Quote:
Originally Posted by PraguePoker
1 - The win rates are wrong. They are only showing results from the stream, and I admit I ran very well. But this is not so unusual during a few hours of play. And if you look at my total win rate, taking into account my losses off camera, my results are normal. High, but not out of the ordinary. This is a witch hunt using incomplete information!
The accusation is that he used the steam to cheat. That he lost money off stream does not make his wins over 300 hours or whatever on stream any less of a statistical outlier. Actually to the extent that wins off stream indicate that his wins on stream are less likely to be representative of his true legitimate win rate, losses off stream make it slightly
more likely that he was cheating on stream.
Postle himself has claimed that he does not think people have accurately gathered even what his on-stream win rate is, because players would add on and that was not accurately reflected in the chip totals. But I think he underestimated what people have done in watching chip stacks and tallying up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PraguePoker
2 - The graphics you see on the stream are often wrong! You think I'm making crazy plays, but oftentimes I had totally different hands! You are only seeing what the RFID is showing, but on some occasions, this is incorrect. I'll call a supporting witness from Stones to confirm this. I'll also show you video of hands where the cards were clearly read incorrectly. You see, who knows what I really had during the so called suspicious play you've seen. And I can't recall all of those hands now, it was so long ago!
As has been said, some of these hands were tabled (because sometimes he called with only slightly better marginal hands, for example). Some of them were discussed after the fact. But in general I don't think this is a great defense. You could estimate the error rate of these machines, and it is probably not very high. It is suspicious enough already that Stones and Postle claimed the reader made a mistake in key spots. In claiming that the errors simply occurred so as to exonerate him in most of the suspicious cases, he is making his ask even more unlikely.
This story also would contradict his admission to (and defense of) playing a very loose splashy style, defending marginal holdings, and making live reads on people.
Don't think there's going to be a plausible defense of the crotch staring. I mean he could say whatever he wants but superusing is just a far, far better explanation of the immediate, total shift in behavioral cues.