Quote:
Originally Posted by crotch_lawyer
Playing devil's advocate: Here's a case for Mike Postle Innocence (or not guilty for that matter).
Most of the arguments so far are based on evidence of abnormal behavior.
However, anomalies should be compared against a control group (or NULL model) to be a piece of proper evidence, statistically speaking.
For instance, have we checked how Mike Postle behaves when he is NOT playing?
Have we checked how the commentators speak, when Mike Postle is NOT playing? etc
I will list some of the most discussed arguments used so far and discuss plausible reasons against them.
1. "Postle looks at his crotch frequently and unreasonably"
Possible explanation: He is simply watching the delayed stream to pick on other players' frequencies and aggression.
While he keeps looking at his crotch frequently while he's playing, have we checked how frequently does he look at his crotch while he's NOT playing?
We need to check whether there is a statistically significant difference between the distributions of "look in the crotch" event when he is playing and when he is NOT playing.
2. GFX Poker Software and the "Blue Screen"
Berky showed a demo of GFX, a poker streamming software.
He showed that one could watch the live stream by simply knowing the IP of the host computer.
The screen of this software is a bright blue screen.
There's a video showing Mike Postle with his cellphone with a very similar blue screen.
That's very circumstantial evidence as Berky himself during a live stream with D Polk confirmed that he does not have knowledge on whether Stones used the same software and if that's not the case all his demonstration could be invalid.
Moreover, you can simply search "cellphone blue screen of death" on Google and you will find several situations where a cellphone could display such a bright screen background.
3. The hand AK AK 45 with MoneyMaker
Mike Postle went all-in pre-flop with 45 (I believe) against AK and AK.
They ran the hand twice and Mike Postle won the second run, hence making a profit.
During the Mike The Mouth podcast, he said that after he won, he actually told the other players that they could take their pots back.
Why would he be cheating if in the end he actually allowed the other players to take their shares of the pot back?
We should watch the stream again and check whether Mike Postle is lying here.
4. Total WInnings are unreasonably high
It's already known that the spreadsheet shared cannot be trusted and has wrong data.
Joe Ingram is now trying to run proper statistics in a herculean task as we speak.
5. Commentators reactions are unreasonable
Yes. But that's expected.
As Veronica discussed during her live stream with D Polk, the commentators were asked to not criticize anyone/any hand. It was a promotion.
She also said that while Justin could be commentating in an unreasonable way, there is an "equally good chance he did not know **** about poker".
6. He wins a lot and on very unlikely spots
That's not always the case.
There has been an emphasis on hands where Mike Postle won in very unlikely spots.
Have we accurately evaluated the hands that he lost?
The more we watch the streams the more off-God situations are found. But then we try to find attributes to "explain" why he was not cheating on the hands that he loses.
First, it's said that he didn't play well when Justin is not there.
Then, it's said that he does play well PLO, because one needs more time to read the cards and PLO has more tight odds.
And then there is the chair, and the camera position, and the keys and a hidden object and then the hat etc etc.
One could argue that: Mike Postle is betting a lot. And when he loses we find an attribute that "explains" why he's off-God. That's called overfitting in statistics and also bias, as we are overfitting the belief that he is cheating.
The hypothesis: "Mike Postle was cheating" can only be tested when all the hands and accurately documented.
Until then, looking at crazy hands in a $1/$3 game is just not strong evidence.
PS.: Kudos to the community which is putting a lot of effort into this. I do not want to take anything away from the massive job done so far. This is just an exercise to help this investigation and people's lives and careers are on the line here.
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?