Alleged Poker-Cheating Scandal Gets Weirder: Employee Stole $15,000 In Chips (nypost.com) 66
An experienced poker player lost to a relative newcomer. But then, "Somehow, the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal diving the poker world just got weirder," reports the New York Post:
An internal investigation conducted by Hustler Casino Live — which streamed the game from Los Angeles — has shown that one of their High Stakes Poker Productions employees stole three $5,000 chips from Lew's stack after the broadcast concluded on September 29. The employee, Bryan Sagbigsal, was terminated from his position after he admitted to taking $15,000 in chips from Lew's stack...
The $15,000 worth of chips taken by Sagbigsal was seen as some as him taking his cut of a cheating scam.
"There is zero evidence that I cheated," Lew posted on Twitter, "simply because I did not. I have been thrust into a bizarre situation where I am being asked to prove my innocence continually, and as of yet, there is not a single thread of direct evidence illustrating my guilt. My accusers, now having exhausted buzzing seats, camera rings, microphone water bottles, and other spy paraphernalia, have now moved on to me having an alleged conspiring relationship with someone I do not know... who, in fact, stole from me."
As a precaution the casino's technology and security protocols are now being audited — but the publicity seems good for business. Hustler Casino Live is now calling the hand "The most insane hero call in poker history," and it's already racked up over half a million views on YouTube.
Here's what I see. (Am I missing something?)
After three of the five "community" cards were dealt face up, Garrett Adelstein had four of the five cards needed for a straight flush — leaving nine clubs in the deck left to draw for a flush, and an additional six that would've at least given him a straight. But with no help from the fourth "community" card, Garrett had just a 53% chance of winning. He bet $10,000, but instead of backing down Robbi raised him by $10,000. Garrett then tried an even larger bet, daring Robbi to go all-in with her $109,000 in chips — or fold. Did she sense that this suddenly-higher bet was a bluff? With nothing but a high-card jack, Robbi refused to fold — and won the hand when the fifth card failed to help either her or Garrett.
The $15,000 worth of chips taken by Sagbigsal was seen as some as him taking his cut of a cheating scam.
"There is zero evidence that I cheated," Lew posted on Twitter, "simply because I did not. I have been thrust into a bizarre situation where I am being asked to prove my innocence continually, and as of yet, there is not a single thread of direct evidence illustrating my guilt. My accusers, now having exhausted buzzing seats, camera rings, microphone water bottles, and other spy paraphernalia, have now moved on to me having an alleged conspiring relationship with someone I do not know... who, in fact, stole from me."
As a precaution the casino's technology and security protocols are now being audited — but the publicity seems good for business. Hustler Casino Live is now calling the hand "The most insane hero call in poker history," and it's already racked up over half a million views on YouTube.
Here's what I see. (Am I missing something?)
After three of the five "community" cards were dealt face up, Garrett Adelstein had four of the five cards needed for a straight flush — leaving nine clubs in the deck left to draw for a flush, and an additional six that would've at least given him a straight. But with no help from the fourth "community" card, Garrett had just a 53% chance of winning. He bet $10,000, but instead of backing down Robbi raised him by $10,000. Garrett then tried an even larger bet, daring Robbi to go all-in with her $109,000 in chips — or fold. Did she sense that this suddenly-higher bet was a bluff? With nothing but a high-card jack, Robbi refused to fold — and won the hand when the fifth card failed to help either her or Garrett.
Weirder Than That (Score:2)
"Somehow, the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal diving the poker world just got weirder," reports the New York Post
The weirdest thing I've heard is that she returned the money. If this post is a follow-up, why isn't this fact in TFS?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because woman getting cornered in hallway isn't a good look.
Is Poker Really as Bad as the Oscars? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Weirder Than That (Score:5, Insightful)
Please explain to us how this "scandal" is any more complex than: Somebody bluffed, somebody called it.
Re:Weirder Than That (Score:4, Insightful)
Please explain to us how this "scandal" is any more complex than: Somebody bluffed, somebody called it.
And there you have it. That is the totality of the story. It happens. It's like the comment about sports in general: On any given day any team can beat any other team.
Do we see upsets in football (both American and European)? Of course. And people lose their minds over it because it doesn't happen that often that a lower level team beats a top-tier team. But it does happen.
The Law of Averages says this outcome, an unranked poker player beating a top tier player, is inevitable. We simply happened to be in a time when it occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She made a decision that was "wrong" from a gameplay perspective, but it turned out to be correct due to the cards in play. So either she made an error or she knew the cards in play. Absent other evidence, it does not seem unreasonable to think that his was an error rather than a cheat. Has her past history showed errors (either errors that lead to losses or errors that lead to wins - obviously if you make mistakes sometimes they are beneficial) in play before ?
Re: (Score:1)
Lew's history is uncertain. Prior to the day of the hand in question, she'd played 3 days on the Hustler stream, not sure for how many hours, but likely around 20-30. She was ahead at the end of each of those days. A bad player doesn't have consistency like this. And a good player would never make a call like this. This is the crux of why this is such a hot topic in the poker world. Nobody would make this call, because it literally doesn't make sense. If that hand was replayed where Garrett had each
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the insights.
On average that is true, but also on average nobody wins the lottery. Is this level of "bad player consistency" likely to rarely turn up with the numbers of players involved, or likely to NEVER turn up?
It does seem like an interesting case. If there was cheating, how might it have been carried out? Anal beads? :-)
Re: (Score:1)
If she was cheating, it's likely that she had a device available to her that either gave a "you're ahead", or "you're behind". On the river this indicates that she'd win the hand by calling, and on all prior streets it would indicate that she was mathematically ahead or whatever the person assisting her wanted to indicate. You joke about anal beads, but something insertable and vibrating is most likely the type of device used. It's not going be discovered on a pat-down or wardrobe malfunction or accident
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that she made a wrong decision. In poker you make errors in calculation all the time. Yes, her past history of play shows miscalcuations but this mistake was more along the lines of forgetting what math is completely.
It would be like in pro basketball game... It's the 4th quarter and it's tie game with only 20 seconds left. A player steals the ball and runs all the way down the court and dunks the ball while ignoring his entire team and the entire stadium screaming to stop. He just scored
Re: (Score:2)
"Somehow, the Robbi Jade Lew-Garrett Adelstein scandal diving the poker world just got weirder," reports the New York Post
The weirdest thing I've heard is that she returned the money. If this post is a follow-up, why isn't this fact in TFS?
It's a relevant fact true.
Now, it sounds like she has a ridiculously rich husband so the money might not have mattered that much to her. At least not as much as the aggressive guy confronting her in a hallway (and I suspect 'chips' are a lot less tangible than cash).
But yeah, as sketchy as the guy is the fact she returned the money does have the tinge of guilt.
The $15k theft also sounds weird, though I think it was more an employee trying to take advantage of the confusion than someone trying to take their
Re:Weirder Than That (Score:4, Insightful)
But yeah, as sketchy as the guy is the fact she returned the money does have the tinge of guilt.
Either that or "fear".
Re: (Score:2)
He's just a bad loser, and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
Why is this news? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you don't hear this often but you don't know what you're talking about. In the case of poker, the house spreads the game and provides the staff and takes a small portion of each hand (known as "the rake") for this service. There's no betting against the house or beating the house.
Relevant to the article - she didn't cheat. The only way she could have cheated is if she had knowledge of the cards to come. If folks want to think someone is smart enough and capable enough to pull off a seemingly impossible cheating scam but NOT smart enough to use said scam in a situation that would net them more than a couple hundred K, it's because they're bad at thinking. She didn't even get her money in good - she had the best 5-card hand in the moment but half the cards in the deck help Adelstein and with 2 cards to come he was actually a statistical favorite by ~5%.
She got lucky and Adelstein is a bad poker player. If I could afford to play in the games he plays in, I would.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the most important thing that's not even in the summary, is that afterwards he bullied her into giving him the money she won. We call it "mugging" where I come from, but it's not mentioned. The comments I read elsewhere were mostly about how she is so "fake" (lips, boobs etc), which are rather irrelevant...
Re: (Score:3)
afterwards he bullied her into giving him the money she won.
It's a bit whinier than that.
He left the game and complained to the producer, who then pulled her out of the ongoing game "to step outside to talk" - that is to face Adelstein who accused her of cheating and threatened her.
I.e. He went and created a situation where the producer already appears to be in his corner - THEN he accused and threatened her.
After clearly coming off as "wanting to murder her", as she pointed out on camera earlier.
E.g. It's like being sold a thing, then five minutes later the store c
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes people get lucky. So what? (Score:3)
Seriously, if there was a longer winning-streak that would raise suspicion, but even an amateur can on occasion win against a master in a game that involves chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
A core premise of crime investigation is that there is no such thing as a coincidence. Whenever something happens that is too amazing to be true, it's probably not.
Re: (Score:3)
too amazing to be true
According to TFS, she had a 47% chance of winning, about the same as a coin flip.
That isn't very amazing.
SHE DIDN'T HAVE 47% CHANCE TO WIN. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Her chances of winning "in general" (i.e. without any knowledge of her opponent's hand) were well under 10%.
So? It's only "amazing" if she goes it consistently, game after game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
too amazing to be true
According to TFS, she had a 47% chance of winning, about the same as a coin flip.
That isn't very amazing.
Some people are amazed at the most obvious stuff....
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the odds when all cards are known. It is about the perceived odds knowing only what you are "supposed to know".
She was "supposed to know" only that she had nothing but a high Jack with a offsuit 4. Her best hand on the last card was a pair of jacks or a pair of fours.
She was not supposed to know that he had a possibility of a flush, straight flush, or whether he already had a pair, or even a jack or higher in his hand already which would beat her hand.
So she bet 100K before the last card wa
Re: (Score:2)
True, but SHE didn't know that she had a 47% chance of winning. We knew it because we knew his hand. If he had even a pair, he odds would have been way less.
Irregardless, though, I think this was an honest win. I watched the video and listened to the conversations. It's clear she knew his tell. She kept saying she had done the same thing to him several times before. If she knew that he was bluffing, then by all means she should have called. But I'm also with another poster here: I don't know why she
Re: (Score:2)
She knew he was probably pulling for a straight with the way he was playing. Moreover, her hubby is stupidly rich, which means another 250k doesn't mean much to her, as it's all someone else's money. So she was betting on a chance in her favor of whether his cards were gunning for the high or low straight. She pulled the trigger on it because at that level of wealth where the money is just another way of keeping score, why the fuck not.
Re:Sometimes people get lucky. So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whenever something happens that is too amazing to be true, it's probably not.
How is this "amazing"?
Somebody bluffed. Somebody called it. Isn't that just "normal" in poker?
Re: (Score:2)
How is this "amazing"?
Somebody bluffed. Somebody called it. Isn't that just "normal" in poker?
Morons want to see deep meaning in everything. Hence they are "amazed" at the most obvious stuff...
Re: (Score:1)
Poker people would say that with a high card as a Jack, and the way that the bluffing player had represented his hand on prior streets, calling the bluff was a very low percentage poker play. No experienced poker player would have called with a Jack high, even if they thought the other player was bluffing. Their hand was so poor, it was likely to not even beat a bluff.
Poker players have seemed to assume two things:
1) This player is experienced enough to know not to make such a low percentage play.
2) The pla
Re:Sometimes people get lucky. So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So much this. She is not a highly regarded pro player, she is supposedly a pretty bad poker player: why are they surprised she made a bad call?
Bad, amateur players have been the bane of the pros at tournaments forever, they complain about it every time they get knocked out of a tournament because some noob does exactly this to them, why all of a sudden are the armchair quarterbacks jumping on this pile of nothing? Could it be because of the fact that she's a woman, and one with a certain style and look?
Re: (Score:2)
So much this. She is not a highly regarded pro player, she is supposedly a pretty bad poker player: why are they surprised she made a bad call?
Bad, amateur players have been the bane of the pros at tournaments forever, they complain about it every time they get knocked out of a tournament because some noob does exactly this to them, why all of a sudden are the armchair quarterbacks jumping on this pile of nothing? Could it be because of the fact that she's a woman, and one with a certain style and look?
This actually makes the most sense to me. Instead of cheating or even misreading a 4 as a 3 (and thinking she had a pair) she instead made a really dumb call and got lucky.
His death stare probably made her feel guilty (I think most people would feel like they must have done something wrong with someone staring at them like that). And then when he confronted her afterwards full of righteous anger with the official in tow she probably just panicked and tried to deescalate by giving him back his chips, which o
Re: (Score:2)
Two more assumptions:
3) This player is good enough that she didn't misread, or mis-remember, her cards.
4) This player is good enough that she would never misread the board.
Doing either of 3) or 4) is pretty embarrassing - most people would not admit it, or make up something idiotic on the spot. Looking at the video, it seems like she was doing that - so 3) and or 4) might also be in play here.
Post Game.. not part of the game. (Score:2)
We didn't need that hand of poker play by play... the story here is that when a player left the table, $15000 worth of chips were stolen. A player is supposed to be able to expect that the dealer and eyes in the sky would notice the unauthorized touching of their chip stack, and that's exactly what happened in the end. Non-famous casino employee identified and fired, player refunded, and there's no need to do a criminal charge because fired employee likely will never work again.
It's gambling in a casino. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Pull up a chair at a high-stakes table in a place called the "Hustler Casino"
2. Get hustled
3. Sigh. Mutter to self, "Well, I don't know what I expected." Tell the valet to bring your car around, and leave poorer but smarter.
Apparently this Garrett fellow still has a lot to learn about poker.
Re: (Score:2)
4. Self-righteously comment on the story even though you have no idea what happened
Her own explanation for why she called made zero sense. She claimed she was PREDICTING TO LOSE (believed her opponent had one winning ace) while throwing all her money in.
It's a game. You know, for fun?
When you have millions, this size of pot is just a toy. She thought she'd chance it and got lucky. Big hairy deal.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not chess. You don't owe anyone an explanation of how you played or why you made the moves you made. She could say that aliens told her what to do, and it would make no difference.
Very amusing watching this clown get taken to the cleaners (and according to my GF he was just as suave and debonair when his ass got booted from Survivor.)
Garrett posts his side of the story with links (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of moron would come up with a brilliant cheating scheme and then use it in a situation like this, where it was obvious they'd be accused of cheating?
A smart cheater would stay off the radar and build up his/her winnings gradually and inconspicuously, not act like a bozo who gets so lucky on an irrational play that "everybody knows" that something is up.
If she cheated, she cheated herself out of a lot of future winnings with this stupid stunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's incredible amount of butthurt after getting called with jack high.
The percentages are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The 53% chance of winning is numerically right, but it's from the wrong perspective for predicting Lew's behavior. From her POV she has Adelstein beat in the cards that're showing to her. We know the actual percentages, but what matters is what she can see and how strong she thinks his hand is from what's showing and how he's acting. And sometimes it comes down to "I know he knows how I play, but he's trying to scare me off instead of tempting me into another raise. So let's not do what he expects me to do.".
As for RFID tags, if the house is using those in the cards then someone should spank them until they quit. Everyone knows all RFID tags can be read from a distance with at least enough precision to tell which cards are in which player's hand. That's just begging for someone to exploit that ability, and no sensible casino's going to go for that.
Re: (Score:2)
The 53% chance of winning is numerically right, but it's from the wrong perspective for predicting Lew's behavior. From her POV she has Adelstein beat in the cards that're showing to her. We know the actual percentages, but what matters is what she can see and how strong she thinks his hand is from what's showing and how he's acting. And sometimes it comes down to "I know he knows how I play, but he's trying to scare me off instead of tempting me into another raise. So let's not do what he expects me to do.".
As for RFID tags, if the house is using those in the cards then someone should spank them until they quit. Everyone knows all RFID tags can be read from a distance with at least enough precision to tell which cards are in which player's hand. That's just begging for someone to exploit that ability, and no sensible casino's going to go for that.
I don't think that's quite the correct read either.
I'm not a poker player but from her perspective there's 3 possibilities:
1) He has a strong hand already.
2) He's chasing the straight (he could have something like Q,J or 8,7)
3) He's bluffing.
The problem with 2&3 is she still needs a better hand than his, and J-high isn't very good. He could miss the straight but if he has a Q or even J he could still end up assembling a better hand than hers. Even with him having the lowest non-straight combo he was sti
Re: (Score:2)
I think the only way where her assuming 2&3 makes sense is where she misread her 4 as a 3 and thought she had a pair.
LOL that would be kind of hilarious too, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think she misread. It's that last bit that matters. She knows he knows she's a careful player and that she won't try to bluff against him with just Jack-high if she thinks there's any chance he's got something stronger than just what's showing. So if he really does have a stronger hand, he should be trying to convince her he doesn't. Raising like he did is the exact opposite of that. So either he's breaking his own pattern of play, or he's bluffing. If she follows her pattern, she'll fold and conser
People cheating at poker? (Score:3)
Who'd ever heard such a thing?
"There is zero evidence that I cheated," (Score:2)
> "There is zero evidence that I cheated," Lew posted on Twitter,
a.k.a. the Bart Simpson defence:
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything."
You're a criminal (Score:2)
By that metric, 99% of their customers are criminals. Authority figures are good at this: "You gave the 'wrong' answer, you're a criminal." In fact, that's the entire point of a polygraph.
Salt & Vinegar (Score:2)