Im not talking about having videos taken down. Im talking about how stones was unable to livestream on an active youtube channel. They stated they were on a probation from streaming. Just curious if that is normal?

Im not sure if you truly feel that way if you play poker

This show has some of the most suspect commentators I can ever imagine seeing

It's interesting to note this is during one of theBlack/White under armour and keys in convenient location session.

OMFG Joey is the goddamn 3 eyed raven!!!!

September 15th, 2018
---------------------------
Mike is playing session with God Mode
Mike is not playing optimally. Potentially he makes mistakes to mask that he is cheating. One thing he does several times is shove river when he has a mediocre hand and his opponent has air. Also, saw him fold A9 vs KQ on 8 high board early in session.

Hand of the Session: https://youtu.be/hqq-FCkt4Mk?t=14021

Frank raises to $700 on the flop and Postle wants to play for $1.6k effective stacks with bottom pair 62o. Commentators go on about this hand a while.

54o vs 53o battle on T2AT8 board. You can guess who wins: https://youtu.be/hqq-FCkt4Mk?t=15557

Postle puts in a 3bet on the turn for value with 3rd pair: https://youtu.be/hqq-FCkt4Mk?t=4113 (does ship river vs villain that can't call)

Frank makes a pair so Postle value bets 2 players on the river with 2nd pair and commentators are amazed: https://youtu.be/hqq-FCkt4Mk?t=7476

Postle calls down with 3rd pair. However, he shoves river vs opponent that can't call: https://youtu.be/hqq-FCkt4Mk?t=12150

JFK is in the room for anyone that cares: https://youtu.be/hqq-FCkt4Mk?t=1377

WTF IS THIS MANIFESTATION

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3B...TQ2AcxQ/videos

Just noticed Justin has his youtube channel wiped clean. He had a bunch of videos on there a day or two ago. Why hide something if you have nothing to hide?

Well I'm not a YouTube content creator; however, I believe if a YouTube channel receives a certain number of (I think the call it) strikes they can be permanently deleted/banned. It doesn't take very many strikes for this to happen. Thus, when a channel receives even one strike, they usually try to work with YouTube to try and figure out what they specifically did to receive said strike. Basically; many content creators, for fear of getting another strike would try and fix/work with YouTube to bring their content into compliance. I would imagine this takes some amount of time, because the "strike" is often algorithm based or complaint based. Once you try and appeal the strike, it requires someone at YouTube to manually review content to determine if a strike is warranted and what needs to be changed/removed/fixed to bring the content into compliance. Having YouTube employees manual review ones content, I would imagine takes some time. But I'm just speculating.

You always need to stroke a fish's ego by telling them "you made a good fold" or "no, no, you totally have to call off with 2nd pair in that spot"

Ya He totally deleted all videos he had. He had about 8 vlogs about being sober. Very very odd he deleted that content.

You can have all the faith you want, but if the person is under 30 they have undergone years of programming to not think critically. Regurgitate spoon fed information without any training in logic to determine the validity has been repetitively drilled into them.

I would conclude differently. RFID is not an issue, if basic security protocols are implemented. This did not occur. Based on what we are learning about server/control room access (just to give one example), the problem here was not RFID per se, but the inability of those managing this broadcast to implement basic security controls.

Remember, we learned there were concerns about cheating some months back, and phones were banned. Perhaps this is when they put a physical lock on the control room, per Joey's comment above? What does that tell us?

1 - They failed to fundamentally modify their overall security protocols, even when someone raised concerns about cheating. And these concerns were clearly taken seriously at the time (Justin claims there was a thorough security review after these accusations were first raised some months ago). Unless other security measures were taken which we do not know about.

2 - At best they theoretically changed two things: no mobile phones during the live stream (based on previous comments in this thread), and perhaps finally locking the control room (maybe this was because of the cheating concerns, maybe, I'm giving then the benefit of the doubt).

But clearly the "no mobile phones" policy was not enforced at all in any serious way! So do we really think the lock on the control room was taken seriously, as well? It doesn't seem likely.

3 - I believe Mike claimed (in a back and forth with a friend over text) that nobody ever spoke to him about cheating as part of this security review that supposedly happened some months back. So again, wtf? You have a person who is accused of cheating, something that - if true - is devastating for your broadcast and for the entire casino. And you don't even bother to talk to the guy? How is that even remotely possible?

I think RFID is a problem the same way that internet access is a problem, or not locking your doors at night is a problem. If you have no controls in place, you should not be surprised when people take advantage of your lax security. It's sad but true.

And this is the biggest potential damage that can come from this fiasco: significant restrictions on live streaming in casinos, making it expensive or legally prohibitive to continue.

Must have been drunk when he deleted them.

Not at all odd. I'm sure it's the first thing his lawyer told him to do.

He was in charge of all of this. He hasn't been in the casino since the news broke. So I don't think it takes a genius to figure out what is happening here.

He also takes his hat off quite quickly in frustration without hesitation or regard for anything potentially underneath...

Despite the weird shape of the hat I would assume he'd be more careful if he had something under there worth hiding.

I swear the more I listen to the commentators the more my mind simply cannot comprehend a world where they are not involved in this.

I really don't think the commentators had much to do with this. They just got sucked in by the group think. I mean think about Lon and Norman. Most people around here that follow the WSOP think they're terrible. The Mike Rah Rah stuff comes from top down in my opinion and the only one with enough brains to not get sucked in to the bs was Veronica. Thankfully!

Imo opinion the alleged cheating has nothing to do with the DJ type commentators (the show didn't try to target an audience of poker savants) and everything is to do with Mike and one techie. We are likely wasting our time looking at commentators who exhibit very little clue about poker.

After reading most of the posts in this thread, watching several videos, following twitter etc.for thepst three days it is my opinion that only two people were involved.

The police have to get involved. This appears to be a significant fraud with a multitude of victims.

Regarding the September 12th, 2008 stream for the spreadsheet:

JFK is seen in the room. JFK pulls out his phone and then runs into a sign: https://youtu.be/0ze0SvF1Yi4?t=1136

Also, Mike has his phone on the rail, then out of sight, and then on the rail again. This is a session he did not cheat or was unable to cheat.

A lot of the Stones Live commentators are better than Lon, who also happens to be a Stones Live commentator.

It is almost like the commentators can see all the hole cards! Their constant inane chatter just makes me think "California Airhead" every time I hear them on a clip. Half the commenting staff can't even spell poker. Who hired these people? I think it just highlights the incompetence of the whole operation.

You're pointing to general risks related to live-streamed games. Those same risks are not present in non-streamed games: which is what the vast majority of live poker players play, non-streamed poker games. Not to get into risk management: but you're pointing to unsystematic risk and calling it systematic risk. As an example; risks associated with an unsecured production room is specific to live-streamed poker games only (an unsystematic risk), because non-streamed games do not require production rooms. Players potentially colluding is a systematic risk of poker, because players can collude whether a game is streamed or not. I simple believe the average person can differentiate what risks actually affect them or not. Alot of the potential issues that lead to the MP situation, is not necessarily inherent in non-streamed poker games, in my opinion.

You give me hope that poker is not dying. I'm sure mothers still tell their sons that they are really really smart so we have a guaranteed supply.

I understand that yes. Most people who know what they are doing will understand that yes. The general rec player or someone who once wanted to try poker who hears about this may not want to try at all. I mean, if this went on for a couple of years in plain sight and the casino, what is a casino going to do for "average joe wanting to try poker" to ensure they are not taken advantage of.

I mean, at a blackjack table, winning like that, no way was it going to go that far. At any pit game it wouldn't have gone that far.

This one is so so so weird. The commentator calls "red eight" in advance both times....a red 8 comes on each turn. Commentator is one who is saying super weird stuff in a lot of spots throughout these vids.

The plot to this, if it was a movie...I'd walk out due to sheer unbelievability. And yet here we are.

With the apparently lax security controls in place, I'm no longer sure about Justin's involvement in this, nor anyone else's involvement outside of Mike. I do think Mike had one accomplice, maybe more. I think it's highly likely.

But my original assumptions about who this had to be were wrong. With server doors apparently unlocked, free movement of people in and out of the control room, mobile phones in the control room during broadcast, etc., etc., it's hard to say what really happened there now.

I had assumed that only a small number of people would be able to hack their systems (have the necessary physical access), and/or have the authority to approve changes to enable the hack (e.g. changes to a server configuration, to loading an application on a server, etc.).

But now I'm not so sure.