Quote:
Originally Posted by auralex14
... Postle's a pro, he's already said poker's been his primary source of income for 15+ years, so for me, I'd just spend my time on how his stats compare to other pros. Perhaps I'm missing something? Not being a pro myself, I'm not qualified to answer what winrates should be, but others in here will know.
p.s. I was thinking earlier how lucky the Plaintiffs in this case are to have all this crowd-sourced, expert analysis provided to them basically free of charge. I know I would've appreciated it in some of the cases I've been involved in
I'm 2/3's complete of an analysis of Postle's play during the early streams, the 8 sessions prior to when the "alleged" cheating begins. I couldn't possibly qualify Postle's results, style, or discipline as professional. Out of 32.6 hours of play, 21 that have been closely analyzed, I identified only 3 plays that one might consider advanced and 24 plays that are quite poor for any thinking player. All these instances are identified with timestamps within my work product.
I could classify Postle's style as loose, splashy, fish and occasionally aggressive. He seems to rarely take table position into account, certainly not a deep thinking player. His results over the first 32.6 hours on Stones live are not at all remarkable, he had plenty of run good, and spewed chips at times for apparently no reason. I have never seen or known a pro with these characteristics. He is not a pro, he is a con man.
He claimed to Mike the Mouth that he added on often to keep his stack near the biggest on the table. This is simply not true, it never happened during the first 8 streams. And it didn't happen during his 14 months of "run-good" when his stack was always amongst the biggest on the table. During these aforementioned 8 early streams, his stack was "what it was" during play, usually somewhere near average or somewhat below average. The only add-ons / rebuys occurred when he was felted or nearly so. I've watched closely for this, random add-ons simply didn't happen. Postle flat out lied to Mike Matusow.
Another consideration is the opponents. I want to be careful with this. I feel badly for them, all of them. Once he begins his "amazing reads" he becomes very difficult to play against. He would have tilted me, I'm sure, and I am reserved and unemotional about my play as anyone. With that said, very few, if any of his opponents during the first 8 streams are "professional" either. Some exhibited very solid play, a few might be very profitable players. I have viewed some very good sessions from some of the players. Generally, in these early 8 streams the play was standard recreational and regulars playing poker, in my opinion. Of the entire pool playing in these sessions there were very few advanced plays and many poor plays, most of the big pots were two big hands trying to win or a big failed bluff. The line up was probably no better or worse than your average 2-5 game in Vegas or Reno, I have lots of experience in these cities. Just because you say you are a professional, doesn't make it so.
I wish all Postle's former poker opponents the very best and I sincerely hope I can contribute in a small way to the recovery of their loses and plus generous damages.