A famous poker player and her coach said she did not use a vibrating ring to cheat at a tournament in Las Vegas and blamed her strange conduct on her’sexist’ opponent.
Last night, Robbi Jade Lew and her trainer Faraz Jaka refuted claims that she utilized the tool to defraud Garrett Adelstein of $269,000.
The 35-year-old, a former employee of a pharmaceutical company, tweeted that fellow player Matt Glantz’s statement that “she believes males are constantly trying to run her over” “nailed it,” she added.
In the meanwhile, Jaka posted a long Twitter thread in which she claimed she did not comprehend her hand and that cheating would have been “extremely out of character” for her.
On Thursday at the Hustler Casino Live game from Las Vegas, Lew shocked the poker community when she went all-in with a Jack high and won the $269,000 pot.
Top no-limit hold ’em player Adelstein, her bewildered adversary, publicly accused her of cheating by utilizing a “secret gadget that merely vibrates to signal you have the greatest hand.”
Robbi Jade Lew responded to professional player Glantz’s sexist interpretation of her audacious all-in move by writing, “Nailed it.”
He had penned: “She believed she had J3.” She believes that guys are always attempting to run her over, and she is at the point of no return.
She was ashamed that she genuinely had J4 and made absurd claims in an effort to hide a careless error. Garrett would have responded, “Nice hand,” if she had turned over J3.
Lew’s coach Jaka shared his thoughts on the game through Twitter. He said that his pupil looked to have misread the situation when she made the move and that cheating would have been “extremely out of character” for her.
According to her contacts with Robbie during the last year of working together, infidelity would be very out of character.
Robbi has just been performing for a year or so. She has difficulties reciting back HHs and confuses terminology, just like any rookie player.
As soon as Lew presented her winning cards, keen-eyed viewers thought they may have discovered a crucial piece of information in the developing controversy.
The pleasant conversation at the table abruptly ceased when the hole cards were exposed, and Adelstein just gazed at Lew for more than a minute. One spectator said, “It’s literally the most distressed face I’ve ever seen Garrett give.”
Lew started to fumble with the rings on her right hand, including a striking circular red ring on her middle finger, as he became clearly uneasy.
She lowered her palm to the surface of the table and turned or slid the ring off, leaving just the huge setting exposed.
Why did you abnormally slam your palm down on the table, tremble, and then remove the crimson ring from your right middle finger and place it somewhere else? Twitter user @MigTheTig posted.
It is 100% a signaling gadget, the fan continued. wore a lot of other jewelry to conceal it and removed a piece when the spotlight was on you
Lew had an offsuit Jack-four in the hole throughout the hand, while Adelstein held the seven and eight of clubs.
Because the flip showed 10 hearts, 10 clubs, and 9 clubs, Adelstein just needed any club, jack, or 6 to complete a flush or straight for a very guaranteed victory.
Lew responded by calling Adelstein’s $2,500 wager at this point, and neither player benefited from the turn’s three hearts.
Adelstein placed a $10,000 wager, which Lew noticed and increased to $20,000. Adelstein then bet the whole amount of $129,000.
Adelstein had a 53 percent probability of winning at this stage with only one card yet to be shown, according to live odds from the broadcast.
Lew stunned the broadcasters by calling the all-in wager after momentarily crossing her arms and toying with her chips.
One commentator screamed, “She calls?!,” and then speculated that the on-screen images depicting Lew’s Jack-four hole cards may not be accurate.
Again assisting neither player was the Ace of Spades on the river card. The pot was won by Lew’s Jack-high.
Lew has indicated that she mistook her low hole card, which was a three, for the turn’s two threes, but she denies cheating.
However, following the hand, Lew made the strange decision to give Adelstein her winnings back, which only served to raise rumors.
Lew alleges that Adelstein threatened her in a “dark corridor” after escorting her out of the casino.
“Garrett cut me off.” As accused, guilty. What a decent man. He backed up and threatened me. Imagine what it’s like OFF camera if he has the guts to give me the death gaze on camera.
Adelstein, 36, of Arizona frequents the Hustler Casino in California, which is open around-the-clock.
The odds were stacked against her, with online betting casino DraftKings estimating that there were over 150 ways for Lew to lose, but only six possibilities for her to win—which she did. The people commentating on the game were in shock.
Adelstein pushed Lew to bet everything on her $130,000 hand, and when her cards showed that she had a “Jack high,” she won the game and took home the whole $269,000 prize.
Adelstein is a Tucson native who has been a full-time poker pro for over ten years. His area of expertise is “live no-limit hold ’em cash games,” where he is renowned for his bold bets.
He rose to fame on the 2013 season of CBS’ Survivor: Cagayan, and he started regularly participating in live poker events in 2017.
Lew, on the other hand, didn’t begin to take poker seriously until the coronavirus outbreak. She had previously had a high position at Bayer, a pharmaceutical business.
Garrett had required a club, a six, or a jack throughout the relevant game, but Lew’s jack won the hand. Adelstein’s expression as he lost his hand told it all as he watched in shock and smoldering wrath.
He said, “I don’t know what’s going on right now.” You seem to want to murder me. Lew remarked, “I thought you had ace high.” Why call with your jack high then? stated Adelstein. The ace high would have defeated a jack high.
Because you lack s**t, I reply. said Lew. Adelstein suddenly rose from the table and walked away. Lew has clarified that she just thought Adelstein’s cards were inferior to hers, which is why she played her hand in an unconventional manner.
She said on Twitter, “Get over it.”
Adelstein subsequently disclosed on social media, however, how Lew afterwards promised to reimburse him for the money he had lost, which he saw as a strong proof of her guilt.
Lew has now been publicly accused of cheating by Adelstein.
He said, “Poker is a highly intricate and complex game,” noting that her hand had “very little equity.”
Then, after examining some of Lew’s earlier tactics, he proposed that someone may “cheat” by utilizing a secret gadget that merely vibrates to signal that they had the better hand.
Someone with the ability to predict who would have the better hand at the showdown by hacking into the card reader is another typical method of cheating.
Lew cheating or using such a gadget has not been shown in any way by Adelstein.
After the game, he warned her: “Robbie, this is probably going to be seen by millions of people,” he said. I believe you are aware of your mistake now.
At that time, according to Adelstein, Lew allegedly made an offer to give back his earnings.
Knowing that this was probably the closest thing to a confession I would ever make, and also realizing how difficult it is to get your money back in these infidelity scandals, I accepted her invitation,’ he wrote.
Since I was obviously duped, I would accept her offer to return my money without hesitation.
A DraftKings blog expressed similar confusion over Lew’s choice.
Even the most inexperienced players just never make that decision based only on the strength of their hand. Forget ranges or ideal game theory play. In poker, you can always bluff, but after your opponent goes all-in for double the amount of the pot, you can no longer bluff.
Nick Vertucci, a co-founder of Hustler Casino Live, said that Lew was a novice player who probably misjudged her hand.
Vertucci said, “There’s no chance that there’s anything that may constitute cheating goes.” We made sure of everything.
According to Hustler Casino, neither player will be welcomed back until the matter has been thoroughly examined.
“We fully comprehend the gravity of the circumstance and the charges.” The casino issued a statement saying, “We take this very seriously.”
“At this time, other than the complaints of the people concerned, we have no evidence either way or any indication of any misconduct.”
Adelstein is the casino’s best player and has made more than 50 appearances on the livestreamed event, taking home more than $1.6 million. Lew, in comparison, has only made two appearances and has won little over $100,000.
Not just poker has been shaken by claims of intricate cheating methods, but other table games as well.
Magnus Carlsen, the current world champion, claimed that American player Hans Niemann had engaged in cheating. The International Chess Federation (FIDE) said that it will set up a three-person panel to investigate these claims.
After losing to the 19-year-old, who is ranked over 200 Elo points behind him, Carlsen, 31, withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup in St. Louis, Missouri, earlier this month. Elo is a ranking system used to determine the relative skill levels of players.
A flurry of remarks and accusations that Niemann had cheated followed the unexpected loss and Carlsen’s resignation from the over-the-board competition, including those from U.S. grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura.
Then, after making only one move versus Niemann in an online game, the Norwegian quit from the Julius Baer Generation Cup.
Niemann was previously expelled from chess.com for online cheating after admitting he had not played honestly in youth-oriented non-competitive games there. He has, however, refuted accusations that he engaged in unfair games.
On Monday, Carlsen stated he thought Niemann had “cheated more recently than he has officially confessed.”
‘The emphasis of the inquiry would be twofold: examining the world champion’s charges of suspected cheating by Niemann and Niemann’s self-statement about internet cheating,’ FIDE said in a statement on Thursday.
During the inquiry, “the panel will guarantee a fair judgment, preserving the interests of all sides.”