Look at Hustler already 14X the creator game on WPT. To be fair the creator game is fucking brutal. No whale in the game. It’s a rough watch. But I would say they are on their way to turning the page already.
Look at Hustler already 14X the creator game on WPT. To be fair the creator game is fucking brutal. No whale in the game. It’s a rough watch. But I would say they are on their way to turning the page already.
Obviously what we all expected. Now on to a major issue…
If this was truly an impartial investigation, there is no doubt in my mind, the Investigators would have recommended that Nick Vertucci NOT play in the HCL games.
Any investigator, even one with minimal knowledge and experience would have STRONGLY recommended that Nick NOT play in the live games.
Nick needs to be questioned on this. If this was discussed in any way shape or form with the investigators and what was said?
Obviously Investigators do not have “Malpractice Insurance” since there is no civil remedy for a malpractice claim against an Investigator since there is no “Professional negligence” as an Investigator.
Now, I don’t think for a second that the Investigator(s) were incompetent, unskilled, or made a mistake. These investigators knew the correct decision would be to HIGHLY Recommend that Vertucci does not play on stream.
Did they forget to include it? Nope.
One of 2 things happened:
1. Nick made it clear either directly or indirectly that he is paying 6 figures for this investigation and he wants to continue to play on stream since he earns massive EV from it.
2. They did not want to upset there client, so they omitted it.
Nick needs to answer for this.
The investigators need to explain why this was omitted.
I knew 2 months ago when Nick said everyone would take a polygraph test, including himself that this would NOT happen. I knew this due to Calif and Federal law. It’s simple, you can’t require an employee to take a polygraph (except in certain fields of employment). Now, Nick and Ryan as the owners of HCL should have volunteered to take one.
The Investigators don’t know the honesty and integrity of Nick or Ryan. Ryan could easily be sending Nick the info via an earpiece. Massive vulnerability, but since either Nick made it clear to not recommend this or the Investigator didn’t want to upset their client, this MASSIVE vulnerability will still happen.
The fact that their legal team didn’t advise Nick and Ryan to take a polygraph is on another level of incompetence.
Speak up Nick.
Last edited by PositiveVariance; 12-14-2022 at 07:48 PM.
@PV some great points. Just one thing to add. Nick says that he can’t lend money to players as a promoter of the game because they can’t have financial interest in who wins and loses. So they are so thankful that Nik Airball takes on most of the lending to facilitate the game. Can’t have financial interest? LOL. Dude is playing in the game and almost up a milly. This is just a convenient excuse to have it both ways. Shit is just all getting spun and it’s pretty fucking annoying. You are absolutely right. Not addressing a promoter/owner in the game is a glaring omission in the report. Although, of course they would of rationalized that what he’s doing is fine.
Overall the outcome to the investigation was what everyone pretty much expected.
No livestreams from Joey Ingram, Doug Polk, Mr. Berkey?
Oh well
Joey is playing in WPT at the Wynn. Pretty much everyone is there. Some even got a seat for free lol. Doug came out hard that he thought there was cheating at first, but it seemed like some kind of agreement was made when he went and played on HCL. Ever since then he has been pretty much been totally quiet on this thing.Originally Posted by PositiveVariance
But the major thing is it’s just a big dud. Just like Stones. Druff could of probably written a better report himself, without ever seeing anything. Drama now is really what happens with Garrett, Robbi & the money. Garrett has still not publicly budged an inch with regards to the dough.
Yes, I agree JD, the report was fairly weak.
Like this:
“Among the key findings, they cybersecurity experts concluded 1) The Deckmate shuffling machine is secure and CAN NOT be compromised.”
What??
It can’t be compromised? Of course it can be. Shortly before this happened one was compromised, the info was sent to folks in the parking lot and then relayed to the gambler back at the table.
I don’t see how they can say “CAN NOT be compromised”. Better wording would be “unlikely to be compromised.”
Was the compromised shuffler a deckmate1 or deckmate2? The deckmate2 stores the information of the cards that come out of the shuffler. This is mainly to make sure no one is cheating in the pit games. For example, if you are dealt the AKQ suited in 3card poker...the pit boss can confirm that it was really dealt to you and that you didn't swap cards with your neighbor. That is possible with a deckmate2 but not deckmate1.
The one that was compromised recently, there was a small camera that recorded the order of the cards. That info was sent to a vehicle outside where they played it back into slow motion to determine the order of the cards.Was the compromised shuffler a deckmate1 or deckmate2? The deckmate2 stores the information of the cards that come out of the shuffler. This is mainly to make sure no one is cheating in the pit games. For example, if you are dealt the AKQ suited in 3card poker...the pit boss can confirm that it was really dealt to you and that you didn't swap cards with your neighbor. That is possible with a deckmate2 but not deckmate1.
…But According to the investigators it “Can Not be compromised” lol
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...asino-loophole
If you click the link within the article about what the hustlers did, it takes you to an article from 2002. So I believe the scam took place 20 years ago and the article you posted is just a piece about the mathematician.The one that was compromised recently, there was a small camera that recorded the order of the cards. That info was sent to a vehicle outside where they played it back into slow motion to determine the order of the cards.
…But According to the investigators it “Can Not be compromised” lol
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...asino-loophole
First off, I want to say that I'm not at all disappointed in the HCL investigation.
Why?
Because you can't be disappointed when your expectations are rock bottom.
I knew that there was zero chance that this investigation would uncover anything which would harm HCL. It was inevitable that the result would be, "No cheating was found, their setup was solid, but their security wasn't perfect. Here's what they can do to improve", followed by HCL pledging that indeed they will follow these recommendations.
There was no way that the investigation could clear HCL as perfect, because it's already publicly known that a thief with a criminal history had access to the holecards, and he was caught stealing $15k. So any conclusion claiming that things were perfect would be an obvious shill job. However, a mostly-positive investigation, with only a few recommendations and no gotchas, would be the best they could put out, and of course that's what they got.
I stated right from the start that an investigation like is worthless unless it's fully conducted and controlled by neutral and unbiased third parties. There is no such thing as investigating yourself, even when you hire reputable firms to look into the matter. Ultimately, you are the director of the investigation, you are paying the bills, and you are disseminating the results. That is not neutral or trustworthy. It would be like putting my mother in charge of an investigation as to whether or not I cheat at poker.
I'll get into more specifics in my next posts...
I'm not going to go through all of the technical analysis done by the company they hired (Bulletproof), as it's boring and I agree with most of what they wrote, anyway.
However, let's take a look at their conclusions, and I'll give you my commentary.
1) The Deckmate shuffling machine is secure and cannot be compromised - AGREE - this is the Deckmate 1 model which cannot read cards
2) It’s extremely unlikely that any card-reading device could have been stored in a water bottle or other object on the table - PROBABLY TRUE
3) RFID technology used by “Hustler Casino Live” is safe. Any device that intercepted a signal would receive a serial number, not the actual card - PROBABLY TRUE
4) Radio communication to the on-floor camera operator is not an issue - PROBABLY TRUE
5) The PokerGFX system was free and clear of malware, installed programs or systems that could intercept hands - PROBABLY TRUE
I agree with Bulletproof that if cheating occurred, it probably was NOT a sophisticated technical-based attack. HOWEVER...
And therein lies the problem. Cheating was possible because they hired at least one shit person with access to the booth, who was able to see holecards. Also, recall that Bryan Sagbigsal was said to have moved a file cabinet, which might have given him a better view of the screen with holecards. At the very least, Mr. Sagbigsal, who was admittedly financially desperate and willing to steal, would have cheated if he could have found a partner.While no direct evidence of cheating was found, Bulletproof found that cheating with the Sept. 29 setup was possible. Most methods of cheating the system can be avoided by tightening security in the broadcast booth, which HSPP has done.
With the production booth secured, then all the other methods, such as electronic signaling, become less relevant. This is securing at the most important level first, which is the source; afterwards, additional security can be applied all the way down to the player level.
Bulletproof attempted to test a remote controlled TENS unit (a device which vibrates on the wearer's body), which was advertised up to 9 meters distance. In their tests, they found it actually reached 10 meters, but would only go about 5-7 meters in an environment similar to Hustler Casino Live. However, it's important to realize that 7 meters is 23 feet, and that would give the signaler a lot of room. It is not clear if the control booth if more than 23 feet from the players, but even if so, due to poor controls as to people entering and leaving, Bryan or another cheater could have easily walked out of the room if they wanted to signal someone during a big hand. Remember, big pot NL hands play slowly, so this gives the control room cheater ample opportunity to step out every so often, especially if there is/was no camera on the room itself, which I don't think there was.
Also, it didn't have to be a TENS unit. It could have been any device which could receive a signal, and there are a lot of scenarios where such a device could be bought or constructed to do the job.
And that's where this entire thing basically becomes an exercise in futility. Let's look at the blunt fact here:
- HCL did not do background checks (or even Google checks) on its employees with access to sensitive information
- One of those employees, Bryan Sagbigsal, had a criminal history, and was caught stealing $15,000 on September 29
- Mr. Sagbigsal had access to the hole cards
- Mr. Sagbigsal simply needed to find a willing accomplice at the table to cheat with him, and find a way to signal the person during big hands
That's it.
At this point, everything else high tech becomes mostly moot. If I buy the best security system in the world for my home, and hire an armed guard to sit outside 24/7, but bring a prostitute to the house and leave my valuables sitting out in the open while I sleep, all of the security measures would be rendered useless. The hooker could simply help herself to my stuff, then stroll out of the house while I slept.
Same thing here. Bryan had access to the hole cards. Bryan had the willingness to steal money, and actually did it -- even on a night when he knew scrutiny would be high. Clearly Bryan WOULD cheat -- and the only remaining two questions come from whether or not he found a cheating partner, and how he was communicating with said partner. Neither of these aspects (finding a shady person in poker willing to cheat for 6-7 figures gain, and finding a signaling device with semi-long range) would be particularly difficult to accomplish, especially given over a year's time during which Sagbigsal was employed.
No company can determine whether Bryan Sagbigsal did this, so the investigation was mostly an attempt to reassure the public, promise to do better, and move on.
As PositiveVariance pointed out, the investigation did not mention Nick's playing in the game, which is a whole additional level of both bad optics and conflict of interest. I also find it baffling that this was not investigated at all, and not even in the improvement recommendations.
Similarly, SlowRoll pointed out the "conclusion" paragraph, which looked like a printed advertisement for Hustler Casino Live. "In consultation with its experts and legal counsel, [Hustler Casino Live] has made numerous improvements that will increase the safety and security of its stream and ensure that 'Hustler Casino Live' can continue to provide safe, secure and entertaining poker free of charge for the world to enjoy."
What?! These investigators were not hired to determine whether or not the stream is "entertaining" or "free of charge for the world to enjoy". They were supposed produce a factual, pull-no-punches report on the security of the show and the likelihood of cheating there. That last paragraph, especially the final sentence, makes it appear that indeed, these "investigators" always had an eye to help their customer (HCL) end up smelling like roses. And that's not good at all.
One of the big problems is that Bulletproof GLI is NOT an investigations firm. It is an IT Services and Cybersecurity firm. They are designed to make the customer happy. In this case, the customer was HCL. It's not that I feel they lied, but obviously they were careful not to make anyone look too bad (such as the omission of the concern about Nick playing on stream).
Here are two documents they linked, which you might find interesting.
Here's the arrest warrant for Bryan Sagbigsal: https://www.hustlercasinolive.com/wp...-Complaint.pdf
Here's the waiver they now make people sign, promising that nobody has a piece of one another: https://www.hustlercasinolive.com/wp...yer-Waiver.pdf
Interestingly, in the arrest warrant, it notes that Sagbigsal was convicted in June 2017 of "PC 211", which is felony robbery. PC 211 is defined as "taking personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear."
Keep in mind he was NOT convicted of burglary, which involves taking property when the victim is not aware it's happening (such as what occurred at Hustler). His 2017 conviction was actual robbery. Guy seems like a real piece of shit, and 100% would have cheated if he found a partner to do so.
This isn't getting enough attention. The chance that cheating took place at HCL (whether during the Robbi hand or some other time) is MUCH higher now that we know someone like Sagbigsal had access to hole cards for over a year.
Also read, the report carefully. You'll see that Sagbigsal is charged with a SECOND COUNT of stealing from Hustler Casino itself on the same day -- apparently $5,000 cash! What's this about? And why didn't they immediately press charges upon finding this out, rather than waiting for Robbi to do it?
Here's one more odd thing. The report has very little regarding the security camera reviews.
"Hustler Casino management also assisted in the investigation, reviewing surveillance video and sharing its findings with the investigative team."
"The Hustler Casino surveillance team reviewed video from the day of Sept. 29 and found no events of interest in or around the production room. Surveillance video showed no suspicious interactions among the players and/or employees away from the table."
"...a review of video of hands played on the show and surveillance video inside the casino and parking lot"
That's it. The above is far too general for my taste, especially given that any cheating likely would have been via signaling, and not any kind of high-tech hacking or system breaches. Yet the report spends most of the time in technical discussion, and not enough on what they saw in the security footage.
For example, I'd love to know if Bryan's movements were anywhere on camera that evening, aside from the chip theft.
Oh, and despite all this, Garrett is willing to come BACK:
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1603141695704424448
Of course he is gonna come back. He is going crazy seeing all the whales losing their money to Nik Airball and Andy. I bet he waits about 6-8 weeks and then comes back.
Robbi says she “had nothing to hide”
Except she clearly lied multiple times about everything from why she made the call with J4 to where she was the night before, which clearly exacerbated the cloud of suspicion around her and blew this story up x 10.
But let’s cut to the chase here: Robbi holds herself out as having lots of cash to throw around, whether true or not or even her (or Rips) money. And she’s pretty bad at poker. So of course she’s popular with the poker crowd right now and getting invited to all of the streamed cash games.
There’s a reason why the casino sends a limo to pick you up and take you to their place of business.
Was a similar investigation done at Stones?
Did anyone see it?
Did Gman return the money via check, cash, or chips?
With a dozen roses?
Last edited by turdzilla; 12-15-2022 at 12:04 PM.
Someone is suggesting on Twitter that the $5000 "stolen" from Hustler, as described in the warrant, was actually the same incident as the $15k theft from Robbi's stack.
The theory was that Bryan stole the $15k (three $5k chips), gave two of the chips to someone he owed (or lost them via gambling), and then cashed out $5k. So perhaps the $5k he cashed out is considered "stolen" from Hustler, even though it was Robbi's money.
Is that possible?
Or does it have to be two separate thefts, if charged as two different counts? Can anyone answer this?
Either way, it's clear that Hustler could have pressed charges from the start. I'm very curious as to why they didn't, and why the burden was on Robbi to do it. Indeed, the delay in pressing charges was what allowed Bryan to run off, perhaps out of state. I'm guessing he will not be extradited over this matter, if he's found outside of California.
He gave 2 of those $5000 chips to DGAF (Billy) for a debt he owed.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Reply With Quote