Randomness thread, part two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Ong... your analysis lacks important information of the hand in question.
At no point was she ahead. .

---

If it's the Jx vs. 8c7c on TTc9cx board hand you're talking about, then yes she was ahead when she called the all-in. No-one would care if she just donked off her chips. It's the fact she called an all-in with J high AND it happening to be the best hand at the time, and having like 53% equity or something, that made people sit up and take notice.


I'm open to the idea that she cheated, but I'm more inclined to think she's just bad at poker.


Mike Postle was a much more open-and-shut case, as his cheating was so obvious. If Robbie whatsername was cheating, and trying not to get caught, why pick a hand that's going to make everyone do a double-take, and bring a lot of scrutiny onto yourself? Seems you'd want to be a lot more subtle about it, pick an odd spot here and there, where your play actually makes sense, then do it.

Also, she gave Garrett his money back after the hand. Seems like a weird thing to do if you're trying to look innocent. Either that or it's some 3D chess thing - but we all know how easy it is to ascribe 3D chess skills to someone who's just a lucky idiot lol.

Vibrating chairs is a poor theory imo. What, someone installed a vibrator in her chair when no-one was looking? Rigggght. Or, she had beads up her ass that vibrated so powerfully that it shook the chair? Goddamn, if that's true you should have at least seen it on her face that she was getting remotely plowed up the ass while the game was on. "Oh baby, ooooh baby, that's it yeahhhh...I call."

Pre she called with rags.
OTF, he has OESFD. He's ahead in EV.
It was 52/48 when the all-in was called and she was behind.

At no point, except technically pre, was she ahead. And even pre, we'd all rather have his hand than hers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Pre she called with rags.
OTF, he has OESFD. He's ahead in EV.
It was 52/48 when the all-in was called and she was behind.

At no point, except technically pre, was she ahead. And even pre, we'd all rather have his hand than hers.

---

48% equity is plenty enough to make calling an all-in correct when there's already a bunch of money in the pot.

If you put her hand in a GTO solver where it "knows" what his hand is, I'm pretty sure it never folds at any point.

Pre, if you know your opponent's hand you can basically play 100% of your hands profitably.

Flop, there's enough equity to see what happens on the turn.

Turn, it's basically become a coinflip and she should never fold.

You do realize that if she'd just played stupidly and won, no-one would be talking about the hand right? It's the fact she played it as if she could see his cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

At no point was she ahead.

---

This is not quite accurate. We know as poker players there are two ways to "be ahead"... mathematically, and "in the lead". I can't remember the precise probabilities for this hand but I though she was the 48% dog, but this doesn't matter. Jack high is ahead of eight high. She might not be getting mathematical information. She could be getting "jack high is ahead" information.

And if you're happy for someone to cheat against you like this, prepare to lose a lot of money in 90%+ of hands and be maybe a 4% favourite very occasionally. It's not going to be jack high vs an oesfd every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Vibrating chairs is a poor theory imo. What, someone installed a vibrator in her chair when no-one was looking?

---

There is actual footage of her chair vibrating as she "thinks" about what to do facing Q5 full house. When the chair stops vibrating, she folds. You tell me what's going on if it's not vibrating anal beads.

It wasn't Q5, my bad, it was Q4.
Skip to 6:45 for the vibrating chair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPQUarLEr9A&t=993s

Now clearly she's not getting street to street information here because she's at the river with a bricked flush draw after Garret fills up on the turn. idk if she called a turn bet but if she did she's drawing dead. She can't know what shape she's in until the river.

But that chair is vibrating. It's a constant frequency, it's not like she's adjusting her seating position and causing a brief vibration, something weird is happening right there.

btw, important to note here, that even if she is a 48% dog, she's still making the right ev call because of the dead money in the pot. If she had got to the river without putting a single chip into the pot (impossible) then it would be a very slight mistake to call with 48% equity.

And with that in mind, she's still stealing ev off Garret by making calls that should be folds. Garret has a legit semi bluff here and she's robbing him of all that real fold equity with jack fucking high.

I mean if she isn't cheating then she's perfectly entitled to "rob" that equity off him, she has equity too that Garret is robbing by bluffing, but from a poker pov, an oesfd vs jack high is a legit bluff, not that a bluff needs to be "legit". You know what I mean by that though, he isn't getting out of line playing this hand in this way. Jack high is so ludicrously out of line all the way through this hand. Just fold it pre for fuck's sake. Absolutely insane she'd play this hand, cheating or not, and to play it like she did.

But she isn't this bad because she was on a 6 month win streak leading up to this event. Nobody can run good for that long playing this bad. If she was terrible, playing against the best players in the world, she'd be six figures in the hole over six months, minimum.

Tap your foot. Your chair will move. That's a lot easier to believe than that her chair or her ass or both were fitted with a vibrator and we just saw the poker equivalent of the Zapruder film.

As for playing bad and winning, variance, and 6 months in live poker is what, 2500 hands? Sample size.

We only have evidence from one hand that was played optimally as if she knew her opponent's cards, and a few where she tanks that were a bit funny. If she were cheating, there'd be a lot of suspect hands like the Jx vs. 87 one, unless she only did it selectively. But, if she was only doing it selectively, she wouldn't do it on a hand that makes it so obvious.

Nah, she's just shit imo. Polk is going for clicks here. Imagine he made a video and said "yeah, this was weird but without real evidence we shouldn't jump to conclusions." Clicks down. Instead he says "omfg her chair vibrated, guys, her CHAIR." Clicks up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It wasn't Q5, my bad, it was Q4.
Skip to 6:45 for the vibrating chair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPQUarLEr9A&t=993s

---

Where's the vibration in the hand at 3.00 where she makes a proper call as well? Or, does it only vibrate when she has to make a REALLY weird call?

same video, 6.00: "OMFG she won three sessions in a row guys!" lol Polk, you know better than this.

Also, not a physicist, but enough force needed to vibrate a chair coming from beads vibrating in your ass doesn't sound plausible to me.

11.00 "OMG guys she touches her face and talks during the hand."

I mean... until and unless there's literally any evidence of some weird maybe sex thing being used as cheating and not as unfounded slander, then whatever.

People accusing someone of cheating and not having any possible evidence of how and then suggesting they hid something up their ass is ... not sounding like its evidence based to me. It sounds like a 10-year old's reaction.

I'm not beyond any scam finding its way into a high stakes poker game, but ... if it hasn't been shown to have ever happened, I'm pretty dubious.


***
On a similar but unrelated note... the investigations of the Nord Stream Pipelines have conclusively shown it was explosions from outside the pipes that ruptured them.

So when evidence comes out that backs this up, I'm happy to let my skepticism of ong's certainty go to the trash.

I'm not going to pretend I'm not amused by the anal beads theory. I have an immature sense of humour. But I also think it's the most plausible. I can't believe you guys are sitting here talking about this like someone profitable on a live stream can ever play poker like this.

There is no evidence of anal beads except for a vibrating chair. If you don't think that's really odd, fair enough. We're not talking about the guy who got fired for stealing her chips though? We're not going to talk about him addressing this on Instagram, thanking Robin for "not ruining my life" by pressing charges? We're not going to talk about why he would do this? He claimed he didn't know it was Robin's stack. He's also the same guy who was seen being angry when Robin gave the money back. His office desk was hidden behind a filing cabinet so the camera couldn't see him. That was literally the first think Doug Polk saw when he was given access by the card room, who I might add are taking this a lot more seriously than Mike Postle's card room took that incident.

This is a slam dunk, at least from the pov of casual observers. Proving it in court might be a different matter, but a court couldn't convict Postle either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Where's the vibration in the hand at 3.00 where she makes a proper call as well? Or, does it only vibrate when she has to make a REALLY weird call?

---

You're not thinking about it critically.

Let's assume she has someone backstage helping her, sending her information. Maybe this guy can't see every hand. Maybe he gets a look at a villain's cards only at certain times, when he exposes them at a certain angle perhaps. Lots of speculation but the fact she isn't cheating every street of every hand isn't even close to evidence in her favour. It's more than once, and in the case of the jack high hand, it's ludicrous.

The backstage guy is not acting smartly. He's not feeding her info when she can use that without raising suspicion. Neither of them are smart enough to cheat effectively. How can you believe someone is stupid enough to play jack high like this but not stupid enough to cheat like a moron?

btw Doug Polk himself thinks she is cheating. He's risking litigation by saying that with the public profile he has. He's not talking about it on a forum with four people. He's talking about it on social media to hundreds of thousands of people. For him to take the risk, he must be certain. Doug Polk is a good guy who wants poker to be clean. He has been cheated, he knows what it's like to be a victim. I give him a lot of credit, at least when it comes to his motivation. Maybe he might only be interested in youtube views, but I don't believe it. He could get those views while staying safely on the fence.

Doug was given access to the backstage area, and the first thing he said was "whose desk is this?". It turned out to be the guy who had been fired.

I mean, this could just be a massive coincidence. But so could Mike Postle's sick play, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

btw Doug Polk himself thinks she is cheating. He's risking litigation by saying that with the public profile he has.

---

Not true. You can voice any opinion you want as long as you're clear it's just that, an opinion. If he said "she definitely cheated," and stated it as fact, then he'd be open to libel law. In fact, his language is very careful that way, he goes out of his way to make it clear that it's just his opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're not thinking about it critically.

---

No, you're not. You're trying to connect every dot and explain everything when the fact is all the evidence is circumstantial, and even then it doesn't add up to >50% chance she's cheating, never mind the >95% you'd want to make such an accusation in the first place. I'd say it's closer to 30%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Let's assume she has someone backstage helping her, sending her information. Maybe this guy can't see every hand. Maybe he gets a look at a villain's cards only at certain times, when he exposes them at a certain angle perhaps. Lots of speculation but the fact she isn't cheating every street of every hand isn't even close to evidence in her favour. It's more than once, and in the case of the jack high hand, it's ludicrous.

The backstage guy is not acting smartly. He's not feeding her info when she can use that without raising suspicion. Neither of them are smart enough to cheat effectively. How can you believe someone is stupid enough to play jack high like this but not stupid enough to cheat like a moron?

---

Your case boils down to the one hand that was very weird (which I'll grant). The rest of it is maybe this, maybe that, maybe something else. You've come to a conclusion and now are trying to bend the facts to support it.

I've played against people who did batshit stupid things against me and won. They just decided I was bluffing and they called. Happens more often than once in a blue moon. And it's striking, I get it. But to jump from that to "they must have cheated," is lame imo.

The best thing about this hand has to be Garret's face after she flipped her cards over. That was priceless lol.

Robi is likely just a huge donk. We can't credit donks with realising how bad a call is. But it wouldn't surprise me if there was cheating going on in that game. We just can't say the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of cheating- unlike the Postle incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is a slam dunk, at least from the pov of casual observers. Proving it in court might be a different matter, but a court couldn't convict Postle either.

---

If it was a slam dunk, everyone would agree on it.

Everyone agreed Postle was cheating, no-one said "nah, he just played 1000 hands in a row perfectly because he's a poker god.

That was a slam dunk, this case is not.

These guys talk about her behavior as being consistent with honesty. I'd take it with a grain of salt because body language stuff is more art than science, but a lot of what they say rings true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCVjV17aQlE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Your case boils down to the one hand that was very weird (which I'll grant). The rest of it is maybe this, maybe that, maybe something else. You've come to a conclusion and now are trying to bend the facts to support it.

---

You're wrong though, the opposite is true. As more facts have become clear, I've become more convinced she is cheating. The conclusion follows from the facts. And it's a fact that there was a guy who got fired for stealing money off Robin's stack. it's a fact that Robin refused to press charges, and that this guy thanked her publicly for not doing so. None of this proves that Robin was cheating, but it's sure as hell compelling evidence. This guy had hidden his desk from the cameras and had a view to the table. He was allegedly annoyed that Robin paid back the money. He then seemingly picks Robin's stack at random to take a chunk. Robin doesn't think this warrants further punishment while publicly accusing Garret of being a bully for questioning a questionable hand.

I'm not a prosecutor, I'm essentially playing werewolf. We usually lynch people based on gut feeling, rarely facts. Robin is a fucking wolf and so is the guy who stole chips off her. And by that I mean I am convinced they are lying.

On the balance of probability. If you think it's a 30% chance, ok. I don't. This is just way too absurd.

If it was the hand in isolation, I wouldn't be so sure. But the vibrating chair, and the dude stealing her chips, for this to not be cheating we're looking at some serious coincidences here.

It seems pretty clear to me that the guy who stole her money is her inside guy. He was upset because the pot she gave back, that includes his cut. He saw her win a $100k pot or whatever and he's got a piece of that action. Then she hands it back. So he steals chips off her. He's stupid and gets caught. When people look in the secure office, they see his desk hidden by a filing cabinet so the camera couldn't see what he's doing.

This isn't an absurd theory. What is absurd is that this woman goes on a six month win streak against the top players in the world without ever hero calling jack high no draw on the turn to a shove, and then suddenly she makes this sick call out of nowhere, and when she sees it was a good call she doesn't fistpump and wave her dick in his face (metaphorically speaking) having made the greatest televised call in history, no she looks sheepish, like she knows it's a really weird spot. And then to top that off, she pays Garret back because he's upset, some random backstage guy looks agitated, and then randomly picks Robin's stack to steal some money before getting fired. That's absurd.

And poop thinks the latter is 70% likely, because that's what Robin and this guy are arguing happened.

The only speculation I'm presenting as based in fact is the guy being upset about Robin handing the money back. I've seen no video to support this, just hearsay. But his desk hidden behind the camera, him stealing and getting fired, the social media apology and ass kissing, that's factual.

This guy is playing a role in this incident, and to be able to say that Robin isn't cheating, you need to explain his role too, not just Robin's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The only speculation I'm presenting as based in fact is the guy being upset about Robin handing the money back. I've seen no video to support this, just hearsay. But his desk hidden behind the camera, him stealing and getting fired, the social media apology and ass kissing, that's factual.

This guy is playing a role in this incident, and to be able to say that Robin isn't cheating, you need to explain his role too, not just Robin's.

---

I know you see a nice little narrative here, but it all depends on connecting dots that aren't connected in any other way. Who cares if the guy's mad she gave the money back? I'm annoyed she gave the money back too, does that mean I'm in on it as well? That's not evidence.

There's also no evidence for why he moved the filing cabinet, maybe he just wanted to have a crafty wank at work. Or maybe he was doing some other shady shit on his computer that he didn't want anyone else to see. As for her not wanting to press charges, it's possible she's just a nice person. Same reason she gave Garrett his money back. She doesn't want people to get hurt.

But according to the cheating theory, her "partner" goes and steals money from her in a room full of cameras? This is the criminal mastermind behind the vibrating ass scam? Wouldn't it make more sense to confront her in private and say "hey if you don't give me this money I'm going to expose you."

A six-month winning streak is not impossible. How many hands is that? Are these all live games?

There's also a hand where she calls the turn drawing dead. Why wasn't her ass vibrating then? Oh I know, it's only certain hands that she's cheating on, the ones that fit your theory. When she plays bad in a -EV way, that's not evidence of her being innocent of cheating, it's just 3D chess to make a cover story.

One thing cheaters have in common is greed. Postle cheated every chance he could, he didn't try to make it even seem plausible he was playing well. Nor did he ever offer to give people their money back when he was thoroughly busted. You know why? Because that requires a guilty conscience, and cheaters by definition don't care who they hurt. But in her case, she's making dumb plays all over the place, but the one time she makes a dumb play that happens to be +EV, it proves she's cheating. Then giving the money back confirms she cheated. Yeah. No.

Watch the video I posted. Four experts on body language all agree there's no evidence she's being deceitful, either during the hand itself, or in the interview afterwards. They point out that: 1) she genuinely acts like she doesn't know what she's doing, all of her mannerisms suggesting she's not sure of herself at any point in the hand; 2) she seems surprised to see her own hand, and that she won; and 3) she gets pissed off when Garrett starts insinuating she cheated, and starts talking back to him. All of these behaviors are consistent with being innocent.

There's also no hint that she has any information about his hand; she thinks he bluffs a lot and she's "taking a stand." And if she'd done this and Garrett had AcQc, she'd have lost and no-one would even be talking about this hand, except to laugh at what a donk she is.

People make stupid plays all the time, even at high levels. Jennifer Tilly had Phil Laak coaching her and she once checked back a full house on the river because she was afraid the other guy had quads. Yet because the stupidity was -EV in that case, no-one would accuse her of cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

One thing cheaters have in common is greed. Postle cheated every chance he could

---

Maybe Robin did too. I mean, she's calling jack high, so she's clearly not choosing optimal spots to use her superpower. She's taking whatever scraps she's fed. Which suggests to me that the guy who is feeding her info through vibrating anal beads in case you'd forgotten isn't using technology to see Garrets cards but is instead exploiting Garret (and maybe others) exposing his cards at certain times throughout a session.

Now here we come into a grey area when it comes to cheating. Rule number one is to protect your hand. But you're protecting it from other players, if you expose to a third party who then relays info that is clearly not a grey area. Garret shouldn't be expecting to have to protect his cards from someone sat in line of sight behind him.

Here's my next speculation. She sues nobody for calling her a cheat. That tells us nothing except perhaps she isn't willing to commit perjury in order to protect her reputation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

But according to the cheating theory, her "partner" goes and steals money from her in a room full of cameras?

---

This guy did exactly that, stole chips in front of cameras. It's an indisputable fact that this guy is stupid enough to do what you seem to consider unlikely.

Quote:

---

This is the criminal mastermind behind the vibrating ass scam? Wouldn't it make more sense to confront her in private and say "hey if you don't give me this money I'm going to expose you."

---

Whether he's in cahoots with Robin or not, he's a dribbling moron. And Robin clearly is too, either she's a terrible cheat or a terrible poker player. So yes, I can completely see a world where these two morons collude together to put vibrating anal beads up her bumhole so he can give her a mini orgasm every time she has the best hand, and she can sheepishly win $100k with jack high in ludicrous spots and give him a cut.

These two are clearly stupid enough to pull this off. Whether they did or not is the question at hand, but they are very obviously capable of being this dumb. The best case scenario for them both is they are stupid.

He may have thought he'd get away with stealing chips because he thought nobody would notice except for her, and she wouldn't alert anyone. He might have thought the cctv footage would not be viewed.

Stealing them off a random is even more stupid because it's much more likely the victim would alert security and the cctv footage be analysed.

As for the body language "experts", they should try playing poker instead if they're really experts.

I'm no expert but her body language reminds me of my ex when she was lying. I'm not even making that up.

I am surprised in the only one who thinks she's obviously cheating. Provably cheating? Probably not. But it seems highly likely that she's in cahoots with the chips stealer to me.

Anyone following the chess cheating scandal? I think Hans is cheating too but if I were forced to pull a number out of my arse I'd got for 75% sure, not the 95% I mustered up for Robin.

Postle is an infinitesimal under 100%, and that infinitesimal is for legal reasons only. I'll grant Robin isn't quite in that territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I am surprised in the only one who thinks she's obviously cheating. Provably cheating? Probably not. But it seems highly likely that she's in cahoots with the chips stealer to me.
.

---

Yet there's nothing on her phone either to or from him, so the partners in crime are both incredibly stupid because they do obvious cheating and stealing, and yet incredibly careful at covering their tracks. Yeah, that makes sense.

As for the body language guys, they're all professionals, and none of them think she's acting suspiciously. But hey, you go ahead and trust your anecdotal evidence about one of your exes over their collective decades of experience.

Who's she gonna sue, half the poker world? If she can afford to give Garrett back his $100k that she won from him fair and square, she's not gonna be bothered about chasing after some lawsuit. Like that's the way to get past the whole thing.

lol avoiding interacting on contract phones is being "incredibly careful at covering your tracks".

Fun fact - my weed dealer has a PAYG phone for business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

lol avoiding interacting on contract phones is being "incredibly careful at covering your tracks".

Fun fact - my weed dealer has a PAYG phone for business.

---

Does your weed dealer steal money in front of cameras and use a vibrator to win at poker too? See, you've got the careful part covered with your anecdote, just not the stupid part.

My point is that even a regular small time criminal thinks about phone records.

And yes, most people think about cameras too. It seems like this guy did exactly that when deciding where to place filing cabinets. So he's clearly taking some precautions. And this is the case regardless of whether he's Robin's partner in crime or not. Either way he first of all hid his desk, and then stole in front of a camera. So he's obviously more than capable of making sure there are no phone records of their friendship, while still being stupid enough to steal in front of cameras.

Why did he hide his desk from the camera? That doesn't make sense if his plan is to steal chips from a location where they are in view of cameras. I guess we could say it's a coincidence, that he legitimately wanted the filing cabinet there and had no idea it was blocking his desk from the view of the camera, and that he then just happened to try to steal some chips.

But this seems more of a reach than assuming he's helping the girl with the vibrating chair who's calling jack high to all in bets on the turn.

Let's look at this another way.

Is it possible for someone to cheat at poker by using the methods I describe? Could you successfully pass on information about a player's hand by means of vibrating anything? Obviously I'm being childish when I talk about anal beads, but it could be a belt. Does the technology exist to hide a vibrating device? Yes, most certainly. Anal beads exist.

Given it's possible for someone to do this, don't you think it's obviously going to happen in a game like poker? I do.

If it's possible, it's happening. All it takes is for a third party to have access to hidden information that is useful to a player. That's the hard part. Putting beads up your arse is the easy part.

I think cheating is a huge problem in poker. Postle and Robin are the idiots who don't do it properly, but my concern is it's the tip of the iceberg. How many people are cheating properly so they don't raise suspicion?

It must be happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

My point is that even a regular small time criminal thinks about phone records.

And yes, most people think about cameras too. It seems like this guy did exactly that when deciding where to place filing cabinets. So he's clearly taking some precautions. And this is the case regardless of whether he's Robin's partner in crime or not. Either way he first of all hid his desk, and then stole in front of a camera. So he's obviously more than capable of making sure there are no phone records of their friendship, while still being stupid enough to steal in front of cameras.

Why did he hide his desk from the camera? That doesn't make sense if his plan is to steal chips from a location where they are in view of cameras. I guess we could say it's a coincidence, that he legitimately wanted the filing cabinet there and had no idea it was blocking his desk from the view of the camera, and that he then just happened to try to steal some chips.

---

On the one hand, you're saying he's sharp enough to move a filing cabinet to hide himself from the cameras, but that on the other hand he's dumb enough to steal chips in a room full of cameras. Does not compute.

Maybe the cleaner moved the cabinet. Maybe he did for some other reason. Maybe, like I said, he was having a crafty wank. Who cares? A cabinet having moved is not proof of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

But this seems more of a reach than assuming he's helping the girl with the vibrating chair who's calling jack high to all in bets on the turn.

---

As for this theory, this guy shoots it down pretty well. Starting around 12.45.

Basically what I said before, if she's using a vibrating device it's not going to rock her whole chair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnZbl-ZwAI


Put your phone on vibrate, put it in your back pocket and have your mate call you. Let me know if the entire chair moves in rhythm with the vibrations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

A cabinet having moved is not proof of anything.

---

I think this is where you're taking me way too seriously. When did I say it was proof? It should be quite obvious that I'm talking here about my opinion, the circumstantial evidence that has influenced me. It's not just the filing cabinet. It's the filing cabinet, the stolen chips, the vibrating chair and the jack fucking high.

You seem to be convinced by body language experts who are studying a poker player. I'm sorry but that is hilarious to me. If you really are an expert in body language, then play fucking poker instead of prancing around calling yourself an "expert" because you consumed papers from psychologists and now have a fancy qualification. Poker is the best income you can expect if you're an expert on body language. Elite poker players are the true experts, both in reading body language and disguising their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Basically what I said before, if she's using a vibrating device it's not going to rock her whole chair.

---

Well that really does depend on the device. And I'm still left asking the question "what the fuck is making her chair vibrate like that?".

Presumably you're not going to use an actual phone for this. It's too obvious, it's the first thing that will be checked if there's a situation. I'd say it's highly likely her phone was checked, voluntarily.

Her chair could be vibrating like that because she's using a device that's designed to give sexual pleasure rather than to alert someone of an incoming call. I'd imagine it vibrates more.

I'd imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And I'm still left asking the question "what the fuck is making her chair vibrate like that?".

---

Are you really?

Try this: tap your foot and look at your chair.

Alright, let's analyse the footage of her chair vibrating to see if it's too regular for a human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Alright, let's analyse the footage of her chair vibrating to see if it's too regular for a human.

---

Ok, tell us what you find out.

The hand makes sense in a donkey brain kind of way. It's bvb, both of their ranges are hot garbage. Flop call is fine. Turn looks like a sizing mistake to me. His range is so heavily weighted to draws and the speed of his bets is a big tell on top of that. Bet/raising this fast is very often a telltale sign of someone having a real easy decision, and shoving it in with a draw is a real easy decision. idk the stacks, but she should have probably folded or overbet/shoved the turn. I think she minraises ip which is terrible without a plan. Horrendous if the plan is to bluffcatch with J high.

HSP was never the place to watch great poker being played. They're there for the publicity and to advertise to whales. Looks like a bad play paying off to me and he's really overselling it. Probably underrolled for the game. Imo his reaction made this go viral much moreso than her call.

How would she cheat anyway? Do they have live feed in the control room? That would be bad.

The best part is they can't ID him publicly (why?) so there's no way to blacklist him from restaurants.

https://twitter.com/hisotalus/status...64199326715904

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

The best part is they can't ID him publicly (why?)

---

idk but for a country that has a gun problem, and protects the identity of criminals, they have a rather excellent society.

I'm surprised a court didn't warn him that if he continued to steal food his identity would be made public. That gives him an incentive to stop, while protecting his privacy. That seems like the optimal way to deal with it... you protect the identity of petty criminals only once, the first time they are found guilty by a court. That means people are not burdened with a single mistake for the rest of their lives.

Ong, you're susceptible to conspiracy thinking.

That's not a dig. It's the same type of thought process that allows one to grasp large interconnected systems, some of them being actual existing conspiracies.

It's misfiring this time.

You're bending everything in the direction of the narrative that allows the interconnectedness of the system. This fires the reward circuit in your "I figured out the interconnected system" circuit in your brain.

Feels good. I know. But it's misfiring this time.

I read that post in the context of it being a reply to my most recent post itt and thought "what the fuck are you talking about" then realised you're replying to my Robin comments.

I mean yeah I'm prone to conspiracy thinking, but I'm not a flat earther. Something has to make sense for me to believe it, all the better if alternative theories don't make sense. Like 9/11, and this Robin lady. I honestly find it staggering that intelligent people are sitting here giving her the benefit of the doubt. And it's not even like you're just setting a robust standard for proof like a court. Nobody here except me thinks she's even probably cheating, like >50%. I think it's obvious she is cheating.

She calls jack high in a spot that no professional poker would call. No half serious amateur player is making this call. This is falling off the chair drunk poker. She doesn't look drunk to me. It doesn't make sense. People cheating to win money, that makes sense. We at least agree that human beings are capable of such atrocious behaviour, right? If humans are capable of it, then it's going to happen. Dumb people do stupid things to get caught. This is very probably one of those incidents. That's how I see it.

Ignoring everything else: if she's good enough to not play the hand as badly as she did, she should also be good enough not to cheat in the way she did, if she was cheating. Unless there's a clear pattern I don't think you can possibly tell on one hand whether or not someone was cheating.

Show me any evidence of cheating. Not speculation and hand-waving.
How she played a single hand isn't evidence of cheating.
A weird vibration isn't evidence of cheating.
A dumbass manchild (Garrett) crying isn't evidence.

Any of that could be reason to investigate further to uncover actual evidence, but none of it alone is evidence.


And let's do acknowledge that Garrett is a dumbass, whining manchild when considering his accusations at least a little bit.

Mojo you're talking about evidence like it's a court here. I'm not an investigating officer. I'm an observer speculating. A weird vibration is circumstantial evidence of cheating. Speculation, if you like.

Show me evidence Postle cheated. Not "probably" or anything, I don't care if it's a billion to one odds, show me he definitely cheated.

You can't, but of course we all know he did. It's ok to speculate when we're nearly 100% sure, right? Why can't we speculate if it's between 51% and 95%?

What is evidence of cheating is that she's not regularly making these terrible calls and losing. If there was a history of her making absurd calls and being sometimes right but usually wrong, then of course that makes a big difference. But no so history exists. At least, nothing that I've seen. By all means educate me if there's something I'm missing.

idk what it takes to ping your radars if this doesn't.

I haven't heard or read anything Garret said that I thought was out of line. Again, feel free to correct me.

If you feel that someone has cheated, then saying you think they cheated is not being a whining dumbass. So long as you raise your objections in a professional manner, at least.

This is kinda fun, like a game of werewolf.

Robin is a wolf. I'm not the seer. Chip stealer guy is her wolfbro. Garret is a villager. Doug Polk is a villager. I'm a villager. mojo is a villager. oskar could be a wolf.

If oskar is a villager boost must be a wolf.

poop, fuck knows.

Is bigred playing?

I can’t say I’ve watched the hand Ong but does the fact it was being filmed live make it more or less likely that she was cheating?
seems weird when you know it’s recorded to actively cheat but people are ballsy

Well I think we all agree Postle cheated, so he proves that people will occasionally be so ballsy as to cheat in front of cameras.

We can't be naive enough to think cheating doesn't happen. And when the stakes are higher, there's more incentive. Whether we think Robin cheated or not, there must be some people out there attempting to cheat in all sorts of creative ways. Some will be successful.

Garrett is, in general, a whiney manchild.
Prior to and beyond the scope of this.
Just saying.
It doesn't mean no one could cheat against him.
But it means I don't appreciate his takes on reality so much.
Especially when I can watch the live feed myself.


If this same accusation came from Daniel Negreanu, I'd be more inclined to want to believe it.
I still wouldn't believe it w/o evidence.


IDK who Postle is. I don't know the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Garrett is, in general, a whiney manchild.

---

Garrett's opinion is biased and, in any case, irrelevant. So is Doug Polk's. They have the same evidence as the rest of us, but reach different conclusions. You don't need to be an expert in GTO to see it was an odd way to play her hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

If this same accusation came from Daniel Negreanu, I'd be more inclined to want to believe it.

---

Fwiw (and his opinion is irrelevant too), Negreanu believes she didn't cheat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I still wouldn't believe it w/o evidence.

---

It says something about their character that Polk and Garrett take the position they do without sufficient evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

IDK who Postle is. I don't know the situation.

---

He used his phone to cheat, did it blatantly, and did it on camera, and rather than just one hand, it was so many hands that his WR was impossible in any real universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kDtE9vrRiA&t=1335s

The evidence that Postle cheated is statistical and circumstantial. Same as what I'm arguing with Robin. The difference is that the probability that Postle cheated is an infinitesimal under 100%. The circumstantial evidence is that he kept looking at his phone, and that he could only win like this at one card room.

The case against Robin isn't nearly as robust, but for me it's still well above 50%. Well above. The probability that some people will try to cheat is precisely 100%. When it happens, sometimes the red flags are there for us to see. This is highly likely to be one of those situations, at least that's how I see it. There are too many red flags, the main one being jack fucking high.

idk about Garret, this is the first I've taken notice of him other than occasionally watching him play a hand. But like I say, I haven't seen him get out of line regarding this incident. That's not to say he hasn't done, just that I'm unaware.

There's a big difference between someone on an obscure poker community forum saying he thinks she cheated, and a world-known poker figure(s) saying it.

All of you, Garrett, and Polk might think there's >50% chance she cheated, but to accuse someone publicly of cheating they should be damn sure, and have solid evidence to back it up, because a lot of people are going to bow to their authority despite the fact neither of them are experts on cheating, and it sets up a situation where, if she's innocent, her poker career is basically finished for something she didn't do.

That's a fucked up thing to do to someone just because you have suspicions. The proper thing to do is to be publicly very neutral about the whole thing, ask for an investigation, and then see what it turns up. If it's inconclusive they can quietly say "ok, well I don't want to play with her anymore," and leave it at that.

And what if it turns out there's no evidence apart from "jack fucking high," as you put it? The vibrating chair has already been debunked, Polk is an idiot for bringing that up. Her clothes were too tight to hide anything on her that could vibrate. If she stuck a thing up her ass it wouldn't be powerful enought to cause a small earthquake that shook her whole body and the chair she was sitting on to boot. So forget that.

You're basically down to one piece of evidence, that she played one hand very badly and it worked out to her advantage. If that's all you need to conclude there's a >50% chance that someone is cheating, then you must believe we've all cheated at some point in our lives.

I'm still of the opinion that had Garrett rivered a win in that hand, nobody would be talking about it except to laugh at her for being such a donk.

Garrett and Polk are perfect illustrations of confirmation bias. They can't conceive of playing a hand that way and because it blows up their GTO solvers, so they assume she cheated. Then they go fishing around for more evidence to support their assumption. The vibrating chair is a perfect example of reading things into something that isn't there.

Instead of saying "hmm it seems strange her chair would be vibrating while she's deciding what to do. What would make a chair vibrate like that? Let's see, hmm, well if I tap my foot my chair vibrates. Could she be doing that?" they go straight to "OMFG she must have a giant vibrator up her ass that's so powerful it makes her chair vibrate too. Fucking cheating bitch." It's just so ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

He used his phone to cheat, did it blatantly, and did it on camera, and rather than just one hand, it was so many hands that his WR was impossible in any real universe.

---

It looks bad, for sure, but ... running at an 0.1% probable winrate over a small sample (and it's about impossible to not have small samples in poker)... that's only 1 in 1000. There are well over 1000 players. So that statistic doesn't seem to say much. We'd expect to see many people with that improbable winrate statistic, given there are many thousands of people in effectively the same situations as Postle.

That graph with all the blue dots, and Postle's dot way the hell outside the statistical expectation looks very bad for him... assuming the rest of the data is appropriate for comparison to his situation.

All of which is circumstantial.

If the hypothesis is that he's using his phone to cheat, then don't let him use his phone at all. Polk said there was a rule against having phones at the table, and they weren't enforcing it. So enforce it.

Does his winrate continue? Does it end? If it continues, then we have to admit that it either wasn't his phone, or he has a new way to cheat that doesn't use his phone, or he's not cheating.

And we can make more rules to try to get past any further allegations of cheating, if needed.


It looks super bad... but many top players have said they would never have become top players if they hadn't been on a years-long heater when they were getting started that made them believe they were much better than they were. That's statistics for you. The improbable is not impossible. Improbable things happen all the time.

The game of poker and other card games are even predicated on the fact that improbable things happen all the time. The exact ordering of a shuffled deck of cards is so improbable that the odds of it ever happening are essentially 0. But that's true for every individual permutation of cards, and one MUST be chosen from the list of vanishingly improbable events.

It's not the same as improbable winrates, because of that last condition. But it's still true that we fully accept that improbable things happen all the damn time. The mere fact that something improbable is happening is definitely cause for our attention, but not an immediate conclusion of a bad actor.


That story about Postle scamming people when he was younger doesn't look good on him, though. I'm glad all my past indiscretions aren't pulled out of the closet every time someone thinks I did something shady or malicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

All of you, Garrett, and Polk might think there's >50% chance she cheated, but to accuse someone publicly of cheating they should be damn sure, and have solid evidence to back it up, because a lot of people are going to bow to their authority despite the fact neither of them are experts on cheating, and it sets up a situation where, if she's innocent, her poker career is basically finished for something she didn't do.

---

I agree, but with regard to Polk, he has explained why he thinks she cheated and it's not like I'm bowing to his authority, rather I agree with his analysis.

Quote:

---

If it's inconclusive they can quietly say "ok, well I don't want to play with her anymore," and leave it at that.

---

Well no. If you are very sure that someone is cheating, even if you're wrong but you think you're right, you have an obligation to speak out to protect the game and to warn other players. That's what is motivating Doug Polk, I'm happy about that. He's a highly successful poker player, he does not rely on YouTube clicks to pay his bills. His concern is the integrity of the game. So he's speaking out.

We have the same thing happening in chess right now. Magnus Carlsen (the best and most famous player) and Hikaru Nakamura (massive social media following) are saying they think it is highly likely that Hans Niemann is cheating. Many people think Magnus, who made this so high profile by refusing to play Hans, is out of line, and people like Hikaru should be quiet. I don't think that. Magnus is right to speak out, and Hikaru is right to commentate.

In the case of Hans, his accuracy compared to Stockfish is well above the average for a grandmaster, and has many times even been 100% (a top player might go his whole career without achieving this). But still people say there's not enough evidence to publicly accuse him.

What does it take? What evidence is necessary? If you set the bar too high, that acts as an incentive for people to cheat. And they will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

And what if it turns out there's no evidence apart from "jack fucking high," as you put it? The vibrating chair has already been debunked, Polk is an idiot for bringing that up. Her clothes were too tight to hide anything on her that could vibrate. If she stuck a thing up her ass it wouldn't be powerful enought to cause a small earthquake that shook her whole body and the chair she was sitting on to boot. So forget that.


You're basically down to one piece of evidence...

---

No. You're entitled to see it that way but I strongly disagree. The vibrating chair is not irrelevant. The guy hiding his desk, allegedly being unhappy Robin gave the chips back, and then stealing money off her, this is not irrelevant. It's not just jack fucking high. That's the big red flag, and then when we scratch under the surface there are more red flags.

Quote:

---

I'm still of the opinion that had Garrett rivered a win in that hand, nobody would be talking about it except to laugh at her for being such a donk.

---

I find this very hard to believe.

Hans can prove he's not cheating by beating Stockfish. He only needs to ever do this once. If he does that then ok, we have a next level chess genius on our hands. Nobody on the planet can beat full-power Stockfish. The only computer than can beat Stockfish is Alpha Zero, and that's a supercomputer that is doing important AI work. You don't have that on your phone.

Robin doesn't have this luxury. There's no way for her to prove she isn't cheating. But she doesn't even try to, she can't explain why she called jack high and at one point even argues that Garret could have had ace high, which makes her call all the more absurd. Maaaaaaybe she thought she has J3 and not J4 and was hero calling bottom pair, but she literally checks her hand right before calling.

But we can look at how she usually plays poker. And I'm not seeing anyone present clips of her calling air and losing a big pot. That would cause me to change my view radically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

they go straight to "OMFG she must have a giant vibrator up her ass that's so powerful it makes her chair vibrate too. Fucking cheating bitch." It's just so ridiculous.

---

Just to be clear, I completely made up the anal beads theory, nobody with influence that I'm aware of is promoting this theory. That's my immaturity.

Doug Polk hasn't said what device he thinks was used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Just to be clear, I completely made up the anal beads theory, nobody with influence that I'm aware of is promoting this theory. That's my immaturity.

Doug Polk hasn't said what device he thinks was used.

---

Because he hasn't thought that far into his logic, and neither has Garrett. He stopped at "OMFG her chair is vibrating, I think she cheated."

He may be a GTO god but he probably shouldn't try to be a detective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Robin doesn't have this luxury. There's no way for her to prove she isn't cheating. But she doesn't even try to, she can't explain why she called jack high and at one point even argues that Garret could have had ace high, which makes her call all the more absurd. Maaaaaaybe she thought she has J3 and not J4 and was hero calling bottom pair, but she literally checks her hand right before calling.

---

She had J3 on the hand before this. It's not impossible she was just confused.

Even if she knew she has J4, who's to say she didn't just decide she was sick of getting pushed around by Garrett and thought she'd take a stand. She tried the donk min-raise, he shoved, and she said "well fuck it I call." Can't say I've never done something similarly stupid when I've been tilted by some aggro player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

But we can look at how she usually plays poker. And I'm not seeing anyone present clips of her calling air and losing a big pot. That would cause me to change my view radically.

---

So, because she doesn't play every hand badly she can't have played one hand badly? Riggght.

She did call a turn bet from Garrett with a FD when he had a full house, not long before the hand in question. How many people put money into a big pot knowing they're drawing dead? But apparently her vibratring bat-signal was jammed on that hand eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The vibrating chair is not irrelevant.

---

It's 100% irrelevant if there's no plausible connection between it and cheating. Neither you nor anyone else has come up with one in several weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The guy hiding his desk, allegedly being unhappy Robin gave the chips back, and then stealing money off her, this is not irrelevant. It's not just jack fucking high. That's the big red flag, and then when we scratch under the surface there are more red flags.

---

These aren't red flags that she cheated though. They're red flags that the guy who stole chips off her is a degen. That's all they show. You're taking a coincidental connection between two people and trying to make it fit your case with confirmation bias. It's not relevant if you can't prove how she cheated.

And it's not just that you can't prove it, it's that you don't even have a plausible theory of how she cheated. We can dismiss the chair as implausible, so what else have you got?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There's no way for her to prove she isn't cheating.

---

1. There's no way to prove a negative.

2. The onus isn't on her to prove her case, it's on the accuser to prove his. And he's got fuck all to back it up, which makes him a twat for accusing her in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Because he hasn't thought that far into his logic, and neither has Garrett. He stopped at "OMFG her chair is vibrating, I think she cheated."

He may be a GTO god but he probably shouldn't try to be a detective.

---

He didn't stop at the vibrating chair. He went to the card room and did actual investigation, he went into the secure room and the first thing he noticed was a desk hidden from the view of everyone else, with a filing cabinet blocking the camera. This desk had line of sight to the table. When he asked whose desk it was, he was told it belonged to the guy who stole chips off Robin.

Radar fucking pinged.

That's more investigation than any actual detectives have done. And surely this is a criminal matter - it's potentially fraud.

Quote:

---

She had J3 on the hand before this. It's not impossible she was just confused.

---

No it's not impossible, and I would even say it's believable if she didn't check her hand before calling.

Quote:

---

Even if she knew she has J4, who's to say she didn't just decide she was sick of getting pushed around by Garrett and thought she'd take a stand.

---

This isn't a the poker player in you talking. We're talking about a professional poker player here. Professionals know that the worst thing you can do to "make a stand" against bullies is to call jack high. A professional would know that would only serve as an incentive for Garrett and others to continue pushing her around.

She can play poker. She must understand the basic concepts better than I do. And I can't think of any way this can be a legit call without assuming she misread her hand, played the hand as though she had J3, and just before calling off her stack, she checked her hand and still didn't realise she had only jack high. That's a non-zero probability, but it's unlikely.

Quote:

---

So, because she doesn't play every hand badly she can't have played one hand badly? Riggght.

---

Who says she has to play every hand badly? She just has to demonstrate that she's capable of making these absurd calls when she's drawing dead. That would be strong evidence that she doesn't know what villain has.

Quote:

---

She did call a turn bet from Garrett with a FD when he had a full house, not long before the hand in question. So apparently her ass vibrator signal was jammed on that hand eh?

---

Easily explained. I have explained probably. The guy who is helping her can't see every hand. He has a line of sight and needs Garrett to expose his cards at the right angle. This would even explain why she called jack high instead of waiting for a less absurd spot. Maybe she hadn't got any useful info up to that point.

Oh and btw, while she called the turn, she folded the river after tanking. This is the vibrating chair hand. Maybe chip stealer guy got a look at Garret's hand at the river.

In fact let's see if Garrett takes a look at his hand after the turn. Back in a bit.

So let me get this straight: The chip stealer guy is sneaking looks at Garrett's hole cards from what, 20 feet away? Is he using binoculars or does he just have superman vision? And while he's going this, Garrett never notices out of the corner of his eye that this guy is watching him with binoculars?

And then, once he sees Garrett's hand, he signals Robbie with a bat-vibrator that is so powerful it shakes not just her body but her entire chair. In other words, it's a vibrator more powerful for its size than anything known to man. Because it's obviously not on her person because she's wearing skin-tight clothing. So it must be either up her ass, surgically implanted in her body somewhere, or in the chair itself. And if it's in her chair she just got lucky that day that she drew the correct chair, and the cameras weren't working when chip stealer guy implanted the vibrator into her chair.

I mean seriously, if you wrote this as a script for a movie no-one would watch it, it's that ridiculous.

Ok just watching this hand again.

I'm wrong, she doesn't check her hand literally before she calls, at least it doesn't look like it on the stream.

However, after the first run, the board pairs again and Garret has 8 high, he says "you have that one for sure unless you have like pocket 5s or something", Robin says "I don't think so", he says "do you have a small pair?" and she says "do you give me that much credit?".

All the money is in here, we've run it once of two but cards are still face down. It's all a lot of fun at this stage from Garrett's pov. Robin is flat out denying she has a small pair here. So no she doesn't think she has J3 unless she's trolling Garrett.

Quote:

---

So let me get this straight: The chip stealer guy is sneaking looks at Garrett's hole cards from what, 20 feet away? Is he using binoculars or does he just have superman vision? And while he's going this, Garrett never notices out of the corner of his eye that this guy is watching him with binoculars?

---

Garrett isn't looking 180 degrees behind him. And no you don't need binoculars. Maybe you just need a high definition camera and the ability to enlarge the photo.

Quote:

---

In other words, it's a vibrator more powerful for its size than anything known to man.

---

lol your naivety is so adorable.

Quote:

---

Because it's obviously not on her person because she's wearing skin-tight clothing. So it must be either up her ass, surgically implanted in her body somewhere, or in the chair itself.

---

Ass, vagina, belt. Those are my three guesses. Definitely not the chair itself.

Look, if Robin isn't putting a vibrator up her ass and getting secret info, someone else is. It's technically possible. I've seen live stream cam porn. Believe me, remotely controlled vibrators exist that could do the job. And would make a chair vibrate. If she's cheating this way, fair play to her for hiding her pleasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

He didn't stop at the vibrating chair. He went to the card room and did actual investigation, he went into the secure room and the first thing he noticed was a desk hidden from the view of everyone else, with a filing cabinet blocking the camera. This desk had line of sight to the table. When he asked whose desk it was, he was told it belonged to the guy who stole chips off Robin.

Radar fucking pinged.

---

How was he told it belonged to the guy "who stole chips" when that hadn't happened yet?

I hadn't even heard he went looking around and asking questions. Where is this reported?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Ok just watching this hand again.

I'm wrong, she doesn't check her hand literally before she calls, at least it doesn't look like it on the stream.

However, after the first run, the board pairs again and Garret has 8 high, he says "you have that one for sure unless you have like pocket 5s or something", Robin says "I don't think so", he says "do you have a small pair?" and she says "do you give me that much credit?".

All the money is in here, we've run it once of two but cards are still face down. It's all a lot of fun at this stage from Garrett's pov. Robin is flat out denying she has a small pair here. So no she doesn't think she has J3 unless she's trolling Garrett.

---

She's denying she has a pocket pair is how I heard that. She could still think she has a 3.

I can't find an unedited stream of the full house vs flush draw hand. She calls dead on the turn but if she has no info at this stage it's nothing of note. And tank folding the river isn't really noteworthy, it's just if Garrett looks at his hand, and then her chair vibrates shortly after (with enough reasonable time for chip stealer to interpret and send the information) then that's supporting evidence that she is cheating, although no it still doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

How was he told it belonged to the guy "who stole chips" when that hadn't happened yet?

I hadn't even heard he went looking around and asking questions. Where is this reported?

---

It had happened. Polk turned up later after the accusations had blown up and after the dude got fired for stealing chips.

And Polk was told the guy's name, not literally "the guy who stole Robin's chips". I just couldn't be arsed to find out what his name actually is.

It's on Doug Polk's YouTube channel, unsurprisingly.

His first upload -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPQUarLEr9A

His second upload -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3l7xw7mbcs&t

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Garrett isn't looking 180 degrees behind him. And no you don't need binoculars. Maybe you just need a high definition camera and the ability to enlarge the photo.

---

His camera can see through bodies too?

Where is the room relative to GA's seat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

lol your naivety is so adorable.

---

Making reasonable points is naive, but playing conspiracy-theory connect-four is smart. Gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Ass, vagina, belt. Those are my three guesses. Definitely not the chair itself.

---

You're still going to have to explain how it made her entire chair shake, whether you think that's naive or not.

And assuming a small vibrating device that powerful exists (which is doesn't), why not wear one that vibrates more like a phone, so you don't get caught?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It had happened. Polk turned up later after the accusations had blown up and after the dude got fired for stealing chips.

And Polk was told the guy's name, not literally "the guy who stole Robin's chips". I just couldn't be arsed to find out what his name actually is.

It's on Doug Polk's YouTube channel, unsurprisingly.

---

I saw the video Polk made, but this was well after Garrett made the initial accusation. What was Garrett basing his initial accusation on?

I mean no-one cares what Polk thinks, let's be honest. He's a goofball wearing a tanktop that happens to be extremely good at poker. And like GA, he ran the hand through his GTO solver and it said "fail." And from that, he went looking for evidence that she cheated, valid or otherwise.

It's Garrett who is being the real cunt here. I want to know what he based his accusation on. He just didn't like the call? He hadn't seen her chair vibrate or know about chip stealing or any of this other stuff when he accused her of cheating, so basically he just ran the hand through his mental GTO solver and it came out "fail." That's not much to go on.

Quote:

---

His camera can see through bodies too?

---

Really? Sorry my mistake, a range of 171 to 174 degrees.

Quote:

---

Where is the room relative to GA's seat?

---

As I understand it, behind him. I haven't been there though, I guess I am bowing to Polk's authority here because he did go there and did seem to think that it was possible for this guy to see Garrett's hand from this hidden table.

Quote:

---

Making reasonable points is naive, but playing conspiracy-theory connect-four is smart. Gotcha.

---

You were being naive because there are pretty powerful vibrators designed to fit in the anus or vagina, and these can be controlled remotely.

Quote:

---

You're still going to have to explain how it made her entire chair shake

---

Because remotely controlled vagina shaped vibrators are generally designed to give sexual pleasure, preferably in a visual manner because the person remotely controlling it probably has his penis in his hand.

It's 2022. Nobody is wanking off to magazines anymore.

Quote:

---

And assuming a small vibrating device that powerful exists (which is doesn't), why not wear one that vibrates more like a phone, so you don't get caught?

---

(it does)

Maybe they didn't think the fucking chair would vibrate. Not sure if I'd have considered that, though I would like to think I'd have at least done a test run before going live with the plan. Still, this could easily be overlooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Maybe they didn't think the fucking chair would vibrate. Not sure if I'd have considered that, though I would like to think I'd have at least done a test run before going live with the plan. Still, this could easily be overlooked.

---

Yep, they were planning on how to cheat and Robbi said "hey I've got this massive vibrator that I stick up my ass sometimes, then my husband turns it up to 11 with his phone and I orgasm. let's use that." And Chip Stealer said "yeah, sounds great, try not to make a face while you're coming though, ok?"

lol.

So here's what GA posted on 2p2 the other day, as his collection of "evidence."

Note that he doesn't provide any theory into how she managed to cheat, just that she's been caught lying in the past (OMFG) and the RIP guy is a shady fuck. Also a lot of stuff that chip stealer guy is also shady (OMFG).

Pretty lame stuff, but more than enough to impress Ong I'm sure.


https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2.../#post57848911

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I saw the video Polk made, but this was well after Garrett made the initial accusation. What was Garrett basing his initial accusation on?

---

I don't think I've seen Garret directly accuse her of cheating. I just watched the hand and Polk's uploads. Can't remember what Garrett tweeted afterwards. But he definitely was thinking it at the table. It wasn't just the hand, it was her complete inability to explain herself. When he asked why she called the turn with jack high, she replied "because you don't have shit". Her talk makes absolutely no sense.

Watch the hand unedited. The commentators feel something is wrong, the rest of the table think something is wrong, the silence at showdown and then the conversation where she doesn't make any sense... Garrett's immediately response was normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

(it does)

---

Prove it.

I've seen women using vibrators in pron but I've never seen them use one so powerful it shook the bed they were laying in. Surely if such a thing existed some perv somewhere would have made a video of it by now.

Ok that's a direct accusation. I'm reading it. Gimme ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Prove it.

I've seen women using vibrators in pron but I've never seen them use one so powerful it shook the bed they were laying in. Surely if such a thing existed some perv somewhere would have made a video of it by now.

---

How can I prove that the performer isn't gyrating her hips more then the vibrator is compelling her to?

I can give you links though if you really want.

Fuck me that report is huge. Fuck that, I'm not on jury duty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't think I've seen Garret directly accuse her of cheating.

---

He accused her indirectly at the table, and accused her directly the day after the hand took place using the vibrator theory.

https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-new...ng-accusations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How can I prove that the performer isn't gyrating her hips more then the vibrator is compelling her to?

---

Prove that she can remain otherwise still and maintain a poker face while the vibator is making her and the furniture shake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I can give you links though if you really want.

---

Go ahead. If they meet the above conditions I'll eat my words.

Also note it has to be small enough to fit entirely inside an orifice.

His table talk afterwards, I wouldn't call that "indirectly accusing her of cheating". He was trying to make sense of what happened. It's clear he feels something is wrong, but his approach seems to me like someone who is trying to make sense of what happened.

He was suspicious and was pressing her to explain her thought process. That's not "indirectly accusing her of cheating". He's clearly thinking it though. Everyone at the table is, and the commentators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Fuck me that report is huge. Fuck that, I'm not on jury duty.

---

You're not missing anything of value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

His table talk afterwards, I wouldn't call that "indirectly accusing her of cheating".

---

It's about as close to an accusation as you can get without saying it outright.


His words:

Quote:

---

Adelstein clarified his version while giving his reasoning for why he believes he was cheated.

“After the hand, her body language and word salad explanations on why she called the turn are also extremely suspicious, wrote Adelstein. “After giving [me] a couple jabs about how she outplayed me, she immediately becomes very defensive with nervous chatter. Putting it all together, I immediately felt very concerned about foul play.”

“I then said, ‘Robbi, this is likely to be viewed by millions of people.’ Her face clearly melted once I said this, fully realizing for the first time what she had gotten herself into. And then I continued, ’I think you know now, you f***ed up.”

---

I mean GA is either a better expert at reading body language than those four guys who do it for a living, or he's already made up his mind as soon as the cards are flipped over.