I try to state clearer what I'm saying. Not denying that you have watched many hours live streams and made conclusions based on that. Not arguing that it is wrong, or that Postle is not cheating.

I'm arguing that one can not say 100k$ winnings (or 200k$ if that is correct amount) with 400 hours of play is the proof. Because of statistic. Atm we don't know since there is no good analysis of that. And we should before it is any sort of argument that he is cheating because of it.

Goes for court case as well. To me it seems that at this time only evidence is that there are many pokerplayers that state, that Postle plays the way that he have to be cheating. Proplematic kind of evidence (especially when jury does not know anything about poker), if there is not more.

Okay. So you are in the "There's no PROOF that Postle cheated" camp. Thank you for making that clear.

It may be a surprise to learn that I would guess that the majority of posters in this thread largely agree with you (depending upon the definition of "proof").

This is an internet poker forum. It is not a court of law. People on this forum express opinions on poker-related issues. We do not convict people or throw them in jail.

Comonnowbro , you know how u act?

It's like you show up for class 3 hours late and everybody is on page 100. You my friend are on page 1. Trust me I was there too. But be careful because u talk a lot of nonsense which pisses off nearly everyone that covered the things u said.

It doesn't actually matter if he stole 1 dollar or 300k but first u have to understand that his plays made no sense. Of you are really what I think u are, a poker player, then watch Joe's summaries of the hands and the craziness that was.

Comonbro...

just when i thought the game was getting too tough to beat...

I hope Whosnext doesn't boot me for trolling but thank you for keeping poker profitable in 2020 ComeOnNow

while i agree, that having a conclusion and looking for proof afterwards, isn't scientific, but it's not that Mike was just on a heater. many pros, whom i would consider 'know what they are talking about', watched a very strange plays, where mike just played perfect. not in a sense like "this is +EV, so i make this stupid play", but "this is a -EV play, but i know i've the best hand".

and statistically speaking: the amount of money won wasn't just a few big pots, that shifted the average winrate. mike is such an outliner, that it reminds of potripper (which was btw a cheater, who was caught b/c of his unlikely winnings and strange/perfect play and not a 'smoking gun'). mike simply misses the crucial amount of 'good play, but lost pots', which is standard for every winning player.

regarding jury: not sure if a jury can convinced (is this even a jury trial btw?), but with mac and kelly arguing for the plaintiffs, i think there's a chance that 'non poker ppl' can be convinced since they not only know poker, but the law

More like 40bb/100 over 10k hands in game without antes and bomb pots, if 100k$ is correct total winnings, and 80bb/100 over 10k hands, if 200k$ is total net won by Postle.

Statistically nothing superspecial to win 40bb/100 over 10k even if you are breakeven player. 80bb/100 is a lot less likely though. That's probably super unlikely, if you are not big winner.

Of course we don't know very exactly since there is no collected hand histories and it is not clear who if anyone is correct about Postle's winnings.

This post earned you a 3-day ban.

You were warned about posting that type of "logic". It seems you have no clue about the entire Postle situation (despite tons of information being readily available including posts from nice folks who have replied to your earlier posts) and seem to have no interest in educating yourself about it. Of course, it is very likely that you are well aware of the Postle situation since why else would you join 2+2 and begin posting in this thread. Anyway, any more posts like this will likely result in a perma-ban.

Typically bans are issued "behind the scenes". But I thought there may be some value in publicly announcing this ban in the thread.

Well done @whosnext

So while it's completely clear from Mike's play that he was cheating and somehow knew the cards, these derails do bring up a point that I'd like to follow up on.

Most of the initial video review focused on the plays. The dick staring, laughing in opponents faces while folding the second nuts, perfect play after perfect play, etc. But we didn't get too much in the way of statistical aggregation. Joey tried to tally up W/L and add on hand by hand, and river decisions a little bit. The couple of sessions I saw him do it had *really* screwed up River stats, basically zero calls and everything was either a fold or a raise (makes sense if you know the cards). But after a session or two those videos stopped.

Does anyone know of any additional effort to aggregate hand by hand results (in a standard HH format maybe?)? With all the video evidence it should be possible. Or did we just collectively agree that the lawyers were going to do that?

I actually put together a spreadsheet compiling about 15 hrs of play before cheating and 20 hrs after. There are some columns you can't see, but I feel it was pretty comprehensive. I stopped the project because it wasn't worth my time as it would take maybe another 150hrs to complete. I just did it for myself so I could come to my own conclusion. That's why I don't understand people like Comeonbro saying we don't have HHs.

Good points.

Do we actually have the hh s of all his sessions?

Someone said Pottripper was confirmed a cheater through hh s alone. This is not correct entirely.
They also had other evidence such as ip addresses which linked certain people at ub to the account. Although the playstyle alone was evidence enough to most.

I think everyone was just resigned to the fact that it is a tremendous effort to put them in a standard HH format that could actually be read into PT4 or HM2/3 or something. But a higher-level summary of each hand seems like it would still be worthwhile.

Probably just needs someone to volunteer to coordinate the effort of dividing up the videos into groups of hands and getting volunteers to watch and summarize them. They could be entered into a google sheet that had columns showing Postle's actions on each street, won/lost, had a strong hand, just beat a bluff, etc., so the results could be easily aggregated.

IIRC a couple people earlier in the thread (Mr Spyutastic may have been one of them) posted that they compiled hand histories from some of the live streams but it would take literally hundreds of hours to do them all. Formal HH's is one thing but a simple summary (won/lost) of each hand is more doable, but I am not sure of the value of the won/loss stats in the absence of the hand histories since the hand histories are necessary to appreciate the cheating allegations.

Eta: ponied by Eponymous.

Yea, that's about what I figured.

I'd definitely help out with an effort like that though. It's a very scalable task once there's an agreed upon format. I just don't know what an appropriate setup would look like. Maybe it's worth a side thread to figure out.

Seems like it would make some things really jump out if it would help easily summarize some things, like if it really did turn out that his river call % was almost 0, just raises and folds.

Not sure what others have used, but my columns were:

Hand #; Date; Game Type; Stakes; Seat #; Youtube Link; Time Stamp; Stack Size at start of hand; Hole cards; Position; VPIP; PF Action; # of Players at Flop; Flop; Flop Action; # of Players at Turn; Turn Card; Turn Action; # of Players at River; River Card; River Action; Hand Result; Net $ won/loss; Notable; MP's Hand at point of last action; Bluff; PFR; 3Bet; Hand Type at point of last action; Note

I might've missed some other things we'd want to filter for, but I kind of just dove in quickly and realized how tedious this was. So it's no surprise no one wants to just take 300hrs out of their life to go and do this when the conclusion is till quite obvious without doing the entire thing.

Yea, ain't nobody got time fo' that. But I'd think you might be able to get 50 people to spend two 3 hour evenings each.

Yes, others have already said this but it bears repeating. In the court of public opinion, anybody who believes Postle cheated does not need detailed hand histories and a complete accounting of his wins/losses and anybody who believes Postle did not cheat would not be persuaded by detailed hand histories and a complete accounting of wins/losses.

The consensus seems to be that such information would be compiled by the plaintiffs' side in the lawsuit (they probably cannot rely upon the veracity if it is compiled by a bunch of anonymous people on a poker website) for "ammunition" in discussions of possible settlement and/or monetary damages.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is sufficient.

Yes but it doesn't mean those who don't believe after having reviewed the footage and explanations shouldn't be ridiculed and feel bad about their ridiculous disbeliefs.

Just like flat earthers, anti vaxxers and a bunch of other "controversial" subjects.

I thought Berkey said the RFID (or the other) software would keep the hand histories in a workable format so unless that info is destroyed before discovery, the plaintiffs should obtain it in a readable format.

If someone were producing a live stream, why would they keep the hand histories in the first place?

"I have the video that shows all that stuff, why use space for redundant info?"

So if those files are not there, can you assume that Stones intentionally destroyed evidence?

I would assume the space needed to store the read cards is puny compared to the video storage and system makes permanent not temp files.

I don't know if you can assume intentional destruction, I was just pointing out that the enormous undertaking may be duplicative of info already stored on a Stones computer.

When we say hand histories, we aren't just talking about the cards. We need to know starting stack sizes, and each player's actions including bet and raise sizes.