The Problem With Poker

This latest cheating scandal has laid bare a longstanding problem with poker. It's the conflicting interest between poker players and the business establishments who host (and attempt to profit) from these games. Poker players (the overwhelming majority of poker players) want a square game. There are situations - such as Stones and this Mike Postle imbroglio - where the interests of the gaming establishment and the players are in direct conflict.

In arguing for a dismissal of the case, Stones argued in court that they have "no duty of care" in preventing - or trying to prevent - poker players from cheating each other. Their basic argument was: If poker players are cheating each other, that's their problem: Not ours. One might think such an argument is ridiculous. Establishments like Stones must surely recognize that coddling cheaters is bad for business. While they may recognize that coddling cheaters - or being perceived as coddling cheaters - is bad for business, they aren't [really] motivated to vigorously monitor and police their poker games. If they stopped games in order to "investigate" player complaints of cheating, the hourly rake drop would significantly decline. Once that rake drop declines enough, the argument of the bean counters to shut down the poker room and replace the space with slot machines becomes more compelling. So there is really very little incentive for the card room managers to crack down on poker cheats. From their perspective, it is the job of players to expose cheaters like Mike Postle.

Contrast casino poker with Blackjack. In 99 percent of cases, a skilled blackjack player - not to mention a blackjack cheater - doesn't last 10 minutes before he's caught and shown the door. Casino managers may not have a "duty of care" to catch (and eject) poker cheats, but they sure as hell have a duty to catch and eject blackjack cheats - unless they don't care about losing their jobs!

When the house's money is at risk, (i.e. blackjack), those games are watched like a hawk. In the "old days" (circa 1950's-1960's) if somebody like Mike Postle attempted to cheat at blackjack, he might wind up like the guy in the "Casino" movie - with his fingers smashed into a bloody pulp by Robert deNiro. Since card room managements aren't willing to apply those techniques to poker cheats, it's up to us to identify (and expose) these scum.

This is another reason why I am grateful for 2+2 and what Mason has done for the poker community. Many of these poker cheats have been exposed and outed in this forum. Kudos also to Veronica Brill. She goes by the moniker Angry_Polak, but the truth is that she's a brave woman who can always hold her head up with pride. She did the right thing. We all owe her (and Mason) a debt of gratitude.

Hi Former DJ:

All the way back in 1982 (I believe) the LA Times ran a three part series about cheating in the LA Cardrooms. I'm sure I'm the only one here who is aware of this.

Anyway, at that time the busiest club was the Bell Club in Bell California. It's no longer with us and the main reason it was the busiest club was that it had twice as many tables as the Gardena Clubs, the Commerce and Bicycle were not yet opened.

Anyway, the manager of the Bell Club was a man named Dick Brisbines who I occasionally played draw poker with and who passed away many years ago. The articles were built around a quote from him which was (from memory) "We know who the cheats are, but we need them to keep the games going." I believe he was fired the day after the first of the articles appeared.

Your post reminded me of this story.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hey to some people that's life changing money.

Really. And speaking of such nonsense, you and your co-host attack me on your latest podcast. Or did you already forget about that?

You also have no understanding why I would begin my tweet to Philip Nagy with the words "We don't like Jonathan Little either." I think it would be obvious to most people why I used this language.

Also, when I wrote (in the same tweet) "but it does seem like you're stealing his money. Wouldn't you be better off in just refunding his money and then getting rid of him?" I believe I was the first person to tell Nagy not to keep Little's money, and perhaps this had something to do with Little getting a refund. Why don't you tell us how much time you spent in your podcast talking about this aspect of my tweet.

Mason

The short post of yours that I put up, again by my count, contains six things in it that are false. Don't you think that someone like Veronica and some others looking into the Postle issue should be aware that you will say things that are not accurate? That's why I put it up and that's why I believe it's important. Anyone talking to you about this issue. in my opinion, would be much better off if they didn't talk to you at all. And your post, see Post #11601, again which I put up is an example of why I say this.

MM

Then they shouldn't be playing Poker at those stakes.

(snip 3/23/19 analysis)

For the 23-Mar-2019 stream, it goes like this:

starting stack = 1600 (not 1500)
38:18 - adds a stack of green, (total buy-in now 2100)
48:00 - adds 1k (BI now 3100)
3:34:12 - adds 4k (BI now 7100)
4:02:01 - sketchy dude stops by to drop off 2.5k in whites (BI now 9600)

Final chip count graphic says he has 7.4k, which looks about right. May be +50, but close enough. That is a loss of -2200, so even more of a discrepancy than JFK claims. Chalk one up for JFK, I guess.


As for the 24-Oct-2018 stream that he also mentions in his tweet, (claim is Gump=6k, actual=1050, dif=-4950), the actual numbers are:

3600 in BI (1600+500+1500)

subtracted from the ending stack size of your choice of either:
7k (stones ending chip count graphic) = 3.4k
6455 (if you use the per hand loss/gain #s) = 2845
5.7k (if you eyeball the ending stack) = 2100

so that one isn't in JFK's favor in any of the scenarios.


Someone else can figure out the 20-May-2019 numbers.


JFK has a valid point that the Gump #s can't really be trusted, given that they seemed to rely solely on Stones starting/ending stack data, which is inaccurate in general and does not incorporate add-ons. The only way to know the real numbers is to go thru each stream and verify stack changes as they happen.

As an example of how the Stones data can't really be trusted, here is Postle's stack in the final hand of the 24-Oct-2018 stream:



It's listed as 7.2k, but it's clearly less than that. Looks like about 5.7k, given what the stack looked like in recent previous hands.


All of that said, he very clearly cheated, and you can watch him do it during the entire stream.

This is what's ****ed up about transcribing HH's or going through sessions to double-check the monetary results.. One does it to confirm numbers or whatever as if it's super-relevant but the whole time you're watching Postle blatantly cheating and super-using.

It feels so ******ed. "Oh, I better check if Postle actually won 4k or 1k this seesion here" - meanwhile he's 3betting the river with 9 high after double float-leading or whatever.

It's like this post copied into the OP says:

Chasing the exact figures is a red herring

In poker there are the choices of checking, or betting. Or calling, betting or folding if responding to an earlier bet. Each decision can be seen to be right or wrong. Perhaps instead of looking at the cash amount to determine the cheating, which is now looking very hard to get right, one could count up how many poker decisions Postle had to make, and how many he got right and wrong.

He hardly bet when behind, usually bet when ahead, and made so few mistakes. So counting the extraordinarily high number of correct decisions would be something that makes the impossibility in normal circumstances of what he did be clearer?

There will be some hands he had to lose, just to try to cover up what he was up to, but he won the vast majority of hands he played, and I would estimate made 90 - 95% correct decisions, which against so many supposed unknown variables just isn't believable.

Just look at some of the hands he got away from. I recall one where he had two pair or top pair and a relatively safe card hit on the turn, giving his opponent two pair, where he completely shut down. You could see the moment the card hit by his demeanor that he was done with the hand. No tanking, not even three seconds of thought.

his WWSF is probably in the 60+ range (and there are bunch of multiway pots) and his W$SD is most likely even more outlier (i guess 80+). can anyone provide exact statistics about this 2?

yee exactly my thoughts as well
that is why I believe he is cheating because how can you win over a big sample playing like me? Impossible IMHO

QUOTE=Loctus;56548363]SharkAccount, everything you're saying is correct and makes sense. Postle does play like yourself, a "losing fish player".

But he doesn't lose. He massively crushes. Everyone. That's the whole thing: His "poker strategy" is that of a -200bb/100 whale - but he CRUSHES everyone instead. Over a big sample. That's not a thing in the real world. Unless he's cheating. He's cheating.[/QUOTE]

I truly believe fish like me will always be around, and also thank you for reading what I wrote. GL at the tables

Bart Hanson hit the nail on the head. What you want to analyze is why Postle, as a preflop maniac, is sometimes folding Kings pre but calling All-Ins with 45os.

The strategy doesn't compute because if you're an end-boss maniac the value you get from Kings is so high you should probably never fold them with 250bbs or less.

The paradox extends to postflop as well obviously.

honestly the theory put forward in the Wired article seems like the most plausible at this point because its the only one that allows him to leave no tangible evidence if he has an accomplice.

he got access to the booth and planted a hidden camera aimed directly at the production monitor and then uses an app on his phone to access the feed.

its possible at some point later on he passes this risk off to someone else who feeds him the data instead of watching it live himself.

because stones is incompetent / negligent they do not keep logs or restrict access to the booth, and once accusations are made the camera is removed and the phone is wiped clean.

Yeah that list really sums it up well. Add to the fact that there's no coherent model you can apply to explain his plays and even when given the chance to explain the best he can come up with is stuff like, "Well you know I can just read people really well."

If you hear him talk about poker strategy he reminds me of Phil Ruffin when he called Viffer's bluff on HSP when asked to explain his thought process.

"Well I had a King, and a King is pretty good so I called."

Seriously this is the great poker mind that's making all these incredible plays? lol

We have no idea if every rock was turned over or if there was no tangible evidence because the "third party, independent" investigation funded by Stones did not look too hard.

They have not disclosed the methods and details of their investigation with the public or with the plaintiffs. The only person that saw it was VerStandig, whom had to agree to an NDA in order to view it.

It's pretty interesting to me that, if we are to believe that the investigation was so thorough, it wouldn't be shared publicly.

Instead they offer more money than what the Judge ruled damages would be limited to, in order to compel a statement of no-wrongdoing, and when their bluff was called and the threshold for signees was not met, they went ahead with the settlement anyway.

Why does it matter if we compile better stats on his play? We know he cheated, and we know that Postle and JFK will say anything to deny the fact. Who is the audience for this collection of proof? I think it would be better to contact the California Gaming Control with many letters of concern. Maybe get some politician involved or send letters to law enforcement.

Live reads bro

I don’t think a hidden camera makes more sense than a Trojan of some sort on the computers that tapped into the live feed. Ultimately, hardware (a camera) is easier to discover than software and the images from a camera would be subject to impediment.

I also think the bone conducting headphones came into play once they issued the no phone rule. I believe he was still getting the info sent to his phone. He just figured out a way to get the information audibly rather than visually.

I just listened to the jake/Veronica podcast. Interestingly, Veronica brought up the question about why Postle was still invited to her game after her suspicions but then never answered the question.

He had to have an accomplice during the hand where they changed the graphics. There was that hand where on the river, Postle and another guy both have 8 high and 9 high respectively and both missed gutshot draws. Postle bluffs on the river, the other guy bluff raises almost all in, then Postle shoves and the guy folds. The commentators are going crazy and then they get the news from someone that the graphics are wrong and apparently Postle's 86o for a missed straight was actually 89s for the nut straight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJJeavp6RHo

Who changed the graphics? JFK? Or some other unknown person or people working in the tech booth?

According to my own FAQ in the first post of this thread it was a tech named Taylor Smith who changed the graphics in that hand I believe (I say "according to my own FAQ" because it was so long ago that I don't recall the details, but I think it's known due to booth chatter during/after the hand). It was figured out wayyyy back when other figures than only Postle and JFK were in discussion. I don't know why everyone else fell off the radar. Maybe because JFK is such a ****ing character. If you search for T Smiths name in this thread you'll probably find more relevant posts to that event

Has anyone ever tried to contact this person? I guess if they had any amount of common sense they would do the opposite of JFK and stay quiet and under the radar.

More Postle ****.

https://www.wired.com/story/stones-p...=pocket-newtab

he went on mike the mouths podcast, he claimed he was the biggest winner on ub......