Re-post of Post #11750

I just posted that 20 minutes ago. lol

Oops. I should've checked the previous page before posting myself. Thanks for the heads up.

How is this relevant to the discussion? Oh, that’s right, it’s not. Try to stay on topic.

lol, you should be the last person talking about relevancy.

I never said it was irrelevant per se, I'm just saying that losing the Stones Live gig doesn't necessarily throw her credibility into question. But you're not wrong: even if it was a $200 per show moonlighting gig, getting ousted from the weekly stream could certainly be the trigger that emboldens her to speak up.

In fact, you can just as easily make the argument that getting "fired" – if that even happened – made Veronica even more certain about the likelihood of impropriety.

As for the gaslighting, well, I don't have a good response for you other than to say that's the nature of gaslighting: it often looks absurd to an outsider, especially when the outsider has more expertise or better information (like we ALL do right now).

And to be clear, such manipulation has little to do with intelligence, but rather the two parties' relative proficiency of the subject at hand**. In this case, Veronica is an amateur poker player. An avid one and an experienced one compared to many, but ultimately an amateur. It doesn't matter if she is 10 times smarter than JFK and Postle combined at every other subject. When it came to poker, she may not have known enough to stand her ground in those discussions. Remember, it took hours and hours of a deep dive by multiple professional players before many of us began looking stink-eyed at Stones Live.

(**e.g. you can imagine a good many MENSA members probably get duped into unnecessary repairs and/or inordinately high rates by their auto mechanics. Meanwhile, this same auto mechanic could very well be prone to being talked into a frivolous procedure by his/her dentist.)

It's relevant in that it's an analogy of a) how gradual the process was before someone responded to this situation, and b) how obvious or egregious things appear when you finally look at the situation in its totality. (See also the Boiling Frog Fable, even though the actual premise of it has been disproven.)

At least, that's how I read PZ's post.

This.

I still find it suspicious that she freely invited a guy she suspected of cheating to her game to rip off herself and her friends. That just makes zero sense.
If I had a private game on Stones, and if I lived out there they’d be all over my jock to be on stream, and I felt someone was not on the level, I would not allow him the luxury of playing at my table and getting to be on stream.

His disjointed schizophrenic analogy has nothing to do with Miss Brill knowingly screwing her friends over by inviting a cheater to her game.

You can lead a horse to water but can't stop him from drinking his own Kool-Aid.

So does the fact that Veronica invited Mike onto her stream absolve Mike from any wrongdoing or implicate Veronica in any way? No. So what is your point?

Maybe she simply had bad judgement at the time, like we all do in life. There's nothing necessarily suspicious about it. It's like you just want to be credited with being right about something.

OK. You're right. It makes no sense for Veronica to invite Mike onto the livestream after suspecting he was cheating. Your focus on this single trivial, mostly irrelevant issue is muddling up an otherwise interesting thread. Can we move on now?

Thank you.

Thirty of the exact same posts. She said she wasn’t sure. A lot of people weren’t.

Talk about a thread detail...

That's what happens when you indulge a mentally impaired troll.

Form a legal standpoint has anyone ever been questioned under oath? Stones,Postle or JFK?

What are the details or any proof that Stones performed an investigation? Have a copy anyone?

Still can’t believe it’s almost a year already.

You really need to get on with your life and stop stalking me from thread to thread with the insults man.

Veronica has already explained about being gaslit by Justin, but I'll offer you some more reasons:

1. A couple regulars in Veronica's game advocated for Postle's inclusion -- primarily because he was their friend, but also because if you're not reviewing the livestream (and they weren't), the fishiness of his high VPIP and his willingness to play huge pots with inferior holdings is what you notice, and who wouldn't want that in their game?

2. I don't believe Postle actually used God mode too often in Veronica and Friends games.

I agree with what somebody said above: Why even question Veronica? Who cares if she invited him? Maybe she was 30% sure he was cheating. 70%. 80%. Maybe she felt insecure / pressure to have "God" on her show?

As of today, we all have Joey's/Doug's/Berkey's/Bart's (Phil Galfond's to come) analyses and proof of cheating - this is an investigative luxury to have pros looking at the tapes. Veronica did not solely have the luxury / analytical skill(s) that these 4 have that have now convinced the masses that MP was cheating - so, she played on.

Veronica's poker playing choices are a non-issue except for one: she chose to out MP as a cheater - that's the most important choice.

Proof? I believe the man cheated, but let’s be real, not a soul has offered up any actual proof. If there was proof, you’d be able to say definitively what method he used. So far, there’s only been speculation.

There is a mix of lots of things. Postle only played astonishingly successfully in streamed games, in non streamed games he was quite average, so it would not seem risky to invite him as they would all have thought of the overall play - some wins, some losses, and not seen the pattern of him always winning when the games were streamed.

So yes, they will have seen him as an action player, as he played such screwy hands, and wanted him in their games for the action, but not noticed he won consistently with the screwy hands.

Then there was the fact there was no hard evidence against him, just the sheer implausability of his streamed results, that no one had noticed.

People had got used to those streamed wins, commentators and players thinking with amusement or amazement he was some boy wonder at poker, "Postle always wins".

I remember a crime story I read, where the puzzle was who did the murder as no one had seen anyone at the house, then it turned out it was someone dressed up as a postman, as nobody paid any attention to such a common sight as a postman. Postle was like that, under the radar, friendly, sociable, not making enemies of the people he won from, so not surprising it took them so long to see there was something wrong.

That is why Veronica's exposure of him was so great and dramatic, that gradual eureka moment watching him play and saying how unbelievable his play was, as she could see it just wasn't right. Before that would have been lots of "say it ain't so Joe" not believing that someone admired or liked could be dishonest.

I think she moved from the area, rather than was dropped. I liked the lawyer's comment about her, "Veronica Brill is a goddamned American hero!" as her heart is in the right place in all this.

What, in your mind, would be "proof" of someone cheating at poker?

Chopstick, I wish you'd quit doing that. Those are really good dogs, they didn't mean to do anything wrong. And yet you continue posting cherry-picked photos from that one time.

Don't you have any conscience about ruining these dog's lives??!!!

For what it's worth, I don't recall the games consisting of players solely hand-picked by Veronica herself. On top of that, only some of the streams – in fact, a minority of them – were Veronica & Friends games at all.

So if anyone really wants to entertain the "OMG what a terrible person, she invited people to a game with a known cheater" narrative, you'd first have to know when her suspicions first began, when they grew, and when she approached JFK about them. Yes, she invited people like Berkey and Soto AFTER she questioned the game's integrity (those guys talked about that on the S4Y show). Yes, she's apologetic for that. I still don't see how it makes her suspicious of anything, though.

As for this:

Sure it does. He analogized how long it takes in a slow, gradual process before someone actually acts. You said before that English isn't your first language, so this might be something getting lost in translation. (But you'll have to explain to me what schizophrenia has to do with anything about his post.)

Wasn’t it Veronica who outted Mike?

What’s all this nonsense that she’s at fault for anything