No no no no no no. You had said before that you can win 900bb/100 at 1/3 with skill, I dismantled that arguement and I am going to repost it because you don't seem to have an understanding of mathematics or poker in general.

Poker is a game that has small edges, it's not like chess where you control every decision. When you are talking about win-rates, you need to understand that skill can only take you so far in a game like poker. In a game like chess you could theoretically win 99% of your games if you are the best chess player in the world.

When you are talking about win-rates in poker you must understand that there is a ceiling effect in poker, what does that mean? It means that no matter how good you are, your win-rate will get stunted, it's not like chess where you can win 99% of the time, what does this have to do with mike postles win-rate? EVERYTHING, you can't achieve 900bb/100 at 1/3 2/5 with just simply skill, no matter how good you are "because of the ceiling effect that exist in poker", you can't achieve his win-rate with pure skill, you need to also run hotter then the sun to achieve his win-rate.

Stop thinking you know it all!

So now your saying mike postle just ran hot? Before this is not what you said. Also, im not even going to bring up the fact that you thought a 63% VPIP at 1/3 with a 900bb/100 is not suspicious.....LULZ

I just logged in and have reviewed your posts since coming back from your temp-ban.

Posts bashing mods or 2+2 are not allowed in this thread. Any more of them and the posts will be deleted and you will be perma-banned.

Posts defending Postle or questioning the cheating allegations are totally appropriate in this thread as long as they are based on some reality or valid reasoning. Just as baseless allegations are not allowed, baseless "defending" is also not allowed.

If your posts are simply baseless ramblings, they will be deleted and you will be perma-banned.

All the above is important circumstantial evidence. However the purpose of the civil suit is to seek financial restitution for the victims, to make them whole. It is essential therefore that accurate measurement of victim losses is calculated - and that really won't be all that easy as explained by others ITT. If there were no losses then there would be no civil suit.

Pretty easy math problem to solve what is the probability to win 94% of the time over x session of play.

You can vary what is the probability you have a winning session. For professional poker player it can easily be, that expectation is that 75% of the times you play 5 hour live poker you book a win.

So answer: not that uncommon over small sample size.

Every spin and sit & go players know how long you can either run superhot or then cold. Not need to even play. Just do some simulations.

Since it is not that uncommon show that sample of a professional poker player winning 90% of his sessions.

Over how many sessions?

It's interesting to me that the Stu Unger cheating theory involves "cobalt blue lenses" (allegedly used to see magic ink) and the Mike Postle cheating theory involves a cobalt blue smartphone screen.

If his glasses were blue they wouldn't reflect the white lights above him as white, which they do. And when he handed Harlan the phone he switched away from his blue screen. Both of these are demonstrated in my post 6680:

Oh, say a small sample like 200. Show me the player who has won 180 out of 200 cash game sessions (session being 5 hours or more of play). Just one, since it is not that uncommon.

Debatable, depends on what you are using the data for.

I love your self-serving strawman arguments. "Postles chips are over reported" when its convenient, then saying "All ins have 30% bigger stacks so the data cant be trusted".

But you're right, I've seen plenty of all-ins stacks that were under reported, which is in line with anecdotal evidence of chipping up without telling the dealer. So in most cases, you'd expect chips to be underreported. Mb the graphics team corrects it after all-in situations, would have to look into that or talk to a reg or dealer at Stones Live to figure out their protocol. But Id imagine there could be under reporting as much as there was over reporting of his stack size.

Stu ungar won the wsop back to back. How do you explain this?!

in cash games he was constantly moving chips, and let me tell u he didnt have aces all the times. one can argue he won 70% of his sessions, idk

He had a vpip of what? maybe 60% 70% in cash games. and was runnning everyone over. because he played the people not the cards.

annette15, was playing a mtt without looking at her cards, and won. u can play the people not the cards.

Not really. Once the court decides that cheating/fraud took place it is up to them to award damages. You don't need a cross checked double footed CPA certified quantified exact accounting to 6 decimal places of the actual damages.

The court can make its award given the information presented.

are u saying stuey won the main event with the help of his blue glasses?

In a similar note, Ted Williams had a career .344 batting average, 521 home runs, and a .482 on-base percentage.

Show me the cash game player that has won 180 of his last 200 sessions (a session being defined as around 5 hours in length). I am told that it is not all that uncommon so it should be easy to find one.

I'm saying that it's a theory that exists.

These are inaccurate analogies, annette15 winning a mtt wothout looking at her cards literally means nothing, I don't think you have a strong understanding of mathematics. Also, stu ungar winning BTB is still mathematically low, but it is not as low as winning 900bb/100 with a VPIP of 63% over 300 hourse at 1/3. The individual above is asking for longer sample sizes.

Could Stu have done that completely disengaged from the table staring at crotch though? Mikes on another level almost clairvoyant.

Has anyone checked Postle's genealogy to see if he's related to Ungar?

Please ignore the idiot ruining this thread. He's clearly not capable of a rational conversation and going through pages of nonsense to find quality content is a pain.

There is no delay between Harlan looking at the phone and Mike showing a white screen. You are assuming he switched but can't prove it.

https://youtu.be/nUr3WeFDHZM?t=27m41s

oooook what about:

jonny chan

archi karas, "the run" or however they called it , who ran 10k into what 17 million ?

phil ivey

dwan

etc..

Most probably some in this forum have had results like that. Not that uncommon. Even more common if your style is such that you book small wins over big win or big loss.

If you book win 190 or more times over 200 then it is not that common. Or you should have huge edge.

There are a few seconds between the screen reflecting blue on Mike's glasses until he turns the phone to Harlan. The proof of him switching is in the screen visibly changing colors between those two events. You can see the delay in both my video which is slowed down to 25% and in the real-time video I took it from and which you just linked. Most of the delay is in the cross-dissolve between camera angles.

Donking turns and rivers is a good stat. You watch. He rarely donks turns or rivers outside of God mode. In God mode, he does it all the time (and, of course, mostly when he has fold equity).

Still waiting. Just one. Incredibly easy to find one since it is not that uncommon.