Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer
I think Phil Galfond and Bart Hanson have the correct approach.
You statistically analyze his actions.
If he shoved 50 times into a weak range and never into strong hands....
That would be almost statistically impossible.
If he shoved/raised 100% of chopped hands then its pretty clear also.
If he folds or only calls against a strong range with a strong hand....
I watched Bart Hanson's recent analysis video and one thing that struck me
from the 54o hand..... I don't know if Mike is smart enough to know the equities in that spot.
He doesn't strike me as a math guy.
I wonder if there was outside help plugging in the numbers, telling him what to do in various spots?
I would analyze if he made many equity mistakes, especially close decisions.
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