Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

News, Views, and Gossip For poker news, views and gossip.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-18-2021, 02:12 AM   #12851
checkraisdraw
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,356
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

If Stones was encouraging people to look at the live stream, I can see why they didn’t go hard to try to investigate this issue.
checkraisdraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 11:11 AM   #12852
SplawnDarts
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,205
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by checkraisdraw View Post
If Stones was encouraging people to look at the live stream, I can see why they didn’t go hard to try to investigate this issue.
There was never going to be an "investigation" unless someone involved came forward and stupidly confessed. No one has been able to provide any usable evidence that Postle cheated or how. People are convinced he did based on win rate and odd lines, but that never was usable. You may be convinced that no player is a) bad enough to take those lines and b) lucky enough to do it in the right spots and win that much money and you're likely right. But it's useless as evidence.
SplawnDarts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 05:31 PM   #12853
Outoftime44444
adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 751
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SplawnDarts View Post
There was never going to be an "investigation" unless someone involved came forward and stupidly confessed. No one has been able to provide any usable evidence that Postle cheated or how. People are convinced he did based on win rate and odd lines, but that never was usable. You may be convinced that no player is a) bad enough to take those lines and b) lucky enough to do it in the right spots and win that much money and you're likely right. But it's useless as evidence.
Its usable and not useless.

Experts can establish it is useful.

Line up some Stanford math professors who are math geniuses and great at explaining things to people and have a fancy credential from world famous school explaining it to a jury, and they will be convinced.
Outoftime44444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 05:51 PM   #12854
TPeck
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 273
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Stanford math professors could also establish how unlikely it is for someone to bink the Powerball but that doesn't create any hard evidence that the person who won it cheated. Unless i'm confused and somehow the numbers add up to 0.000% chance he would've been able to make correct decisions over the sample it's not impostlable.
TPeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 06:12 PM   #12855
Outoftime44444
adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 751
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TPeck View Post
Stanford math professors could also establish how unlikely it is for someone to bink the Powerball but that doesn't create any hard evidence that the person who won it cheated. Unless i'm confused and somehow the numbers add up to 0.000% chance he would've been able to make correct decisions over the sample it's not impostlable.
Because the legal standard is not 0.000% chance.

The legal standard to win a lawsuit in the state of california is convincing 9 out of 12 jurors that a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.
Outoftime44444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 06:14 PM   #12856
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TPeck View Post
Stanford math professors could also establish how unlikely it is for someone to bink the Powerball but that doesn't create any hard evidence that the person who won it cheated. Unless i'm confused and somehow the numbers add up to 0.000% chance he would've been able to make correct decisions over the sample it's not impostlable.
Since when does evidence or proof have to be 100%? I thought civil cases just needed to show a preponderance of the evidence (aka greater than 50% chance he did it) and criminal cases just need to show he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm no lawyer and I know jack **** about law but I attended a murder trial and there was nothing that definitively proved 100% that the defendant committed murder. Hell, his DNA wasn't even at the scene but an unknown 3rd party's DNA was. Still, he was convicted because one couldn't reasonably look at the evidence and think that he did not commit murder.
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 06:15 PM   #12857
Jay Why
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lundun
Posts: 946
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

If one wants to be sure Postle cheated one just has to ask, "How many times did he fold a wining hand in the streamed game?"

If he was a normal player he would be bluffed out of some winning hands.

But in his cheating games, was there a SINGLE time he folded a hand when he was ahead?

How many times did he call on the river when he was behind?
How many times did he fold on the river when he was behind?

To play such perfect poker session after session is impossible.
Jay Why is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 06:21 PM   #12858
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

2 days ago someone posted a video showing Postle folding a freeroll: jack high straight with a flush draw vs 2 players that each had a jack high straight no flush draw.

I'm sure Postle did occasionally fold some winners and he definitely called some with losers. However, the times he did were extremely infrequent.
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 08:52 PM   #12859
Outoftime44444
adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 751
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher View Post
Since when does evidence or proof have to be 100%? I thought civil cases just needed to show a preponderance of the evidence (aka greater than 50% chance he did it) and criminal cases just need to show he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm no lawyer and I know jack **** about law but I attended a murder trial and there was nothing that definitively proved 100% that the defendant committed murder. Hell, his DNA wasn't even at the scene but an unknown 3rd party's DNA was. Still, he was convicted because one couldn't reasonably look at the evidence and think that he did not commit murder.
LOL or you could have looked one post in front of yours where I posted the legal standard as I am a lawyer in Sacramento.

But either way you are pretty much right, except for one thing:

"just need" to show he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a HIGH standard. much closer to the 100% and requires unanimous verdict.
Outoftime44444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 09:04 PM   #12860
BartHanson
adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 794
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher View Post
2 days ago someone posted a video showing Postle folding a freeroll: jack high straight with a flush draw vs 2 players that each had a jack high straight no flush draw.

I'm sure Postle did occasionally fold some winners and he definitely called some with losers. However, the times he did were extremely infrequent.
Why don't you watch the hand over again it starts at 30:50 here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aGD4FYX9NA&t=1806s

The link will take you to the hand. It shows that he was desperately trying to look down at his phone but the action had moved so quickly he couldn't pull it off. This was in the beginning of the suspected period where he had access to cards and had not perfected the always sit in seat 2 and use my baseball cap to obscure what I am looking at moves.
BartHanson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2021, 09:35 PM   #12861
TimM
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
TimM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,540
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
Why don't you watch the hand over again it starts at 30:50 here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aGD4FYX9NA&t=1806s

The link will take you to the hand. It shows that he was desperately trying to look down at his phone but the action had moved so quickly he couldn't pull it off. This was in the beginning of the suspected period where he had access to cards and had not perfected the always sit in seat 2 and use my baseball cap to obscure what I am looking at moves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher View Post
Like someone previously posted, if he was cheating with a device in his lap, all someone would have had to do was come up behind him and look at his lap. That didn't even happen, SMH.
And near the end of the video (33:10-33:20) you can see what we already knew. The phone is not in his lap. He puts it on the chair between his legs. No one is going to see that by coming up behind him.
TimM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 02:57 AM   #12862
Outoftime44444
adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 751
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Boski's video is good - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdNbgiHZEfg
Outoftime44444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 03:29 AM   #12863
GreatBigRedOne
grinder
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 618
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outoftime44444 View Post
Its usable and not useless.

Experts can establish it is useful.

Line up some Stanford math professors who are math geniuses and great at explaining things to people and have a fancy credential from world famous school explaining it to a jury, and they will be convinced.
Except you would never get Stanford math professors testifying in an attempt to convince a jury that an urban legend is fact. The only attempt to actertain his winrate excluded rebuys and add ons. Even this highly biased and faulty study does not demonstrate anything close to proof of cheating as even the bloated numbers are well within what can be expected.

The second fault that this forum of pitchfork wielding heros often site is the winrate, but the calcs cited calculate variance as if its zoom, and lumps all hands as 1/3 when in fact straddles and blinds were as high as 25/50 and the game should be given much higher variance due to its loose nature.
GreatBigRedOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 05:26 AM   #12864
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outoftime44444 View Post
LOL or you could have looked one post in front of yours where I posted the legal standard as I am a lawyer in Sacramento.
How could I do that if we were posting at the same time?
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 05:41 AM   #12865
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
Why don't you watch the hand over again it starts at 30:50 here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aGD4FYX9NA&t=1806s

The link will take you to the hand. It shows that he was desperately trying to look down at his phone but the action had moved so quickly he couldn't pull it off. This was in the beginning of the suspected period where he had access to cards and had not perfected the always sit in seat 2 and use my baseball cap to obscure what I am looking at moves.
You and the video creator are just speculating in a way that fits your narrative. Nobody knows whether Postle can or can not see his phone there.

The video creator says Postle never looks down but then says "watch him start trying to looking." He is in fact looking down in that moment (not much different than the many times he allegedly cheated in other hands). If Postle had made a sick raise with the Jack high straight and straight flush redraw the video creator would be saying that's clear evidence he looked. Fact is we don't know if he looked or didn't look at his phone. To me this hand muddies the water and provides more ammunition for his defense than it does in proving his guilt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatBigRedOne View Post
Except you would never get Stanford math professors testifying in an attempt to convince a jury that an urban legend is fact. The only attempt to actertain his winrate excluded rebuys and add ons. Even this highly biased and faulty study does not demonstrate anything close to proof of cheating as even the bloated numbers are well within what can be expected.

The second fault that this forum of pitchfork wielding heros often site is the winrate, but the calcs cited calculate variance as if its zoom, and lumps all hands as 1/3 when in fact straddles and blinds were as high as 25/50 and the game should be given much higher variance due to its loose nature.
I don't understand why mathematicians would focus on winrate rather than the decision points themselves, which are the most clear evidence for guilt.
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 10:47 AM   #12866
SplawnDarts
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,205
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Why View Post
If one wants to be sure Postle cheated one just has to ask, "How many times did he fold a wining hand in the streamed game?"

If he was a normal player he would be bluffed out of some winning hands.
You do realize the stereotypical uber-fish almost never folds a winner, right?

That's no evidence at all. There's some clown who can't fold a possible winner at every 1/3 and 2/5 game in the country.
SplawnDarts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 03:32 PM   #12867
wj94
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 7,720
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

I can't believe people are still arguing about this
wj94 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 05:59 PM   #12868
Chubs
enthusiast
 
Chubs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 79
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

yeah clearly Postle is innocent
Chubs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 06:09 PM   #12869
checkraisdraw
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,356
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TPeck View Post
Stanford math professors could also establish how unlikely it is for someone to bink the Powerball but that doesn't create any hard evidence that the person who won it cheated. Unless i'm confused and somehow the numbers add up to 0.000% chance he would've been able to make correct decisions over the sample it's not impostlable.
Very dumb comparison because a person can be shown to not have cheated the powerball by showing that they indeed purchased the ticket from wherever it was placed by the lottery company.
checkraisdraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 07:01 PM   #12870
TPeck
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 273
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

I agree it's not a good comparison but only because modern lottery systems are digitized and it's very easy to trace which set of numbers was sold at which location. Only point I was making was that very unlikely things do happen all the time occasionally in strings and that simply because a series of mathematicians can break down exactly how unlikely those events are does not function as proof of it to have never happened. I would think a gambling community would understand this more than most.
TPeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 09:04 PM   #12871
dude45
adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 854
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

why do some people in this thread think you have to prove something with 100% certainty to find someone guilty?
dude45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 09:36 PM   #12872
SplawnDarts
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,205
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Showing that someone is either cheating or is 1 in a million lucky is of essentially no evidential value on a planet with billions of people. It's just your chosen suspect and thousands of other people who are that lucky by chance.

Now show that he's either cheating or say 1 in 10^50 lucky and that's much more interesting.

But since the people compiling these stats clearly can't even track the money accurately, it's all a laugh and any number they spit up is useless. Nothing's going to happen.
SplawnDarts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2021, 10:34 PM   #12873
Outoftime44444
adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 751
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude45 View Post
why do some people in this thread think you have to prove something with 100% certainty to find someone guilty?
I don't get it, everyone keeps saying the same thing though lol.

In civil court in california, you have to convince 9 out of 12 lay people that there is a 51% chance that Postle cheated.

Its not that hard.
Outoftime44444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2021, 09:16 AM   #12874
TPeck
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 273
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Well it was established a few hundred pages ago in this thread a court case isn't possible in California against Postle so now it's just hypothetical. I guess i've been brainwashed by TV/movies that in the american court system there needs to be some kind of real evidence to prove guilt outside a math sim of probability from a professor.
TPeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2021, 11:34 AM   #12875
Outoftime44444
adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 751
Re: Mike Postle cheating allegations (FAQ in first post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TPeck View Post
Well it was established a few hundred pages ago in this thread a court case isn't possible in California against Postle so now it's just hypothetical. I guess i've been brainwashed by TV/movies that in the american court system there needs to be some kind of real evidence to prove guilt outside a math sim of probability from a professor.
It seems to me that over 90% of poker community believes that 99% chance Postle cheated. Let me know if you think otherwise.

Based on that, I think case could be made that you can convince 75% of lay people that greater 51% chance Postle cheated.

But anyway, Mike Postle looking at his phone before every improbable play would be real evidence. Mike Postle only playing and/or winning in Stone live stream game would be real evidence. Mike Postle destroying his phone would be real evidence. Mike Postle whining and bsing like a conman like he did at his hearing but at deposition will be real evidence.

Just because its not the a discovery of murder weapon, circumstantial evidence is still real evidence.

People convicted for murder on less.
Outoftime44444 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive