"Ryan Feldman and Nick Vertucci have too much to lose to participate in a cheating scandal like this. And if they did cheat, they'd have picked a better player/spot to do the cheating."

TRUE. Both of these guys are way too smart to cheat this way (using a novice who makes a dumb play which grabs attention). They have a great thing going with Hustler Casino Live. It's extremely far-fetched to think they'd recruit a novice player to help them steal from Garrett, and risk everything while doing so. It's almost 100% they're not involved.




"It is impossible to hack the RFID reader or communications back to Hustler's control room."

FALSE. If there's communications between the table and the control room, then it's possible to be hacked or sniffed. I'm not saying it's easy, but for big money like this, it could easily be worth doing for would-be thieves. With that said, you can't just default to believe something was hacked when you see a single unorthodox play, no matter how stupid it seems.




"An investigation will likely get to the bottom of this, but we just have to wait some time."

FALSE. It will be nearly impossible to prove innocence, as there's tons of ways cheating COULD have happened (even as simple as someone seeing Garrett's holecards and signaling her), so you can't rule everything out. That's the problem when you're facing an allegation like this. You can't really prove innocence -- only the absence of proof of guilt. And even if she's guilty, unless they uncover what was done, they will not be able to prove anything. Furthermore, as it appears Hustler will be paying the bills of those investigating (both a law firm and an outside data security firm), they also control which information gets released, and which directions the investigations go. Such an investigation is useless unless it is directed by a neutral, respected community member.




"Robbi is clearly a dumb idiot, so she couldn't have engaged in an elaborate cheating scam."

FALSE. Being bad at poker doesn't mean you're a dumb idiot. There are many very smart people who would suck at poker, even with training, and other not-so-smart people who are natural savants at poker. I have seen that she earned a double degree from a University of California school, and did indeed work in the biotech industry for well over a decade. This is not a dumb woman. She is just trying to plunge herself into an unfamiliar world, and unfortunately she has made a name for herself for all the wrong reasons.




"She has won all 3 times on the stream, including over $100k another session. Like Postle at Stones, she never seems to make the wrong move."

FALSE. I saw some pretty bad calls on the river for decent money, which anyone else could easily fold without the slightest suspicion. One was a call with 55 on a 89TJ board. The other was an overcall with 92 on a A8986 board, when facing a bet/call ahead of her. While these calls could have been "cover" in order to appear she actually can't see cards, they would more indicate someone who simply is always suspicious she's being bluffed, and can't lay down hands.




"Garrett wouldn't put his reputation on the line if he wasn't sure of this. Garrett is a better player than the rest of us, so if he says he was cheated and puts everything on the line to assert that, we have to believe him."

IRRELEVANT. Garrett is human. He was both suspicious of the hand AND angry at her needling him afterwards. Despite his mind-mannered persona and zen-like attitude, Garrett seems quite ego-driven, and seems to see himself as the "star" of these livestream poker shows. I believe the power went to his head, and he felt as if he had the right to pressure Ryan to pull Robbi out of the game, and let him question her. Once she was in the hallway with him, he felt he had the right to demand the money back, being sure he was cheated. Garrett was not looking at this rationally, but rather felt like he was both cheated and laughed at by the swindler. Hopefully with some time to cool down, he will realize his mistakes and return the money.