So this means that the defendants have still not been served, but the case has been delayed?

There are methods to determine standard deviation. These are immutable and were violated when the calculations were made. That a mob repeats a fallacy does not make it factual.

Postle's win rate is unknown, all that is known is that it is far lower than what has been reported by the rubes in this thread.

Win rate and standard deviation were developed mostly for limit games, and have some problems when applied to big bet games. Two different games with the same blinds can play very differently, especially with very large or small stacks, straddles, bomb pots, etc.

I'm more interested in the type of stats Galfond and others want to collect from the streamed hands.

name 3 known poker cheats that had the exposure MP had.

your opinion no way to know. also it isnt whether someone would say something to MP or not its how he feels about going to play.

lol, after reading your post, good laugh, ty

Russ Hamilton, for starters.

If I come up with 3, what do I win?

Like the guy with 7 bracelets who has been a known cheater for over 20 years? Or the guy in the all time money list top 10? Or the guy who won a player of the year trophy and nice sponsorship deal only a couple years after getting caught?

Besides that, what exposure? Somebody dropping out in the first episode of the Bachelor has 1000 times more exposure. If you showed his face to 100 random poker players, I doubt that even 5 would recognize him.

To demonstrate his cheating shows he had sight of others hands, his accusers would need to count how many times he did the following and how often he was successful in doing so. A normal poker player will sometimes get these wrong, by unexpectedly running into stronger hands. He makes his (unbelievably perfect) moves after the river, as he knows exactly what he is up against.

That is the key that people have not focussed on sufficiently:
He makes his (unbelievably perfect) moves after the river.

Responding
Folds when he knows he is losing to a much stronger hand that he cant bluff off the hand (need to count this - happens X times out of X hands when this scenario happens)
Value raises his winning hands. (wins X times out of X hands this scenario happens)
Does not try to value raise clearly second best hands (happens X times out of X hands this scenario happens)
Does not call.
Not calling is a red flag, calling is when one is unsure if one is ahead or behind, but he knows if he is ahead or behind, so it is no point him calling.

Leading
Bluffs against weak winning hands that he expects would fold to a sign of strength from him (wins X times out of X hands this scenario happens)
Does not bluff against much stronger hands(happens X times out of X hands this scenario happens)

There will be a few times when he does not follow the above pattern just to disguise his cheating, but his 94% win rate shows he followed this pattern in his streamed games, though his stats and results in unstreamed games
are markedly lower.

Doesn't mean anything, just procedural. Don't know why the other guy had a fit over it.

Sample mean and standard deviation are a lot older than modern Internet poker; I first learned about them when I was a college freshman, 45 years ago.

If you have a dataset, you can compute its mean and standard deviation. Anyone with tracking software for online play does this; and I have certainly done this with my live results, and I am far from alone in this.

To argue that WR and SD are not useful concepts for NLHE is pretty ****ing ignorant, to say the least.

Well of course. I have a degree in electrical engineering and my freshman year was 35 years ago, old man. What I meant was that they were chosen mostly as metrics for limit games. This can be seen in early versions of pokertracker and statking, where big bet support was added as almost an afterthought. (I'm going by memory here, I haven't had them installed in 10 years or more).

Also check your reading comprehension. My statement that they "have some problems when applied to big bet games" does not mean they are not useful concepts at all. The extent of the problems they have will depend on how often hands with non-standard rules happen and how they are treated. For online games with no straddling and bomb pots, they will work pretty well, although you still suffer a bit from averaging in hands where deep stacks, normal stacks, and short stacks all get involved to varying degrees. I suppose as long as the distribution of these are comparable across samples, then the samples themselves will be comparable.

Even adjusting for things like this, I'm sure MPs stats are still huge outliers though. I'm looking forward to seeing more data in any case.

Stand your ground.

I can tell you that the move from limit to no-limit was pretty drastic when it came to using those metrics to meaningfully flag hands for further review by site security.

Too much noise.

Responding to your comments it is forcing me into a position of Postle defender even though I believe he cheated. Never the less his stats and results may be markedly lower (if they are, we do not know) because the statements you make above are untrue. That's the thing about mobs, their undelaying assumptions are often wrong. Of all the hands that I have seen from Polk or Joey or others where a single hand was used to demonstrate omnipresent knowledge I can argue against. For example why would Postle donk turn with the nut flush into a boat? The AK vrs 45 hand is often cited as evidence since 45 equity vrs two AK goes up yet two other 4s being mucked is ignored and the list goes on. I think Polk made a convincing argument for a single hand (Postle JT I think with top pair vrs a set)

This brings us back to win rate which no one has properly demonstrated at this point, and the work that was done was highly biased and flawed.

What did I say that was wrong? When I watched his play, time and time again he made perfect correct river decisions. He can only do that if he had knowledge of the opponents' cards. If you disagree, look back at the film of his streamed play, and you will see that I am right.

You are wrong, there are counter arguments for each example I have ever seen except one. The only way you can make your claim is with a heavy dose of bias. I have in no way reviewed all of them, but your not going to prove anything with that hand history I have seen, and without an exceptional winrate being proven (the sample size is too small to do so let alone the difficulties gathering good data and piecing together all the different limits and variance) I don't see how anyone could possibly piece together a decent case.

It would require a jury or judge capable of making a judgement based on non quantifiable experience without direct evidence.

Absolute rubbish. Just repeating the other person is wrong is not a way to make a convincing argument when you have been asked to say what they have said that is wrong. The volume of hands played in numerous streamed games from the turning point session where his play demonstrably changed as he started having access to the opponents cards is thousands of decisions correctly made at each stage of preflop, flop, turn and river. You read just like a contrarian, rather than someone who has actually watched what you are talking about. His play is still up on YouTube, rather than just blindly repeating you are wrong and I am right, to check the accuracy of what I was saying I picked one of his sessions at random "$10/$25/$50 No Limit Hold'em with Justin and Veronica (9/21/2019)" and see as I said, he makes perfect decision hand after hand after hand. This repeats session after session for him. If you want to say him winning 94% of the time is just random you are ignoring the evidence unmistakably in front of you, as you ignore the evidence it is therefore no wonder you say, "I don't see how anyone could possibly piece together a decent case."

"I saw someone guess 30 coin flips in a row correctly, but nothing was amiss because each guess was just a 50/50 chance that he happened to get right."

That veneer slipped in less than a page.

Clearly my bad for assuming temperatures were low enough to have a reasonable discussion. Clearly lowest common denominator tribal emotionalism, a raging boner, and a pitchfork are still the standards required to post.

You don’t have anything to base an accusation on, just conjecture. This is America, you can’t defame someone with PROOF.

Has it not occurred to you that maybe he’s just that good at predicting coin flips? There are lots of great coin flip predictors who often make great calls. He’s as good as any of them, I’ve known him for a while and he’s always been this good.

Am I doing this right?

I mentioned this earlier, but this is the foundation of the Zero-knowledge proof which is (was?) the actual correct strategy to prove Postle was cheating using math and statistics. Instead people talked in circles about win rate and variance seemingly oblivious to the fact that the argument only proved he was winning money.

Guessing? right on 30 out of 30 fair coin flips is certainly possible. It will occur about once in 1 billion times (0.5^30). So, if someone actually did this and someone claimed he had to be cheating, will the coin flip guesser win a suit for defamation or maybe I should ask should he win such a suit?

Except in some of these hands, his plays only make sense if opponents are holding certain hands (the QQ v QQ precisely comes to mind, but there are obviously others).

So instead of guessing right at 30 coinflips, it's more like he picked the correct number 30 times at a roulette table.

You've ignored the physical evidence and the situational evidence. That Postle kept his phone in his lap and frequently glanced at it before the flop adds to the probability argument. And so, too, do the situational anomalies from professional play in which Postle always made the right decision on rivers calling bluffs, making bluffs, betting big and raising against second best and best but weak/vulnerable hands, and laying down when holding second best.

It's the one in a billion improbability of the outlier win rate, plus his winning being restricted to live streams and dissociated from playing before and after the streams against the same opposition on the same nights, plus the physical evidence, and the perfect situational play that, collectively, establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he cheated.

Why I stopped posting, youre giving too much credit though. Morons is a more accurately descriptive term though. Gzeesh poster is pretty good though.