00:00 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Disclaimer the content presented in this show is intended for entertainment purposes only. All opinions expressed are those of the host and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of any individuals or organizations mentioned. Statements made about public figures or entities are based on publicly available information and are not intended to harm or defame any person or business. This show relies on fair use of social media posts, which are presented in good faith for the purpose of commentary and criticism. Viewers and listeners are advised to form their own opinions. 

00:49
Hey, circle, back here on the Circles Off channel. It's part of the Hammerbed Network and presented by Underdog. This is the show where we cover the latest stories from gambling Twitter. But there's only one story that has dominated the gambling Twitter landscape in the last few days. That is the poker scandal. So we're going to get the inside scoop on that. We're going to retrace all the entire story that we have from this scandal to try and figure out exactly what happened and understand it a little bit better, with some of the parties involved as well. So we'll get things started in just a second here. 

01:21
But to have as little interrupts as possible, let's hear from our presenting sponsor, underdog, before we do all. Right, quick shout out to our friends over at underdog, because if you've been watching the playoffs but you haven't been using them, then you're missing out on one of the best user experiences in the space. We've tried a lot of different apps over the years and underdog just nails it. The interface is clean, fast and simple, but not in a watered-down way. It's intuitive. You log in, you know exactly where to go and you can build entries in seconds without having to dig through five layers of nonsense. It's honestly one of those products where the more you use it, the more you appreciate how well it's built. Whether you're playing casually or taking it seriously, it just works and you actually want to come back and use it again. We've also heard from a bunch of you and even a few sharp bettors who said the same thing. 

02:08
I didn't expect to actually like this. That says a lot. So if you haven't signed up yet, now is the time. Just click the link in the description and use code CIRCLES on signup and that'll get you up to $1,000 in bonus credit as a new customer. Again, that is promo code CIRCLES, right with the link below. Check it out and let us know what you think we're betting. You'll be impressed. We have our Friday crew here with us today. We have myself, jacob Germania hosting, we have Jeff Nadeau in the top right corner, we have Chris Dierkis at Fluff no Lie bottom left and Joey Kanish in the bottom right. So let's get things started here today. I wanted to retrace the steps of how all of this happened. I'm not even familiar exactly with how this poker game even began. Is anybody able to kind of shed light on how this whole situation started? 

02:56 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, so a few months ago I don't want to give exact timeline because I can't remember the exact dates Myself, brett Feinsod, or NBA Green Beans man of the Vig Playmaker, dave, and one of Brett's friends was in a Twitter group chat and we decided to play some poker. We agreed on the site Poker Now, which is a very bare-bones site but it's easy to use. There's some discussion about other sites, but it seemed like Brett and I primarily liked the poker now because it was easy to use. We played there and it's important to note that no one was holding money in escrow here. We believed that there was a culture of trust amongst the five of us. Everyone kind of knew each other. Obviously, brett was vouching for his friend in that regard, or at least it was implied. If Brett wants to quote me I'm wrong on that, please let me know but every session the winners would get the money from the losers, et cetera. That continued for several weeks. Eventually, more and more people got added to the chat and eventually moved over to Telegram. It got bigger and bigger. 

04:08
Eventually, I believe what happened this is where I'm not 100. Someone mentioned it on the adam and earl show and that's why I think adam got involved. That's how I think tommy g got involved and you. At this point we had so many people it was unclear who was running the game. Adam was certainly trying to take control of the game and run it, despite the fact that he was never really playing in the game. He never played any of the high stakes and eventually that basically all culminates to a few nights ago where it starts out as a 50 cent a dollar game with eight or nine people. I wasn't at this game so I can't speak to anything that really happened in great detail, but I did. I do see the 1470 hands from the entire session. They played a 50 cent a dollar for several hours. 

05:01
It appears eventually got heads up heads up between Tommy G and one other player. If I don't recall, I think it was Blitz. Tommy G wants to up the stakes. Tommy G upped the stakes. They agreed to up it to 1530. They continue to play more. Eventually other people start to join. I believe man of the Big was the next to join. They play three-handed for a while. Eventually more people join and then 44 joins. 

05:27
I think this is where the first problem arises. 44 was appeared to be trusted and additionally, as I mentioned before, there's no true game ownership of Popernell. Someone has to approve the chips but no one is really expecting that person to account for all the money it got ousted on Tommy. Tommy was verbally saying he did not want to be the owner of the game but he was going to be the only one up because he's been up for many hours. He's been doing 36, 48 hour vendors. So everyone said he would be up for the latest. So he's the one approving chips. But in my opinion and people are free to disagree he was not responsible for everyone else's buy-in. He was the group as a whole. 44 joins. I don't want to say who said he's good for it, who said he didn't need an escrow. But he didn't escrow anything. He's in for $2,000. 

06:16
Eventually other people joined. Some people were acquired escrows, some people were not. It was mostly people that were not in the Adam Merrill show regularly and who was getting those escrows varied. It was very confusing and very poorly managed. Eventually 44 goes up. No one says a word because he's up and if you're up you don't pay any money if the game were to end. Eventually he starts going down. 

06:43
Bluebeard, who had joined the game at this time is now beginning to start to get worried. He's like who is this 44 guy escrowed with? Can anyone vouch for him? He starts messaging 44 on the side. 44 sends a fake BTC or crypto transaction report saying he sent 6,000. Eventually it's proven to be fake and Bluebird is now telling Tommy G at this point he needs to leave the table. He's clearly playing with money he doesn't have and eventually Tommy G boots him from the game and they continue playing for another couple hundred hands and that's where we're at Now. 44 is owing $9,000 because he got a $2,000 escrow from Sniper and he lost about $7,000 in the game. 

07:30
At this point people start to look into Adam. Adam has tons of little things, behaviors that are very suspect. I can break them all down if we want, but I think they're pretty out there at this point. Then it comes out that Adam sent a text to Bluebeard over two weeks ago I think May 19th to be exact, two weeks ago. From this point, it might have been 10 days from the game. That he said to Bluebeard hey, do you want to cheat here, jacob? If you can pull that tweet up, that would be great. Do you want to cheat here? And then I'll join, and Bluebeard simply responds with no and Adam responds with a thumbs down emoji. 

08:09
People are now like, well, the here references, were you cheating before? Are there other things? It becomes very, very suspect very quickly. So now people are calling. The question is was Adam cheating the game? The difficult thing with that is Adam wasn't playing in the 1530 game, which is really a question. He's playing at $0.50, but he ended up losing $700 there. It's unclear if he cheated there and it's unclear if any cheating went on in the 1530 game. But it is clear that a text, as seen here, was sent and Bluebeard did not make that public. 

08:42 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
And this is the biggest mistake that Bluebeard made did not make that public, and this is the biggest mistake that Bluebeard made. So when did you find out about this screenshot or this DM from Adam? When did you find out Bluebeard received this DM from? 

08:53 - Flup (Host)
Adam, I've been looking through my text messages and everything like that. The date is about. May 26 is when I found out. Man of the Vig found out prior to me. I do not know the exact date I knew about this man of the Vig found out prior to me. I do not know the exact date I knew about this man of the Vig knew about this Bluebird knew about this and we all did not make this public. That was a huge mistake on our part and truly unforgivable. 

09:14 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Nothing else matters. It's that simple. There's nothing else to say here. I lost money on 519. So did a lot of other people you then also. There was other texts where they discussed talking about it a week before. Throw in the fact that you tried to get people to not talk about this publicly. After the fact, nothing else matters. The hand history doesn't matter, nothing matters. Everybody from 519 on should be repaid straight up. The game was colluded or possibly colluded. There's no difference between colluding and cheating. Look the definitions up to the same thing. 

09:51 - Flup (Host)
Agreed. I agree. There's no difference between colluding and cheating. The problem here is there's no proof of colluding and cheating. It doesn't matter. 

10:01 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
It could have happened. 

10:02 - Flup (Host)
Say that again, it could have happened. How do we know that? Right, we can figure that out by talking with professionals that have tons of experience on this and they can rule based on all the circumstantial evidence and the hand histories. 

10:16 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
because I'll give you a great example multiple professionals have already done that and they would agree. Also throw in the fact that man of the vig, blue beard, adam and 44 have left the building. We don't know where they are. Why they left the building. Where are they? Why haven't they commented on this? You have, so we give you credit for it? 

10:33 - Flup (Host)
where are they at? The multiple professionals did not have all the whole cards and information. Additionally, I've also reached out to a member of the cheating department at one of the poker sites. He wants to remain anonymous for this. He reviewed the hands. He said it was around a 10% chance of collusion. I also reached out to another pro, haq Kalam, that tweeted this. He has said it's 20% chance of collusion. Different pros have different opinions because they view hands differently. This is why what I have asked at this point let's go to arbitration because we can prove close to if there's collusion or not collusion and once that happens, then people can make restitution. If there was deemed collusion or if there's deemed no collusion, it can just be agreed upon that it was a poor decision not to go public with this. 

11:25 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I'll tell you what. I couldn't give a shit, what the the arbitrary says. The texas audit matters, you know and I know it do you think, prevented from anybody from knowing? 

11:35 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
do you think there was uh cheating involved in the game to do? 

11:40 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
whether adam has left the building. He's gone. He's tried to get multiple p. He tried to get bluebird to cheat and throw in the fact that other players were in business with these guys. Why do you think Flop no offense Pazola why do you think they're all sticking up for these guys? Answer, answer the question. 

11:58 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
It is Answer. 

11:59 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
You're a third party Answer. Why do you think that? Why do the only people that agree with you guys are the ones that either work for this company or in boats with you in business in some way? 

12:10 - Joey Knish (Host)
well, I think there's been a. There's definitely been a clear divide between. 

12:16 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
You'll call it a very big divide between who agrees with the tommy side and who agrees with your side or their side and I think tommy g is very persuasive. 

12:26 - Joey Knish (Host)
He's very charismatic and if he, if there's someone in the game that I think has a gripe, it's probably him. Do I think any cheating happened? I I would say I would lean towards no, I do think. If you want to make an accusation, it it's that. Do I think Tommy was I'll call it taken advantage of, where they saw a whale at the table who was fucked up or had been up for two days and Vig and Bluebeard wanted to, like go at the whale who was like dumping money? Yes, I do think that happened. 

13:00
Do I think that constitutes cheating, colluding? I don't think so. I do think that something that would happen in a lot of poker games is a guy who's there, who's dumping money, who's got plenty of it to back them, and they saw and I think that's part of the reason, or maybe the majority of the reason, why vig and bluebeard didn't want to completely blow up the game by making that public was because Tommy was such a great, like a great, basically a great bank to go in against. If you've got a guy like that on the hook, you want to keep it going. 

13:31 - Flup (Host)
So, joe, I just want to point out to that the story that Bluebeard has told and makes sense is he believed that Adam who is not knowledgeable about poker, who's one of his very first few times playing did not have the capacity to cheat and was not going to be able to, so he did not think it was a threat to the game. That is not excusing his actions. He still should have made it public. I will never deny that. I should have pressed and made it public. There is no excuse. The point is, though, bluebeard, myself and Vig are under the impression that it's not possible to cheat in this game, and now the accusation is that man of the Vig and Bluebeard were sharing cards splitting profits against Tommy G. 

14:19
It is easy and simple for professionals to review these hands truly elite professionals. Some names have been thrown out. There's currently an arbitration agreement, assuming Joey Ingram agrees to it. He's a very respected professional who has a big YouTube following, who can take all the contextual evidence involved and hear from both sides. Joey Ingram can rule if he thinks there's a decent chance of collusion or not. A decent chance of collusion. Unfortunately, with 73 hands that bluebeard and man of the big played, it's going to be hard to have zero percent. How many times you're gonna show down? Okay, tell us. Tell us zero times. Come on, that in itself nadoo nadoo 73 hands. 

15:06 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
They didn't go to showdown once in a three to five handed game against. 

15:10 - Flup (Host)
In a game where everyone was active, they were all playing every hand I keep hearing the smoking gun come out, and this very that is the smoking gun. It is not a smoking gun. 

15:20 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
There's an answer to everything. You want hand history. We give you hand history. Now. That's not enough they do. 

15:25 - Flup (Host)
Are you a professional poker player qualified to make? 

15:28 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
that beside the point, we've all played. It is not beside the point who won the most money in the game tell us I did go ahead. Who else? 

15:36 - Flup (Host)
um, from my 19th onward, man of the victim. So I consider myself a better poker player than most. And additionally I want to reiterate why the no showdown at 73 hands appears like a smoking gun. But it's not a smoking gun Because they have the hole cards. A simple example would be say I got dealt aces and I'm playing a game with Joey Kanish and Joey gets dealt deuce seven offsuit In that hand the odds we go to showdown are basically 0% because I'm going to continue to be betting and Joey has a bad hand and he's going to fold. I'm not saying it happens 73 times, but I'm saying it's likely that that could happen a majority of times with various holdings and a professional can review all 73 hands and say, hey, should these hands have gone to showdown or not? Additionally, man of the Vig and 44 did also not go to showdown. It has very things to do with Tommy G went to showdown the most because he's the most aggressive and call happy player. Bluebeard, I believe, went to showdown the least because he's the most passive player. 

16:40 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
So there's he talked about multiple times though they're on not wiretap but on spaces that he didn't care about money at that time. 

16:48 - Flup (Host)
Who did not? 

16:49 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Bluebeard Throw in the fact that Jack's hand. Come on, man, You're a smart guy Other than being on the mobile. The main event, you're not folding Jacks in that game versus these players. 

17:00 - Flup (Host)
Nadeau, I would ask you this In a previous hand, five hands before Sniper Sim went all in with Queen-8 offsuit. Why did she do that? I don't know. 

17:13 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I have no idea Is it possible a bad player made a bad decision? Okay. 

17:31 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, I guess, if you want to use circumstantial evidence like you right, okay. 

17:33 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
So my question to you is my question to you is what advantage does bluebeard folding jacks give them if they are splitting the pot, including against tommy, because they're in, he's folding? 

17:38 - Flup (Host)
to show down to tommy. Tommy has not called the all in for man in the big at this point. 

17:41 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
But we have text messages where someone has talked about cheating multiple times on the beer. How do we know they don't both know the whole cards? How do we know they're not in the phone talking to each? 

17:49 - Flup (Host)
other. Okay, sure, sure, sure. You know that. So, first of all, they're on you don't want to. 

17:52 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
You want the hand history looked at, because there's no way to ever prove truly that hand history, the old flop again. All I'm going to say here is nothing else matters. Post 519 I don't give a shit if I get the money back. I only lost a few, a 1500, I don't care, but people lost a lot of money. Flop. That's the truth, this is. And the game was collude, could have been colluded upon, and if you were to casino and the same thing happened, you would be. And I'll also ask you this flop let's think if the participants were different here. Let's say I was you, do you think I would get the same treatment that they? You know, I truly have no idea. 

18:27 - Flup (Host)
Be way different, you know and I know it Okay. So pointing out a couple of things, I agree that we're not going to be able to conclusively, with 73 hands, do 100% or 0%. This is why I believe it is very fair to lower the bar all the way to 50%, because if there's even a, if it's even more likely that there's collusion, I think that should be enough with all the circumstantial evidence to make it 100%. And in the arbitration I've also asked that if the arbiter agrees that it's above 50% or 51% that there was collusion, that man of the Vague and Bluebeard admit that they cheated in the game and they have agreed to that. So another point I'm trying to make here is the jacks hand keeps getting brought up. 

19:12
But if the argument is they could see the whole cards of Tommy G, a hand, five hands prior, which I talked about in a post I sent out, it wouldn't be logical because Sniper Sim, man of the Vig and Bluebeard had gotten all in together. 

19:27
If they're splitting the pot, they would want to get the showdown to have two chances to win. Instead, bluebeard bet the flop and man of the Vig called, and on a turn Bluebeard went all in and man of the Vig folded, reducing the chances that they could win versus Sniper Sim. So that decreases the likelihood, doesn't make it zero, but it decreases it significantly and hurts the narrative that they could see the whole cards. The other narrative is what if they're splitting their profits versus Tomajit? No one can explain why folding jacks, which is better than ace-queen, would be beneficial to them. It would actually be more beneficial if Bluebeard went all in and went all in with Tomajit, because his hand is superior to the man of the big. So it actually works in the opposite. And no one is mentioning this because they want to just point out the fact folding jacks is bad. And I agree Folding jacks is bad here, but that could just be simply a bad player making a bad play. 

20:24 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
It's insane. Can I just? 

20:26 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
like, try to like. So what explain what happened in this spot? So you're saying that man of the Vague was all in with Ace Queen? Yep, Tommy had called. 

20:37 - Flup (Host)
No, no, no, no, no, no. I'll give the exact answer for the viewers. Yeah, man of the Vague raises Ace Queen Okay To $120, I believe. Yeah, man of the vig raises ace queen okay to 120 dollars. I believe no, or was it yes, 120 or 90? Okay, the hand history is up there, but this shouldn't really matter too much that bluebeard raises to 450 with jacks. Tommy g then calls the 450, then man of the vig goes all in for 3800, then bluebeard thinks and folds the jacks and then Tommy folds. So the point is Tommy had never called the 3800 yet and if they knew the whole cards they would actually want to both be in there because their hands were perfect against Tommy G. Because in that hand Tommy G had ace jack and ace jack is very, very unlikely to win versus both queens sorry, versus both Jacks and Ace-Queen. So the narrative that they knew what Tommy had is just extremely flimsy, because there's just numerous examples where they're doing things illogical. 

21:36 - Joey Knish (Host)
No, I just I think the whole card thing is like ridiculous To me. That's so far in the conspiracy theory of like they knew the whole cards. That that's kind of like far in the conspiracy theory of like they knew the whole cards, that that's kind of like they're throwing out there, right I would agree like in occam's razor. 

21:50
What was like? If I'm playing a game with you and tommy g and we're three way up there, do I want to ever really go head-to-head versus you? No, not really, I'm gonna be. I want to go against tommy g. He's got deeper pockets and he's not a great player. So if you're looking for like what do I think big and bluebeard were like collude, like combining funds and all that? No, do I think they were strategically avoiding each other to then go and try and get as much out of Tommy or Sniper's probably, but I don't to me that's. I don't look at that as cheating. I think that's probably just kind of taking advantage of a guy at the table with deep pockets who's a fish. 

22:36 - Flup (Host)
That's the main point. If they're not splitting the profits and they're not sharing whole cards, they're not cheating. And if they're not cheating the the game is fine. You can agree that there was bum hunting behavior against Tardis. 

22:49 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yes, I will call it. I think there was definitely. 

22:51 - Flup (Host)
I don't think anyone's going to deny that. But the problem is everyone says the text is damning. The text shows that there was an attempt by Adam, which he claims was a joke. I don't think many people believe was a joke, but does not prove that there was cheating. And I want to reference something you said earlier. 

23:09
I texted Brett because man of the Big told Brett that Adam had texted that to him because there was a lot of stuff coming out about Adam and I told Brett not to mention it. The reason I said not to mention it was not because I was trying to cover up cheating was because I was worried that if someone said there might have been cheating to a conspiracy theorist self-admitted like Tommy G, it would get blown out of proportion and this exact scenario would happen and that many people would think there was cheating, because many people do not have the expert opinion, like poker players, and they want to think that they do. This is why I have been pushing hard for arbitration and why I've also been pushing hard for the barrier of proof to be very low at 50%. In a court case you would need this to be 95%, close to 100%. I'm just asking for 50%. 

23:58 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Let me ask you if I sent you a text right, we've talked, you know I've talked on text, things like that If I sent you a text and I said, hey, do you want to kill someone here, would you just respond? Obviously I would feel trusted, because I said that to you before. That's kind of how they did it. Do you want to cheat here? Which implies that, hey, remember, we talked about it. Do you want to cheat here? I don't understand why you're just trying to know. It's almost like, yeah, we talked about it, but no, I don't want to do it right now, maybe another time. And then we find out they talked about it a week before. 

24:35 - Flup (Host)
So I want to address a couple of things. 

24:37 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
That's really all my knock here is I actually surprisingly, look, I played poker before against drunk people. Okay, we all have. You're going to do what you got to do. It's a game you shouldn't be at the table. I'm not knocking you there, I'm not knocking them there. I don't think it looks good and people are going to take them to the stakes on it. People in here a lot of them are just doing this for content, which we see time and time again. My whole issue is I think it was the text was very problematic and I think it doesn't poison the game. It very much taints the game. 

25:14 - Flup (Host)
Wait, wait, wait. You just said there has to be cheating and there has to be refunded If it's tainted. Why does things have to be refunded? Because we can try to get a pro on. To conclude, if it was poisoned with low evidence, why are you opposed to arbitration with a low barrier of proof? 

25:31 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Listen, here's the thing, man. I'm just looking at it from the tech standpoint. I've made that clear from the beginning. I think the hand history is also a bit questionable, especially when we look at that Jack's hand. Who was in the table? 

25:42 - Flup (Host)
Again. I've asked people to prove why the Texas hand is damning. It's simply just a bad player making bad decisions. Stuyper, Sim, your own words said it's just a bad decision there. 

25:53 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
It doesn't prove anything. I'm just looking at peripherally 73 hands. Were those two players? I mean, it's not a nine-handed game, ten-handed game, it's not even a six in a game. It was a three, a five in a game at a time. Again, having three is a lot to not show down. 

26:06 - Flup (Host)
I get what you're saying, it's really not that much to not show down, considering the aggressive players. Most people want to show down with pairs once or twice with each other. It's not like everyone else wants to show. It's not like Tommy G and Bluebird want to show down eight times and then Vig and Bluebird went to showdown eight times and then Vig and Bluebird went to showdown zero times. It's like they went to showdown once or twice and then Vig and Bluebird went to showdown zero times. 

26:30 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
But if I said to you that one of the people involved had discussions about this before, would you think it's crazy for me to think that? How do I know, especially due to the fact that and I'm just going to ask you this, trey, because you've already admitted that Bluebird works for you, right yeah, do you work with man of the Vig, or does Bluebird work with man of the Vig? Because what I'm starting to find is Fake Sharp works with Adam, or had worked with Adam. So would you think it's crazy for me to say that? How do I know that he's not on the phone saying I have Ace Queen here, right so, but he's not on the phone saying I have Ace Queen here, right? 

27:04 - Flup (Host)
So again, they were on spaces so they can't be on the phone. You can argue text messages, but they were on spaces with Tommy G. Additionally, I've also done work with Brett before. Brett and I have done business in terms of Vets for Fair. So you can't just accuse someone of doing business with someone and then that's the whole reason why they cheated. And I want to address the point that there was talked about before, when adam for adam considered bluebeard a good friend of his. He did not know much about poker now and he didn't know much about poker. He asked bluebeard, can you cheat in this game more, more, as you can infer that however you want, but it's quite possible to infer it as simply asking intellectually Bluebeard is a scumbag straight up. 

27:53 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
All of this is scumbag behavior, especially with him, and I don't give a shit what he thinks of it. I don't care what you think of it, I don't care what anybody thinks of it. He's a scumbag. I would ask him to give you money and nuts Straight up. Come on, man. 

28:08 - Joey Knish (Host)
I would say you're taking the brunt of something that should be aimed at. I know he works for you and I know you've been kind of. He's in a bad spot. I admit that You've been kind of taking the lead here and the brunt of it I want to make my decision very clear here. 

28:30 - Flup (Host)
I have had the ability to close my accounts with Bluebeard many times in the last five days. I could have taken all the money back from him when he was sleeping overnight and ended this and ended my relationship with Bluebeard. I have not, because I have reviewed the whole cards. I have talked to others that I respect. I'm not talking about that. 

28:52 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
You just said Adam came to him. Adam doesn't even know about poker. Why is he even trying to be involved with this? It was an opportunity. 

29:03 - Flup (Host)
I have asked you before what is like prison, like I asked you about this in a mob scene before what do you think the mob would have done if they found out? You read a game and this can I just walk you through this basically yeah okay, I've asked you before like what about this like prison scene? 

29:17
is this real? That's not me asking. I think I'm going to prison. I want to know what it's like. I know it's me asking for intellectual curiosity. It's totally possible that Adam was asking that for malice or for intellectual curiosity and to make sure the game was legitimate himself. And it's important to note that Bluebeard said all you could do is share your whole cards, but it doesn't really do much because Adam was a very bad player and he also said that would be unethical and you shouldn't do it here. 

29:48 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
But he's still specifically asking him. 

29:52 - Flup (Host)
The narrative that's going on there, which can be reviewed in spaces, is, at this point Bluebeard is beginning to believe that Adam might not be as rich as he says he is. And Adam Bluebeard, I would agree with that. Yeah, adam, that's a strong favorite. Adam and Bluebeard and Tommy and others were on spaces talking and they're pestering Adam to join the table. Adam is getting frustrated and Adam says that his, his point is to try to get them off his back and stop asking because Adam didn't want to admit that he didn't have enough money to play the high stakes. Another theory which is totally believable and I think the more logical one is Adam thought maybe we could cheat here Totally possible but Bluebeard shut it down and Bluebeard did not believe that it was possible. Shut it down and Bluebeard did not believe that it was possible. And this all goes back to I'm asking for a respected pro, which Tommy and I were on the phone earlier today. We agreed on a name, assuming he's cool with it. We'll go to arbitration and I know people will never change their mind Some of them will, but I hope that most people will be open-minded enough to change their opinion and I'm going to admit and I'll make this very clear if the arbiter rules that there was collusion and again, the barrier of entry is just 50 percent If he thinks it's more than 50 percent, I will be firing Bluebeard, seizing contact with him and moving on, because I think that it will be damning enough that he cheated on, because I think that it will be damning enough that he cheated. But again, based on my opinion and histories, all the contextual evidence I have, I do not think there's cheating. And people have said oh, I'm being held up by Bluebeard and I'm being blackmailed by Bluebeard. I can tell you right now that is not the case. I could have taken the money back from Bluebeard any time, but I've chosen not to do that because, based on the evidence I see, I strongly believe I can never be 100 percent because there's not simply enough hands, but I believe it's such a high frequency that there's no cheating involved. Why would I throw an innocent person under the bus when his only crime really I don't want to say crime his only real mistake was not going public? And again, you could argue that he did it for selfish reasons, because maybe he wanted to keep Tommy involved in taking money from Tommy, or maybe you can argue that he didn't think it was a big deal because he didn't think any cheating would go on. However you want to determine it, he still made a mistake. But I do not believe there was any cheating going on between man of the Vig and Bluebeard and I'm quite confident that if they go to arbitration that looks like we will that we get that ruling that there was no collusion or cheating. 

32:37
And this is a very interesting thing because Brett has asked on Spaces why would we go to arbitration? Why would you guys want to go to arbitration when it's so obvious and this happens with bets a lot. Let's say I've had an insider on an NBA team give me injury news and he's been reliable for 10 out of 10 times. Let's say Joey has had an insider on the same team, but a different insider. Give them injury news and 10 out of 10 times been right. And one game I believe my insider says one thing and Joey says the opposite. We're going to both believe with near 100% certainty that we're right and this is why you go to arbitration, because you can easily prove who's right and who's wrong. And I just hope, if we're able to go to arbitration, people will realize that there is a resolution here and not go against the arbiter. Whether the arbiter favors me or doesn't favor, I hope people respect it. 

33:36 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Ever had your deposit blocked right before a big bet Ever needed cash at 2 am for another shot at the tables? But you hit your ATM limit? Listen, I've had experiences like this, so I'm sure you have had them as well. You never know when you're gonna get that message about a big edge somewhere. You've gotta fill your account quickly before it evaporates and you just can't get that money in there in time. Your bank blocks your deposit. Maybe you get the deposit through, but it takes 30 minutes for that deposit to process and, all of a sudden, you can't get down on that huge edge that you wanted. Well, that situation arises no more with Edge Boost. 

34:13
Edge Boost is the first ever bank account built for bettors. Edge Boost gives you fast, reliable access to your funds, making it easier to move money when and where you need it, without the delays that come with traditional banks. For you high rollers, you can move up to $250,000 a day on your Edgeboost Visa Debit Card with unlimited withdrawals. This works 24-7 for instant deposits. Never wait for a wire to clear again. It gets better. Every time you deposit into qualified gambling accounts, you earn cashback rewards up to 0.5%. All this for no usage fees and no minimum balance. 

34:41
Edgeboost is a debit account that makes it easy to get started, with no credit checks, no minimum balance and no usage fees. Simply verify your identity and you're ready to go. Finally, edgeboost is a suite of responsible gambling tools to help you manage your bankroll and make informed decisions. What are you waiting for? Go to wwwedgeboostbet. That's wwwedgeboostbet, that's wwwedgeboostbet, or just go to the link in the description and sign up to edge boost today. If it does go to arbitration to do, would you be satisfied that knowing, or like confirming whether or not cheating not confirming, but providing a lot more, uh, closer to certainty that cheating or did, cheating did or did not take place Would you be satisfied with an arbitration outcome? 

35:23 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
After today, I'm done with this. I'll still work with Flop, I'll still have shows with Flop and, yes, if a trusted person in the middle comes in again, I really didn't play that much in the game. I just look at what I know and I made my decision. It's not easy to come on here. Look, I like all you guys, I work with you guys, I like Flop, I like Kanisha, I like everybody here. But yes, and here's what I will tell you, so will Tommy G, all the other peripheral people you know, the Elves and the Omars and all these different people. I don't know if they'll ever be happy with it. Yeah, I don't think they will. No, because I don't think. 

36:08 - Joey Knish (Host)
The gas is flowing on this one. 

36:10 - Flup (Host)
No, very clear. I want to be very clear here. If arbitration rules that there was collusion or cheating, you will be made whole for the losses in the game. And all I would ask in return is, if they ruled that there was no cheating, that you say that you agree with their arm. Of course I would, but that's that's the thing. 

36:27 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
If you know me, and you know me as long as I've been on here, I've always done that. If I'm wrong, that's the difference in why certain people hang around on here and certain people go, because they change their opinion 6 000 times. If, if the you know neutral guy comes in fine and look 50%, I think you're going to lose. Personally, that's my opinion. I'll be wrong. 

36:49 - Flup (Host)
You're completely entitled to this opinion and this is why I want to go to arbitration, because so many people have opinions. And look, I want to be very clear. When I asked Hawk Collum, I never talked to him before I met him a couple days ago. Kirk Evans reached out to him and said this guy's a pro, can you review the hands? I'm very clear Just because you're a pro poker player does not mean you're qualified enough to do on this decision, because I would have preferred a panel of pros and to vet the pros, as in high-stakes pros that truly have dealt with a lot of situations like this, and I think I forget who said this, but there's been a lot of people tossing out I'm a pro, I'm not a pro. How many people say they're a pro sports bettor or say they're a pro poker player and they really aren't? Well, adam did that, of course, of course, and like why would we take? Why would we take their, their opinion? 

37:45 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
so would you agree, would you agree, flopping kinesh, that we need to really have more? Look into some of the individuals that come on here and claim some of the things they do, because over the year even like over the last year with the spaces and stuff I've heard a lot of people say I'm a professional, I move, I'm this, I'm that. I really need to look a little deeper. 

38:09 - Joey Knish (Host)
I mean the Adam thing to me is like even learning a little bit more. It does seem like if Bluebeard would have been in at first I was kind of like I thought it was like maybe you know, kind of leaning towards a joking text. As more of this comes out and fluff, you provided more information, like that bluebeard and adamore know each other. I do think if bluebeard would have been for it, then adam would have like absolutely wanted to cheat and him, I think so Positioning himself in the scene as, like the anti-elf, the guy who's out for the community is. I mean, that's pretty disgraceful. 

38:52 - Flup (Host)
Actually, I would agree with that opinion. I'm just going to be very clear. I think there's different possibilities I'm not 100% at one but I'm very convinced that what you said, joey, is what actually would have happened, like if bluebeard responded yes, let's cheat here, then he would have um responded with okay, let's do it, and they'd actually would have been cheating. Yeah, but it's hard to know for certain and I don't think we'll ever know that agreed on this. 

39:17 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I've been wanting to ask this if bluebeard had the intention of cheating in this game, do you think that he would have brought this text to light at any point? 

39:29 - Flup (Host)
That's a thing that I've been pushing. I don't know why he would do that. It's completely counterintuitive. Can anyone make a reasonable case as to he wants to cheat? He was cheating and he leaks this text and he tells people about this text. Do you think? 

39:46 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
that was at all a possibility In hindsight, it's 2020. 

39:49 - Joey Knish (Host)
If I'm Bluebeard right now, I never should have fucking sent this text out. 

39:53 - Flup (Host)
Why would Bluebeard, who won a cheat in the game, release the text? Maybe, to try to cover himself in some way to see. 

40:06 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Look, I said no, so how could I? 

40:07 - Flup (Host)
it's possible, totally possible, totally possible. And again, I'm just going to point out this is why this exact situation that we're in is why I shamefully said to not release it, because I knew conspiracy theories would have been drawn and I was confident that there was no cheating in the game, especially because Adam wasn't playing in the game and Bluebeard said himself he didn't want to cheat in the game. So my thought process was if Adam's not playing in the game in the 1530, there was no cheating involved because Bluebeard doesn't want to cheat. Why give people conspiracies to run with? This was not me trying to cover it up. People can think that I was trying to cover it up. That's the honest truth and this is why I want to go to arbitration and I'm happy that Tommy and I we agreed on, I would say, 90% of the framework. If Joey Ingram says yes to arbitration, I'm quite confident that we'll go. This might take a week or two. 

41:00
There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to go over, a lot of texts that Tommy has not made public and Bluebeard and Vig have not made public. That could go and swing it in either direction. They might not be releasing it publicly for a variety of reasons. There could be personal information, could be many things. The arbitrator should be able to see everything and make an informed, smart decision. I would have preferred just to be very clear. 

41:24
If we had more arbiters, tommy wants there to be one. That is totally fine. We've all agreed on Joey Ingram. If he's going to accept it, we can move forward with this. If he's not, there's several other names, including someone that won over $35 million playing turn and poker. I think he's quite confident and quite able to make a decision here. Assuming we're able to get an arbiter, which I think is very likely, this decision will be made. And the beautiful thing about this is both sides feel like they're going to win. Tommy G's side believes 100% certainty that they're going to win. Bluebeard man of the big side my side we have 100% certainty we're going to win Might even be some markets going up on whose side there could be some betting markets on there. 

42:09
I know there was an attempt somewhere. 

42:12 - Joey Knish (Host)
From a content standpoint. 

42:15 - Flup (Host)
Someone is going to. Someone will probably bet on this. Unfortunately, I don't think you should be betting on the arbitration market. I think you should just let it play out. But this is why I don't understand why people have been pushing back against arbitration. No one can claim that this was shut and dry. You can think that, but no one has really. There's not been enough expert opinions. 

42:46 - Joey Knish (Host)
I think the only people that are dead set against arbitration are people who didn't play in the game, like anybody that is, even even they do with it, like people that played in the game. They might not love, like the process or who's going to be choosing that, but I think people are open to it. The people who aren't are the people that want this to keep. Uh, you know, keep also one thing here's who. 

43:06 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Arbitration does not affect whatsoever to me, adam straight up and and 44, where's he is he gonna be paying the money back 44. 

43:16 - Flup (Host)
44 should not be off the hook here. 44 owes, that's. Whether it's seven 9,000, I don't even know at this point. 

43:22 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Well, here's the thing he's going to delete his account and just come back as somebody else. 

43:25 - Flup (Host)
And someone has to decide. I hope we can get this with the arbiter. I don't know if it will even matter at this point, but who takes that burden of loss for the money? But another thing I want to point out here is Elf just tweeted today and jacob, if you could pull this out, calling out rob pazola for asking for inside information on the push-up bet. 

43:47
I was hoping we'd not right and I want to make something very clear. I don't care that rob pazola owns the hammer or his ceo. I don't know what co-owner of the hammer, I don't know. He's the ceo of the hammer. Okay, that tweet is disgraceful. Asking Elf about that is disgraceful. You should not get that. However, I'm going to ask people to have the same criticism towards Bluebird that they had for Elf here. If Elf knew Rob Pozzola was, in his own words, a scammer, why did he not make it public immediately? People could have done business deals with Rob Pozzola with the knowledge that he was a scammer. Why did he not make it public immediately? People could have done business deals with Rampazzola with the knowledge that he was a scammer, but Elf kept it shut. Does that not immediately indict Elf for the same logic that people want to indict Bluebeard? What is the counter to that? 

44:34 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
This is why they've been talking about this for the last hour or two. This is why they've been talking about this for the last hour or two. I haven't discussed it. Look, we all remember those pushup things, the mile, all that stuff. I'm going to guess Rob Basolo if he, you know, these are true tech. I'm going to guess he's not the only person that reached out to Elf for information. I mean, I'm sure very close people out did as well. 

44:59 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I couldn't dig it up. I vividly recall many of these texts being made public. I don't know if it was Elf himself, but this is not. I would be. I'm very close to certain. This is not the only person who has had these screenshots shared. 

45:20 - Flup (Host)
Right and I just want to do. I just want you to just either push back or agree with me here. Elf, in his own tweet, says Rapazola is a complete scammer. He also criticized and crucified Bluebeard for not outing Adam. Is that not a double standard? 

45:33 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
here. I think at this point and this is me being totally up front I don't think Elf should be. I mean, elf platforms a lot of really heinous shit people, especially over the last 48 hours, he's allowed people to comment on this. I think what this has done is it's allowed certain people to think they're now able to scapegoat and say well, if I'm a scammer, so are you. There's been a lot of peripheraly people that have come in, peripheral people that have come in and and made themselves involved in this. Um, look, I know people don't like omar. I like omar. I've never had an issue with him. He's, I think, early on in this. I think he was pretty decent at what what he was doing. There have been some people that have that. They've just kind of inserted themselves. I don't really know why they've inserted themselves, but, yes, that right there to me would be a double standard in terms of not saying anything. It almost seems like he waited. He had this and he just waited for the right time to throw it out. 

46:28 - Flup (Host)
That's why I won't comment on it, because if I went in and commented on it, then it would be wait, wait, nandu, why are you so quick to comment on blueberry being a scumbag, but you won't comment on this? 

46:36 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I'm commenting on it right now but you just said you don't want to comment on it right now, but you just said you don't want to comment on that? 

46:46 - Flup (Host)
oh, I just told you I'm going to comment because if I go in there right now in the space and comment, it'll be. Shay pazola sent him. Yeah, no, totally fair, totally fair, and this is to be quite honest. 

46:51 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
For last thing, I'll say the only issue that I've had and I've said this from the beginning is the text. I think that makes this a very problematic situation. That that's my point here. 

47:01 - Flup (Host)
Right, right and again. This is why I just wish people would be willing to go to arbitration, and I think Tommy is, I think Tommy wants to, and I'm surprised Brett isn't either. 

47:15 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
If Brett's so confident, I don't you know no. 

47:16 - Flup (Host)
I think Brett wants to go to arbitration too. I don't want to put words in his mouth. I remember him on the space last night asking why would you want to go to our parish and you're going to lose? 

47:25 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
They're the two that matter. 

47:27 - Flup (Host)
Right and if they agree with the decision. Right. And again my point is to him is both sides have information that they believe 100 percent exonerates them, 100 percent proves the guilty, so both sides can reasonably believe that the other one is insane. Personally, Brett asks why our side would go to arbitration. We would ask why they would go to arbitration when we believe 100% certainty they'll be found not guilty. 

47:58 - Joey Knish (Host)
I just want to get to Nedu's last point. You had man of the Vig going into spaces for months and months and months, acting as almost this man above everyone else and the high almighty and the one power and questioning everybody as a scam. 

48:19
So the second, that the opening is there that he potentially could have done something questionable. The fucking pitchforks have been out for him and you know what. He kind of made that bet a little bit on his own. When you're going to hold everyone else to the standard of the nth degree and you dip below it for a minute, you're setting yourself up to get fucking roasted that's a great point. 

48:48 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I mentioned that before. I'll ask you though you're kind of an intermediary here what do you set the line at for the arbitration? 

48:57 - Joey Knish (Host)
for the arbitration. I would say I can't be totally unbiased because I've heard some feedback from some other poker players in the space who have said, and some of the other percentages that Fluff laid out, I would call it 75-25. I think Bluebeard and Vig are exonerated. We'll call that, but I don't think it's 99. 

49:22 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Exonerated from cheating within the game, not from. 

49:25 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
So you think they're a strong favorite. 

49:27 - Joey Knish (Host)
I think they are. I would call them a strong favorite based on. I just want to push back. 

49:33 - Flup (Host)
just make it very clear here. I hope the only narrative moving forward is that can we go to arbitration? Look, tommy G's a lot of things, but on the phone call today he was extremely respectful to me, extremely open-minded. We both agreed on Joey Ingram. We both agreed on rough terms. I had the recorded phone call that if ever this blows out and falls out, I can release it to show the good faith on both sides. But if Joey Ingram agrees, I'm quite confident there will be arbitration and there should be no one pushing back on it. Because if you're pushing back on arbitration you don't care about the truth, you just want to run with your narrative and you just want content. And anyone that pushbacks against arbitration I would question their true motives and their true character. 

50:20 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I would question their true motives and their true character. Do you, if Brett Feinsod and Tommy were both comfortable with this, going to arbitration regardless of the outcome? Would you feel comfortable with the outcome? 

50:33 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
He already said yes, no, I would feel comfortable, even if it's but shadow of that. They don't influence me. I disagree with them on many things. Yeah, I think for myself and I always will do that. Yeah, absolutely. 

50:52 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I would do it even if they didn't. You're upset with the rightfully so, I think for the text messages that occurred, but here's what I'll tell you. 

51:01 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I think, if this went on with some of the people that I speak to, it wouldn't be good. 

51:09 - Flup (Host)
Also, nadeau, I want to push back on something. I saw you tweeted this. I just disagree with it a little bit. Your example was let's say I send you a text, nadeau. It says do you want to kill Joey? And then tomorrow, joey you would say absolutely not and Nadeau says no, and tomorrow Joey Canisius is found dead. That is not You'd be a prime suspect. No, no, no, but he pulled a phone, record real quick. 

51:36
Nadeau, I agree that, but that is not what's going on here. What's actually going on here is this I sent a text message to you said do you want to kill Joey? You say no. The next day Joey is found not in his home. And now everyone says Chris killed Joey. And I say, hey, can we file a police report for a missing person? And everyone says no, you killed him. And I'm asking people, look for him. And I say, what about if he's at the store right now? People say no, we don't even need to see him at the store. This is the equivalent of me asking for arbitration. I'm asking people to look for Joey and maybe we find him. And if we find him, then you should just say I made a stupid text and maybe we find him. And if we find him, then you should just say I made a stupid text and I'm not guilty. 

52:25 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I've heard a lot of people not saying you per se, yeah. I've heard a lot of people say that you can't convict someone on circumstantial evidence. 

52:34 - Flup (Host)
Right, which is why you need to review the hand histories you absolutely can. 

52:37 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
A lot of people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. 

52:40 - Flup (Host)
Yeah and no, you absolutely can. A lot of people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. Yeah, yeah, and this is why I said this isn't a criminal case, but you know, this is why with circumstantial evidence and hand histories and the barrier of entry to 50%, it's very fair for arbitration. Tommy's agreed, I've agreed, man of the Big and Bluebeard have agreed. We just need Joey Ingram to agree and I think we'll have this arbitration fully signed and agreed upon in a few days and then hopefully a week or two after that we'll get the results and this whole thing can be put to bed. 

53:08
And I don't want to be very crystal clear here. I'm very excited for this because if I was blindsided by men of the big and blue beard who have been pulling the wool over me, I want to know, I want this to go to arbitration because it's worth it, to make sure that I'm not in bed with scammers. And this is why if people push back on arbitration, you have to question the true motives. And people pushing back on arbitration just make me more confident that their side is accurate here. And if the arbiter rules that they are guilty, then I don't want anything to do with them. 

53:42 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I don't want anything to do with them from this company if Fluff ever appears on the channel again. If it is found that Fluff was involved in the collusion, what do you think the fate with him in terms of his appearances on this show would be? Do you think it would progress as normal? 

54:16 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
You're asking me yeah, well, look, I don't think. I think Fluff and I've said this and I'll say it here I think Flup should rethink about some of the way he looks at people. I think there are times where maybe he could be a little taken, if you will, which is fine. I mean, some people have bad judge of character in certain terms, not always. Look, I've dealt with people I shouldn't have dealt with before it happens. Um, do I think he cheated me personally with flop? No, I think he was definitely a little long to not share it. I think, up front, I think he'd be very much absolved with this, like the other people that played um. I think the good thing about life is you do things, you make a mistake and you say, okay, I did that. 

55:09 - Flup (Host)
I won't do it and I'll be very clear. I made a mistake. I've said this numerous times, I'll continue to say it again. I apologize to everyone who played at the poker game from may 19th onward well, I guess I'll say from may 26th onward, because I only knew May 26th but it was a mistake for me. I absolutely made a mistake and again I'll be very clear here. It's possible that man of the big and blue beard have pulled the wool over me and have told me false stories have been lying to me. It's totally possible. This will all come out under arbitration. I'd never spoken with Joey Ingram for my life before today. He's a great neutral third party. Tommy and I both have confidence he can dissect the truth and once the truth comes out I can move on with my life, because I can either know that I picked two smart I shouldn't say two. I picked a smart business partner, an employee in Bluebeard, or I was taken advantage of. 

56:07 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
And to quickly answer your question, jacob. Yes, I would. I would accept it regardless. I'll move on from it because there's a lot of things that I've done that people on this show have had to answer for. You know what I'm saying. I'm not perfect. I've done. Yesterday people on this show have had to answer for. You know what I'm saying, I'm not perfect. Yesterday I do stupid shit. It happens. So, no, it wouldn't change my opinion of him. I don't deal with him business. We just go on a show and talk about some of the bullshit that goes on here. 

56:32 - Joey Knish (Host)
And Flop. I don't know if you'll want this as part of the arbitration. I haven't released these texts yet, but you letting me know how much you enjoyed Rico Bosco's content and him making that 50th layup the other night. I didn't know if you wanted to comment on that now, or do you want to do one of that as part of the package? And like you were saying. You are a writer and I didn't really understand. 

56:58 - Flup (Host)
Is that a Barstool guy? It has to be a Barstool guy. I didn't really understand. 

57:00 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Is that a Barstool guy? It has to be a Barstool guy. It's my bitter enemy. But hey, have you ever seen a man triggered by another man like he? 

57:09 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
is that video is pretty astonishing. 

57:11 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Luckily that happened, because that fucking boar no one would have watched, no one would have cared. 

57:18 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
But as usual I came in and saved the day. To anybody who doesn't know Rico Bosco, to my knowledge he had to make 50 layups in a row, and when he succeeded, he went over. 

57:26 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
They all had to do it as a group. 

57:28 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
But when they did, he ran over to a screen that had a video of you laughing on it and he said like basically, just suck my dick like 20 times in a row to your face on the screen. 

57:40 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Is that what happened? That's times in a row to your face on the screen. Is that what happened? That's what happened. Yeah, I mean, look they. They wanted a little pick me up and and they got it and he was able to make it. It would have been a real shame if he'd have missed that. 

57:50 - Joey Knish (Host)
Uh we gotta, I gotta ask you one more, nadoo, in terms of hot button issues. You there was a because the barstool crowd has been. They were uh expecting you in chicago, I think for a few and a few. A few, uh, barstool people were were unhappy that you didn't make it yeah, well, by the way, I tweeted that eight days ago. 

58:14 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I haven't been feeling great this week. I just didn't. I, I didn't, I didn't feel it, I, I wasn't feeling. Well, I'm starting to feel better today. Me going to Chicago has nothing to do with anything. 

58:25 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
No fly list. No, I didn't want to say it. 

58:29 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Yeah, again, there will be a lot of people vindicated. Maybe Flop will be vindicated soon. I'll be vindicated soon with the whole flight thing. I'm not on the no fly list. 

58:41 - Flup (Host)
I know Joey wants to push that On the record. I've never seen Nadeau fly before. I've never seen it in person, so I cannot confirm or deny these allegations. 

58:49 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Well, I think Nadeau's situation is similar in this sense. Nadeau could be on a plane. Take a video of himself on a plane. 

58:56 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
No, it's the AI or something yeah people won't believe it. 

58:59 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
In the same way, if fluff is exonerated through arbitration, I don't think it will change anything. 

59:05 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
For a lot of people. It's the internet and for a week, during what? Is it? June? This is an interesting story. I hate to tell you, but if this happened during football I don't think anybody would really have cared that much. 

59:17 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Maybe one or two shows, but it's just the time of the year unfortunately, I haven't given much opinion on this, but I think I'll say it here. I think a lot of people uh online who are creating content have found a little sliver of content which can show some forms of incriminating people involved within the hammer as a company, and I think they saw an opportunity to really attack fluff and attack the company and are absolutely running with it as far as they can. I'm not sure how much they believe in everything that's going on, but I my my sentiment here is that they've taken it to this level because of the content, because they found it in to try and put fluff down and, to a degree, the hammer and to a degree, rob his own. 

01:00:04 - Flup (Host)
I want to be very clear. I think people have the right to put me down for not going public with my knowledge that adam asked the cheat. You have every right to do that. You have every right to see that and say I'm never doing business with fluff again, I'm never respecting him again. But but in my opinion and I know people will disagree when you don't have the right to then say the game was 100% cheated, you can think it might be, but this is why we go to arbitration. 

01:00:30 - Joey Knish (Host)
Do you really think you were? I didn't. I should have jammed in a little bit this that the push-up like if somebody I know and from someone who has done a push-up competition where there was money wagered, um, now, granted, I didn't, I really didn't have an idea. I think elf knew, uh, that he could do it. You really had that strong that man shouldn't have messaged him. And again, I can't have an unbiased take on rob. He, he's my boy. We've known each other for a long time. But that to me is us betting on the national anthem for years when we knew the time. 

01:01:08
I guess I have a lighter view on that type of stuff. 

01:01:11 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I was actually going to ask you that exact same thing. Is this not comparable to you getting information on the national anthem yeah, I agree, and Brett made a bunch of money on Elf doing push-ups and like to me. 

01:01:24 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Good for him. Pazol, let me ask you If I don't know, let's talk about the NFL. If Patrick Mahomes called you and said, hey, joey, yeah, my girlfriend or my wife and I, I just found out she tweeted on me. 

01:01:37 - Joey Knish (Host)
She's with Nadeau now. 

01:01:38 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Yeah, she's with me, you're right. Yeah, would you use that information to better your cause? 

01:01:46 - Flup (Host)
Yes, I would Flop. Would you Say that one more time? Sorry, my dog was going crazy. 

01:01:53 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
If you had information. I mean, isn't that the goal of every gambler To find an advantage or an edge? 

01:01:59 - Flup (Host)
I mean I want to be very clear here. 

01:02:02 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I used to dm people on instagram. I still do it players and stuff. 

01:02:05 - Flup (Host)
I'll be very clear if, if this was like I don't want to bring the boxing match drama, but this was a boxing match and rob said do you think you can win versus this person? I think that's fine because you can back your friends and you can back people that have confidence in themselves. But this is such a surefire thing. Elf knew before he did the push-ups if he was going to be able to do it or not. I guess you can argue that like maybe he slips and like when I mean it's like 99, just like the anthem is and just like draft betting is with the inside information, people have kind of generally accepted it in the gambling community. But if we actually take a step back, how is this not just you were betting something knowing that the price doesn't matter because you have a lock, like Plop? 

01:02:54 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Plop, ask me how many people reached out to me. Can you really run that mile? Can you really run that mile in under eight minutes? How many people reached out to me? Can you really run that? 

01:03:02 - Flup (Host)
mile. Can you really run that mile in under eight minutes? How? 

01:03:03 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
many people reached out to you. Ask how many people reached out, how many? 

01:03:07 - Flup (Host)
A lot, a lot. I believe that, and the thing my problem is here is, if you really take a step back, it might be accepted by gamblers, but that has to be considered scummy? 

01:03:19 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
No, because have you not done anything similar Me? Yeah, oh, absolutely. 

01:03:24 - Flup (Host)
I've been scummy in this regard too. Don't worry, I'm not trying to act as a. If I said it earlier, I was being facetious to drive the point home that Elf was being a double standard here. I want to make that very clear. I have done stuff similar to this. I bet on nfl drafts with inside information, that which is at the same level as an anthem bet, the same level as this. So I've agreed that it's, you know, morally okay. 

01:03:54 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
But if we really take a step back, I think there's a very reasonable case to be made that it's scummy for sure I think, if you're looking at, though, the bigger picture of why he's doing what he's doing in terms of elf, okay, I think a lot of people and and you know, if rob is here we'd ask him, I've talked to him about it I think a lot of people are saying to themselves why does he care so much? Right outside of flop, I mean and myself I guess you want to throw me in no one else played, I mean jacob, you didn't play kanish, didn't play kirk, didn't play feinberg, didn't play chris, or um, uh, jason didn't play. So why does he care? You know? And to be real, I mean, rob was on his face till 6 am the other day I mean 

01:04:33 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
he has. He hasn't like said that they're innocent. I want to make clear All he said is he wants to hear the outcome through arbitration. 

01:04:44 - Flup (Host)
I want to point out sorry to do this is very, very frustrating to me because people said the 73 hands thing. When that information dropped, it was presented as there was 1400 hands that went to and then they didn't go to showdown for any. And that's two truths that combine to a lie, because the session was 1,470 hands but they only played together for 73. So while they never went to showdown, you can't say 1,400 didn't go to showdown. That's completely disingenuous. And the problem that I'm having is I'm seeing these spaces and, whether it's intentional or not, I think a lot of it is intentional. There's lie after lie after lie getting spewed and, whether it's intentional or not, I think a lot of it is intentional. There's lie after lie after lie getting spewed and it's truth baked with exaggeration that adds up to a lie and it becomes and people are basing their opinions off of that Again. This is why I want to go to arbitration People. 

01:05:38
If we looked in the space the other day, elf had a panel floor where everyone wanted to basically get the pitchforks out and kill me and Big and Bluebeard, and then he brings up a panel member that disagrees and they attack him and then he has enough. Then they leave, and then they it's like this group think that they're unwilling to take counter views. It's like this group think that they're unwilling to take counter views. Is it not possible? Possible that someone unrelated can look at this and say, wait a second, there's no collusion. Wait a second, there's collusion here. Both sides need someone, unbiased, uninformed, to now get informed with all the information and make a decision. 

01:06:20 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I think also, what is a bit kind of disingenuous is at one point, for like three hours, elf put up that he actually believed man of the vague and everyone like, right, there was a tweet. 

01:06:31 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, people um, attacked me for this because it got misconstrued. I did not have the whole card information when I made this video with elf. I am beyond frustrated at this point because there's lie after lie after lie. This is when it first came out, when the information was dropped, that 1,400 hands didn't go to showdown, and I'm like, well, hold up there. I went through and I counted it's 73. 1,400 is very damning. 73, I'll admit, doesn't look the best, it's unlikely, right, but is very damning. 73, I'll admit, doesn't look the best, it's unlikely, right, but it's you cannot. It does not have anywhere close to the certainty of that. 

01:07:09
So I got him to Elf and I'm like I just want to be very clear here, and I think we even said it in the video this does not conclude that there's cheating or no cheating, because neither of us are competent enough to make this decision. All I wanted was for people to stop, you know, saying 100% certainty that was cheating. I didn't want people to say like, whoa, hold up there, there may be cheating, there may not be cheating, let's wait. And Elf listened to me, he had the video, and then he got a little pushback and deleted the video to frame me as someone that wanted to take down evidence. That's not true. I had the video up. It's posted on my Twitter. You can see the whole cards and the hands have gone over and I encourage every single person to review them and comment on any questions. And again I'll reiterate if you're not a true professional, I don't mean to be disrespectful to people, but your opinion really doesn't matter that much, just like my. I'm not saying my opinion matters much here. 

01:08:04
To be fair my opinion doesn't matter yeah. 

01:08:08 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Let me ask you finish your thought. 

01:08:11 - Flup (Host)
So all I'm saying is I was very disappointed in Elf, that I acted in complete good faith to go over it, and then he deleted the video and railroaded me to frame me as someone that wants to delete information when they could not be further for the truth that did all happen within a four to six hour period. 

01:08:29 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
That all happened on tuesday, right? I agree. Now I don't agree, kinesh, let me ask you yeah, you're probably you've known rob longer than any of us, right? We were all kind of original on here. Do you agree that you? You agree that you've maybe scratched your head at least once as to why Rob cares so much about this? 

01:08:50 - Joey Knish (Host)
I think Rob has a issue, kind of like once he's into something he has a very trouble like just ignoring it and letting it go. 

01:09:01
And now that he's kind of gotten and they're like when you poke the bear at rob right get the reaction you're looking for, uh, and I think he is one that just wants to be like he can't just say, yeah, fuck it, like I don't give a shit about this, like I'm just gonna let it roll, and so it's like it feeds. It kind of keeps feeding itself now where Elf and them know now they can get a reaction, now it's a bigger personality, they can get him in, and he just kind of keeps going and going and going. I think if Rob had to do it again, or if I was given, I would have told him to kind of stay out of it in the first place, but that shit just failed. 

01:09:40 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
He was brought into it though place, but that that he was. He was brought into it though. Yeah, no, that's fair, but it was almost. It was almost as if, like, he was lumped into flup's position by default. Am I wrong? 

01:09:52 - Joey Knish (Host)
I, I would say I think if he would have totally ignored it it would have never taken, gotten any attraction let me ask that in the ring. 

01:10:00 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I think people would have called him out if he was silent on it. 

01:10:03 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Jacob, let me ask you, and Kanish, I ask you, let's say it's me instead of Flop in this position. Do you think he would care as much? 

01:10:13 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Yeah, I'm a little upset by the narrative that's being constructed here, as if a company is working together to try and make Flop look good. It's a little frustrating that we're not being treated as a unit here. There's four of us on this show who make this show what it is you included to do, but I feel like the way it's being framed here it's as if you're some outsider, which I don't feel is the case at all whatsoever we all have our own things. 

01:10:46 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
you know, I don't. I I think in terms of like. I'll just say this in general I think there's a certain group of people on twitter that and I'm not gonna say it's these two, because I don't think it is like joey. I don't think she's pretentious whatsoever and I don't think it is Like Joey. I don't think he's pretentious whatsoever and I don't think Fluff is too. But there are people that are in the circle on Twitter that when it's referred to me whether or not, let's say, I don't ever sell picks again, I'm always. I mean, quite frankly, I'd put my college football ability against anybody on Twitter, anybody, straight up, anybody. But again, I'm not looked at in that direction, which is fine. There's also things that I've done that most people haven't done on Twitter, so I just try to slide in where I fit. I don't believe that I'm on this show because of sports betting. We all know that Flops on this for that, joey might be on this for that, but do I think there's pretentious people that do look down, absolutely. 

01:11:42 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the way it's being framed here, it's as if you aren't part of this show at all. 

01:11:47 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Well, I think, because I disagree in this situation, probably but I think that's fine. 

01:11:52 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Everyone's entitled to their opinion there. 

01:11:54
So I do believe if you were in this position, rob would be in the same state and, to be clear, he hasn hasn't been. He hasn't made a claim as to whether or not people are guilty or innocent in this situation. He is going at the people who are making those claims and are saying with a hundred percent certainty that they cheated, that there was collusion. His stance has been let's look at the whole cards. Let's go to arbitration and find out for sure. We are unable to determine the outcome unless we see the cards. 

01:12:28 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Do you know who the happiest person is this week? Probably Elf or Omar Elf parody. Elf parody, I would have said Omar. I mean Elf parody is on a run. I mean he stole Elf's girl after he tried to pretend to be him. He actually stole her. He was thrown in the meat grinder for about six hours and now he's gallivanting around with Amanda Vance and no one cares anymore. 

01:12:53 - Joey Knish (Host)
This. Alright, I know we can wrap it because we're going. Amanda Vance I was never on the Amanda Vance train in all aspects. Amanda Vance train, in all aspects. Amanda Vance's sister is in absolute smoke. 

01:13:08 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I can't lie. I'll be honest. She is one waker. I've slid into her DMs. 

01:13:15 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I can't lie. Were you successful in your endeavors? Just? 

01:13:18 - Joey Knish (Host)
when you thought Vance was falling off, she pulls her fucking 10 sister from the bag and now they're going to the moon. I sold my Vance stock too low. 

01:13:31 - Flup (Host)
If we could wrap up this poker content before we go into. 

01:13:34 - Joey Knish (Host)
Well then. I mean yeah, we can do it. That wasn't an actual topic. 

01:13:39 - Flup (Host)
I want to point out a couple things, If I could real quick here. There's a couple narratives going out that really frustrate me. I've heard if I don't say anything, I'm on the run. If I say something, everything gets misconstrued and blown out of proportion and they take pieces and they attack. So no matter what I say, I'm wrong. 

01:14:01 - Joey Knish (Host)
If anything, you've been the opposite of on the run, the guys were actually most involved. 

01:14:08 - Flup (Host)
And my point is my point is I get. If I don't, I'm not on the space for a couple hours, I get pinged. Why don't you want to space? Why don't you defend yourself? If I defend myself, they don't listen, they just attack, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. No matter what happens here, I'm in a lose-lose situation, same with Vig and Bluebeard. So people accusing them of being on the run think critically here. If they respond, they're going to get attacked. If they don't respond, they're going to get attacked. And the last thing I want to point out this might sound a little crude, but it's the honest truth. 

01:14:38
The money doesn't mean anything to me. I won $31,000 and I think $900 in this game. I have the exact figure somewhere. That really does not mean much to me. I made quite a bit of money gambling in my career. I'm close to, but I could essentially retire and live in a Midwestern home and be good for the rest of my life. But this is not mean Nice flex. I know it's a flex. I'm not trying to be crude and brag here. The point I'm trying to say is it's not about the money. For me, if I were to just pay back the money, people would immediately accuse me of being guilty, even if I said I'm 100% innocent here. They would say why did you pay back the money? Only guilty people pay back the money. And if I don't pay it back, people say why aren't you paying it back? Don't you want this to go away? 

01:15:27 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Very Zilbert of you. What Very Zilbert of you. 

01:15:33 - Flup (Host)
No, true, but I'm in a lose-lose situation here. If I pay back the money without arbitration, they call me guilty. If I don't pay it, they call me a scumbag for not paying it. I can't win here. The only way I can possibly win is if it goes to arbitration. This is why I've been pushing for arbitration, and I'm not going to, honestly, if arbitration falls apart, what I think we might do is I'll just get the people that I wanted to arbitrate anyway that Tommy agreed and review all the hands and make a massive video explaining it all, because that's going to be the next best thing I can do. But until we can get arbitration, there's nothing I can do to make it better. 

01:16:16 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Last thing I'll say I accept what the arbitrator does. At the end of the day, I think that's probably fair for both sides. Again, my only real issue, at least to me on the surface, was the text and stuff. I think the people like Adam are gone. They're scumbags either way, for sure, and that's that. 

01:16:35 - Joey Knish (Host)
What do you think of the anonymity part here of like man, of just like I've seen it, like man of the big? Obviously I, I don't wanna, I'm not I've. We have one that would be doxing someone. Obviously I use a pseudonym myself. What do you think of them asking for his identity or thinking that should be? 

01:16:57 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
we have to stop accepting that on here. No, no one should be anonymous. There's no reason whatsoever, nadeau, I just strongly disagree with that. 

01:17:06 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Why? What about Kanishk? 

01:17:10 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
Kanishk doesn't use his real name, but we see him every week here. You don't have to use your real name. At least be front or face. Okay, that's a little bit more fair. That's a little bit more fair. I'm a bin Laden. That's a little bit more fair. That's a little bit more fair. 

01:17:20 - Flup (Host)
I'm a bin Laden Right. That's a little bit more fair. But even then, like if I wanted to figure out who Joey was, I could probably hire a PI to look through his high school yearbook, et cetera, et cetera. But the problem is these people are crazy and I'm hearing reports of potential SWAT threats like violence. I think it's very reasonable to not want to go. 

01:17:42 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
I've been doing this 15 years. I've screwed around with some bad people Never happened. 

01:17:46 - Flup (Host)
And look, I mean honestly. Everyone knows my full name. I'm Christopher Dierkus. I live in Manhattan, I have no problems with anyone. I'm not going to say that. 

01:18:00 - Jeff Nadu (Host)
You live on the Lower East. 

01:18:00 - Flup (Host)
Side. Where are you at? Oh, you got the phone up too to do. I'm not going to say that. You live on the lower east side. Where are you at? Oh, you got the phone up too to do. Ready to come here? No, look, you can get within three miles of me. You could figure out my home address if you pushed hard enough. Nothing to hide, because I don't think I did anything wrong and I don't think I will ever do anything that would make someone want to do damage to me. And I want to point out one other thing man of the Big and Bluebeard have agreed to self-dox themselves to the arbiter. They've agreed to do that. Okay, so they will become. No, it won't go public. Yeah, and I could even try to get a stipulation in there If they're found guilty, they would release the dogs. But yeah, I think we've wrapped everything up nicely. If you want to go back to the riveting topic of a man-advanced sister, we can do that. 

01:18:48 - Joey Knish (Host)
No, we can save that for a future week. 

01:18:51 - Flup (Host)
Maybe next week. 

01:18:52 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Yes, Maybe next week, and we hope to see you there. 

01:18:54
Maybe, show usonomy by then Give us some updates, everybody. Hopefully you did enjoy this episode of circle back a little bit different this week because we did cover the one topic. But any thoughts you had of the topic, please leave them in the comments down below. We'll be sure to review them for next week. It could be about anything, but we did enjoy. Make sure you hit the like button, Make sure as well You're subscribed to the channel and we'll see you again next week with the.