What does it have to do with? I don’t see much more than two young women both facing accusations in controversial situations.
I remember this and it’s absurd there was any discussion other than unless he flips up exactly JJ it’s a snap call
she doesn’t have enough chips to just sit there and final table and she has odds vs a flush which doesn’t make any real sense to shove in the first place unless low but that’s extremely unlikely as played and if it’s a high flush then what are you checking with that can check call basically ever
cheaters are typically not smart, it’d be some sort of signal that you have the best hand, you are thinking too much for these people by a lot
Why would you expect here to chart a much different course?
I think it likely that she’s someone who is incapable of telling the truth if the truth makes her look bad and she’s someone who doesn’t want to appear stupid or a bad player. I believe in a reconstructive theory of memory where our brains aren’t recording like a camera. At this point, I’m not sure if even she can accurately tell you what was going through her mind during the hand because her brain is going to recollect the experience by reconstructing the memory in a way that is consistent with her highly flawed and narcissistic self-image, tossing out anything that contradicts what she believes about herself. Since it is difficult to construct a narrative fitting that image of a poker player who knows what she’s doing, her recollection might shift as her brain keeps trying to make it make sense.
This is my explanation for how some people in my life had problems being consistent in retelling stories of the past without being liars.
I agree it seems she’s incapable of telling the truth regardless
like if you asked her what flavor of ice cream she’s holding I’d set the odds at 50/50 you get a straight answer, maybe not even if you can see what it is
It has to do more with describing the behavior of partisans on each side.
Well, some clearly aren’t. There could be dozens of smart poker cheaters that got away with it that we’ll never know about.
2 Likes
This is pointless, since none can be tested without all camera angles available. We don’t have that. If someone hired me to investigate this and gave me all the tape, I’d watch the mic packs from different angles for an entire run through and prove or disprove it. Then I’d do hand signals or chip signals, etc.
But the people on the innocent side want me to write a specific theory to say “HA! Gotcha! There’s no proof of that in the tape available!”
Well, of course not. You’d have to get really lucky to have the right angle at the right moment to get smoking gun evidence of that on the broadcast feed.
The evidence she was cheating is all circumstantial but extremely strong. The $15K situation is about as close as you’re ever likely to get to a smoking gun if there isn’t a huge sample size.
That’s why I’ve said from the start I think there was cheating, but I don’t think that we’re likely to get smoking gun conclusive proof of it.
Once she realizes this is a massive scandal with law enforcement and gaming possibly getting involved on top of the independent investigation, I’d expect an innocent person to be way less haphazard about it. Contradicting herself repeatedly is a really bad look here.
Assume that Robbi has a flaky personality and is incapable of acting the way you would act in her situation. Is there anything that could change your mind?
Like at this point the innocent hypotheses are:
-
She’s a noob who has no clue what she’s doing, even though there are no hand histories of her looking like a total fish, she claims she’s been studying daily, she has a Hendon going back about a year, and she claims to have been playing for 2+ years. But she still doesn’t understand that a suited Ax-Qx hand or QJ/J8/etc are things here.
-
She misread her hand, even though she looked back for like 10 seconds before calling, didn’t show any surprise when tabling her hand, and said she didn’t have a 3 when asked after calling and before tabling.
-
She’s clueless at poker despite her claims, but she’s a narcissistic pathological liar or a sociopath and is incapable of telling the truth, and she just got really unlucky to end up in this situation and the word salads would come regardless.
Am I missing any? I think 1 and 2 are extremely unlikely, and 3 incorporates 1. Plus sociopathy makes cheating more likely.
I haven’t seen a hypothesis for innocence that holds up to any logical analysis of her behavior, her statements, and what we know about her.
1 Like
There’s nothing she can do here that would convince me she was innocent. That ship has sailed. A proper independent investigation by people who understand live poker saying there was no signaling evident would move me significantly, but I don’t think we’re actually going to get that unless they open all the tapes up to a high profile pro who spends like a week going through them.
You may well be an excellent poker player, but it’s really off-putting the way you authoritatively discuss psychology and human behavior like someone who just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
8 Likes
High stress situation live on TV leading to brain farts.
1 Like
I am an expert on psychology at the poker table. Maybe not how someone would react after they get up from the table, but I have a very hard time buying that innocence is more likely than guilt given how she’s behaved.
I mean, how much of her interviews with Joey have you watched?
Doesn’t compute with:
A) 10 second card recheck
B) No reaction of surprise when she tabled J high
Also the fact that she played a bunch of other hands without any significant brain farts and this was her third session, not first, does not support this.
Brain freeze - do I really have that hand? Oh shit… I’ll buy some time. I’m pot committed (am I? Aren’t I?) so maybe I have to call? Fuck knows aaaaggghhhh.
How did you get to be an expert on psychology at the poker table when by your own admission your live play is mainly against wealthy idiot whales?
Only because you misunderstand psychology and oddly probability.
Billions upon billions of hands have been played. We expect a hand like this probabilistically. In this very thread several hands have been posted that are equally insane. add to this we know she is new to poker, or let’s be generous and say she is not an expert. She doesn’t fully understand deep poker logic.
Then she is a woman, new to the game, confused in the moment and she says some nonsensical things to the ear of an expert and a man. Then she is yelled at in the hall and does what so many women would do and tries to diffuse the situation. Now it’s a couple hours later and she is being interviewed on the stream and a 101 understanding of psychology tells us she will start telling a story that makes her look like not an idiot.
It’s the next day, and follow up days, and she is now in the middle of the largest poker scandal of all time with millions calling her a cheater or at best a moron. So now her basic defence mechanisms kick in and she starts trying to defend herself. But there isn’t any way to do so because she did a really dumb thing in the moment that can’t be defended. So she is forced to double down to try to protract herself.
I am still like 50/50 cheating but the above narrative makes far more sense than any of your cheating ones.
Not the case. I’m in one game like that. I’ve got 10,000+ hours of live poker between 1/2 and 25/50 cash and $200 to $10K buyin MTTs. I’ve played with all sorts of players.
My theory is that she was someone who was targeting Garrett specifically to make a play that would make her look good, either a hero call or inducing him to stack off when she had a strong hand. Her motive was some combination of clout chasing, wanting some sort of revenge for previous play, and maybe being on tit. So, she would play her regular game against anyone else but play differently against him. She might even tighten up against other players because she’s really just waiting for her shot against Garrett. She could have been cheating to do so or she could have been trying to outplay him without cheating, but I feel pretty good about my guess that she wanted to do something against Garrett. I suspect that her pre-session coaching from Faraz Jaza included a lot of questions about how to deal with Garrett’s tendencies.
Did she misread her hand? From watching the video, it does look like she was only checking the top card, so the story that she was only checking to see the suit of her jack is believable. I could believe that she thought she had J3 when she raised, looked at her hand against when the camera was on Garrett and discovered that she actually had J4, then struggled with the 3bet all-in but finally made a “fuck it” call because she was emotionally committed to the hand after raising and sincerely believed he was weak.
Her post-hand talk seems to me be some combination of wanting to needle Garrett a bit without crossing any lines while also trying to make it look like she was smart. She might also have been in a bit of shock, thinking “what the fuck did I just do” once she was out of the moment.
She uses the same sort of word salad approach to talking strategy that I have heard from people who have obviously tried to study, but haven’t internalized any of the concepts and are just trying to parrot back what they’ve learned. I bet if you talked to her about poker, she would do a very bad job of relating an accurate hand history to you if she wanted to go over how she played a hand.