From the guy who took the $15K…
Tweet aged well
Tweet aged well
It’s funny, In the 40 min interview with her (poker news?) she mentioned her mic pack. She was asked about the outline that somebody thought indicated a phone in her pocket. She said that she had no phone, that her leggings/pants were super tight and had no pockets. And she mentioned that since she had no pockets, her mic pack was just jammed into her pants. I pictured it behind her, but I don’t think she actually said that, I think maybe I just assumed it because actors so often stick them back there.He has full visibility of the equity because the software in front of him shows it in real time as an overlay.
Again, just a theory, but if there was tech to be used, this is the most likely one. And him being in control of it is interesting circumstantial evidence.
This has become quite the caper story.
So they change out the mic pack light internally with a cell phone vibratorIt’s funny, In the 40 min interview with her (poker news?) she mentioned her mic pack. She was asked about the outline that somebody thought indicated a phone in her pocket. She said that she had no phone, that her leggings/pants were super tight and had no pockets. And she mentioned that since she had no pockets, her mic pack was just jammed into her pants. I pictured it behind her, but I don’t think she actually said that, I think maybe I just assumed it because actors so often stick them back there.
So who knows.
But it’s interesting to me that she actually mentioned the very thing that might have been her cheating tool.
I still have a hard time believing that’s what happened, because other analysts haven’t identified many suspect hands. And if you were going to cheat that way, wouldn’t you do it A LOT?
I dunno - this kind of speculation is useless.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I've heard a lot of people say "there isn't any direct evidence". Even in criminal law, circumstantial evidence can be enough for a conviction. It's harder to persuade though, which is clearly evident in these threads.Again, all circumstantial.
This kind of thing happens so often and you would not believe how often you will hear "so and so was so nice, it's still hard to believe it happened".
Oh. In that 40 minute interview, she also mentioned that the jewelry she was wearing that night was worth more than her buyin. Because apparently that was important for us to know.Anyone make anything of the red ring disappearing? Was the red ring part of it? Did it vibrate? The way she takes it off and seems to hide it is weird.
I find this very hard to buy without further proof.So, I have to now change my vote, given the latest development.
View attachment 1001195
Background: I know Bryan very well, as I almost always got to the livestreams early, and he’s one of the guys that helps you mike up.
One of the things they tell you to do is to NOT turn on and off your mike yourself, and to just let the dealer know you want to be muted. Bryan is one of the guys that mutes you when you request this.
When you’re muted, your mike pack moves to a red indicator light, from green.
Her not pressing charges is potentially indicative of him outing her for collusion with him, doesn’t make any sense. Him stealing money from her is potentially indicative of him being angry that she gave the money back, which would have been his cut. If his cut was 10%, $15k seems like an appropriate calculation of that from $135k.
The easiest indicator for that person to make a “call / fold” signal would be to mute / unmute that mic. I haven’t reviewed the hand to see if she looks at her mike pack, but it’s a decent theory.
Sigh.
It was a profitable call even being behind, given the money already in the pot. She had to call $109k to win a $161k pot. That's 40%. Her 47% equity in the hand was enough to call... but only if she knew her equity was 47% i.e. only if she knew what both hands were.She was talking a lot during the tank and her voice wasn't cutting in and out. Also if you're the guy in the booth why are you giving the signal when you are behind on a call. She was at 47% equity and the RFID isn't picking up the cards in the deck to come.
Dealers, slot attendants, count room staff, and beverage servers all handle cash and you'd be amazed at how many have sticky fingers and also think they'll never get caught. Even at the highest of levels, it happens.
huh?It was a profitable call even being behind, given the money already in the pot. She had to call $109k to win a $161k pot. That's 40%. Her 47% equity in the hand was enough to call... but only if she knew her equity was 47% i.e. only if she knew what both hands were.
Anyone on the production staff who had access to the real-time information, such as the thief and felon who was hired to do exactly that job, would, with computer assistance, have been able to know that she would be making a profit by calling. Not a huge profit, but a profit nevertheless, and of course poker is a game of small edges producing small profits in the long run which are disguised by huge profits and losses in the short run in order to distract fools, suckers, and the mathematically illiterate.
So why the min raise when behind if she was going off of signals? It makes no sense for her action beforehand. Whoever is in the booth is not going to give a green light with J4o with less than 50% equity. I need proof of cheating from production.It was a profitable call even being behind, given the money already in the pot. She had to call $109k to win a $161k pot. That's 40%. Her 47% equity in the hand was enough to call... but only if she knew her equity was 47% i.e. only if she knew what both hands were.
Anyone on the production staff who had access to the real-time information, such as the thief and felon who was hired to do exactly that job, would, with computer assistance, have been able to know that she would be making a profit by calling. Not a huge profit, but a profit nevertheless, and of course poker is a game of small edges producing small profits in the long run which are disguised by huge profits and losses in the short run in order to distract fools, suckers, and the mathematically illiterate.
Would that min raise ever be right, with any holdings?So why the min raise when behind if she was going off of signals? It makes no sense for her action beforehand. Whoever is in the booth is not going to give a green light with J4o with less than 50% equity. I need proof of cheating from production.
They switched out some cards at one point in the broadcast (I don’t remember which) but essentially, there’s a good chance they thought she hadI find this very hard to buy without further proof.
She was talking a lot during the tank and her voice wasn't cutting in and out. Also if you're the guy in the booth why are you giving the signal when you are behind on a call. She was at 47% equity and the RFID isn't picking up the cards in the deck to come.
Based on what? Her cards are showing correctly at time of min raise.They switched out some cards at one point in the broadcast (I don’t remember which) but essentially, there’s a good chance they thought she had
Which part was confusing?huh?
I wasn't arguing that any of her actions were good. I was pointing out that, if she or anyone knew exactly what her equity was when facing the all-in, calling the all-in was the correct play. But of course it's not possible that she could have known that without cheating.So why the min raise when behind if she was going off of signals? It makes no sense for her action beforehand. Whoever is in the booth is not going to give a green light with J4o with less than 50% equity. I need proof of cheating from production.
Love Berkey but who the hell has time to listen to those podcasts that drag on for a couple of hours?Anyone have a Cliff's Notes of Berkey's podcast discussing a vibrating device found in Robbi's pocket?
View attachment 1001648
Didn't he already donate it to charity?Garret could save a lot of face by putting the money in escrow right now. Even if he is right, (I have no idea what to believe at this point) it'll look really good.