I just want to state that its been confirmed that "godeep" is most likely Mike. Anyone replying to his posts are just falling for his trap and polluting the forum with garbage please ignore all posts from "godeep"

I think a real crusher *could* get to $100, but a major strike against this for Mike is that these games are running for 3 hours. If you come late into an uncapped game, or play a long super deep session, I can see those kind of win rates. But you're playing for 3 hours each time and the initial buyin was 200bb cap for everyone.
Your variance, amount of losing sessions and winrate should plummet when you only see ~70 hands per session.

Mike, you shouldn’t do drugs. Think about your daughter.

This would be an even worse idea than appearing on a podcast and giving away a lot of incriminating evidence against yourself as Mike already has. So with that said, I hope Mike does such.

Go watch joey postle vid #2 , the entire session.

Guys, this isnt Mike Postle, its Mike Matusow

Two Questions I have for this hand versus Chris Moneymaker at 1:17:39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y41k...outu.be&t=4658

Can anyone who has watched hundreds of hands remember when MP specifically bet by stacking his chips and sliding them in? The way he puts in the chips on every street seems unique to me vs all of the hands ive watched.

Also is Mike's reaction after winning the pot a reverse tell. If you were cheating and wanted to dump money to one of your boys, would you make sure to react so animatedly uspet.


The other hand this session with weird betting patterns is this hand at the end vs Chris at 4:16:28 https://youtu.be/y41krxUrcqs?t=15388

It is interesting in that the MP data shows he almost never makes an incorrect decision on the river except in hands with Chris.

Also, does the way MP bets his counterfitted two pair on the river remind you of the remind me of the way the french guys signal each other in the Poker Finals in france or am I too deep in finding conspiracy mode lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsiEYHR11qA

Can you reference anyone else winning ~225-300+ bb/hr over a similar sample? There are countless PGC on 2p2. You can go to any room in the world and nearly every winning player uses a tracking app. These winrates are unheard of.

The funnier thing about people like you trying to claim Mike "runs good" is that he rarely makes hands in the streams. He rarely coolers anybody! Anyone who has even watched live poker knows that is where the majority of your winnings come from. Instead, the vast majority of his winnings are from bluffing the river with air. There is a reason this has never been seen before outside of potripper.

Lol, I don't know what the ultimate outcome will be, but I guarantee you it won't involve Postle suing anyone for defamation. You really think he wants to be deposed by opposing counsel? You really think he wants to perjure himself and invite more scrutiny into his shadiness?

When Matusow brought this up in his interview Postle already said he wasn't gonna do that--which if you think about it would be a rather odd thing to say if he were in fact innocent (he's not).

This guys really in here trying to find the best evidence against him to create a defense. Hope this stuff is archived for when he inevitably deletes these posts

Yea.

If live reads are that important to his decision making why the **** he is staring at his crotch all the ****ing time?

Exactly. There are many clips I've seen where some of the commentators seem like they're OVERselling Mike being a sicc poker gawd.

No. I can't reference anyone winning at ~225 - 300 bb/hr over a similar sample.

From my personal experiences the most I've won over this type of sample (5k-6k'ish) hands is around 200 bb/100.

I'd love to talk about it more and get into the likelihood percentages but I don't want to derail the thread.

I don't claim he's just running good. I've said on many occasions, I think he's cheating in some form or another in some hands/sessions. So many "plays/reads" in so many sessions are absolutely ridiculous all while he's looking down at his crotch for majority of the hand.

Can someone explain why they ran 2 of the same streams and why they played a replay. did something happen at the casino that day. anyone break the case on that double stream yet?

So Berkey demonstrated how the software has two screens - one which a technician uses to tell the software all the player actions (check, bet, amounts, etc..) and which only has access to the face-up community cards (flop, turn, river). Then there's a second screen which has the actual hole cards. He describes how the two screens are usually not seen by the same person in a production scenario but how they are for Stones. He describes how that is problematic because it allows one person to have all the information. I don't follow that logic. How is having the information that's already available to all the players (community cards) plus the hole cards any worse than having access to only the hole cards? The only scenario I see that being significant is that it allows someone who has both sets of data to see situations where Mike is being too obvious with the cheating based on his actions and the flop cards vs players' holdings and to change the hole cards in those situations, like what we saw with the 86o hand. But those seem like outlier events vs the crux of the cheating, which is simply to feed Mike the hole cards.

Smoking gun.

As long as the game played roughly as big before and after his phone was on his lap, and there is a good sample of sessions for pre and post phone on his lap, this is the case.

You have an electronic transmission device you start to conceal right as your win rate skyrockets. There’s no defense to that.

When Mike stares at his phone, he's potentially staring at the hole card computer display via-screensharing software (many ways), private twitch/youtube link of the computer display (via OBS) or texts / coded alerts from a live person monitoring the computer.

Someone had some good evidence that the screen on his phone was some sort of Google Chrome screensharing app. It's some pages back.

The computer handling the hole cards needs to be investigated, but I'm sure they (attempted) to scrub it already.

^^^^^
To anyone skeptical about who godeep is, this was his first post.

More likely a troll imo

Additionally, just random observation from my legal experience and maybe Australian is more stringent but I highly doubt, without a confession or further tangible evidence (texts, app data etc), this would even be brought to trial by our department of public prosecutions.

When watching it it seemed like a lunatic move. But after hearing how they talked about that exact hand and he couldn't let it go. Because u know of moneymaker was in the hand blabla ! It seemed legit I can't help it. I mean only based on the hand

Absolutely. We've established the phone is on his lap. We've established him inexplicably looking at his lap where his phone is concealed multiple times during big hands. If he's not cheating, it shouldn't matter if where his phone is located. The only explanation is some information on his concealed phone is giving him more of an edge.

If you've watched any of his interviews or the mouth podcast you would know this guy is easily dumb enough to make that post. But yes i guess it could be a troll.

Maybe I am giving him too much credit but I really can see he could idiotically think defending himself directly via mouth is fine but anonymously in a 58 page thread on twoplustwo seems farfetched and even an absolute moron surely would be skeptical of the effort vs effectiveness of that approach

Who attempted to scrub it?

Seriously, guys. I'm not saying obstruction of justice never happens- far from it- but this notion that people involved in complex computer crimes just erase all the evidence, even evidence that isn't within their control, even when doing so can get them in real trouble with their employers or make things look more suspicious, is unfounded.

Most likely, the mechanisms that were used to perpetrate this still exist somewhere in readable form.

Somewhat less likely, some of the mechanisms not within the possession, custody, or control of Stones which were use to perpetrate this no longer exist. However, in that event, (1) the mechanisms within the possession, custody, and control of Stones still do exist, and (2) there is some sort of digital forensic trail that will yield significant usable evidence regarding the destroyed or secreted items.

But no, the chances that (1) the hole card reading computer contains relevant evidence regarding the hack and (2) it was successfully scrubbed of all incriminating information by a Stones employee with access to it are very close to zero.

IF this is investigated properly, there is going to be a mountain of evidence. It's just impossible to pull something like this off without leaving an extensive trail.