. No, I took at face value your statement that I don't know why anyone would claim that math or stats could prove anything 100%.

Hey, math or statistics CAN prove somethings 100%. I gave you an example.

You did not qualify your first statement to limit it to this civil litigation.

However, to answer your second question, "Who determines what proof is.",

I also thew in the quantum of evidence required in criminal and civil litigation to "prove" something, i.e to support finding of fact.

in any event, what jury (?) , not likely to be one in California at least ....and fwiw, I think he did cheat.

Great post.

Although, I'm wondering how much statistical analysis has even been done. Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen any math/stats guy say they put in work on this and then post their findings.

I also still wonder if this can be approached from other angles too. Like, rather than focusing on a winrate, have the analysis focus on decision points instead.

Perhaps not but they could assign a confidence level to their findings. I guess I don't understand why people say this could be easily proven mathematically but then seem to be against this analysis actually being done. Perhaps statistical analysis could help the case against Postle. Perhaps it would not. I'm not sure what anyone has to lose at this point though other than the guilty party.

Postle sighted at Atlantis Reno

Celebrating "good things happening"

This guy luckboxed the truly impossible. Like he got a post-river card.

Wins hundreds of thousands of dollars by cheating. On video. Nobody can figure out how. No criminal charges. Civil lawsuit dismissed without even being tried.

Maybe Mike Postle is God after all...

I've been watching back old pre/post crotch phone sessions again and I still can't believe what I'm seeing lol

Pre-crotch? I never saw those.

I gather that he didn’t make any hero plays.

I never thought someone could get away with blatant cheating captured on video. Yet, here we are.

I still want to hear Postle give a legit interview. And I do want to see him play again.

You’re right it is super petty and weak to want to settle with everyone but Veronica but that’s how our system works.

When I was in a slam dunk civil case 7-8 years ago, one point early on the opposing part offered a settlement: the case is dismissed and we pay their legal fees for the time and trouble. Response? LOLOLOLOLOLOL (literally our lawyer wrote that we laughed out loud as a group at their offer)

This **** gets really petty and personal before it gets resolved. All feelings will likely be hurt beyond any possible repair (as if they haven’t already in this particular case)

Yup he plays like any average 2/5 player you'd see around. Nothing special. And that is one of the main points.

I actually am not even concerned w/ the amount of money he won or his win rate. The thing that is so convincing to me is the massive difference in the correctness of his decisions from one day to the next.

How do you go from playing like your avg everyday player(sometimes bluff into the nuts, don't slow play when you should, don't bluff when you could, etc.)

Then overnight go to playing ATC and not making a wrong decision in multiway pots over several streets.

Navigating a hand 3 or 4 ways perfectly is difficult to do for a single hand much less numerous hands over multiple sessions.

I concur. When I first heard rumblings I only had time to see a few hands. I actually didn’t see anything that unusual. I see good players play like that all time. Even the 5-4 vs A-K which could be done for deceptive purposes.

It is only when you look at hours and hours that it really comes apparent. A high-variance strategy with no losses.

It is like he flipped a coin and called it correctly every single time.

As I said, he either cheated or is the best poker player in history. There is no in between.

This is a long video on the transition from pre cheat to post cheat, but you don't need to watch the whole thing. It's what makes the cheating irrefutable to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aGD...ature=youtu.be

Exactly. My view of this situation too. It's unlikely he is the best poker player in the world. Hah.

More like this.

This guy should be writing books if he did not cheat.

It isn’t just his win-rate. It his style of play that produced it along with no major losing sessions.

I play with an excellent player who plays a very similar style. He is out of this world good at reading people and making hero calls. He would play that 5-4 occasionally to mix things up in a heartbeat. When I saw that hand, I didn’t think anything of it. I see it all the time.

He books extremely high wins and will run over the table. He puts people to the test like they never have been in poker. In a $40 pot, he will bet $500 on the river. With bluffs.

2 out of every 10 sessions he gets rocked. Someone will have the nuts on the river. His crying calls lose. That 5-4 play fails because he runs into pocket Aces. He can’t buy chips fast enough.

It is why when I first heard about it and saw the video, I was unimpressed. I thought it could be sour grapes. If you saw the guy I play with on certain nights, you would think he has special powers too.

Well, I hope to see him play again.

Pretty stupid too. Why settle 87/88 Plaintiffs and continue to incur the legal expenses of defending the one?

Settling scores. She’s the reason they’re in this mess so why not make it tough on her?

A top level A-hole move, but not a bit surprising coming from those clowns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only goal of filing the suit was to get to discovery. Initially grouping everyone together with the initial filing appears to have been a mistake. Everyone's claim was dismissed and therefore subsequent filings impaired.

You would have thought an experienced attorney would not have put all his eggs in one basket based on an understanding of a 150 yo precedence.

Did any experienced attorneys point this out when the case was filed?

new poker ebook.

Plot: Down on his luck dude, out of options, figures out how to cheat/godmode live poker.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Where-You-Fold-Thriller-ebook/dp/B0881217VB

The five reviews it has are pretty strong.

p.s. I was gonna download it as it looked interesting. Only avail in UK for Kindle???? I guess they haven't translated to 'murican english yet ?????

Hi Crusher:

I once had the job title of mathematical statistician and I posted earlier in this thread how an expert in this area who also understood poker could easily muddy the waters. You may want to find my earlier posts.

Best wishes,
Mason

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Is this a joke?

Obviously the opposing counsel did.

Thanks. I just re-read your previous posts (below) and I'm starting to come to the realization that this is the case, that a statistician will likely just confuse the typical jury.

Still, I'd hope that a true jury of Postle's peers, aka some in the poker community, could look at a statistician's findings and get some clarity from it. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic on that.

Not sure but while lots of people like Joey have put in work watching hundreds of hours of footage and reviewing tons of hands it doesn't seem like there has been much statistical analysis done. I suppose it's possible that the plaintiffs have had some work like that done but have kept it under wraps.

Since you seem to have accepted the merit (or lack thereof) of providing detailed statistical analysis as part of the proceedings, I'll spare that diatribe. I asked earlier about the accuracy of that scatterplot, since that at least qualitatively illustrated the likelihood of Postle's win rate. The data gathering later in October began to look more meticulously at the actual win/loss data (e.g. factoring in add-ons).

I know I would like to see someone produce a new scatterplot, as its better accuracy would make its conclusions harder to disprove.

Also...


I'm late to this party, and I see the exchange about it has died down, but I still would like to address it: calling Postle a scumbag would not likely subject a poster to defamation, and the "truth is a defense" defense has little to do with it.

Ultimately, it comes down to the usage of that word being an opinion, and for the most part, stating an opinion is protected under the law. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they don't apply to W0X0F's choice of words.

If you want a pretty amusing snippet of case law that is more related to calling Postle a scumbag, take a peek at Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting: https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...th/97/798.html. The short version of the back story is that a contestant (Jennifer Seelig) on a TV reality show refused to talk about her appearance on a local radio show. The show hosts then fired out a number of unflattering terms to describe her, and in turn, she sued the radio station's owners (Infinity Broadcasting) for the name-calling.

Any discussion of "actionable defamation" vs. "rhetorical hyperbole" in re the phrases "big skank" and "chicken butt" certainly warrants a read the next time you're sitting on the can.

One funny part of this Seelig case is that her attorney, Chris Dolan, later won a $61 million verdict for two Lebanese-American clients who had endured racial slurs from their boss in the wake of 9/11 (Issa v. Roadway Package Systems, 2006). I guess if I can paraphrase from an episode of The West Wing, adjudicating "chicken butt" doesn't really have the feel of high-minded debate.

Postle is a scumbag. Now come at me bro.

He doesn’t seem like the smartest guy, but you have to be some sort of evil genius to get hole card info on all your opponents, exploit it successfully to win hundreds of thousands of dollars over multiple sessions, and a year later nobody knows exactly what went down. Despite this all being recorded on video.

That seems almost as improbable as him being the best poker player in history.