btw her being staked and not just filthy rich and bored is also moving the needle towards sus territory for me.
3 Likes
So you were lying again? That’s not very conducive to a productive debate.
1 Like
Not any that results in her getting a binary ahead/behind signal, or that takes time to relay info.
yes they do. if she was behind on the turn when she called (and we know she must know on the turn as the J4 hand ended on the turn) she is by definition behind on the river.
no matter how rich you are who wouldn’t take a 200 K free roll?
Plus we don’t know if she’s actually rich, I think the staking thing is the weakest evidence out there, because they threw that together literally at the last second, I think it’s really one of the pieces that leans me towards no cheat the strongest
i’m more worried about why someone would give her a 200k freeroll.
4 Likes
Events definitely are super suspicious but lol at putting so much weight into her behaviour post.
3 Likes
I have listened to pretty much all the ingram podcasts and rip, if he is to be believed, actually genuinely thinks/thought she’s really good at poker because “she studies and has a coach and stuff” and he apparently just likes to donk around.
him tilting off like 70k in that game or whatever it was after the j4o hand doesn’t make much sense with a cheating theory
the most important thing to realize is there really isn’t any evidence, and I doubt there will be, and it’s very clear that lack of evidence is never ever gonna convince a wide swath of people that she didn’t cheat, which is kind of astounding to me. I don’t generally make a habit of so strongly believing something without evidence, but I guess religion is a thing.
eta: all of the podcasts except last night’s - it seems pretty circusey and not like a lot of info so ive been plodding through it
inb4 there’s tons of evidence but no proof, something something she cheated
1 Like
I think suspicion is fair but the poker community really needs to consider letting it go and garrett probably should give the money back if X amount of time goes without proof/evidence whatever you want to call it.
It’s starting to become shrodinger’s robbi though - she’s simultaneously brilliant/incredibly stupid whenever the cheating theory needs her to be.
2 Likes
Skipped over a bunch of bullshit but is HU4ROLLZ happening or nah? Should I be getting my popcorn ready?
1 Like
Is trump testifying?
1 Like
Wait, are you telling me WE GOT HIM?!
2 Likes
They make a shampoo for that.
5 Likes
Yeah, if he’s cheating she was put up to it by someone imo. She’s not the ring leader.
I wish.
No one ever lets anything go. Esp on the interwebs. And when the burden of proof is put on the accused,
by expert poker players who think they’re PhDs in psychology because they spend time with people, this whole process is a bigger con than the hand could ever be.
2 Likes
It is super weird how many times he is asking people to disprove a negative.
I’m really surprised by it tbh. And if you expand the part that I quote above, you can see the Lawnmower_Man post that he’s replying to. He either is willfully ignoring LM’s point, or just doesn’t get it (which I find really hard to believe).
He doesn’t understand the concept of proof or of falsification so what we get is National Enquirer type speculation, including technology that doesn’t yet exist, assigned probabilities in such a way as to reach the desired target, QED.