"The Biggest Scandal in Poker History?"
The fuck was Full Tilt--A mild dustup involving a handful of players?
This is why human beings are mostly impossible to take seriously.
"The Biggest Scandal in Poker History?"
The fuck was Full Tilt--A mild dustup involving a handful of players?
This is why human beings are mostly impossible to take seriously.
But... I thought she was so rich... and could give back 150k like its nothing...
shocking!
who could have ever predicted shady behavior from this person after what we witnessed?
but dont worry, nick vertucci covered it all up nicely for her. i mean investigated it. right?
https://twitter.com/SteTouitou/status/1632735353718046721
Right around 59:50 the discussion starts. Garrett is indeed “banned” or whatever word you want to use. As I stated in an earlier posts the games have gotten better since he has been gone. Nick even acknowledges that Garrett was integral to HCL at one point, but that time has passed.
Although Robbi is clearly not welcome on the show(or she would have been on it by now), the original stance of Garrett being welcomed back has obviously changed. I’m guessing at a minimum a public apology to HCL & a returning of the money to Robbi may get him welcomed back. But the whales enjoying the game much more without him in it also complicates things.
I think there is a real possibility we never see Garrett back on HCL. My guess if he does come back on to a stream it will be at the Bike/Commerce or Polk will get him out to the Lodge in Texas.
I think Garrett has just let too much time pass and has really painted himself into a corner. It wasn’t too long ago where the most typed thing in live chat was “where’s Garrett?”. He could hypothetically fix it, but I don’t think he’s capable of doing all that entails. He hasn’t softened at all in his stance.
Whether he was cheated or not, he can’t deny the special treatment he has been given for years for Feldman. The millions of dollars he has won. Being the only pro (maybe Andy) to get a seat in these lineups regularly. Whatever happened on this hand doesn’t come close to offset that. I am no fan of Robbi. I wanted Garrett to do the right thing here. He just hasn’t.
Last edited by JeffDime; 03-20-2023 at 10:31 AM.
Garrett has responded. Speaks for itself and no surprises there. I do believe his absence is voluntary. However, when Feldman announced this million dollar buy-in game Garrett certainly sent out a feeler tweet that he would take a seat if one was available. So that is somewhat contradictory to this response. Really does come down to the $135 K. So many things come down to money when you boil them down.
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1637905326577156098
We’ll see what Vertucci comes with here soon I’m sure. Guy is a total trainwreck on Twitter. No impulse control. I would imagine HCL could counter this with having Robbi on the show again. That would certainly stick it to Garrett.
If you block out everything else and just think of the 135K. There would be such an outcry for Robbi to be made whole if Garrett showed up on any stream, not just HCL. Nick & Ryan certainly don’t want to pay it. I don’t think a gofundme would do it. Without paying that money back it just really makes this very hard to move forward. It makes any kind of apology feel hollow. It just needs to be done imo to reach a resolution.
I will say the way Nick has his guests bring up these topics is kind of lame. To bury Berkey he has Mikki do it, here he has Ben bring up Garrett and of course Veronica has brought up issues. These podcasts are all edited and I’m sure he has edited plenty out he didn’t want to share.
Last edited by JeffDime; 03-20-2023 at 12:35 PM.
Vertucci was “pressed”. LOL. I would imagine between the pronoun stuff & talking openly about the Garrett stuff, Feldman must be so frustrated by his partner right now. Heck, Nick even broaches where Nik Airball’s money comes from. That is the third rail as Airball is by far the main facilitator of funds in the big games at Hustler. That’s just not something you want to discuss as the co-owner of the stream.
To add to all that he now clarifies “Ryan” made the business decision. So he’s taking the heat off himself and really putting it on Feldman. Ah ya.
https://twitter.com/NickVertucciNV/status/1637917269652287488
Last edited by JeffDime; 03-20-2023 at 01:02 PM.
https://twitter.com/NickVertucciNV/status/1637924205454049280
I believe this to be correct. Nick is not up on his pronouns.
My current read-
When Feldman first announced this million dollar buy-in cash game, Garrett quickly tweeted that he would be interested if a seat was open. I, as many probably thought at the time, figured that there was discussions privately between Feldman/Vertuccii/ &/or Adelstein prior to this tweet. That this million dollar buy-in game would be the perfect time for Garrett to come back to the stream. The game itself would over power the news that he was coming back. Therefore, diffusing at least some of the controversy with regards to the 135K or any other unresolved issues
I was wrong. It seems as if Garrett has not talked to Nick or Ryan in a long time. That the relationship is in shambles. Furthermore, Garrett’s tweet was truly a “feeler” tweet to see if he would be welcomed into this game. Nick mentions in the podcast that players are more comfortable buying in deeper without Garrett at the table.
So Ryan has obviously been trying to get a group of players willing to buy-in for a million dollars to build this game. Who knows where he stands with Eric Persson. It seems that probably having Garrett in that game is a non starter for a lot of these guys. Therefore, Garrett’s feeler tweet kind of forced Feldman to make a decision as to Garrett being welcomed back or not.
Prior to the tweet, Garrett was voluntarily taking a leave. Hustler had originally made it clear that Garrett was welcomed back (Not Robbi btw). So what changed? This Million Dollar buy-in game and getting guys to play in it imho. In constructing a game of that size nowadays the players (whales) have all the leverage. If they don’t want Garrett in it, then he won’t be there.
I think it’s much more of the changing of the game/power dynamics in the high stakes game that is keeping Garret away, rather than how he handled the whole J4 situation. Too much time has passed and the dynamics have changed. If the whales were fine having him play, I believe HCL would have him back.
I didn’t see this article until now. So this whole thing was very orchestrated as Nick had already given a statement to Poker.org before the podcast was uploaded. I was pretty close but it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to put these pretty overtly telegraphed dots together.
https://www.poker.org/hustler-casino...-invited-back/
The streams are better without Garrett. He rarely loses and he rarely makes a mistake.Originally Posted by JeffDime
Maybe everyone already knows about this site. If not, they have a database of lifetime HCL wins/loses by player.
https://www.trackingpoker.com/ This for HCL only and is current thru 3/7/23.
Garrett is probably done on the streams. He was invited on the streams to attract viewers. HCL doesn't need him for that and the players have reasonably decided they don't want him back.
Garrett would spike viewers on another stream for a few days just like Robbi has done. Not many people will hang around to watch Garrett play for $20K stacks.
Garrett agrees with JeffDime.
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1637993676554252289
I agree that HCL has seemingly evolved beyond Garrett. As JeffDime said, it would be awkward for him to return without giving back the $135k, so they're just not having him back because he's not that important anymore.
I think the "business decision" was the fact that Ryan likely judged Garrett's return to be more of a net negative than positive for HCL. The recs probably don't want him, HCL doesn't want attention on the $135k again, and Garrett has never wavered in his stance that there was cheating. The last thing HCL wants is for someone to bring it up, and Garrett still saying he was cheated.
BTW, I think Persson is staying away indefinitely. Looks like the Batman stuff (especially the removal of his chat) really soured him on HCL.
"Keep using my name for clicks," what a bitch.
Yeah, Garrett, you called out a woman for cheating during a livestream with exactly zero evidence, so some folks (including me) 'Used your name,' for some clicks. If you read this, feel free to send me a PM and I'll send you 10% of what I made on the article. If Robbi gets ahold of me, I'll send her 20%.
I really don't see why Robbi shouldn't be on HCL and I think it's strange that she's not. She got accused of cheating during a livestream without evidence; if we assume that she did not cheat, then it has to be said that she handled those accusations quite gracefully, and then she had some chips stolen from her stack. In what world should Robbi not be invited back? Maybe she was, and declined, idk.
Even if Robbi reappearing would foreclose Garrett from ever coming on again, well, fuck Garrett; he's a cunt.
Possible/Probable Reasons this was done publicly. (Most likely a mixture)
1. “Clicks’ - meaning exposure for Nicks’s podcast, HCL itself, the Million Dollar Cash Game coming in may, etc. It’s a big story. All press is good press. Clicks just really means publicity.
2. Retaliation - Nick handled the stress of this whole episode poorly. Not to mention the expense of the investigation which we knew would likely conclude as it did. It also brought out the whole Real Estate scamming thing. There was a large conspiracy theory that Nick was cheating & another that DGAF was cheating. Stuff regarding Ryan and Luda Chris from years ago was unearthed. This all stemmed from what Garrett did. No shortage of reasons for this to be retaliatory. Let’s be honest, it for sure was.
3. The Whales - As Feldman tries to put this Million Dollar Buy-in game together and is constantly asked “Will Garrett play?”….well now the whales don’t have to wonder if Ryan is bullshitting them when he says Garrett won’t be there. This announcement,I believe, helps Ryan put that game and probably other games together. No one can question Garrett’s status now.
@Mission- I’ll expound later about the reasons I think Robbi is not welcome. But those 135 G Birds have a shit ton to do with it. Shit so often boils down to $$$.
Last edited by JeffDime; 03-21-2023 at 09:55 AM.
At :25 seconds “In the interest of not having to file our prepared action…”
Look, I think if the money isn’t returned there will be a lawsuit. I’m not a lawyer and maybe the ones who frequent this site can correct me…but certainly Hustler Casino Live, the Hustler itself & even Feldman/Vertucci may be included by helping create an environment in which Robbi felt coerced to return the money. I do know that businesses with bigger pockets & insurance limits are almost always included in lawsuits if they can be.
It will be interesting since California Courts cannot be used to resolve gaming disputes. The lawsuit will have to be for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress or some or several other underlying causes of action in order for it to survive demurrer and not get dismissed.....Just Sayin.
One more thing,
Settlement communications are always deemed private, so the alleged text sent to him can never be used later in any contemplated litigation. I am also going to go out on a limb here and say that Garrett already consulted with an attorney and was advised that....
1. Do not respond
2. Can't sue to recover gaming related debts.
Great info man. Seems Garrett is in an even stronger position than many would think. Getting that 135K right in the moment really did put him in the catbird’s seat. Seems like a rough road ahead for Robbi to get that money back. Garrett being swayed by public opinion seems like a better shot than the courts. So chances look even slimmer than I thought.
I tend to believe that reading her "text" publicly is more a move to pressure Garrett into something as opposed to actually noticing him about pending litigation. Just seems so very cringy to me.
On a scale of 1 to 10, in terms of cringeworthy, how would you rate that compared to cornering a woman and coercing her into giving you money based on allegations that you had no hard evidence to support?
I wasn't there and neither were you, so I can't speculate on what was really said and what wasn't said. I know certain stories "changed" about what happened and what didn't happen. Having said that, and to appease your curiosity, I would give her interview a 7.5 and the alleged hallway incident a solid 6 on the cringy scale.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Reply With Quote