I would imagine the creation of various BB per metrics were designed to compare results across different stakes. Unfortunately; you aren't (although I trust you believe you are) actually doing that. I think, mathematically speaking, because each hand potentially has a different BB (because of bombs and straddles) you are trying to treat each hand has a separate session with potentially different stakes. That's not necessarily a terrible idea; but then you aggregate the hands and say adding up all the BB's won/lost is the session profit, that is where you run into the consistency/distortion issues: if you're going to do that, he need to somehow "normalize" the effect of frequently changing bb's. If each hand is treated as an individual session (because of high frequency of straddles and bombs), that treatment has to remain consistent: that is, you cannot then add up BB's won/lost and say here is the session profit in BB terms and then calculate a BB/100 stat. If you aggregate all hands with the same BB from all sessions or simply treat each hand as it's own session, that is much more consistent and comparable (as it relates to BB based metrics) than grouping together a bunch of hands with varying BB's. If we do as you are suggesting, we get massive distortions such as the following:

- 2 hand session
- Hand 1, $100 straddle, MP wins 1BB
- Hand 2, no straddle/no bomb, MP loses 1BB

If session profit is the summation of BB's won/lost, MP made zero BB's, was he even for the session? Hand 1 he wins $100 and Hand 2 he loses $3 for session profit of $97. So now, because BB is different in each hand; zero BB profit is equivalent to $97 profit? A person need not be a statistician to realize something isn't right here.

Nerds bickering and lames pontificating are ruining this thread.

But thats exactly what I did. again i never once claimed profit was measured in $

And then you broke that treatment by adding up all the BB's won and lost to create a BB profited number and then took that number and created a BB/100 stat.

Let's say I play a 3 hour 1/3 session and profit 80BB's. My friend, we'll call him Gill Phalfond, plays a 3 hour 4000/8000 session and he profits 96BB's. We DID NOT collectively profit 176BB's in three hours: I guess technically we did, but that 176BB figure is meaningless when you simply add it up and distorts our actual winnings because in one instance the BB is $3 and in the other it's $8000. We roughly profited at the same rate in terms of BB (80 vs 96 is not that far off). But if you wanted to translate our collective profits into BB terms, I would have to somehow account for or normalize the massive difference between $3 and $8000.

I've had trouble keeping up lately so apologies if this has already been asked. Were there any other regular players on the stream with an incredible win rate? He might not be the only one.

Also, any idea which player/s he milked the most out of during the god mode phase?

Yea but a big part of PokerGFX's market is smaller streams, where this kind of scandal most easily takes place. I think the creator of Poker GFX seems to be a very capable programmer who is very concerned with security. He's worked in this industry and on this software since 2011. Now is it something that WPT or WSOP should use? Probably not since it is worth developing their own proprietary software, that only they are using, with only the features they need, considering the amount of money at stake. It doesn't necessarily mean that the software is any better or worse, just that its less likely any vulnerabilities will be found since it is in house and not licensed, as well as not have any unnecessary features that a bad actor could use to cheat. But the biggest concern will always be, protection of the physical computer and the humans operating it. I think that's what Berkey meant by commercial, like for the WSOP or WPT stage, but it can still be commercial. I do think an argument could be made for Poker GFX to remove some features given light of what has happened at Stones. It could hurt those who rely on it but work arounds could be found, might be worth it to reduce some of the concerns that people have if not many people are even using those features.

There are two 4 of diamonds.
What does Andrew Milner say about that?

Every rose has its thorn.

That's pretty interesting that it's on the flop. If you read further in my post, there is new information provided by Andrew that explains that if the table is configured poorly, cards can bleed together creating duplicates in the graphics. But this doesn't really explain that since the 4d was still in the deck when the cards were being dealt and didn't hit a reader until the flop was dealt. Do you have a link to this hand with a timestamp? If he decides to respond to my email, I'll ask him about this hand as well.

Below is the likely explanation, but that was the first hand of the stream, so we didn’t see the previous hand:

gotta love all this math discussion while you only need to see a simple hand (JT fold when J hits the turn) to know he's cheating

https://youtu.be/PX5ccjVEapY?t=164

Yes exactly, the flop cards havn't even been dealt from the deck yet, and Russell has a 4 of diamonds.
Then the flop is dealt out from the deck and there is the 4 of diamonds.

I'm not sure what he means by 'the software prevents the same card displaying twice', when there are so many ways in which it can?
It would be interesting to know what he says about it.

I think what is more important is what information people literally either can or cannot know, as I said several pages back about the 88 vs TT hand.
Which I think Andrew Milner also says at some point.

Yeah guess it could be that, maybe we'll never know.
It's funny the commentators don't even notice the 4's are the same and are surprized when they think he folds trips.
They notice the percentages might be off, but not the actual cards.

Thanks, I'll definitely pass this along if I get the chance. As Eponymous mentions, it could be prev hand persisting to next hand, even though its the first hand on stream, sometimes the game starts before they go "live", but that's just a guess. I'd also like to mention that prev hand persisting to next hand is never mentioned by the creator of Poker GFX in the podcast, that was confirmed by either Ryan Feldman/Berkey.

I'll try to explain what is meant by "The software prevents the same card displaying twice in the event of a duplicate RFID read within the same hand". I will preface this by saying that quote is in my words and I am paraphrasing what Andrew Milner said in the podcast. Assuming no other graphical errors have occurred, i.e. prev hand persisting/card bleeding due to coiled wires, if I put the A as the second card over seat 1, and then put the same card over seat 2, seat 1 will have A as one of its cards and seat 2 will display no cards at all. I assume the server has seen that the same card has scanned and the code simply says, "hey that shits been scanned already, don't put it up in the graphics". So that implies that whenever this error occurs, you will know because one person's hole cards will not be shown.

I am familiar with the 88 vs TT hand but I am not sure what you mean by this.

That only one person really knows what their own cards are, until the hand is tabled.
No reason to think it is exactly any other hand than that shown on screen (the only information that we, or peek room can have).
In the 88 vs TT hand, Postle claimed it was something else later, but you know, just with his words. He didn't show actual cards to anyone.

For this hand, I believe it was JFK who claimed it was something else in the chat, like 98 or something which would have been two pair instead of a boat. But I thought he ****ed himself with this hand because he was asked about it in an interview and on twitter and he just said some bullshit like he likes to go easy on his opponents sometimes instead of saying he actually had 98.

JFK does go and talk to Postle. Bryan (TT guy) would have overheard whatever they said.
Big mistake that JFK made was stating that it was 'an RFID error' when he apparently knew nothing about it before, & seemed to be making that up on the fly.(*edit: well that and believing everything that Postle tells him lol )

Hastings vs Isildur1

Does anyone recall which date this 10 2 clubs hand was played?

It is from a Jeff Boski video.

https://youtu.be/DdNbgiHZEfg?t=256

I listened to the full mike postle interview with mike matusow and I gotta say he brings up a lot of good points.


While I still believe that he may have cheated I dont think anyone will ever be able to prove it based on the evidence provided.

And it's not right to go after a guy like this without any real proof. The time to confront a man is at the table. Sticks and bones may break George Jones but birds could never girth me.

In my eyes this was truly great detective work to stop a questionable game from continuing to occur. Regardless, Clearly the management lost oversight responsibility and was too buddy/buddy with the players.

That said it's not really okay to ruin a player or managers reputation without any real proof. What if I came along and ruined a streamcasters job out of the blue? What if they ruined my job by googling my username?

Poker is a game . Its just a game. Dont take it so seriously friends. If someone found a way to figure out the other players hole cards that's no different than the cheat code I used to beat Contra in 1988..

I highly doubt there were others when he was playing. MP was VPIPing like 70% and sucking all the money out of the game.

I agree 100%. If mike was cheating who really cares?

Hes an opponent we are trying to beat. Whether he cheats or not it's our job to play better than him. That's just part of the game.

But if the house is allowing him to cheat? That's a problem.

Is this guy a confirmed troll yet? I'm not up to date on the whole thread. There's a lot to go through.

What's funny is that, while the belief that Postle only "may have cheated" is clueless enough, the part that makes me think he's certainly trolling is when he said Mike Postle brought up a lot of good points in the Matusow interview

Right? That's enough to ban the guy, if you ask me.

Wait what

My opinion is that he started trolling bc he's butt hurt that everyone got mad at him for insulting Joey. He clearly has narcissistic personality disorder, NPD, and it's not the first time he's been diagnosed/psychoanalyzed in this thread; not to mention he just got off being temp banned.