> i mentioned a potential device.

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.

lol. you’ve made it clear you’re not capable of evaluating the situation.

And you are admitting that you can't show evidence.

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.

i mentioned a slew of ways she could be cheating. all you’re doing is begging for hard evidence without being able to defend or rationalize what happened. this isn’t a court of law. there’s no presumption of innocence.

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...