I think I saw Justin tweet that he was taking bets on the accuracy of Postle's money won. He seems pretty confident it's more than 100k off, so if anyone were so inclined, I would highly advise taking the under.

I also highly advise escrow, for... reasons.

Maybe Mike screwed Justin (out of his cut) and he really thinks he won less than he did?

The exact amount he won is completely irrelevant to the fact that he cheated. Idk why people are focusing in on that.

Yeah it definitely shouldn't be the focus for sure. People are commenting though because that's the thing JFK keeps harping on because it's the only thing he has any hope to grasp on to.

But yeah there are plenty of hands where he cheated, but still lost the hand. He just lost much less $ than a non-cheater would've.

For some reason this seems to be lost on people like JFK and the few other supporters they have.

When somebody breaks into a bank, upon scoping the bank floor the first thing they do is ascertain: "Who's the manager running this joint?" Well, MP found his manager - Justin. Something tells me (Twitter to be precise) Justin is such a potato, MP's first thought was: "Sheez, look at that guy. I can work around him."

MP probably had help with the tech - just not sure Justin is crafty enough (or criminal) to be involved with it.

So, here's Justin, who's running this room. This stream. Yet here's what seems to be the case based on what we know:

1) Internal security was poor;
2) Tech protocols were not followed;
3) He built a regular grinder into a "God" on stream;
4) RFID irregularities were present;
5) He brought in pros, and they were cheated;
6) He shook hands with Sacramento regs, and their hard earned money was cheated;
7) Veronica was treated poorly;
8) He performed an "investigation", but nobody knows what was investigated; and
9) The very spirit of the game (and therefore entire poker room) was a complete mirage under his watch.

(and more)

And instead of answering questions from Wired, he uses a one-way platform (Twitter) to blast off like a teenager. I think he's defending himself / throwing "Stones" as less co-conspirator, more "I failed #1-9 above, but I will defend myself to the end."

What's next? Who knows. I think this is all just gossip / entertainment until Phil Galfond's research sparks the next round(s) of debate.

I wonder what the vibe is at Stones these days, is Justin walking around there working as normal? I wouldn't spend a dollar there on the tables unless it was stacked with discounted Buffalo Wings and a few beers for Monday Night Football.

I think you should take any personal gripes with me from 4+ years ago and discuss them privately, rather than hijack important threads on your own site with such nonsense.

Hi Dreamer:

Let me use your post to make a couple of comments.

While people such as Phil Galfond and Bart Hansen are certainly highly capable, convincing poker players who understand how poker is played is a lot different than convincing people on a jury, who at best know little about poker, that there was a problem here. That is this should be a much tougher nut to crack. The question will be whether Galfond (or Hansen) can break things down to a simple enough level that non-poker players will understand what actually happened. In my opinion this is a tough task and while someone like Phil is certainly very capable, it won't be easy.

Also, the idea that Postle made plays several standard deviations out is probably the wrong approach. All Postle has to say, given all these poker shows, is that someone has to be the luckiest. If this last statement isn't true, then every major lottery winner should go to jail.

So, what needs to be shown is not that he was x number of standard deviations away from the mean but that his results are somehow beyond what a very lucky person would show. And this is where a Phil Galfond type person can come in. Now, instead of looking at how unlikely a certain event was from a probability standpoint, he might be able to show illogical patterns in how the hands were played in many places. Again, this will be much more difficult to do and the explanation would need to be clear to non-poker players.

Best wishes,
Mason

I’m at the point now where I just want to see Galfond destroy Justin in all conceivable ways. Just wreck that clown.

But you put yourself in the middle of this as someone who can be relied upon. Don't you think that people, perhaps someone like Veronica/angry-polak, should know a little more about you.

Perhaps I should put up some more links to your website.

MM

I think the easiest analogy(which I have used several times to explain to people who don't play poker) is that of chess.

Imagine some guy you've kind of seen around on the chess scene for years floating at like a 1400-1600 rating overnight starts winning tournaments that are held at a certain venue. Before each decision he looks into his lap.(What's in his lap is a mystery.)

He goes on to win every tournament in the next 3 months beating all comers even several highly ranked GMs. Often times taking unorthodox lines that no human expert would think to use. He is never able to replicate these results in any other setting.

When asked to break down his lines and thinking at several points in various games his answers remain vague and demonstrate he has not the slightest deep knowledge of the game.

However he maintains his innocence and cries out that there's no proof he cheated and people are just jealous, since no one can prove how he cheated. Several players of the chess community took him to court and the case was thrown out on some technicality with the evidence never having been reviewed.

The tournament director and the chess "master" do victory dances saying there was no cheating because the courts said so. Instead of continuing to play and prove the doubters wrong, the chess "master" decides to quit the game forever.

I personally feel that JFK is so adamantly claiming the numbers are 100k off is because that is what Postle told him, and he's just working out Postles win by multiplying his cut.

Obv Postle saw a way to scam this complete idiot. Claim you had to rebuy/addon a couple of times as JFK will have been doing his regular work and unable to see the stream/game every minute. Quickly adds up.

There does seem to be some confusion over the numbers. This is the only part where JFK may have a point. We should know within reason what he won.

Very much worth a read. Thank you for linking to it.

Here's a Tweet by Brendan I. Koerner, who wrote the article.

There's a much easier way to reason with a layman about why Postle must have been cheating - the simple fact he only played in the livestream game rather than taking his supposed talents elsewhere to fully utilize his money-making potential. Ask them if they had the ability to print their own money if they would choose to print pennies instead of $100 bills. And then ask them if given the choice they would choose to print those pennies on a national live stream vs in a more private setting where others wouldn't have the opportunity to discover what you're doing.

Hi pocket:

I don’t agree. I think players at higher stakes would quickly pick up that something was wrong.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Mason,

That was the point of the second question - why would he choose to do this on a live stream where his actions could be discovered unless had to, ie he only had access to the hole cards on the livestream, which is why that's the only place he chose to play.

The fellas he played against were dupes. They deserved what they got.

Berkey didn’t, and he plays high stakes. Sure he’s a fish, but he plays those stakes.

Wow, that Kevin Racks video...

It still makes me laugh (in a sad clown sort of way) that the collective criticisms of the work done by Joey, Doug, Andreas, et al are that they "cherry-picked" hands to make Postle look guilty. And to show this, JFK and RounderLife cherry-pick hands that make him look innocent.

There was a made-for-TV HBO movie about the early years of the AIDS epidemic called And The Band Played On in which the characters categorized information into two subgroups: "things we think but don't know," and "things we know, but can't prove." They were pivotal descriptions governing the scientists' collective ability to convince the public and/or enact legislation.

I often think about those designations in areas that have nothing to do with that film (the current COVID pandemic providing ample opportunities). This Postle saga is precisely one of those areas, particularly when it comes to "know but can't prove."

Even if Galfond (or Bart Hanson or anyone else) meticulously logged every single hand, every single transaction for every single session, the toughest hurdle – whether in the court of law or the court of public opinion – is satisfying those who are not poker-savvy enough to understand what is being presented.

Breaking it down into probabilities – e.g. the chances of a player achieving this is 1 in [insert large number] - merely turns into preaching to the choir. Someone will inevitably use as a defense a strange occurrence that is equally improbable, like the various people who have won multiple lotteries or the crazy case of former park ranger Roy Sullivan. The people who take a Lloyd Christmas "so you're saying there's a chance" approach will never be convinced.

Anyway, talk about preaching to the choir... I'm doing that myself with this very post. Just frustrating. It's as if someone used the "Ask The Audience" lifeline on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, 99.8 percent of the audience selected A but the contestant opted for D. Only in this case, the question is "Did Mike Postle cheat," the audience consists solely of experienced poker players, and the four choices are "A) Definitely, B) Probably, C) Probably Not and D) I'm An Assclown."

What's interesting about that stream is that he doesn't start cheating until a little past halfway through it.

Hi Mason, I totally agree with everything you just said, In fact I said the very same things much earlier in the thread.
I don't think we are at the point of convincing a jury. That ship has sailed.

We need to show the poker community that these people cheated and that any future players or casinos who think about working with these people have the correct evidence to show they are untrustworthy at the very least.
Its clear people in this scenario are brazen.
The smart thing for them to do would have been to walk away quietly.

It has to be clear that cheating has consequences even if all it does is warn others not to do business with such people in the future.

Yeah, his story is compelling. Best poker player on the face of the planet playing 1/3 and 2/5 in a random casino in Norcal.


Low IQ. Obviously, his alcoholism pickled his brain.

Hard to believe you're around 70 years old and still act like this.

What is wrong with you?

We are trying to deal with a cheating scandal here, and nobody has time for the petty grudges of a bitter curmudgeon.

Please stop hijacking this thread with nonsense.

^^

You appear to be getting the worst of this. He has merely indicated with some supporting evidence that you appear to be a hypocrite.

Now you are just throwing insults back.

And also, in attempting to have the last word, amplifying the derail.

Just ignore and move on...then the derail ends.

Because its relevant to how many standard deviations from the mean his results were.