splashing around a bit more?
[Also, just before the vpip stats, at around 1:46 there is a hand where Robbi check called while ahead on the flop with middle pair, blank turn went check check, and Robbi led the river after her opponent had made a better pair. So, must not have gotten any ahead/behind signal on that one (or, if you believe she was cheating, maybe you argue that was one of the small spots you give up to hide your cheating in the big pots when you hero call with the j high)]
1 Like
I understood he was talking about a hypothetical personal experience but that is exactly what makes it bad conspiracy thinking. As I said up thread, it is very common conspiracy logic to try to take a fact that is totally unrelated to the case and use it to give an air of legitimacy by converting it to total speculation.
Buildings are demoed all the time. We have all watched the videos therefore doesn’t the twin towers look like controlled demo?
There is zero evidence of any texts being exchanged about the integrity of the hustler game that night. The only reason to speculate that there were from common experience is to falsely convert a fact to speculation.
This is how conspiracy theories are formed.
2 Likes