On which day did Mike stop playing on the stream?

Well, the problem is that we don't actually know his WR. The first spreadsheet was off, and we haven't had a chance to do a detailed hand-by-hand tally yet.

There's 277 hours in the sheet, so we're looking at 8310 hands assuming 30/hr (might be high with the way they're playing). That's not a *huge* sample size. It's smaller than the sizes I remember being tossed around for accurate stats playing online. It's even smaller if we segment before and after implementing CTO.

Since GTO is no a maximally exploitative strategy (it's a defensive strategy) the fact that it might perform worse than Mike is irrelevant. If we looked at a maximally exploitative strategy (hard to define) then we'd see Mike's looking like it.

This couldn't be further from the truth, The way GTO works is it cannot lose money long term. The only way to compete with a GTO bot is by putting it against its self and then its just break even. The further away your strategy is from the GTO bot the more money you will lose long term. Yes you could argue that if you knew GTO and you also knew your opponents ranges then you could in fact exploit that opponent even more. This is a very un realistic assumption nobody even comes close to playing perfect GTO poker.

Some quibbles, but basically yes.

Why are you doubling down on this? I already posted 4 pages ago that your math was off based on assumptions you made that were proven to be false. Now, I don't think it's completely useless to look into these things, because at the end of the day, we're just a bunch of people exploring and sharing ideas about a case that we care deeply about, and this is one aspect of the case that should be open for exploration. But to suggest its an open and shut case based on stats alone is myopic, and to ignore evidence that does not suit your narrative is ignorant and classic confirmation bias.

certainly not going to question your legal opinion.

but would seem circumstantial evidence in a murder trial is a bit different than circumstantial evidence in this case (win rates, poker strategy, crotch peeks etc etc)

wouldnt a crim case come down to whether or not they uncover direct evidence of cheating or not? if so, why would they muddy the case with poker stuff that will be very hard to explain to jury.

According to the user manual from the PokerGFX website, it suggests they track all hands and other statistics " (VPIP%, PFR%, AGRfq%, WTSD%, Cumulative
Cash Win, Payouts)" for players, so that data should be in a database somewhere, though I'm skeptical how accurate it is given some of the glitches we've seen on their stream.

I imagine they could get a good idea from the data - when things changed and which data points are outliers.

Not losing money long term is a defensive strategy, by being perfectly balanced such that the opponent's strategy doesn't matter. It also hasn't been solved yet.

The idea that people play ranges that are understandable and exploitable is not controversial. At all. That is a completely realistic assumption and the basis for almost all poker strategy in the past 50 years.

Ok thank you!

Whether or not my numbers are off doesn't mean squat. The point is when the real numbers come out, it will be so far away from what is actually possible.
the possibility for me being off a few hundred bb/100 is irrelevant. Unless this man is winning less than 150bb/100 over the sample we have its not even up for debate.

Your bb/100 is irrelevant.

This game is playing FAR deeper than the bb. To ignore that and stomp your feet that his results are impossible is just reckless.

And what would you say to an amateur deciding to turn pro based on their results from 8,500 hands? Way too small of sample size to be meaningful?

Well that's completely different than what you said earlier. And are you going to rest your case on this arbitrary win rate? If I come back and show him having a win rate of 123bb/100, won't you just lower your magic number to 100?

game ain't dead.

This is the whole of everything in one sentence.

If you’ve watched the videos and still think he may not be cheating, or that he doesn’t have a magical dick.

A. You also believe in elves and witches and mythical creatures.
B. You’re in denial
C. You’re associated with Mike Postle
D. You’re also some sort of sketchy person and you’re defending those like yourself
E. Any or all of the above

You can entertain each other all day with debates about stats and what ifs of varying magnitudes.

But if you watch those videos of him dick staring and then making every exact right move in spots he shouldn’t be able to w/o knowing his villains hole cards and you still think he’s not cheating; it says way more about you the poster defending him, than anything else.

Awesome Post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmylzYVLsXg 20/04/2019

The session without the hat, i was curious about it.

42:30 Normal river bluff and opponent called him with 2 pair
51:43 What a hand, openwhipping 2,5x pot AKo on 678 rainbow i never ever saw him doing such a play
I'm guessing no godmode session here
1:17:10 Bombpot - WTF is that hand again? Postle folding top pair on flop on 1 single bet, and it was the best hand at that point, he would have done this never in god mode, is that the Pokergod folding in this spot? WTF
He also actually has both hands/arms on the table, i can't remember seeing this yet.
I also can't remember seeing Mike this chilled and relaxed at the table. Phone is on rail some time, the keys really long time.
3:45:20 Just another normal hand, oh well, Mike lost on showndown not even trying to bluff him off second pair
Okay, i'm done with this session.

I don't know why you guys are over complicating something very simple.

To show his impossible success rate you just do a graph of each of his sessions from July 2018 onwards.

Each session (bar the ones when JFK was absent) will show an upward trajectory throughout the session, where he loses small pots, and wins big nes, so overall is always showing a profit.

Now the mere mortals among us would have daily graphs that show fluctuations, mixes of winning and losing sessions, and lots of jumps within the sessions. But Postle has non stop upward trajectory for 14 months.

Then when you factor in his play before he started cheating, and his play when JFK was out of town, and the way those results would be like us mere mortals, up and down, his cheating play is so evident.

So I see there is a $20 million civil lawsuit against MP. Someone posted a video on YT that went through every page of it. I didn't watch much but it named MP, Justin, Kings casino, and Stones. Bad news for stones and Kings.

Can we please not drag GTO into this? It is totally irrelevant to this situation (as any sort of comparison or counter-factual, etc.). And many people have strong feelings and misconceptions about GTO which can only serve to muddy/derail.

The burden of proof is much lower in civil court, just 50%+1 and it shouldn’t be that hard convincing a jury he cheated

It's already been taken into account that several streams played equivalent to an effective bb of $5 or $10. It's also the case that while Postle's stack size was nearly always huge in relation to the bb, effective stack sizes were typically far, far smaller.

This is correct. Insofar as you can identify unique conditions which apply to some games and not others (hat, phone out, etc.), you want to control for these.

Sometimes this wont work if there's too much correlation between Xs in the mode (e.g., if the phone is always out when the hat is backwards).

You can over-fit via too-many-variables if you extract unique things about each session and model them, which will almost match just creating dummy variables for each session, which will perfectly fit the data and be an extremely poor model.

The problem is he only played a small sample of hands , around 10K ,
i had stretches of 10K hands where my trajectory is straight up. not saying he didn't cheat but this argument would not cut it.

How many incorrect river decisions did you make during that stretch? Did Postle ever make an incorrect call on the river?

This should be part of the summary for this thread.