He asked if mike has a windows phone because of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qar90n6teQ&t=143s

Watch 4:30

https://youtu.be/4pSUbMEXHGM?t=11491

The hand at 3:12:00 -- Mike P tanks for a few minutes, moves his head about, checks his cards/lap a couple of times and makes the easy ... ?

The spot for the bone conductor is readily visible when he lifts his hat too though upon further review it could gray hair as that totally Mike Postle's 2+2 account claimed several thousand posts ago.

Watch the hand when someone links it. I didn't explain it well but its unmistakable

Yeah I mentioned it because in the video he says this feeds to Windows Media Player and maybe someone has a Windows phone.... and he opens Media Player.

But I'm sure it's just some protocol that any one of a dozen players has the codec for.

The statistical argument in terms of winrate is not a compelling I think. You can prove that Mike is winning at a rate far greater than an "average", whatever that means, but all that proves is what Mike already admits to - he wins more than other people.

You can't know the true variance of live winrates because the data doesn't really exist anywhere, and you can't control for the conditions that would cause the Stones game to be different than other live games. Live winrates for a 5/10 NLH reg at the Bellagio are not going to be the same as a 1/3 game that "plays like" a 5/10, offline games can (and do) play differently than streamed games, and winrates will be severely distorted if you compare pros who play at large rooms against many opponents vs the Stones game where there is a small pool of repeat players whose skill (or lack thereof) will disproportionately distort the winrate of other people at the table.

And remember, the goal of hypothesis testing is not to identify a cause, but simply to conclude that there is a difference in means for a certain confidence level. But you could similarly conclude there is a difference in means with a p-value under 0.01 for virtually any legitimate winning pro who provided you with a year of data. So all you're proving is that Mike is a winning player, and even though his explanations are obviously ridiculous to seasoned poker players, exploitative reads would render any comparison to legitimate winrates irrelevant. It's easy to win 200BB/hr when Harlan chews Oreo's any time he has no pair. Oh, Harlan isn't in your game? Then I guess we can't really compare them, can we?

Ultimately any "objective" statistical argument will fall back on subjective reasoning (how much can someone play exploitatively and deviate from solid fundamentals and be profitable, or in Mike's case, a crusher). This isn't something you could ever prove in any meaningful, quantifiable way.

Wait, what on earth is this?

Don't make wild accusations without evidence.

But Stones surely have this data, right? I saw in the comments section during a stream that Stones was showing VPIP data for all of the players. They are showing win rates. So aren't they tracking all of the relevant statistics during the live feed, and haven't they likely been doing that since this streaming show began? Wouldn't they be able to do the research required to prove conclusively that Mike is a statistically significant outlier?

Some people are just conspiracy nuts and can't help themselves. Even with real events that actually happened, like JFK assassination or Epstein, the actual conspiracy isn't enough. They have to invent other weird angles to the story like lizard people or mind control chemicals.

No, because the mean and the variance are not identically distributed for Mike compared to other players, and that would be true whether or not Mike was cheating and is true for basically everyone. For the statistical argument to hold (at least, all this discussion of p-value probability), you would have to somehow have a year of data for 30 copies of Mike where he doesn't have his phone, playing the same game, and then compare it to a year of data where he does have his phone. *And then* you can conclude that Mike having his phone out is statistically significant.

If this all sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. The "objective" argument is ridiculous, and a more subjective, nuanced analysis is much more appropriate.

A mod can delete my post, but when someone can post the hand from Joeys live stream then it'll be more obvious.

I can't do that right now so hopefully someone else can link the hand

Druff posted her tweets over on his site in the beginning of this saga. It has stuck with me since I first read it. Absolutely disgusting. Good for you for reporting this nut-low piece of trash to her employer.

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.

Casino.org did a story on the MP situation....

The great part? They used one of the pictures from the Rounders SPOOF video from someone's youtube video as the ACTUAL picture of MP.....

Nice research, guys....

https://www.casino.org/news/poker-ex...es-allegations




SW

That's fantastic

It doesn't matter how "obvious" it is - it's one. ****ing. hand.

At the very least, you couldn't have waited until you could post the actual clip you're talking about, rather than just posting your anecdote and asking someone to hunt it down and clip it for you?

That's right. Some stories happen exactly as they first appear, like the one about durrr spending most of 2014-2016 in a Chinese poker dungeon.

Assuming he was dealt approximately 25 hands/hr (I arrived at this by fast-forwarding through a few of the streams and counting the number of hands dealt), and using the statistics found in this spreadsheet, he had a winrate of ~756bb/100 over a sample size of ~9,750 hands. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that winrate about an order of magnitude higher than any legitimate winrate (with a sample size that large) that's ever been observed in the history of the game? How could that not be a compelling argument?

Mike aPostle of Chris "Jesus" Ferguson. We all know where he got the inspiration

Postle talking a man out of a fold in a 550 dollar sit and go. We have table chatter on this one folks. He makes a couple odd comments to his opponent.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/403800827?t=1h18m44s

I want you guys to start to pay attention to the live scroll chat and for lawsuits and evidence I would suggest someone download the live chat replays on youtube and twitch. We have Taylor in the twitch chat as "TheVocalTerror" and he is a mod. Some of the things I've seen him say are questionable, but really someone should download all chat logs.

Here we can see mike glance down between his legs while not even peeling his cards. Remember he doesn't even have to peel his cards to cheat because his holdings are right in his lap. He does take a second peel and look down again.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/403800827?t=1h25m31s

From a logical perspective it is. But in a trial with a jury couldn't the defence just say it was a miracle and the idiot jurors will believe it? This evidence helps but only if combined with witness statements, video footage of behaviour, examples and evidence of the tech used.

6:35 onwards.
This is not to be taken seriously.

My personal experience in NEVADA with respect to the 'structuring' law is that some casinos set their own arbitrary amount, and then see what they can 'get away with.

On 2 occasions, I have hit a series of non-W2G-generating payouts and ended up with a TITO (slot ticket) for 2300-3500$ (buy hitting 800$ on hands in close succession to each other, but none over the magic 1200$ mark, and then had difficulty cashing out the ticket, since the TITO 'machines' that cash tickets in most casinos have a 1k (or similar) max payout limit, and you must go to the cage to cash them.

Upon going to the cage, (again on 2 occasions at 2 different casinos, Plaza and Orleans) they start asking for my players card, ID, asking questions about what game I was playing, etc. I would ask them why that was relevant, and told them that I just want to be paid my money, and that, via the TITO itself, they can SEE what I was playing, and, if they like, can review tapes or see whose card was in the machine at that time, and give them no other info, because it is NOT REQUIRED. Both times, they sent some senior person down who finally OK'd my being paid without added info.

The point here is, 5k or 10k, the cages at many places have been instructed to actively annoy and get info from people who they SUSPECT MAY be attempting to 'structure' to save them the hassle of looking things up later.
Many have some lower-than-5k-trigger value that is known only by them where they start asking questions. I'm sure Stones has this value as well.