Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)
Surprised nobody has jumped on this to post here...
On Twitter yesterday I believe Mike Postle is being accused of cheating on Livestream. Not much proof (that has been shown) besides a lot of speculative hands. Will link the YouTube videos below.
Thoughts? The lines he takes are absolutely absurd but I don't see how he could be pulling this off.
FAQ:
Q: Who is Mike Postle?
A: Mike Postle is a long time poker pro. He is suspected of having cheated at the video-streamed pokertable at Stones Gambling Hall in Sacramento
Q: How much money has Postle won from other players in these games?
A: Approximation is $250k (source https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp... )
Q: How statistically deviant is his play?
A: Very. Some calculations put it as more unlikely than 1 to the number of atoms in the universe. See bb/100 vs
Mod edit: Here is a summary of Postle's sessions made by one of the many members who have spent tons of hours reviewing the Stones Live videos.
This document made by Utopia needs to go in the OP and is an absolute thing of beauty - notice the bottom tabs
October 13, 2019 edit:
Post about lawsuit filing.
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/tra...
Mac VerStandig shared this. Interesting that Kasey Lyn Mills is there; the commentator that many thought was in on it. Surely if she was she wouldn't file against them
mod edit (oct 13, 2019): added another good "summary" post
What if I told you that the exact win rate doesn't matter?
a) The dramatic change in behavior July 18th that coincided with a dramatic change in results.
b) Numerous occasions where Postle prompted other players to rescan their cards as if he knew the live feed had not picked them up.
c) The visible frustration of the PLO hand were the live feed was only picking up two cards.
d) The changing of the cards hand. How did anyone know the cards of mucked unseen hand were wrong in the middle of the han
Spreadsheet with information on Postle sessions:
This is just semantic nitpicking. When people use the word "certain" in daily speech, they dont mean "mathematically completely impossible" which is what you are doing.
You did not just claim it was certain. You said "statistically impossible" and "becomes actually certain".
So you were using stronger language than colloquial certain. If you had done that no prob but when you start tossing statistical impossibilty and actually certain mathematically and so forth you relinquish the argument of common vernacular.
