That would be actual evidence. Give the name of the person who was giving her signals, and then use the video footage, from the 30 different cameras that were pointed at everyone.
Show the video, of the hand signal. Directly say which person, in the room, was giving her info on her opponents cards. And explain exactly how it was done, with video evidence.
> why does she have to have a device? why does it have to be metal?
I was giving an example of what evidence would actually look like.
Ok great, have you looked at the device? You say it was a ring, then prove it. Show me the picture of the internals of the ring, and show me how the ring was giving her signals.
Thats evidence. A picture of you opening up the ring, and showing a hidden computer or whatever you think the cheating ring is doing, is evidence of cheating.
If you had evidence, you'd have shown it.
So things like a picture of the device giving her answers would be evidence.
A video recording of the specific other person in the room, giving her info on the other person's cards, would be evidence.
And now you just say "lol" proving that you do not have actual evidence here.
your responses indicate you’ve likely never played poker at a high level. you may have never even played in a casino. what basis do you have to defend this person?
i don’t think anyone in poker who won a hand they played badly just offered to return the cash. that alone tells me everything.
edit: someone also paid for her entry into this game and she’s an amateur playing with phil ivey and GMan. https://twitter.com/haralabob/status/1576643133583937537?s=2...
if you’re in a whiteboard interview and a candidate can’t explain their solution they regurgitated, do you think they know anything about that solution?