Episode 3: Garrett Adelstein takes on Robbi Jade Lew.

In this edition of our newsletter, Rigondeaux, our guest writer, delves deeper into a notorious poker hand involving Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade. This section continues the investigation into the allegations against Robbi Jade.

If you haven't followed the previous installments, here's a recap. Part 1 and Part 2 .

Part II: Continuing with the Allegations Against Robbi.

What did pros/experts think?

There are assertions that many professional players within the poker community, or those they know, believe Robbi has committed wrongdoing. This presents an opportunity to explore the flaw in reasoning known as the appeal to authority.

A lot of individuals intrigued by this case were keen to hear the insights from prominent pros. This is logical, yet we should remain cautious. Did the professional just glance at the hand and form a quick conclusion? If that’s the case, their off-the-cuff judgment might carry more weight than Ringo Starr’s opinion, but it still wouldn’t hold much substance. A casual player who grasps the nuances of poker and is familiar with various aspects of the situation will likely offer a more informed assessment.

Moreover, poker tactics represent just one facet of this case. An online poker specialist who seldom plays in person and rarely interacts with true amateurs might lack the perspective needed compared to a criminal lawyer who enjoys poker in their leisure time. This highlights the need to respect expertise while acknowledging that being skilled in poker doesn't automatically qualify one as an expert in every poker-related scenario.

We should pay attention to seasoned players with decades of experience who have participated in numerous live games, especially against wealthy amateurs, and who have scrutinized the case closely. Some of these players express suspicions of guilt. Among them, Tom Dwan stands out, being a gifted online player with extensive experience in televised games, high-stakes tables, and a variety of unconventional situations.

On the flip side, many reputable players showed support for Robbi's innocence. Influential high-stakes professionals like Phil Ivey and Andy Stacks, who were part of the game, stated immediately that they harbored no doubts about cheating. Coaches like Phil Galfond, Bart Hanson, and Jonathan Little, all seasoned veterans in high-stakes and live poker, have expressed their views leaning towards innocence. Similarly, Daniel Negreanu, likely the second most recognized figure in poker after Ivey, has strongly defended Robbi, sharing instances of equally bewildering hands he has observed. David Williams, a long-time star known for orchestrating major private games, echoed this sentiment, affirming that such situations can occasionally arise in his experiences.

Two celebrated figures from the underground poker scene provide particularly compelling viewpoints. One is a 2+2 forum poster named Eskaborr .

Though not a television player, this respected high-stakes professional has accumulated decades of experience. He stands out because of his intense engagement with this case. Eskaborr is well-acquainted with the details, having analyzed and posted extensively about it, ultimately concluding that Robbi is likely innocent, although not completely dismissing the possibility of cheating. Another notable 2+2 persona, Limon , recognized for his accomplishments in gambling across various activities, including poker, golf, and sports betting, arrived at an 85% belief in Robbi's innocence versus a 15% belief in guilt.

“On the day of the incident, I shared my belief of 85% no cheating. I maintain that stance. A team dedicated to cheating wouldn’t go through all that trouble for a mere coin flip outcome and then return the money! Hahaha. I’ve dealt with numerous gambling criminals throughout my life, and the scenario presented is nearly impossible. I've also witnessed hundreds of amateurs making poor decisions and giving illogical reasons due to their embarrassment. So why 15%? Because some criminals make foolish choices. Not in this case, in my opinion, but at least 15% of the time.”

There are numerous other professionals, apart from Tom Dwan, who have leaned towards the notion of guilt, with Doug Polk being a prominent example that I will address later. The reason I concentrate on pros advocating innocence is to demonstrate that relying solely on the authority of poker professionals does not yield substantial evidence of guilt.

One reason I support the theory of evolution is that nearly all experts who delve into the subject thoroughly endorse it, and their understanding surpasses my own. While this doesn’t serve as logical proof for evolution (I’m technically committing a fallacy), it’s a compelling rationale for belief. However, there isn’t a similar situation in this case. Numerous professionals, and potentially a majority, who have thoroughly examined the details, do not believe Robbi is guilty.

Additionally, there has been a noticeable change in opinions on 2+2, the premier poker forum. Early on, many participants suspected cheating. Following the publishing of a detailed manifesto, that perception shifted. In current discussions, a significant majority now believes cheating did not take place. While they may still be mistaken, this trend further undermines the argument that knowledgeable experts, who truly understand poker and invest time into learning about the case, are convinced of Robbi's guilt. Garrett’s I’d like to contrast this situation with that of Mike Postle. Similar comparisons could be made with other cheating controversies, such as those involving Russ Hamilton or ‘Potripper’ online. In all these instances, the cheats engaged in hands that defied logic, unless they were aware of their opponents' cards. At times, their play demonstrated extreme caution, while at other moments, they acted overly aggressively. The only constant was their flawless performance against their rivals' card distributions, as if they had insider knowledge. Observant viewers remarked that Mike Postle, who played on a different streaming platform, would often look deeply into his lap where he had hidden his cellphone, just before executing an optimal play. While Postle had impressive results in the streamed games, his performance outside of those sessions was merely average. Those who played alongside him off the streams noted the disappearance of such outlandish plays.

There Is No Good Theory of The Crime:

The main argument against Robbi is her unusual play on a single hand, which was marginally profitable, yet she still won.

Some choices she made during that hand were slightly advantageous, while others clearly weren't. No additional truly suspicious hands were flagged across three different games where thousands of hands were dealt. Take, for instance, the hand played between Robbi and RIP where both ended up with AQ and appeared to ‘soft play’ each other. Though this is technically against the rules, it is a common practice among amateurs and has occurred countless times in this show without any issues, not to mention in other games happening concurrently. Yet, no other hands were played in a notably irregular manner that would result in Robbi or RIP gaining significant edge.

As noted earlier, when all the chips went into the pot during the J4 hand, Garrett found himself as a slight favorite. Unless Robbi had foreknowledge of the river card, it was quite plausible for her to lose the entire stack. The more fringe members of Team Garrett are the only ones who think she had knowledge of Garrett’s cards as well as the river card. It’s particularly curious since Robbi requested to see the river card twice. Even if there was some kind of cheating taking place, it’s improbable that Robbi would possess information about both the river and the second card for the alternative river. A cheating team with such comprehensive understanding would control the game completely, being aware of which hands would emerge victorious as soon as they were dealt.

Sticking to the hand as executed, one could support or challenge Robbi’s decision to call Garrett’s preflop raise. Knowing what cards an opponent holds would provide an edge with any two cards. In contrast, picking J4 offsuit feels peculiar. Other hands would play out smoother, and a less appealing hand could attract unwanted scrutiny, while a cheat would likely prefer to avoid the spotlight.

Garrett flopped an open-ended straight flush draw and made a bet. If Robbi were aware of his cards, it would be astute to fold. Although she had some backdoor potential, she could develop either a flush or a straight given the right conditions with the turn and river cards. However, if she hit top pair, Garrett would potentially complete a straight, creating an uncomfortable scenario. If she pursued a flush draw, Garrett could end up with a solid flush.

Realistically, Robbi likely did not know what Garrett held, but recognized that her hand had some potential against the broad range of holdings Garrett could have. Given Garrett's extremely aggressive playing style, especially against amateurs, she may have seen this as an opportunity to make a move. If Garrett held 4d5d or As2s, after calling him on the flop, Robbi might have an opportunity to win the pot on the turn, and her hand could improve.

This is contingent on the premise that she was unaware of Garrett’s cards. If she were aware, she would know he was working with a significant draw that he would never relinquish, and most of the cards that would enhance her hand would bolster his.

Thus, her play on the flop is puzzling if she had knowledge of his cards but seems more rational if she did not.

At this stage, as Garrett bets on the turn, Robbi opts for a minimal raise. Previously, she had J3; this time she has J4, and the turn revealed a 3. Many who believe in Robbi's innocence theorize that she mishandled her cards and mistakenly thought she was still holding J3. Others suggest she simply made an outlandish call with jack high. Both scenarios are plausible, but the misreading seems more convincing.

This is a tactic often employed by amateur players, and in this particular circumstance, it could be reasonable for any participant. If Robbi assumes she has a pair of 3s (which she believes, in my opinion), it's plausible she might hold the superior hand against Garrett’s frequent bluffs. Nevertheless, a pair of 3s is still vulnerable. With a possible hand of 5d4d, Garrett could have several outs! A standard tactical response would be to make a minimal raise to limit Garrett's opportunities.

Alternatively, Robbi may have been fully aware she had J4, recognizing Garrett's tendency to bluff and used a minimum raise to compel many of those bluffs to fold, thus avoiding the danger of being put in a difficult position on the river with a significant bet.

The third part of the poker showdown between Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade Lew.

Explore the top online casinos available in your region.

Tool for calculating potential lottery jackpot ticket sales.

Participate in slot tournaments that feature substantial prize pools.

In this edition of the newsletter, guest contributor Rigondeaux continues to delve into a well-known poker hand that involved Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade. This section further scrutinizes the allegations against Robbi Jade.

If you haven't seen the initial two parts, here's a brief overview.

Here is a video Part II of the ongoing examination of the allegations against Robbi.

Other Hands

There are those who argue that professional players, the poker community, or specific pros they know believe Robbi to be guilty. This offers a prime opportunity to explore the flaw in relying on authority as evidence.

Many people following this case were keen to hear insights from leading pros. While their opinions may carry weight, we should proceed with caution. Did the pro merely observe the play and form a quick opinion? If that’s the case, their quick assessment could be less valuable than what a layperson might share. A casual player who comprehends poker and has thoroughly investigated the details of the situation might provide a more accurate analysis.

Furthermore, poker strategy is only a fragment of the overall situation. An online poker specialist who has little experience with live games, rarely interacts with true amateurs, and lacks social skills might not be as equipped to evaluate this case as a criminal lawyer who enjoys playing poker in their spare time. Thus, we need to balance our respect for expertise with the understanding that proficiency in poker doesn't automatically make someone an expert on every poker-related scenario.

The insights of players who have decades of experience and have played numerous live games, especially with affluent amateurs, should be valued. Some of these players have hinted at Robbi's guilt. Among them, Tom Dwan stands out due to his extensive background in online poker and his participation in high-stakes live games, along with various unprecedented situations.

Nevertheless, many reputable players have expressed belief in Robbi's innocence. Phil Ivey and Andy Stacks, both seasoned high-stakes players involved in the game, promptly indicated they had no suspicions of cheating. High-stakes and live veterans like Phil Galfond, Bart Hanson, and Jonathan Little, who have transitioned into coaching, have also leaned toward innocence. Daniel Negreanu, arguably the second most recognized figure in poker after Phil Ivey, has firmly sided with Robbi, referencing several similarly outrageous hands he has encountered. David Williams, a well-known player running large private games, echoed similar sentiments, asserting that such circumstances can occur in his games.

Two highly regarded figures from the underground poker community impact my perspective significantly. One is a prominent contributor on 2+2 named

Although not a television player, he is a distinguished high-stakes professional with decades of experience. His opinion holds weight here as he was notably involved in exploring the case. Eskaborr is well-acquainted with the specifics and has discussed them extensively, arriving at the conclusion that Robbi is likely innocent, though he doesn't dismiss the possibility of cheating. Another similar character on 2+2 named

, renowned for his success in gambling across various domains including golf, poker, sports, and advantage play, estimates an 85% innocence to 15% guilt ratio.

“On the day of the incident, I stated 85% no cheating, and I uphold that view. No cheating team would engage in such elaborate setup for a double run of a coin flip only to return the money! Hahaha. I’ve encountered numerous gambling criminals; this scenario is highly improbable. I've also witnessed hundreds of amateurs out of their depth making foolish plays and even sillier explanations due to embarrassment. So why a 15% chance? Because some criminals are simply foolish. Not in this instance, in my opinion, but in at least 15% of such cases.”

There are numerous other pros beyond Tom Dwan who suggested guilt. Notably, Doug Polk, who I will discuss further. My focus on those who lean towards innocence is to demonstrate that appealing to the authority of poker professionals does not provide substantial proof of guilt.

I support evolution largely because almost all experts who delve into the topic accept it, and their reasoning is more sound than my own. While this isn't a logical argument for evolution (I recognize I am committing a fallacy), it's a compelling reason to accept it. Drawn parallels are absent in this situation. A considerable number, and arguably the majority, of poker experts—many of whom have closely analyzed the incident—do not consider Robbi to be guilty.

Interestingly, there has been a notable shift in opinions on 2+2, the largest poker forum. Initially, many users were suspicious of cheating. Following

the manifesto, a majority shared that suspicion. However, recent discussions have revealed a clear majority now believe cheating did not take place. Of course, their views may be incorrect. Yet, this reinforces the notion that experts, or those with a thorough understanding of poker and the specifics of the case, aren't convinced of her guilt.

It's worth contrasting this situation with the Mike Postle case. Similar comparisons can be made to other cheating controversies such as those involving Russ Hamilton or 'Potripper' online. In each of these instances, the cheats engaged in numerous hands that seemed illogical unless they had knowledge of their opponents' cards. At times, their approaches would fluctuate wildly—from being exceedingly conservative to aggressively pursuing pots. The only consistent theme was their ability to play perfectly against their opponents' holdings, as if they were aware of them. Observant viewers noted that Mike Postle, while appearing on a different YouTube show, frequently glanced intensely into his lap where he concealed his cell phone before making the ideal play. Postle was an experienced player, and although he achieved remarkable results during the streamed games, his performance at other times was underwhelming. Players who faced him off-stream reported the absence of such peculiar plays in his tactics.

The allegations against Robbi stem from her playing one hand in a peculiar manner, which was only marginally positive in expected value, yet she still won the hand.

Some of Robbi's choices during this hand had slightly positive expected value, while others did not. No additional suspicious hands were identified over three distinct games comprising thousands of hands played. For example, in a hand where Robbi and RIP both held AQ, they appeared to engage in a 'soft play' strategy against each other. While this tactic is technically unethical, it’s generally accepted behavior among amateurs and has occurred frequently on this show without issue, and in countless others simultaneously.

Spaghetti on The Wall

As previously mentioned, when all the money was in on the J4 hand, Garrett held a minor advantage. Unless Robbi was aware of the river card, she ran the risk of losing the entire pot. The more fringe members of Garrett's supporters are the only ones who indeed speculate that Robbi understood both Garrett's hole cards and what the river would be. This speculation is fueled partly by the fact that Robbi requested to run the river twice. Even if there was some form of cheating occurring, it would be implausible for Robbi to have been aware of both the river card and the additional card for the second run. A cheating team with such extensive insight would have complete control over the game, enabling them to discern winning and losing hands as soon as they were dealt. Doug Polk Considering the hand as played, one could argue both sides concerning Robbi’s decision to call Garrett’s pre-flop raise. If one possessed knowledge of their opponent’s holdings, they would gain an advantage with any two cards. Yet, why choose a J4 offsuit? Other hands would play more fluidly, and a hand as weak as this could attract unnecessary attention to one's actions, potentially inviting scrutiny from observers.

Garrett hit an open-ended straight flush draw and made a bet. Aware of his cards, Robbi likely should have folded at that juncture. Even if she had some backdoor draws, the risk was present that if she hit top pair, Garrett would have a made straight, which could put her in a uncomfortable position. Conversely, if she managed to draw a flush, Garrett could end up with a made flush of his own. videos In reality, it's probable that Robbi did not have knowledge of Garrett’s cards but recognized that her hand possessed some potential against his possible holdings. Known for being hyper-aggressive and a notorious bluffer, particularly against amateurs, she may have viewed this as a favorable opportunity to take a stand. If Garrett held something like 4d5d or As2s, Robbi could have considered this an ideal opportunity to contest the pot on the turn, enhancing her odds.

This presumes that she didn’t know Garrett’s holdings. Should she have been aware, she would realize that Garrett had a formidable draw that he wouldn't willingly fold, and most cards that would help her also had the potential to significantly aid him.

Thus, her actions on the flop seem illogical if she had knowledge of his cards but make a degree of sense if she didn't.

Afterwards, Garrett made a bet on the turn and Robbi opted for a minimum raise. As noted earlier, in the preceding hand, Robbi held J3, and in this instance, she had J4. The turn card was a 3. Observers who believe in Robbi's innocence speculate that she possibly confused her hand and thought she had J3 once more. Others suggest she just made an audacious call with jack high. Both interpretations are valid possibilities, but the misreading appears to make sense.

This tactic is popular among amateur players, and it could be reasonable for any player in this scenario. If Robbi genuinely believed she held a pair of 3s (which she seemingly misjudged), she might actually have the stronger hand compared to Garrett's various bluffs. On the flip side, a pair of 3s would also be vulnerable, as Garrett could possess 5d4d and still have plenty of outs available. Making a minimum raise is a logical choice to deny Garrett his potential winnings. Alternatively, Robbi might have been aware of her J4, but also recognized Garrett’s propensity to bluff, justifying her min-raise to coax many of those bluffs to fold rather than risking putting herself in a damaging spot on the river with another hefty bet.

The ongoing match between Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade Lew reaches its third installment.

Explore the top online casinos available in your region.

Calculator for estimating lottery jackpot ticket sales.

Exciting slot tournaments offering enormous prize pools.

In this edition of the newsletter, our guest author Rigondeaux continues to delve into a well-known poker hand involving Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade. This time, we further investigate the allegations directed at Robbi Jade.

For those who haven’t kept up, here are the first two segments.

Part II of the ongoing exploration of the charges against Robbi continues.

Author: Rigondeaux