Unfortunately it takes a reasonable sample size to come to that conclusion....I wonder how many games it took for people to start being a little bit or then genuinely suspicious, and then how long it actually took to get to resolution.....
I could probs find some more info about this, I only really know the headline
Edit: And now I have read up a bit.....I suppose it teaches us what we aready know, that most things in poer are uncertain. Even if we 'know' we can not be easily certain
I could probs find some more info about this, I only really know the headline
Edit: And now I have read up a bit.....I suppose it teaches us what we aready know, that most things in poer are uncertain. Even if we 'know' we can not be easily certain
Last edited:
There are many things, that should with hindsight have been obvious and resulted in him getting stopped far earlier. Below are just some of those, that come to mind:
* Never bluffing into a strong hand / the nuts.
* Just calling on the river, when he was coolered, and the normal play would have been to either check-jam or bet-call.
* Raising bottom pair for value in multiway pots, when two opponents both have draws.
* Many strange turn leads after check-calling flop.
* Bluffing people off a chop with strong hands like top pair or an overpair.
* Sometimes making extremely tight folds like folding TPTK on the flop, and other times making incredibly loose calls.
* Bet sizes perfectly tailored to the actual holding of his opponent like 10% pot, when opponent has a weak pair on the river.
Obviously a lot of this was only possible to detect, because it was a stream, where we got to see all the cards. If cards are not shown down, then the best sign of a superuser would be, that you get very little action, when you are strong but face a ton of pressure, when you are weak. Almost as if, they know, what you have, because in fact they do.
* Never bluffing into a strong hand / the nuts.
* Just calling on the river, when he was coolered, and the normal play would have been to either check-jam or bet-call.
* Raising bottom pair for value in multiway pots, when two opponents both have draws.
* Many strange turn leads after check-calling flop.
* Bluffing people off a chop with strong hands like top pair or an overpair.
* Sometimes making extremely tight folds like folding TPTK on the flop, and other times making incredibly loose calls.
* Bet sizes perfectly tailored to the actual holding of his opponent like 10% pot, when opponent has a weak pair on the river.
Obviously a lot of this was only possible to detect, because it was a stream, where we got to see all the cards. If cards are not shown down, then the best sign of a superuser would be, that you get very little action, when you are strong but face a ton of pressure, when you are weak. Almost as if, they know, what you have, because in fact they do.
Postle got caught, but his accomplice got away with it. I can't remember the guy's name that worked for the casino and ran the card room or whatever. Obviously Postle had inside help, so either that guy was the inside help or he knew and looked the other way. Either way I would never set foot in Stones casino and you shouldn't neither. Completely untrustworthy that they let it go on for a year.
And why did he get caught? because he was STUPID. He was too stupid to purposely lose enough to keep the suspicion away. What a dork.
And why did he get caught? because he was STUPID. He was too stupid to purposely lose enough to keep the suspicion away. What a dork.
Strictly speaking Postle did not get caught, since he never faced any legal consequences of his cheating. But he did for sure have his reputation ruined. And since it was never revealed, who the inside accomplish(es) might have been, one can say, that he/they got let off the hook completely. There were some speculations about the tournament director JFK.Semprini said:
But if you think logically about it, it was more likely the tech guy working with the stream, and he managed to completely escape public attention. And since Stones ended the stream, after the scandal broke, they had the perfect excuse to lay the tech guy off without having to prove, that he was involved in cheating. JFK as I understand it was relieved of his duties but still received a salary until COVID, which I guess was a perfect excuse to lay him off.
Since they dont run a stream any more, its probably no worse than playing in so many other places. But of course one can select to punish them for the way, they handled this whole scandal, which was for sure not good at all.Semprini said:
Luckily cheaters are usually stupid. And I guess, he also needed the money, so it was not enough to just increase his winrate slightly. But yeah. For sure it could have been carried out better by avoiding some of the most insane decisions. And for instance accept to lose some money, when you have top pair with a gutshot, but your opponent bet the turn with a made straight, which was the hand, where Veronica had finally seen enough.Semprini said:
fundiver199 said:
Not criminally, but there are plaintiffs with civil judgements, players that he had cheated. they won civil judgements and when it was found a couple of years ago that he was playing in Mississippi, I believe his winnings were confiscated and garnished to compensate the plaintiffs.
As I understand it, the civil case about cheating was dismissed by the California court as a "gambling dispute". However Postle then filed some slander lawsuits, which he lost, and for that reason he owe some people for their legal expenses.Semprini said:
He was definitely incompetent if not directly involved.Semprini said:
