5 ms·

Is it just me, or do others find it disturbing that very serious accusations are being made and promoted with nothing but very circumstantial evidence. I read

Is it just me, or do others find it disturbing that very serious accusations are being made and promoted with nothing but very circumstantial evidence. I read the article expecting to find some solid evidence of cheating, but instead is just a bunch of speculation and innuendo.

socialist_coder 7y ago
Occam's Razor. They need to rip the RFID tags out and watch his performance completely suffer.
- Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
  I fired up the last live stream and it seems they put in a "electronic devices need to be away from the table" rule. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/489058455?t=13m51s https://www.twitch.tv/videos/489058455?t=13m51s But it doesn't seem to be a rule they enforce all the time (as one player said "that would be a good rule to have all the time") but the other players said they liked the rule simply cause people actually pay attention to the game instead of their phones now. If it is how others have suggested in this thread, he has a tap into the system reading the cards and they if they only have that card reading system enabled during the live streamed games (Postle only seems to play during the live games and would be constantly looking at his phone) then that would be "enough". If he is using a large reader in a bag or something then surely something powerful enough to read his opponents cards would also be picking up the cards in the dealers hands (the rest of the deck) esp if his opponent is on the other side of the table with the dealer in-between them. That's just my speculation on the matter. EDIT: Though he does seem to have his phone in his breast pocket. And if he really does have a tap into the system it wouldn't take much to create some easy to conceal device to feed him data via another mean other than a phone screen. Some of the other games seem to happily have some of the players wearing headphones and the like so unless there was an outright ban on electronics near the table their would still be "issues". If he does indeed have an "in" to the system then even ripping out the RFID system and replacing it with cameras (like in other televised poker games could be a data leak unless they ripped out the WHOLE thing and started a fresh with another company supplying the tech.
- lukey_q 7y ago
  I was pretty astonished, reading the original article, that a poker game would allow having RFID chips in the cards in the first place. It makes sense from the POV of wanting to stream the games without needing a set of cameras for the table, but dang if it doesn't sound like an incredibly bad idea to begin with. And yes, you're 100% right, just make the guy play under any other circumstances and see if he's still as good. A few people in this thread are pointing out that there's no conclusive proof, and while that might technically be correct, there are way too many independent red flags here to let this guy continue to play without checking it out somehow. I could believe that a random guy in Sacramento was truly the best poker player in the world without the part where the cards have transmitting technology embedded in them, but with all the facts here you have to admit something smells a bit fishy. Really interesting story though, I'm convinced he's cheating and I'm really curious to see how (if) they ultimately figure out he's doing it. Seems obvious the RFID cards are responsible, but I'd like to see exactly what information he's getting (his opponents' full hands, or just "CALL" or "FOLD") and how he's getting it (hat? phone? microscopic in-ear audio transmitter? x-ray glasses?).
indigodaddy 7y ago
He's not always in super-user/cheat mode. In 2019, he mostly is though. When he is, his phone is nowhere to be seen during action/hands (vs phone in plain sight during hands when not in super-user mode, eg, not making incredibly suspicious plays based on hand context, and not always making the perfect play according to what opponents have, almost never actually gets into those types of hand situations when not in God mode), he is very clearly looking down at his crotch when pretending to look at his cards before decisions, etc. It's plain as day when you start looking at the videos when he is "winning like god." And also when he is "normal," you see all the things that are not happening anymore that I described. Take a look at this hand you which I find about as damning as any that you will see: https://youtu.be/Gaek0o6eYTo?t=709 https://youtu.be/Gaek0o6eYTo?t=709
- zippergz 7y ago
  Maybe I'm just clueless to poker, but I find this video impossible to follow.
  - 9935c101ab17a66 7y ago
    I'm not an expert, but as far as I can tell: - His 'hole cards' (the two cards you are initially dealt) are very weak. Statistically, from the outset, he has a very very low chance of winning. - On the flop, he hits a pair of 8s, which seems good. But it's incredibly dangerous for him to continue to play, because the flop opens up a ton of possibilities for strong hands for the other players at the table (straight draws, flush draws). Postle has no chance of hitting a flush, and though he could complete a straight, other players have a higher chance of hitting one (as one of his hole cards, the 8, actually lowers the chances of him hitting a straight, whereas another player could have a hand like 6-7 or A-2. - The turn card (4th card revealed) increases the chances of an opponent having a straight, and, I think eliminate postle's chances of hitting a straight. It also is another club, putting three clubs on the board, and so anyone who limped into the hand with two clubs has just completed a flush. The opponents bet strongly, and both have a flush draw. It makes absolutely no sense for postle to play this hand (as the second hand of the evening) unless he knows that the other two haven't hit a straight or flush. His hand is comparatively very, very weak, and (again, I'm no expert), he isn't even playing a long shot. I don't think there are any major hands he can complete on the river.
MFLoon 7y ago
Sure, each individual instance of suspicious behavior is circumstantial evidence by the formal legal standard. But this isn't a court of law, and as a fellow poker player, I want to know about this asap and not wait until it's been "proven" - I'm completely comfortable with the minuscule chance this is a false positive, as it's not a matter of life and death, but it is a matter of integrity of any game this guy would sit at. And the statistical evidence it's quite compelling - the guy is simply winning at a rate that no other players, even world class ones, achieve.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  Even in a criminal court the standard is beyond _reasonable_ doubt. If the defence present a doubt that the jury judges not to be reasonable, they can dismiss it without seeing any evidence that isn't true. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I tell you that Martians using mind-control rays executed this bank robbery, framing my client". No, I don't think so, I think your client is a bank robber. Guilty. For example I was in court last week for among other things the sentence of a man done for VAT fraud. He'd presented laughably bad forgeries to the inspectors when they put it to him that his claim for a refund was fraudulent, and he continued to say, even at sentence (so after being found guilty) that the documents were genuine. The judge had to more or less tell him to shut up because he was representing himself so he didn't have a lawyer to tell him. For a jury this will have been easy, the defendant's claim is that these forgeries are genuine, but the jury can see for themselves (no need for an expert on document forgery) that these are childishly bad, incompetent. Is it in some sense technically "possible" that real documents look exactly like a toddler with learning difficulties tried to make them? Sure. But it's not "reasonable" to think that's the truth and so the jury were right to convict.
jandrese 7y ago
As I read it he got too greedy and started playing in a way that was statistically impossible. Like 10x better than the best non-cheating players in the world. It would be kind of like if someone bought a single lotto ticket every week and every week they won the grand prize. You may not have physical evidence that they are cheating, but you also know that they're outside of what should be possible in the lifetime of the universe.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > You may not have physical evidence that they are cheating, but you also know that they're outside of what should be possible in the lifetime of the universe. Right, it is a very good clue that something is going on so an investigation should be opened and some of the anti-cheating mechanisms changed / improved. However, I don't think that you can say you have definitive evidence that there is cheating (as this article does) until you can say how it is being done.
  - reascenda 7y ago
    I mean if a guy wins a coin toss 1000x in a row is that definitive evidence? That's basically what you have here. With the added extra of being able to see him check his phone before making ridiculous bets.
    - GlenTheMachine 7y ago
      If there's a lot of money on the line? Yes. I'd be much more inclined to believe the coin was rigged than that I "just happened" to see an event that should only happen once or twice in the history of the universe.
      - Drdrdrq 7y ago
        It doesn't necessarily mean he is cheating. He could have simply invented a time machine. ;)
appleshore 7y ago
According to one conservative estimate, he’s 6.1 standard deviations above his expected winrate (of the best players in the game). This is about a 1 in 200 billion chance. What he’s doing is basically mathematically impossible. Combined with all the other evidence, he is 100% cheating. When he doesn’t have an advantage, he plays dramatically different and does things he never does in the other 90%+ of sessions.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  Poker returns are not normally distributed, so you can't go from standard deviations to probability of it happening.
the_watcher 7y ago
I agree that this article focuses primarily on the "how" he cheated and the circumstantial pieces, but I've followed the story... It's a lot more than just that. I'm struggling to find the source right now (know it was via Haralabos Voulgaris's Twitter account [0]), but his win rate is something like 31 standard deviations above the mean. He also never plays high stakes anywhere else, and only plays high-stakes when his alleged co-conspirator is working. There's a ton of data-backed evidence that he's cheating. Seriously, scroll back through Haralabob's timeline and you'll find it all. [0] https://twitter.com/haralabob/with_replies https://twitter.com/haralabob/with_replies
- vast 7y ago
  I don't know the guy who is doing the commentary in the vid but he is already very convinced of mikes guilty. Is there a list of scenes without commentary? I'd like to see few of the with context of the whole game to get a clue.
  - albedoa 7y ago
    > he is already very convinced of mikes guilty. Why do you suppose that is.
mylons 7y ago
his results are preposterously good for a poker player of his style. he's far and away the greatest of all time if he's not cheating and should be in macau 24/7, never leaving the table.
newfangle 7y ago
This evidence is not circumstantial. This person is cheating and there is no question.

socialist_coder 7y ago

Occam's Razor. They need to rip the RFID tags out and watch his performance completely suffer.

Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
I fired up the last live stream and it seems they put in a "electronic devices need to be away from the table" rule. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/489058455?t=13m51s https://www.twitch.tv/videos/489058455?t=13m51s But it doesn't seem to be a rule they enforce all the time (as one player said "that would be a good rule to have all the time") but the other players said they liked the rule simply cause people actually pay attention to the game instead of their phones now. If it is how others have suggested in this thread, he has a tap into the system reading the cards and they if they only have that card reading system enabled during the live streamed games (Postle only seems to play during the live games and would be constantly looking at his phone) then that would be "enough". If he is using a large reader in a bag or something then surely something powerful enough to read his opponents cards would also be picking up the cards in the dealers hands (the rest of the deck) esp if his opponent is on the other side of the table with the dealer in-between them. That's just my speculation on the matter. EDIT: Though he does seem to have his phone in his breast pocket. And if he really does have a tap into the system it wouldn't take much to create some easy to conceal device to feed him data via another mean other than a phone screen. Some of the other games seem to happily have some of the players wearing headphones and the like so unless there was an outright ban on electronics near the table their would still be "issues". If he does indeed have an "in" to the system then even ripping out the RFID system and replacing it with cameras (like in other televised poker games could be a data leak unless they ripped out the WHOLE thing and started a fresh with another company supplying the tech.
lukey_q 7y ago
I was pretty astonished, reading the original article, that a poker game would allow having RFID chips in the cards in the first place. It makes sense from the POV of wanting to stream the games without needing a set of cameras for the table, but dang if it doesn't sound like an incredibly bad idea to begin with. And yes, you're 100% right, just make the guy play under any other circumstances and see if he's still as good. A few people in this thread are pointing out that there's no conclusive proof, and while that might technically be correct, there are way too many independent red flags here to let this guy continue to play without checking it out somehow. I could believe that a random guy in Sacramento was truly the best poker player in the world without the part where the cards have transmitting technology embedded in them, but with all the facts here you have to admit something smells a bit fishy. Really interesting story though, I'm convinced he's cheating and I'm really curious to see how (if) they ultimately figure out he's doing it. Seems obvious the RFID cards are responsible, but I'd like to see exactly what information he's getting (his opponents' full hands, or just "CALL" or "FOLD") and how he's getting it (hat? phone? microscopic in-ear audio transmitter? x-ray glasses?).

indigodaddy 7y ago

He's not always in super-user/cheat mode. In 2019, he mostly is though. When he is, his phone is nowhere to be seen during action/hands (vs phone in plain sight during hands when not in super-user mode, eg, not making incredibly suspicious plays based on hand context, and not always making the perfect play according to what opponents have, almost never actually gets into those types of hand situations when not in God mode), he is very clearly looking down at his crotch when pretending to look at his cards before decisions, etc. It's plain as day when you start looking at the videos when he is "winning like god." And also when he is "normal," you see all the things that are not happening anymore that I described. Take a look at this hand you which I find about as damning as any that you will see: https://youtu.be/Gaek0o6eYTo?t=709 https://youtu.be/Gaek0o6eYTo?t=709

zippergz 7y ago
Maybe I'm just clueless to poker, but I find this video impossible to follow.
- 9935c101ab17a66 7y ago
  I'm not an expert, but as far as I can tell: - His 'hole cards' (the two cards you are initially dealt) are very weak. Statistically, from the outset, he has a very very low chance of winning. - On the flop, he hits a pair of 8s, which seems good. But it's incredibly dangerous for him to continue to play, because the flop opens up a ton of possibilities for strong hands for the other players at the table (straight draws, flush draws). Postle has no chance of hitting a flush, and though he could complete a straight, other players have a higher chance of hitting one (as one of his hole cards, the 8, actually lowers the chances of him hitting a straight, whereas another player could have a hand like 6-7 or A-2. - The turn card (4th card revealed) increases the chances of an opponent having a straight, and, I think eliminate postle's chances of hitting a straight. It also is another club, putting three clubs on the board, and so anyone who limped into the hand with two clubs has just completed a flush. The opponents bet strongly, and both have a flush draw. It makes absolutely no sense for postle to play this hand (as the second hand of the evening) unless he knows that the other two haven't hit a straight or flush. His hand is comparatively very, very weak, and (again, I'm no expert), he isn't even playing a long shot. I don't think there are any major hands he can complete on the river.

MFLoon 7y ago

Sure, each individual instance of suspicious behavior is circumstantial evidence by the formal legal standard. But this isn't a court of law, and as a fellow poker player, I want to know about this asap and not wait until it's been "proven" - I'm completely comfortable with the minuscule chance this is a false positive, as it's not a matter of life and death, but it is a matter of integrity of any game this guy would sit at. And the statistical evidence it's quite compelling - the guy is simply winning at a rate that no other players, even world class ones, achieve.

tialaramex 7y ago
Even in a criminal court the standard is beyond _reasonable_ doubt. If the defence present a doubt that the jury judges not to be reasonable, they can dismiss it without seeing any evidence that isn't true. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I tell you that Martians using mind-control rays executed this bank robbery, framing my client". No, I don't think so, I think your client is a bank robber. Guilty. For example I was in court last week for among other things the sentence of a man done for VAT fraud. He'd presented laughably bad forgeries to the inspectors when they put it to him that his claim for a refund was fraudulent, and he continued to say, even at sentence (so after being found guilty) that the documents were genuine. The judge had to more or less tell him to shut up because he was representing himself so he didn't have a lawyer to tell him. For a jury this will have been easy, the defendant's claim is that these forgeries are genuine, but the jury can see for themselves (no need for an expert on document forgery) that these are childishly bad, incompetent. Is it in some sense technically "possible" that real documents look exactly like a toddler with learning difficulties tried to make them? Sure. But it's not "reasonable" to think that's the truth and so the jury were right to convict.

jandrese 7y ago

As I read it he got too greedy and started playing in a way that was statistically impossible. Like 10x better than the best non-cheating players in the world. It would be kind of like if someone bought a single lotto ticket every week and every week they won the grand prize. You may not have physical evidence that they are cheating, but you also know that they're outside of what should be possible in the lifetime of the universe.

shkkmo 7y ago
> You may not have physical evidence that they are cheating, but you also know that they're outside of what should be possible in the lifetime of the universe. Right, it is a very good clue that something is going on so an investigation should be opened and some of the anti-cheating mechanisms changed / improved. However, I don't think that you can say you have definitive evidence that there is cheating (as this article does) until you can say how it is being done.
- reascenda 7y ago
  I mean if a guy wins a coin toss 1000x in a row is that definitive evidence? That's basically what you have here. With the added extra of being able to see him check his phone before making ridiculous bets.
  - GlenTheMachine 7y ago
    If there's a lot of money on the line? Yes. I'd be much more inclined to believe the coin was rigged than that I "just happened" to see an event that should only happen once or twice in the history of the universe.
    - Drdrdrq 7y ago
      It doesn't necessarily mean he is cheating. He could have simply invented a time machine. ;)

appleshore 7y ago

According to one conservative estimate, he’s 6.1 standard deviations above his expected winrate (of the best players in the game). This is about a 1 in 200 billion chance. What he’s doing is basically mathematically impossible. Combined with all the other evidence, he is 100% cheating. When he doesn’t have an advantage, he plays dramatically different and does things he never does in the other 90%+ of sessions.

im3w1l 7y ago
Poker returns are not normally distributed, so you can't go from standard deviations to probability of it happening.

the_watcher 7y ago

I agree that this article focuses primarily on the "how" he cheated and the circumstantial pieces, but I've followed the story... It's a lot more than just that. I'm struggling to find the source right now (know it was via Haralabos Voulgaris's Twitter account [0]), but his win rate is something like 31 standard deviations above the mean. He also never plays high stakes anywhere else, and only plays high-stakes when his alleged co-conspirator is working. There's a ton of data-backed evidence that he's cheating. Seriously, scroll back through Haralabob's timeline and you'll find it all. [0] https://twitter.com/haralabob/with_replies https://twitter.com/haralabob/with_replies

vast 7y ago
I don't know the guy who is doing the commentary in the vid but he is already very convinced of mikes guilty. Is there a list of scenes without commentary? I'd like to see few of the with context of the whole game to get a clue.
- albedoa 7y ago
  > he is already very convinced of mikes guilty. Why do you suppose that is.

mylons 7y ago

his results are preposterously good for a poker player of his style. he's far and away the greatest of all time if he's not cheating and should be in macau 24/7, never leaving the table.

newfangle 7y ago

This evidence is not circumstantial. This person is cheating and there is no question.