Continuing the intense rivalry between Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade Lew in part five.

In this week's edition, we dive back into the dramatic poker hand saga surrounding Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade Lew, brought to you by guest contributor Rigondeaux. For those who missed earlier segments, you can find links to the first four parts here:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

If this subject doesn’t pique your interest, feel free to scroll down to the end for a fun puzzle section. I will revisit the puzzle from last week and unveil a new challenge for this week.

Part III Exculpatory Evidence

While proving something didn’t occur is often challenging or even impossible, we are getting quite close to that point in this instance.

Several events may not outright demonstrate innocence, but they contribute to the perception of it for an impartial observer. For one, Robbi successfully completed a polygraph test. Although polygraphs have their flaws and aren’t typically accepted in a court environment, they are utilized by various government organizations, including the FBI and CIA. Detractors of Robbi argue that her representatives set up the polygraph for her. To that, I would assert, 'naturally they did.' That’s part of their job. They also mention that the facility where the test was conducted looked rather rundown. Personally, I don’t find this to be particularly surprising or significant—it may seem that way to you, though.

One characteristic common among conspiracy theorists is Machiavellianism. In psychological terms, this suggests a belief that most individuals are duplicitous and untrustworthy, leading them to perceive corruption and deceit as more widespread than they actually are. People who hold this view might assume that polygraph examiners are similarly corrupt and would often yield false reports if bribed.

However, in practice, there isn’t much reason to assume that this particular examiner is deceptive. If they regularly provided dishonest results, they would likely end up with a tarnished reputation and adverse online ratings. Organizations like insurance companies that rely on their services would quickly notice any discrepancies in their findings and could choose to sever ties. It’s conceivable that the examiner is just an honest individual. Such people exist and may take genuine pride in performing their duties effectively and providing precise results.

Furthermore, we encounter a classic conspiracy issue again. Did Robbi's PR agency start contacting polygraph administrators to bribe them for falsified results? Consider the scenario where one of these administrators was not corrupt and opted to go public with the bribery attempt or alerted others about the tactics employed by the agency. The involvement of a PR firm with a long-standing reputation makes it less likely that they would resort to such crude corruption compared to an individual.

Now, what if the PR agency consistently worked with this specific polygraph provider to secure desired outcomes? Eventually, someone would likely notice this pattern, resulting in a loss of credibility for both parties, potentially driving them out of business.

Another hypothesis is that Robbi might have approached various examiners until she finally managed to pass a test. This theory seems implausible given the financial, emotional, and temporal costs involved, and there is no assurance it would yield positive results. It’s possible to take multiple tests and never pass any. Additionally, polygraph administrators might not appreciate their profession being undermined this way and could expose the charade.

According to Occam's Razor, if someone successfully passes a polygraph, the most straightforward explanation is that they actually took and passed the examination. While these tests have their inaccuracies, this does not definitively prove innocence; it merely increases its likelihood.

In a similar vein, there’s another fallible assessment that garnered far less attention but caught my eye. The Behavior Panel is a well-known YouTube channel run by four professionals specializing in body language analysis and interrogation techniques. Similar to the polygraph situation, this can be described as 'pseudoscience.' In both instances, I tend to view them as pseudoscience only if the practitioners claim to compare themselves to rigorous scientific standards. I believe that both approaches can be reasonably effective; after all, poker players, perhaps more than anyone else, understand that 'tells' exist and that body language conveys significant information.

The Behavior Panel has faced criticism for examining cases where the verdict is already established. For instance, they may analyze the interrogation of a murder suspect who has already faced trial and conviction. What struck me in this particular case was the undeniable truth that they were unaware of the facts surrounding the poker game. From their standpoint, it was entirely feasible that cheating could be exposed after the production of their video. Despite this, all four members firmly asserted their belief that Robbi was being truthful. It’s difficult to judge how much reliability this holds, but the fact remains that four professionals are publicly risking their credibility. If they turn out to be wrong, they'll appear foolishly incompetent. Therefore, their confidence in their assessment must be substantial.

Regarding body language, we should exercise caution, as it’s quite easy to deceive ourselves in these interpretations, especially in the hands of novices. It’s simple to scrutinize video footage and pinpoint a gesture that seems to confirm our biases. With that caveat, I present this video as it represents the strongest case for Robbi’s exculpation put forth by any individual. It originates from a popular poker YouTuber who generally respects Garrett's gameplay.

The whole video is persuasive; however, I'd like to emphasize two aspects. While I’m no expert in body language, and it does align with my current beliefs, I view the moment highlighted by the YouTuber as particularly telling in terms of body language. When the cards are revealed, Robbi's reaction—she appears genuinely shocked and embarrassed, sitting in silence for an extended time—is compelling. It’s challenging to interpret this differently. She transitions from playful banter to a deer caught in the headlights.

Here is a follow up video as well.

As an additional point, Robbi exhibits a negative reaction when the board pairs on the first river card. If her hand included a pair of threes, this would spoil her hand. Thus, her reaction makes complete sense. It would show exceptional cunning on her part to feign such a response as part of a larger scheme.

The video also highlights another point. Several members of Team Garrett insist that it’s impossible Robbi misinterpreted her hand, given that she looked at it for an extended period. This statement brings to mind the reasoning behind the 'I would never return the money' argument, which confuses both humans and machines alike. As pointed out in the video, it's indeed plausible to examine something closely yet fail to notice it. The expression 'spacing out' exists for a reason—it describes common human behavior. This type of moment happens all the time; I've experienced it, and I suspect you have as well, even if you haven't acknowledged it. Robbi may have been contemplating whether her Jack was a club (it indeed was) while mistakenly believing her other card was a three, particularly given her previous hand of J3. It’s entirely possible she was momentarily focused on the cards yet preoccupied with thoughts about Garrett, the spectators watching the stream, or even mundane concerns like whether she had left the refrigerator door open at home. Regardless, I allow the video itself to convey its message.

Author: Rigondeaux

---

August 29, 2024 Puzzle Question

Picture a scenario on one side of a river involving three beings: two small monkeys, one larger monkey, and a boat that can accommodate one or two passengers. Only the people and the larger monkey are capable of rowing the boat. If either side of the river has more monkeys than people, the monkeys will attack. The larger monkey is obedient to the people's commands for rowing. What’s the strategy for ensuring everyone's safe crossing? Options like swimming or other tricks are off the table.

August 29, 2024 Puzzle Answer

1. 1. Large and small monkey row over.
2. 2. Large monkey rows back.
3. 3. The larger and one of the smaller monkeys row across.
4. 4. Large monkey rows back.
5. 5. Two people row over.
6. 6. Person and small monkey row back.
7. 7. Person and big monkey row over.
8. 8. Large and small monkey row back.
9. 9. Two people row over.
10. 10. Large monkey rows back.
11. 11. Large and small monkey row over.
12. 12. Large monkey rows back.
13. 13. Large and small monkey row over.

September 5, 2024 Puzzle Question

Imagine you have 25 horses and a racetrack that can accommodate only five horses at a time. The only information you gain from each race is the order in which the horses finish, ranked from 1 to 5. You don't have a timer, and each horse maintains a constant speed. What is the minimum number of races necessary to determine the top three fastest horses in the correct order, and how should you approach the task?