Are lines like this "expected" ?
https://youtu.be/oOxc4qbQiLo?t=10428

https://youtu.be/oOxc4qbQiLo?t=10681

Here is another.

it's true it may not be strong enough evidence for a jury, but for an experienced poker player this is pretty obvious that he was cheating

So if you are the self-anointed analytics expert; why is bb per 100 considered a meaningful win rate metric? It may seem like a silly question to you, but imagine a jury trying to comprehend bb per 100; do you believe it's not conceivable that a jury or juror would question why a $3 baseline is used if in fact the game does play higher? Using the previous example of $45 average straddle per hand, a hypothetical $3000 session profit converted into a bb per metric is greatly influenced by using stated bb vs an "effective" bb vs a "normalized" bb. In my opinion it's a worth consideration as it certainly can be used to confuse a jury. But hey; since your answer really boils down to "this is how it's done so that's how it's done" you could've just said so

I can't say how often; but using the example I quoted it got me thinking: that session averaged a 15bb straddle per hand. Granted that average was highly influenced by a couple of very large straddles: stuff like that might confuse a juror/jury is what I was thinking. In other words; defense can challenge the validity of X bb per 100 winrate if the baseline is arbitrarily $3 when it can be argued/demonstrated that "effective bb" or "normalized bb" is magnitudes higher than $3: granted I'm just using this one session, I don't know if the amount of straddles in the other sessions are this extreme.

bb per 100 isn't a meaningful metric. It only has meaning when you use it as a tool to compare it with something else.

He even cheated his friends along with someone who was dying of cancer. Veronica was a friend, Frank the Tank was a friend ... but I'm sure Mike felt really bad about that for a few brief moments.

None of that would be even a minor focus in any trial. You guys are way over thinking how a trial would play out and the minutia and terms matter so, so little.

I was looking more this episode and there are lot of hands, where the graphics messed up. Also on the previous hand. Most of them are alike my previous post (#7820). I found also few little different errors:






This Postle's cap pic is definitely my favorite.


After looking this more I guess the RFID is working fine, but there is an error how they display cards/player icons on the broadcast. I think he just folded AAT9ds, didn't want to "gamble" the last hand.
"He's racking up, didn't wanna play" (?)
https://youtu.be/hcuBlBV0kRU?t=8224

You don't want to take a stab at the other question I posed to you in my response: is it not conceivable that a jury or juror would question why a $3 baseline is used if in fact the game does play higher? Put another way; granted I'm using one single session as an example, if that session had an average 15bb straddle per hand ($45), is it not possible a juror might possibly think using $3 as a baseline overstates a win rate? A juror might think bb per 100 using $3 as a baseline might be construed as being "rather selective", kind of like you selectively chopping up my response to you to answer one question and ignore the other

Sorry mate if you think I'm picking on you; quite frankly, your original response showed you like to "dish it out"; which of course means you should be happy to take it as well

LOL this made me think of Officer Obie looking at his twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and then looking at the Judge's seeing eye dog.

No, I don't think that is conceivable at all. In fact, I don't think "per 100 hands", "straddle", or even trying to put dollar amounts in terms of "big blinds" would be used at all.

Maybe. But if one side splashes the "900bb/100" or whatever the going winrate has been estimated to be; I think it would be defense counsels job to create some doubt as to it's validity. I'm merely speculating what a juror might think, you're merely speculating that this doesn't matter - we're all just speculating, quite frankly there's nothing really wrong with that.

I mean, you're not too far off. You understand a jury doesn't have a frame of reference on poker terms. That is why that would never be the focus of any case.

The game playing bigger with straddles definitely did inflate his winrate while not affecting his variance like it would a normal player because he is super using. Just insanely scummy to get a game to play bigger while cheating. I really hope people didnt have losses and downswings from Mike that financially made a difference to anyone.

What people also didnt mention when this thread was in trainwreck mode is that his winrate is also inflated because he lost the minimum in so many hands. It's not just hands he won, but many other hands he should have lost another bet or an entire stack.

Assuming competent lawyers, I would think they would say and use terms like "won over two hundred thousand dollars" and "winning between nine hundred and one thousand dollars an hour" and "on average winning over ten thousand dollars per night" and then accusing the defense counsel of trying to confuse the jury using nonsense terms like "big blinds" and "straddles" and lying statistical stuff when everybody knows that "a hundred thousand dollars" ain't no small stakes friendly poker game entertainment.

We've been dealing with posts like this all day so let me ask you some questions

1. Why would Veronica, Casey, and several players accuse MP of cheating?
2. Why is he pretending to look at his cards but glancing down at his crotch?
3. Why would Justin pretend to do an investigation 2 times?
4. Why would Justin lie to Berkey about why they banned phones?
5. How does he win big in 94% of the streams hes in?
6. How do you explain all the hands that he max exploits where it doesnt make sense to according to his play style?
7. How does he win so consistently with such a high vpip?
8. How would the graphics change during the 86o hand?
9. How is he so accurate with his bluffs?
10. Why is he unable to coherently explain his hands during interviews?

These are the questions Matusow should have asked

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Guys, it's pretty simple.

MP is either:

-- the best player ever

- managed to have an astronomical winrate calling 4bets with cards like 95o / 54o pre flop
- perfect play post flop (especially on the river)
- soulread his opponents without even looking at them!
- lost the minimum on every cooler and bet the perfect amount for value
- invented CTO

-- or... he is just cheating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

It’s not a mandatory straddle so bb is still 3. The oversized strattles just like a blind bet last to act that bloats the pot and helps him win more. a game
With loose players willing to startle money for players to steal or wake up with something. Maybe the Stratlers were in on it 🤔

Once this goes to court does Mike Postle double down and just continually look at his crotch to pretend it is an odd habit he has.

Could be a hat tip to George Costanza's "involuntary elbow spasm" on Seinfeld.

I've really enjoyed following this story and I'd love to devour more content.

Joey, is it possible to be less annoying during your videos so we can watch them. Appreciate all your hard work but I cant listen to you for more than 30-45 seconds before I have to change the channel. You just repeat yourself over and over with like a nervous tic or something without really ever saying anything...

That's interesting. Assume the following two games:

Game A: Stakes are 1/3/45 and session lasts 80 hands.

Game B: Stakes are 1/3 and session lasts 80 hands. This game saw tons of straddles that averaged $45 per hand.

Dick profits $3000 in game A and Jane profits $3000 in game B. Yet their win rates would be different because one was a $45 must straddle and the other just happened to work out to an average $45 per hand straddle based on "straddle if you want" rule. Two games that (arguably) played equally "big" with different arbitrary win rates, of course assuming winrate is expressed in bb per metric. That's something that just might confuse a juror.

The Hand History log file of that session is in the descripton of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0lWjgW0H1Q

I played one hand against mike postle and made a sick call on the river against his check raise.

I'll never forget the way he dismissed me and said "I could had Trup Queens you moron!"

Serves you right Mike. Now whose the moron?

That's awesome!

Was this on stones live stream?

What would make the allegations much clearer is to have graphs of his chip progression over each of his individual sessions, as with most players their chip stacks rise and all over a session, as they win and lose big hands, but his chip stacks for each session would show identical profiles, constantly upwards, as he played small pots when he lost as he folded or checked when he was behind, so lost small pots, and he bet when he was ahead, so won bigger pots, so the graphs would show this impossible constant upward swing over 14 months very clearly. (The ones when JFK is away will stand out all the more clearly).