Wizard Recommends Cards

The Garrett Adelstein vs. Robbi Jade Lew (part 5)

This week we get back to our series on an infamous poker hand between Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade Lew by guest writer Rigondeaux. As a reminder, here are links to parts 1 to 4:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

If the topic doesn’t interest you, remember to scroll to the end for the puzzle section, where I answer the puzzle from last week and present a new one for this week.

Part III Exculpatory Evidence

While it is hard and often impossible to prove something didn’t happen, we get pretty darn close in this case.

There are several events that do not prove innocence, but to the objective observer, make it more likely. Firstly, Robbi passed a polygraph. Polygraphs are fallible and are usually not admissible in court, but they are used by a number of government agencies like the FBI and CIA. Critics of Robbi point out that her representitives arranged the polygraph. To this I say,” of course they did.” These are the things they are paid for. They also point out that the business conducting the test appeared to be in a shabby shopping center. Again, this doesn’t seem to be unexpected or that big a deal to me. Maybe it does to you.

One of the traits psychologists identify in conspiracy theorists is Machiavellianism. In psychology, this term means that a person believes that most people are cynical and conniving and that corruption and dishonesty are more prevalent than they really are. To someone with this worldview, polygraph investigators are mostly crooked, like all other people, and would routinely produce fraudulent results for bribes.

But in reality, we have no reason to think this investigator is dishonest. If they routinely produced fraudulent results, they could very well develop a bad reputation, with bad online reviews. If people who often use their services: say insurance companies, notice their results are phony, they could go out of business. Perhaps the tester is even an honest person. They do exist. They might take pride in doing their job well and getting accurate results.

We also have the basic conspiracy problem, again. Did Robbi’s PR firm just start calling around to polygraph administrators, offering bribes for fake results? What if one of them wasn’t corrupt and went to the press about the bribe offer, or spread the word about the tactics used by the firm? The fact that a PR firm with a long term reputation to worry about was in charge actually makes it less likely that they would engage in such crude corruption than would an individual.

“What if the PR firm always uses this polygraph administrator to get results it wants?” Well, someone would probably notice that eventually and they would both lose all credibility and perhaps go out of business.

Another theory is that Robbi went around to many examiners until she finally got lucky and passed a test. This seems unlikely as it would be an expensive, stressful and time consuming process and there is no guarantee that it would work. You might pay for and take a dozen tests and never pass one. Also, I suppose polygraph administrators might not appreciate having their work undermined in this way, and could expose it.

Occam says that if someone passed a poly, the simplest explanation is they took the test and passed it. Since these tests are fallible, this does not prove innocence. But it makes it more likely.

In the same bucket, we have another fallible examination that got much less attention, but stood out to me. The Behavior Panel is a popular youtube channel run by 4 men who work as professional body language experts, focusing on interrogation. As with the poly, we are dealing with what some people call “pseudoscience.” In both cases, I tend to think it is only “pseudoscience” if the practitioners liken themselves to hard scientists. I think both methods can be moderately effective and poker players, of all the people in the world, know that “tells' ' are real and that people give away information with body language.

The Behavior Panel has been criticized because they often review cases where the outcome is known. For example, the interrogation of a murder suspect who has already been tried and convicted. I found it striking that, in this case, the truth was unknown to them. The video makes it clear that these men know nothing about poker. From their POV, it was entirely possible that cheating could be exposed sometime after they made the video. Yet all four were emphatic that Robbi was telling the truth. How much weight does this carry? It’s hard to say, but these are four professionals publicly putting their reputations on the line. If they are proven wrong, they will look like incompetent fools. So they must be confident in their findings.

Speaking of body language, we have to be careful because we can easily deceive ourselves in these areas, especially as non-experts. It’s easy to look over footage and find a gesture that “proves'' what you want to believe. With that caveat, I put forward this video as I feel it is the best exculpatory case made by any one person. It comes from a well known poker youtuber who is generally a fan of Garrett’s play.

The whole video is convincing but I would like to highlight two things. While I am not a body language expert, and it does confirm my existing view, I think that the youtuber highlights a moment where body language is compelling. When the cards are flipped over, Robbi really, really looks like she is stunned and embarrassed for a prolonged period of time as she sits in frozen silence. I find it hard to see any other interpretation. She goes from trash talking to deer in headlights.

Here is a follow up video as well.

I’ll toss in a little 1a. Robbi gives a negative reaction when the board pairs on the first river card. If she believed she had a pair of 3s, her hand would be counterfeited. So her reaction would make sense. It would be incredibly savvy of her to fake this reaction as part of some master performance.

The video also touches on a second point. Many on team Garrett say it is impossible that Robbi misread her hand as she takes a long look at it. This reminds me of the “I would never give the money back,” argument which seems to confuse people and robots. As the author of the video observes, it is very possible to stare at something and not see it. Terms like “space out” exist because these things are common occurrences. It is normal human behavior that takes place all the time and the youtuber mentions having done it himself. I’ve done it too. You have too, even if you somehow fail to realize it. Robbi could have been thinking about if her Jack was a club (it was) and just assuming her other card was a 3. Especially as she had J3 the previous hand. She could have been looking at the cards for a brief moment, then thinking about what Garrett had, or about all of the people watching the stream, or that she left the refrigerator open at home. Anyway, I’ll let the video speak for itself.

Author: Rigondeaux

 
 

August 29, 2024 Puzzle Question

On one side of a river are three people, two small monkeys, one large monkey and a boat that can seat one or two living things. Only the people and the large monkey can row the boat. If at either side of the river the monkeys outnumber the people, then the monkeys will attack the people. The large monkey will follow orders from the people to row the boat and with whom. How do you get everyone across safely? Swimming and other such tricks are not allowed.

August 29, 2024 Puzzle Answer

  1. 1. Large and small monkey row over.
  2. 2. Large monkey rows back.
  3. 3. Large and other small monkey row over.
  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

You have 25 horses and a track that can race five horses at a time. The only thing you learn from each race is the winning order, from 1 to 5. You don't have a watch. Each horse always runs at its own constant speed. What is the least number of races required to determine the fastest three horses in order and how should it be done?