Changing her story also fits the narrative of her immediately realizing she made the biggest Donkey call of all time, and realizing in that moment if she doesn't say she misread her hand, she will look like a complete Buffoon.
As someone else mentioned earlier in that thread, occasionally an amateur if they believe their opponent is on a draw and misses -they still need to have the high card, this may have been the case as well.
:fraudalert
I agree with what Bart said in his response video today that he believed Garrett will come out within a few days of the event and explain how he was caught up in the moment and now realizes he is in the wrong and then give Robbi her money back. However, she can blame her husband for fucking that up. As soon as Charles (husband) said “buckle up” and it was clear a lawsuit coming, it killed any chance of a swift return of the cash. Now the return of any cash will most likely be returned in a settlement agreement. Also, is a slander lawsuit of this nature even worth 135k ?(amount he would likely otherwise return), but then again it’s likely not about money for the Lee’s.
Also, I believe we have heard the last from Mr. Garrett on this matter for sometime, as likely advised by counsel to not say shit about it.
HCL is going to benefit from this. They have already picked up 10k new subs in 5 days, an increase of 6% in total subscribers.
It will be interesting how this effects her poker game going forward. Not so much the cheating accusations but how she is willing to make an extremely loose call. Help or hurt her game going forward?
That's a great point about Garrett. Prior to the lawsuit threats, he would have had a lot of incentive to come out at this point, apologize, return the 135k, and his good image probably mostly restores itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by PositiveVariance
Now he has to stay quiet, and probably hold the money back as a bartering chip regarding avoiding litigation. If I were him, I would hire an attorney and attempt to settle it right now, with the agreement to return the 135k, post a pre-approved apology, and both sides engaging in a non-disparagement agreement. Maybe he's already doing that, but this would definitely be his best play, both to avoid a lawsuit and to clean up his rep. The faster this happens, the better for him.
So has Live at the Bike contacted her and asked her to come on stream?
If they haven't this is a HUGE missed opportunity. That's a way to put themselves back on the map. Wouldn't you want to watch the next stream she plays on?
This would sure be a better decision than their grand return to the internet with everyone playing in the dark.
She needs to listen to my advice at the end of the last radio show.
Honesty is often the best policy in things like this.
Just come out and admit that she got caught up in the moment and called off the J4o with no draw, because she wanted to stick it to Garrett and make a name for herself, and read it as him having a draw without thinking about the fact that many draws still beat her if they both miss the river.
Admit that you made up BS explanations later in order to avoid embarrassment, and that the cheating allegations, while false, made her change her story even more, figuring that nobody would believe that she willingly called off J4o there.
As someone on Twitter said, if she simply replied, "I put you on 8c7c or 7c6c", this would be a lot less controversial right now.
This casual took a quick peak tonight and said, “nah”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
If Ivey was willing to keep playing that is the only seal of approval required.
Did Ivey ever comment on the Garrett/Robbi story? I would chuckle if he stayed mum.
https://twitter.com/audavidb/status/1577429410134695936
https://twitter.com/DjJoseMata/statu...59823033348096
:lol3
I don't really care about this, but you gotta admit the whole thing is starting to get super ridiculous.
So much for #pantsgate
https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/sta...54245443690497
Joey making Druff look like an amateur at the moment - four streams in four days, all longer than 9 hours. and I thought PFA was long!
In one of his books, probably the Godfather of Poker, I can't remember exactly, Doyle Brunson told the story of when he was young he picked off a Johnny Moss bluff where Moss had over bet the pot on the river, while Brunson was holding just a Jack High. Doyle explained he thought Moss was holding a straight draw that missed. He also said it was that hand that convinced him he could play with the big boys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzmoney
Did they find a vibrating cock ring on Robbi?
Life imitates art... 12 years later.
https://twitter.com/steveodwyer/stat...09007501451267
Here is Garrett’s statement..
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status...avxFiAFk6Zjg9w
Alot to unpack but I’m going to focus on three things this post.
1) It’s is clear the he is tripling down now. Like I said from the beginning he got the money back & that was his mission.
2) Whether the investigation uncovers no evidence of cheating, some evidence or a shit ton of evidence, in every conceivable spot Garrett can justify keeping the money. As Druff has pointed out it’s almost impossible to see a world where Robbi can be totally exonerated. It doesn’t seem Garrett will change his stance regardless of the outcome. As far as lawsuits and what not who knows. But he is taking a hard line on this and that money seems locked the fuck up.
3) Vertucci was on Joey’s podcast last night talking about videos will not be released during the investigation. But if Garrett is correct that there is video of his interaction with Robbi, fucking release that shit. Whether it has audio or not, is shit quality, etc, we need to at least see how this went down. This is a somewhat separate issue to the technical investigation. We need to see how this money was procured. Release that shit!
As for the charity aspect. I will say Garrett has spoken about being a Big Brother before. I think it’s a great charity. As the oldest child in a household with an asshole Alcoholic Father, I could of used a big brother for sure. You can question his motive on why he is putting it in this statement, but he’s not a Johnny come lately to this. He has walked the walked before.
Additionally, when watching this nose bleed cash game the 135K is 27 chocolate casino chips. 5K Chips are being tossed into the middle like it’s not big deal. But now the 135K feels different. It’s just feels more real. I agree he shouldn’t have taken it but he did. It changes the power dynamic here big time. I said initially Garrett could go guns blazing and he kind of has, not backing down regarding the cheating & not even mentioning the possibility of it being returned or put into escrow with a third party. He’s keeping the coin.
I neglected to click on the link which shows Garrett donated 135K to the charity. Doesn’t really change what I said in the above post. The charity is a big winner here obviously. It actually reinforces that he is not changing his position regarding the cheating. I’m sure there will be a lot of opinions on this.
Seems the most reasonable is regardless of the donation he still has the 135K that Robbi gave back to him. Can’t just give money in dispute to a charity and call it a wash. When I initially read the statement I should of known to check the link and see what he had donated.
I think he would of been better served not donating the exact number disputed here. Just an even 50 or 100 or 200 would of looked better imho. He’s kind of quadrupling down now on the stance that this 135K is rightfully his and making the charity donation completely line up with it. Wish he didn’t play it like that.
This stuff is really tough to react to in real time. So many layers and things changing so quick. The donation is a great thing. But to have it exactly match the disputed number just feels icky. It’s still a large donation to what I feel is a great charity.
Would someone try to get Adelstein to explain "I strongly believe a hand occurred that wasn't played legitimately by my opponent." WTF? So that's all it takes to get your money back when you bluff all your chips off?
Garrett seems incapable of admitting he was wrong in taking the money back. He could have said he made a poor choice in the heat of the moment compounded by Robbi offering to give him the cash. Nope, doubling down.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDimeI neglected to click on the link which shows Garrett donated 135K to the charity. Doesn’t really change what I said in the above post. The charity is a big winner here obviously. It actually reinforces that he is not changing his position regarding the cheating. I’m sure there will be a lot of opinions on this.
Seems the most reasonable is regardless of the donation he still has the 135K that Robbi gave back to him. Can’t just give money in dispute to a charity and call it a wash. When I initially read the statement I should of known to check the link and see what he had donated.
I think he would of been better served not donating the exact number disputed here. Just an even 50 or 100 or 200 would of looked better imho. He’s kind of quadrupling down now on the stance that this 135K is rightfully his and making the charity donation completely line up with it. Wish he didn’t play it like that.
This stuff is really tough to react to in real time. So many layers and things changing so quick. The donation is a great thing. But to have it exactly match the disputed number just feels icky. It’s still a large donation to what I feel is a great charity.
Whether Robbi cheated or not is a separate issue.
Druff is correct that the notion of claiming your opponent cheated you and taking the pot back is a bad precedent and is simply not how one conducts oneself as a gambler. Whether she offered or not he should have refused and let the process of discovery unfold.
Donating a similar amount to charity doesn’t change the ethics and customs of gambling. I said earlier, he is reputedly a good player but appears to be not so bright at life. Robbi is the exact opposite which is humorous in a way - noob poker player but excels at life.
How these two navigate their way thru this story is almost as interesting as the hand.
I’ll ask again, has Ivey commented on this story?
I suspect he would remain mum.