Nothing to do with Postle cheating he just really wanted to use this emoji

Yes, she made a mistake after the hand when trying to figure out how Mike could have just called there. She correctly said that she expected him to check-raise his boat and was shocked when he didn't. That's not the kind of comment someone makes when they don't even know the basics of the game.

My comment about mistakes during a four-hour stream is valid here. It's not that they get tired at the end of it. The point is that when you're talking about poker live for four hours, you're going to make some mistakes in there, especially if you're not a professional broadcaster. Lon McEachearn makes mistakes like that all the time when he's announcing live.

If you're confused about why she said he looks upset after maybe being shown one 9, then it sounds like Kasey may know more about poker than you do. By showing him one 9, it would upset him because he would think he folded the best hand (a pair of jacks) because his opponent is making it look like he just had a pair of nines. The part about the 8 not hitting is when she is speculating on what might have been going through Mike's head about different holdings his opponent might have and how they would have helped his hand.

During this hand, she also talks about her study away from the table and the importance of thin value betting. That is not the comment one who doesn't know the basics of the game like hand rankings would make.

If anything, these examples prove that she has a much deeper knowledge of the game than you were giving her credit for.

@Eponymous

you asked for examples, I gave you examples.

Point about the showing one 9 is, it's not really relevant. If you hold JT and calling to get to the turn, what turn card will Postle not fold on?
He doesn't like top pair now? I don't think I really need to explain this to you
Seems like a distraction tactic to me.
Yeah I agree they talk about other things like thin value, which might show that they do know something.
And then on the other hand they would also recognise a boat, and somehow think that a straight could beat it.

So what is it, they know a lot about poker now, but they also lose all logical reasoning when it comes to making up excuses for Postle?

https://youtu.be/bQ8dP8ILQaI?t=3486

I just went over this hand here, Mike's cards are unknown.
Anyone in for to do some detective work?
Taylor is coming to tell them Mike had KK, you sadly can't see when turned around on the table.
Comms are explaining then why after, i mean, the man behind the scenes could have simply changed the camera, cause there are two angles (player angles), where you should have seen the cards laying on the table then.
Comms are saying "King on the river on the first board", i mean, so Mike had KK, Porter KJs, there was a K on the flop, and then another K on the river???
1:02:43 - also even chat is complaining about the camera view.
There is no need to change camera angles, someone simply needs to switch the camera, the view was changed to full table view manually 1:00:23.

Btw. read the comments under the video in YouTube.
They were already over a year old. I mean, i get it with the cardreader, but at least you should show cards then when being turned around on the table. Obviously noone was complaining at the table, so it is right for sure but i still don't get it, that this happened so often.

EDIT 2: Ten minutes later happens the exact same thing, WTF. 1:14:30

Yes, the exact type of examples I said you would provide. They made mistakes in talking about the hands, but they clearly know poker much better than people that don't know the basics of the game. People that don't know the basics aren't shocked when someone just check-calls with a boat, and they don't talk about the importance of thin value betting.

They didn't lose logic, she made a mistake in her shock of how Postle could just call the river with his boat, which is not something a novice be shocked about. This is exactly the type of example I said you would provide. It makes it very clear they are not novices at the game that were just picked off the street.

I'm done arguing this. Let your posts and my posts stand on their own.

I'm pretty sure Kasey knows hand rankings. I mean it was beginning of the show and she was reading chat messages, looking at a text from JFK, and trying to figure out a reason why Mike would make such a weird play all in quick succession. So it's understandable why shed have a brain fart.

In the next hand in question, when she says "Granted if the 8 doesn't come, he's ahead", shes talking about a hand @1:10:48. https://youtu.be/WaWPHGvuqDg?t=4248
Didn't listen to all of it, but it looks like they talk about that hand for like 8 minutes straight all the way up until half-way through the hand in question. They're both concentrating on the hand from 8 mins ago, Scott interrupts Kasey about the current hand and looks visibly surprised at the fold after realizing what just happened and raises his hands as in "wtf just happened"? Kasey, after being stopped mid sentence talking about another hand, see's Mike is acting upset and comments on it. So it's clear their thoughts were else where and it doesn't appear to be a cover up.

Anyways, I wont defend too much when ppl bash the commentators. It's part of their job to take criticism. I also didn't enjoy their commentary very much bc when I watch streams, I personally prefer commentators to be quiet. I like listening to table talk and wouldn't care if there were no commentators at all. That said, after listening to Jamans podcast with Joey, I think that, had MP not been cheating, it would be a fun little show to watch if I were a local, or lived within driving distance of Stones. I could definitely see myself sit back, drink a beer and just have fun watching.

But accusations of being accomplices are a lot more serious. I'd suggest that if people are really serious about them being involved, to name the people they believe to be involved so we could start investigating. They can't all be involved, and if you can't even figure out which one's stand out from the others, then there obviously isn't enough evidence to accuse them. Let's flesh this out, bc it keeps coming back up and just dies out and comes back and dies out. Let's get some names and seriously look into it. If you aren't able to come up with a name, then I don't think it is fair to call them accomplices. Maybe that's just me, but I take cheating allegations very seriously, and lumping them all together just doesn't cut it.

As opposed to what? If these examples arn't good enough, what examples *would* you accept? None i guess.
I think we agree that they are both very surprised he did not check/raise his boat.
I point out that she notices they both have a boat. We agree that they notice that.
And we also agree that they seem to know enough to prove they are not novices.

But right after she notices it is a boat, she then forgets it was a boat almost exactly 1 minute later?
In one minute? I don't believe it, I think this is where we disagree.

About the second example: You say that you think her part of talking about 8 not hitting, you think is her talking about what's going through Mike's head?
You're wrong. She's talking about a hand from about 4 hands ago, between JD and Robert.
Pretty sure she's just willfully ignoring the current hand (of JT vs 99).
Scott points it out and she ignores what he is saying.
It just seems to me like a diversion tactic.

Anyway, I see this as a discussion, not an arguement, but feel free to respond or not

That was my only point, that it is a bit unfair to say they don't know the basics of poker including hand rankings. I was not discussing any of their motivations for defending Mike's play or anything else.

So they talk through 4 hands as a diversion tactic for another hand that hasn't even been played out yet?

Are you implying that Kasey is an accomplice? She was one of the one's that thought Mike was cheating along with Veronica and she is also part of the civil lawsuit.

+1

Ali Nejad is a good poker broadcaster too. If they got into a big pot on Poker After Dark, he might say nothing for 2 minutes. He didn't have to! You could see what was going on.

Just come in when you have something worthwhile to say. Jokes are OK too-- Norman Chad obviously makes them, but he also knows when to shut down.

Seems too weird to me.
Correct, they talk about an old hand. I interpret her response to Scott differently.
Yeah exactly, it keeps coming up, so I thought I'd have a look. I got to about looking at 2 hands and someone asks me for examples.
The point is, I was just going to see if their commentary was dodgy 100% or 90% of the time, or something.

If there were only a couple of mistakes, I would just chalk it up to 'yeah people make mistakes', fine.
I think the reason it keeps coming up, is because it does happen a lot. So I decide to check it out.
I've no idea how I would post any findings, because people don't like the idea lol
I dunno if I even want to put names to it, as you say. These arn't accusations, they are observations. These are just observations of the videos and discussion.

That's the whole point of this thread, to talk about these videos that are online and the whole world can see them. I.e. it's just a discussion.

ok great. The timing of their more bizarre statements seemed odd to me.
No, because that would be silly I meant Scott points it out 'hey look at this!' and she avoids the exact thing he points out.
Alone, it might be simply nothing. But if it happens every time, it might be something.
No because I've only looked at about 4 hands so far Just trying to see if they (the statements of any commentator during a Postle hand) are on balance more weird than not.

Holy **** head asplode! Well at least there's one informative post in the last few thousand.

I definitely see where you are coming from due to the countless hours of them explaining away Mikes ridiculous plays. It would drive any poker player insane hearing ridiculous justifications of what is blatant cheating. But let me put it this way...

Their analysis of Mikes play could be interpreted in three ways. 1) Either they are accomplices and are covering for MP, 2) they think he is cheating and are keeping quiet, and 3) they don't think he is cheating and are just coming up with the best possible explanation they can muster. To qualify #2, it is very possible for someone to legitimately think that Postle is cheating and keep quiet in order to catch MP, i.e. Veronica. It is also possible that someone thinks he is cheating or is unsure, but is keeping quiet bc they don't want to ruffle feathers.

I don't think there is anything wrong with naming names, as you said, the whole point of the thread is to generate discussion. I do, however, have a problem with lumping them together in an accusation. Not only is it irresponsible bc it, by necessity, implicates innocent people since they can't all be involved, but it is also inefficient. Because if a commentator were actually involved, it would be hard to actually figure out who it was when we accuse them as a group.

So I have no problem when people bash commentators; it's part of the job. I have no problem when people accuse a commentator by name; that's what we are here for, to discuss the cheating scandal. But I do have a problem with lumping them together bc it is both irresponsible and inefficient. That's just my take on it and I totally understand where you are coming from.

Is there a way to tell how many posts each individual person itt has?

Click on replies.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/m...sted&t=1753388

click the post count number from the NVG main page.

The mods have been discussing how this thread has kinda gone off the rails recently, as you can imagine.

A decision seems to be imminent that changes are a-coming.

What those changes are and what it means for the thread going forward will be laid out in a subsequent post.

Thank you for your patience.

It's pretty clear that this is a small pool of people that see each other all the time in the card room, getting drunk and bullshitting each other at a card game. The stream is not a professionally produced product.

This isn't that far off from the home games we used to have around here, or the smaller charity rooms. Places where you could walk in and call out "hey, **** you bill!" as a greeting. Where people pull all kinds of crazy **** to own someone they play against all the time. Or joke about how Matt is a literal gangster, Phil killed a hooker, Justin robbed a bank and got arrested for coming back to see what the cops were doing, and where the waitress is actually a stripper/hooker.

The only thing in there that is suspicious is the communication with the guy in the booth that can see the live feed. He should be sequestered.

Delete all the nonsensical back and forth and leave the actually beneficial content? Yes, please!

I'm still unconvinced by the need for various twitch chat screengrabs, but something useful about ^this^ post, was that it gives written confirmation that Taylor Smith (VocalTerror) was working that day. We already had him placed in the building on that day, as he appears on stream replacing the dealer's headset, but you could help us with several other sessions.
Since I've been looking at YouTube clips, and Taylor doesn't chat on there (he prefers Twitch, clearly), data on his whereabouts was harder to prove by watching YouTube.
It would be very useful if you could compile a speadsheet showing all the Twitch sessions where VocalTerror either does or doesn't show up. It's him, after all, that is the suspected main accomplice. Not the commentators.
Wait... what?
If you found evidence that Kasey was paid $25k to work as a commentator, that's one thing. Have you found evidence that she knew about cheating from the start, and was contracted to cover it up?
Maybe you can explain why this apparent accomplice is part of the lawsuit against Postle and Stones. :/

Seriously, you've got an interest in laborious detective work, so it's handy you're around to sift thru the videos to save other people the bother, but you're probably barking up the wrong tree with your focus on the commentators. Getting (from Twitch chat) all the dates where VocalTerror was working would be much more useful.

@ArtyMcFly

If Taylor used to play Marbles, we could maybe find out really quickly in which streams he was working, because as far as i saw, they always play Marbles in the end.

"Welcome to the stream! I'm Taylor, a 26 year old game enthusiast. My Username comes from my past of being a vocalist for a Hardcore/Deathmetal band named "Every Hand Betrayed"."

Every hand betrayed. Didn't know that. -.-

If 4 specific commentators are in the booth every time Mike is cheating along with all the shady commentary/chat don't you think thats suspicious? When Mike isn't cheating the range of commentators working in the booth is soooo much wider and its even less days, you have to question why? Why is it that Kasey Scott Chris and Justin Kelley are always working when Mike is cheating. Im not saying they were all getting some sort of “cut” per say but if they really knew about it and decided to do nothing....well in my eyes that makes them guilty. Veronica like I said only commentated a few times for Mike and she knew enough to speak out. Kasey, who by the way knows more about poker than half the people in this thread commentated for mike roughly 30 times.... while he cheated. Common dude its undeniable.

Spreadsheet updated. Thanks again for your work on the previously univestigated streams.
Thanks for this too. Maybe Joey can analyze and entertain the viewers a bit better than the commentators did!
Cheers for this one too and also the mix game one that wasn't on the sheet. There's still a few uninvestigated sessions from around that time, which I'm sure you'll get to, but it's looking like Postle may have had an uninterrupted streak of about 20 godmode sessions from Oct 2018-Jan 2019. He was consistently booking about 6 grand per session during that streak. If he didn't slow down, for one reason or another, his constant wins must have looked sooo suspicious to other players and commentators. (At other times, there's usually a "non-cheating" session every couple of months, and even some clusters of several "honest" sessions in a row.)

In Britain, the cycling commentators Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen commentated on every one of Lance Armstrong's Tour de France wins, and even said he was the best cyclist of his generation. Don't you think that's suspicious?

Jeez, man. Get some perspective. Some commentators appeared more often that others... because they were the main commentators!