Man I know I am picking in you itt and I want to say I really have nothing against you. We have never had an issue before. I feel like we have been friendly.
However, you are really out on a rhetorical ledge with this whole thing and making endless logic errors. You need to self-reflect on why. This is why I am targeting you itt. I still have nothing personal against you.
This whole post is this
If you stick to the actual facts nearly all the support for your argument falls away.
Sure in theory, but IF she’s cheating we have no idea how the system works, what info she gets, and how long it takes to obtain and relay info. Could be that it takes a couple minutes and thus preflop is played straight up. Could be they’re just looking for heads up spots, which aren’t exactly abundant on HCL.
There are way too many variables for VPIP to prove or disprove it. I agree a low VPIP goes in the “less likely to be cheating” column but the more likely column is still way in the lead IMO.
I’m not engaging with you until you apologize for the QAnon, conspiracy nut, troll, etc personal attacks. Those were way out of line and disrespectful. I don’t care if you say my opinions on this are nonsensical or stupid, and we can argue about them all day. But when you extend that to the types of attacks you made, we have a problem.
Like four other people have told you that you’re out of line, it’s not just me.
I should have worded those posts better as I honestly didn’t mean them as an attack on you but your ideas. For that I apologize. I have nothing against you and believe you are a smart guy.
As I have tried to reiterate, you are using the same logic as qanon and conspiracy nuts. This is exactly what makes these types of logical fallacies so dangerous. Everyone can fall for them. It’s why there are countless mechanisms in the law and science to try to minimize them.
If you sit back and self-reflect I think you will see why some of your arguments itt are no different than “everyone’s knows elections can be rigged, therefore obviously Trump won the election”.
Tally the actual facts here and you are left with one really weird hand that has logical explanation and a woman paying the money back in the middle of a heated exchange.
I actually think something that got brushed aside that’s kind of significant was the Twitter exchange she had about the rectangular object in her pants. Someone asked what it was and she said “my hip.”
So she had an opportunity to explain it away as Altoids or a makeup case (the arguments others made ITT) or a coin/chip pouch or whatever, but she said it was just her hip.
That’s a blatant lie. It didn’t happen in the heat of the moment on stream, so the arguments people have made about her weird changing story on misreading her hand don’t apply here. This was later on Twitter.
Unless you believe her hip bone protrudes in a rectangular shape, there was an object in her pants/pocket and she lied about it. She later deleted the tweet.
Why lie?
Alright, thank you.
I think you’re misunderstanding my posts about possible ways they could have cheated as pushing that those things definitely happened, as opposed to ideas of how cheating could have taken place and what should be looked for.
IMO the best evidence she cheated is:
None of these are 100% on their own, not even close, and the last two could be because she was flustered on stream or by Garrett. But they are all extremely suspicious.
So then from there I see a number of suspicious things that push me farther towards her having cheated, such as weird plays/behavior elsewhere, her physical reactions after the hand, the vibration, and the fact that I’ve seen two instances of vibration followed immediately by a decision. Could be a nervous tic, shivering, or a tremor but oddly enough I see her make other decisions in big spots without it.
These add less individually, but in the big picture they add up.
The other stuff is just explaining possible methods and systems, which don’t influence the preponderance of evidence imo.
There’s also evidence on the other side of the equation, such as paying off river bets bad on prior streams, and staying around to play. I can give valid arguments why they aren’t weighted as much imo. Others think those are weighted more, which isn’t a ridiculous view but I disagree with it.
But also Clovis, you’re handwaving away a ton of evidence against the misread theory. The misread theory was the only easy path to believing she didn’t cheat IMO, and I think the evidence against it (her own words) is pretty overwhelming. Did you watch the entire hand, run out, and post-hand discussion start to finish on the original live stream? Not the condensed video on Twitter? Because her own words more or less kill that theory.
what do you make of gman apparently lying about the exchange in the hallway?
What’s the proof he lied? My understanding is that he says she offered, saying something like “Do you want me to pay you back?” And he accepted. Her version is something like, “I asked what I could do to make it right, and he said pay him back.”
Right? I don’t view the difference in those to be that significant, it sounds to me like two people relaying a heated exchange slightly differently. I haven’t seen Feldman contradict either of those, and he was the only other person there.
Was there more to that somewhere?
statement by vertucci that ryan heard the exchange and said that robbi asked garret how she could make it right and he said “you could give me the money back.” Since it was recorded I really doubt he was lying about that.
why does this part require proof though when everything else against her has been pure speculation?
OK, apparently it’s Berkey recounting Feldman recounting that Garrett “sheepishly” said “Give me my money back.”
I’d need to hear that Feldman also said that wasn’t preceded by some version of, “What can I do to make this right?”
IMO that doesn’t make Garrett’s statement a lie. He says he didn’t ask for the money back. I think it’s reasonable to consider “What can I do to make it right?” to be an offer, and I don’t think saying “Give me my money back,” in that context is the same as asking for it. Especially if he said “You could give me my money back.”
I mean what else is he gonna say there when she asks that question? What else could she be implying if not that she’s willing to give some money back? What else can she do to make it right?
IMO these two versions are very close and this is semantics.
I don’t have a problem with your interpretation or speculation about it, but I interpret it differently. Maybe Feldman will clarify, or maybe they’ll have a recording of it.
He has stated repeatedly that giving the money back was her idea and has implied or stated directly that this is strong evidence of her guilt.
They’ve offered to joey or anyone else in the community with trust to review all footage independently if they like and receive reports from the investigators, which it does look he will take vertucci up on, so I have no doubt that everything will come out.
vertucci (who owns the production - a common misconception is that hustler casino is involved in this at all, other than just providing a venue - apparently vertucci even physically owns the tables they play on) gave a pretty good interview. Other than the maga crap I feel he has a pretty level head about this, other than characterizing all the “no-cheat” people as being stupid for bashing garrett - like, I’ve seen very little of that personally, and my stance is that garrett was dumb for 1) making a “100%” accusation of cheating with no evidence, and 2) taking the money back. I certainly have empathy for him in this situation and understand why he acted the way he did, but it was clearly incorrect no matter how you look at it.
Hasn’t he only made one statement since then?
This is good.
I still doubt it. Smoking gun proof is almost impossible, unless they exposed a cheating device to a camera or left one behind. Hopefully the evidence available is enough to move most people to the same side with high certainty, that’s about all we can hope for.
well, I agree with vertucci the only way you can pull this off really is with a man on the inside, and uh, listening to that interview I’m pretty sure he’s gonna rip his staff apart. For pro-cheating arguments to hold, the cheaters have to be kind of dumb, so if there is cheating I am like 95% certain it’s gonna become obvious.
I started out 5% cheating but am now down to <1% and that does seem to be the converging consensus already, unless something truly shocking comes out I don’t know if that’s really gonna change.
Someone brought a question up yesterday and I’m not sure what point this makes but I think it does make one, that if evidence came out tomorrow completely exonerating her, does the poker community apologize? I think no, not even close, and in fact I think many will just double down on it - which is why this all feels tremendously icky.
I agree, but I’d include the manufacturers of all of the technology used to stream it (RFID reading table, RFID cards, shuffle machine, software) as being inside, too. It doesn’t have to be an HCL employee.
I agree with this but I don’t think it’s a lock to be as obvious as Postle due to sample size.
I think Garrett apologizes, and I think the likes of Doug and Joey do some sort of half apology half commend her on the whole thing. “sorry you went through that, but, etc etc… And I have to say you really carried yourself well and holy shit what a call.”
I’m not sure how the community as a whole can apologize, but I think she gets a lot of love from the community if exonerated.
yea the sample size is rough. If the other pros at that table agreed with garrett I’d probably be leaning more your direction, but it seems to be only him - if I were a pro in a nosebleed like that I’d be more than happy to play her and kinda mad at this whole thing.
she does have a lot of history outside hcl though, and with garrett, and does seem to have a history of bizzarre play and misreading hands/not understanding basic hand strength so idk.