Is there evidence that Robbi cheated Garrett?

yep. coulda ended the manifesto right there.

If the argument was that security wasn’t the most amazing, I would agree. But why are we quoting from that section of the report and not the sections that state that no evidence of cheating was found? Seems like you’re cherry picking a bit to what you like vs what you don’t like.

https://hustlercasinolive.com/j4report/

My point was that the live hole card info was available to the entire production room, just like postle. So the question becomes how would this info be communicated, post postle, when the players no longer are allowed cell phone access. This info being available in real time to the staff is why the pro cheating camp has speculated about visual, vibrations or non electronic means of communicating info and how it may be limited to ahead/behind. And accordingly, may offer a reason she made such a ridiculous call other than she is stupid or misread her cards.

You can read the entire report if you want, I am pointing out, or in your words cherry-picking, the biggest flaw in their operation: live hole card info was available to the entire production team in real time with very few safeguards according to their own internal analysis. The simplicity of the safeguards suggested/implemented are so basic that HCLs failures may have made conveying this info to some players very easy for one of their many dishonest staffers.

They reviewed the surveillance footage. Surveillance is a separate department from whatever HCL is, which I believe is an independent contractor for HC (High Stakes Poker Productions) and not HC employees themselves.

Given that, it doesn’t make sense that if the theories you were stating were true that they would not mention suspicious activities from Bryan. For instance, you guys think there is some kind of signal from the floor. This wouldn’t show up on surveillance? Or you think surveillance team is part of the cover up?

The signal could be some sort of device on her person that just pulses once or multiple times to indicate if she should call, fold or raise. Or winner/loser if the deckmate was compromised and they know the result of the hand based on the data.

I donÂ’t understand the points you are trying to make about who employs surveillance, mentioning of Bryan or the goal post shifting attempt regarding surveillance being part of a coverup.

I think the hole card information available to person A via the technology may have been signaled to player B and such information could explain her unexplainable call. I think a lot of her verbal diarrhea and behavior afterwards is explainable as a thief who got caught in the act, including giving the money back.

So do I think I see Postlegate 2.0 blowing up the scam because the people involved were idiots and picked a horrible spot to cheat Garret? More likely than not, yes.

Does some Mensa surfer dude saying it’s impossible because he thought about it change my opinion? Not when the alternate theory is that she was so stupid she thought she had j3, yet up 250k and gave the money back because she “valued production” after a 10 minute hallway “false murder confession” interrogation by a bully we never see.

That's the only thing that makes sense if she cheated. She has no other hands that are remotely suspicious. It's hilarious how so many people just totally ignore all of the other hands and thought crap like some deadbeat stealing money off of her stack was some big gotcha moment.

catching a hole card flash by a player sloppily checking isn't cheating.

regardless, I think if its true they didn't do the best way to protect the stream cards and had to re do some of their policies and ways they go about it from this then thats a huge win for the streaming community

I am unsure if their policies prior were as good or bad as some say

So the poker pro who was signaling her decided to go for all the money with jack high? lol. So they invented this risky cheating signal system to cheat on 1 single hand in a marginal spot since there is zero indication of any other dodgy hands? Use your brain for a moment.

Her cheating in that hand makes zero sense and there is zero credible evidence she did.

The value of money, and, particularly, chips, is very often relative to the subject person's perception of how much it is worth to them in the real world at a particular time. (That is one of the reasons casinos use chips in their games instead of cash. They know it's inevitably easier for someone to flick a chip or two, that they or someone else have already spent their money on to buy, onto a roulette number, rather than pushing out a wad of cash money. If you're buying groceries, you're far more likely to buy some **** that is strategically placed near the till than if it was in one of the aisles. Advertising lives on impulse-buying by their marks. Et cetera, et cetera.)

What if she had a pile of colourful chips in front of her that meant very little to her, personally, and had that common AFI-tilt moment, simply based on her knowledge that G bluffs a fair bit, and possibly more often against her than others in the game, (of which she might be thinking, "It's only a game")?

Without any real thought about the money, the situation, the proper strategy, the odds, the cards, the potential aftermath, or anything else, she simply said to herself, "Ah, f*** it. I'll call."

And runs it twice on the supposed cheating can't-lose hand to give the guy a chance to catch up, lol.

It's 2026 and there are people who actively post on poker forums who still don't know RIT does not impact your EV.

Amazing.

Garrett will make his 9th "Comeback" Wednesday and Thursday on The Lodge with Polk, and I assume push his upcoming autobiography

I know one person who thinks this was the greatest hand in the history of poker

Mariano

Garrett cost himself millions over 100K

Mariano was more than happy to take his spot at the table.

There was a newbie arguing about it in the casino forum a few months ago who was never able to grasp the concept but you would expect a guy who has been here ten years would know better.

I think you missed the point, it had nothing to do with EV.

More like, if she's some cheating mastermind and had the hand fixed and sewn up, why add extra variance of running twice and ruining a potential sure thing scam?

RIT literally reduces variances. Holy **** dude.

The RIT argument is completely irrelevant in the discussion as to whether or not that hand was legit imo. However if you're going to make that argument, at least have the slightest clue wtf you're talking about.

Let me try again. Either you are dumb, or you are being willfully ignorant.

Let's say Robbie is uber cheater and has everything fixed so she can win the pot. She knows Garret's cards, she knows the flop, she knows the cards to come (apparently according to CT lunatics), or whatever. She is 100% to win.

Running to twice with two more unknown cards, unless she has also fixed it that far in advance, does nothing but add variance to a zero-variance fixed hand (conspiracy theory).

No one who has fixed a deck or knows their opponent's cards or has hacked deckmate or who has an accomplice in the control room is going to bother running it twice. They are going to win the sure thing and move on about their day.

Is that helping? You are describing variance impact from RIT in a standard situation. Many people are trying (and failing) to claim this was not standard. My point is demolishing that silly theory.

if she knows the cards to come, then wouldn't she also have known she was safe with both runouts?

Poker pro? Bryan Sabisgal to my understanding was in a ton of debt and desperate to get out of it, and he worked inside the production crew. If anything, he was likely a degenerate gambler. People who cheat don't always do so in the most intelligent or logical ways to avoid detection.

Sometimes they feel invincible (hubris) or they're just straight-up desperate to make something happen.

Robbis significant delays during that hand while she's "deciding" comes across like she's received the signal that her hand will win at showdown, but even she wasn't so dumb to think she should be calling with jack-high there, which is why she stalls for so long fake thinking, maybe trying to get confirmation she isn't being given the wrong signal.

But Bryan, desperate to get his cut, sees a chance to win a big pot and jumps on it.

She didn’t know the runout.
She only knew she was ahead at the time due to a signal from her man in the booth.
The people in the booth can see the cards in real time and relay that info to the corrupt player(i.e.postle)
She appeared to have some kind of relationship with bryan , the guy who worked in the booth. This was the guy who allegedly signaled her.
Running it twice would have no impact in this type of scenario.
But if the person knew they were ahead, they would logically assume they would hold on at least one run.
But if they held jack hi, they would be confused about how they could be ahead.
They might try to get confirmation by using a backup signal, maybe by saying something like “let me scratch my face due to the xxxx i have”
The people in the booth can see the current cards in real time but they do not know the runout or who will win the hand.

1) Very few people, even those on the side that she cheated, believe she knew the entire runout. The most common theory is she got help from somebody with hole card access to tell her she was ahead. Not that they knew the runout.

2) If the helper knew the runout somehow, how would they not also know the next two cards in the deck? They know Garrett’s hand, and the undealt river card… but not the next two cards?

Yes, obviously if the scheme somehow only gave them to info on Garrett’s hand and the river, it would be stupid to RIT. But practically nobody has that theory.

So the theory is they are using a high variance strategy of getting it in when she’s even a 1% favorite, but also running it twice to reduce variance. Hmmmm.

I guess you could say everything is technically consistent with the cheating theory but there does seem to be some pressure there. It’s like Bible contradictions, people have clever ways of explaining them but they seem to apply pressure on the belief of biblical inerrancy even ic it’s not conclusive.