Cheating allegations at Stones

Marius L

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
1,423
Reaction score
1,159
Location
Norway
The inside man could do that. However, it would require explicitly allowing external access to the devices on the internal network. If the inside man had access to the core router on the network, Stones' security is even more lackadaisical than we already believe.

More than that, routers work by storing a table of how remote and local addresses map together. If records from Postle's phone company can verify the IP address history of his phone, and the router has not be restarted in the interim, then this table will definitively prove that Postle accessed the computer processing hand information. That can be considered a smoking gun for the question "Did Postle cheat".

So, the takeaways:
- Remote access is a technical possibility, but would not be possible without additional configuration on the router/firewall.
- Remote access is wildly less secure from a "let's not get caught" perspective.
- Remote access uses a ton of data. Local access uses none.
I'm pretty sure you are overestimating how easy this would be if he was collaborating with one of the main tech guys. The blue screen visible on Postles phone screen also suggest this is how they did it. If you didn't see the video I posted, you should do it. It's not long, but very informative and interesting.

It is not an issue of the wifi accepting outside devices, it is simply an output option from the streaming software that lets you share the URL and anyone with that URL can get the info directly to their device with windows media player, no matter what network they are connected to. If you watch the video I posted you see how easy it would be to set this up if he is collaborating with Taylor(?) the tech guy behind the curtain. (Which a lot of evidence is suggesting, but no guarantee of course).
 

Joe Harris

3 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2015
Messages
562
Reaction score
421
Location
Vermont
The blue screen visible on Postles phone screen also suggest this is how they did it.
Yes, I agree. However, there is no reason to believe that blue screen stream was available outside the LAN of Stones.

it is simply an output option from the streaming software that lets you share the URL and anyone with that URL can get the info directly to their device with windows media player, no matter what network they are connected to.
That URL would be comprised of the IP address of that device on the local network. It would not be a DNS-backed URL such as pokerchipforum.com. For the stream to be available outside that network, there would have to be additional configuration on the router, to expose that portion of the LAN (the streaming PC) to the internet.

The video corroborates this configuration when Matt says:
What you're gonna enter here is the computer that the server is running on; the IP address of that computer
The resulting URL, being comprised of a local IP address, would be meaningless in the context of the internet.
 

1A25R

Flush
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
1,353
Reaction score
1,429
Location
Montreux - Switzerland
Ouch !!

Can this be real ??

Mike Postle linked in profile is not available anymore, however Google still had a trace of it in the results.
on where we can read : "CREATOR of the new patent pending poker series The dream Seat Poker Show"

1570783417118.png


1570783384621.png


and The dream Seat Poker Show is ....

1570783467101.png




So do you still ask how he managed to get into the system? He was part of the project !!
 

Marius L

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
1,423
Reaction score
1,159
Location
Norway
Ouch !!

Can this be real ??

Mike Postle linked in profile is not available anymore, however Google still had a trace of it in the results.
on where we can read : "CREATOR of the new patent pending poker series The dream Seat Poker Show"

View attachment 351323

View attachment 351322

and The dream Seat Poker Show is ....

View attachment 351324



So do you still ask how he managed to get into the system? He was part of the project !!
Apparently they had a test session for this show I think, which Mike and Justin JFK was in charge of (and thus maybe that was when they tested/ set up the cheat.) Conspiracy theories at this point, but it has been discussed in the thread on 2+2 and in Joey ingrams videos. Pretty shocking, and no doubt Mike was super friendly and close with Justin
 

abby99

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
3,020
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Iowa
Found it on youtube:

Dream Seat Poker Show, Wednesday, August 12, 2017 (looks like Mike P wasn't playing)

Dream Seat Explained
 

Teach42

Pair
Joined
Jun 19, 2019
Messages
134
Reaction score
153
Location
Chicago
Hmmm.... I wonder if it's possible he got an IP address and username/password for the server as part of the Dream Seat pilot. And then just figured out it could be used to access the livestream?? If so, he could have been doing it without a knowing accomplice...

But then again, that would still leave the 'changing graphics' issue hanging. That hand is still a smoking gun for something.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
20,063
Reaction score
25,740
Location
Atlanta
Hmmm.... I wonder if it's possible he got an IP address and username/password for the server as part of the Dream Seat pilot. And then just figured out it could be used to access the livestream?? If so, he could have been doing it without a knowing accomplice...

But then again, that would still leave the 'changing graphics' issue hanging. That hand is still a smoking gun for something.
No, the ip address for the remote media player feed must be entered on the server side software, and there is no reason such a url needs to be be created under normal conditions. And I doubt that he would not have used it until a year later.. .
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
20,063
Reaction score
25,740
Location
Atlanta
Yeah, the pics of a blank blue screen with data in the top left corner on his cell phone is the smoking gun to me.
 

bsdunbar1

Full House
Tourney Director
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
2,664
Reaction score
5,123
Location
Omaha, NE
I just want this to be over so I don't need to watch 4-6 hours of YouTube every day...

Am I the only one who experiences a one second delay between the video and audio in every Joey Ingram video? And why does he growl so much?
^Same on the 4-6hrs and the delay. Never payed attention to the growling
 

Forty4

Full House
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
2,386
Location
Rochester, NY
I just want this to be over so I don't need to watch 4-6 hours of YouTube every day...
I can’t even keep up with the 2+2 thread. I started skipping every other page or two figuring that if it’s a really good point or important someone will quote it.
 

Teach42

Pair
Joined
Jun 19, 2019
Messages
134
Reaction score
153
Location
Chicago
I can’t even keep up with the 2+2 thread. I started skipping every other page or two figuring that if it’s a really good point or important someone will quote it.
Every other page??? Wow, I skip like 30 at a time! I typically check once a day the most recent page or two. But at this point, it's gonna slow down to a crawl while the legal side moves forward.
 

Moxie Mike

Flush
Site Vendor
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
1,225
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
How is it we've yet to reach the saturation point with all the amateur 'analysis'? I've yet to hear anything that even remotely resembles a logical or reasonable explanation for all of these unusual behaviors, betting patterns, and results. The consensus is obviously that collusion occurred - but the daily discussions and podcasts just feels like piling on at this point.

This feels like the type of investigation that when law enforcement/FBI inevitably gets involved, this could drag on for a long time. I predict this will never go to trial, Postle and all the other bad actors will take a plea and the worst offenders will probably do a couple years tops. This story probably ends unceremoniously.

I get the need to keep this story alive do it doesn't fade into the abyss of the 24 hour news cycle, but I bet we're a long ways away from any indictments.

Anyone who was a consistent winner in those (and possibly other) streamed games is now subject to scrutiny. We have no idea how deep this rabbit hole goes.
 

WedgeRock

Straight Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2016
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
12,783
Location
America's High-Five
I predict this will never go to trial, Postle and all the other bad actors will take a plea and the worst offenders will probably do a couple years tops.
I predict no one goes to jail in the current lawsuit. It's a civil lawsuit. No criminal charges have been filed yet.

Anyone who was a consistent winner in those (and possibly other) streamed games is now subject to scrutiny. We have no idea how deep this rabbit hole goes.
The very thing that killed Postle -- the cards, showing how unusual his play was -- are the very thing that will vindicate a non-cheating winning player.
 

Moxie Mike

Flush
Site Vendor
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
1,225
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
I predict no one goes to jail in the current lawsuit. It's a civil lawsuit. No criminal charges have been filed yet.
Nobody likes a pedant, Eric.

The very thing that killed Postle -- the cards, showing how unusual his play was -- are the very thing that will vindicate a non-cheating winning player.
But doesn't this shift at some point from law enforcement proving a case against Postle to winning players needing to prove that they didn't cheat?

Win rates, and to a lesser extent variance in poker are at their core theoretical don't you think? This isn't a pure game of chance like dice. It's not impossible that a person couldn't make the perfect poker play on every hand they're dealt. It's extraordinarily unlikely - but not a provable fact.

At this point, it's a circumstantial case. So a player who's beating the game for what's universally considered to be a 'normal' win-rate (8-10 BBs/hr) were accused, they would make the same argument Postle probably will - that he's just better at making decisions than his competition.

All this is conjecture of course - when phone records are subpoenaed and hard evidence surfaces Postle or one of his cohorts will crack, and someone will go down for this.
 

timinater

3 of a Kind
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
673
Reaction score
1,114
Location
Saskatchewan
But doesn't this shift at some point from law enforcement proving a case against Postle to winning players needing to prove that they didn't cheat?

Win rates, and to a lesser extent variance in poker are at their core theoretical don't you think? This isn't a pure game of chance like dice. It's not impossible that a person couldn't make the perfect poker play on every hand they're dealt. It's extraordinarily unlikely - but not a provable fact.

At this point, it's a circumstantial case. So a player who's beating the game for what's universally considered to be a 'normal' win-rate (8-10 BBs/hr) were accused, they would make the same argument Postle probably will - that he's just better at making decisions than his competition.
I don't think winning regs will need to be proactively proving they weren't also cheating. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, even Mike got it for a while. I do think in that hypothetical it would certainly take a mountain of evidence to prove someone was cheating that was winning at a normal-ish winrate, and that's very scary if you are playing in a streamed game.

I get what you are saying about winrates being theoretical - but Mike's winrate is so far beyond what is theoretically possible that I feel it's actually the most damning and direct evidence that something untoward was happening.

Have a look at the spreadsheet that's tracked his results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MCfupw2gOZSDj_qvfL0ndIUsyE_Nx7YLNTKVoQUR_VE/edit#gid=2044248290

From that document: (I added the arrow)
For example, the probability of a 10/20 player who is crushing at 10 BB/hour making $300,000 in 340 hours of play is about 0.00000002%, or about 1 in 6 billion, assuming a standard deviation of 100 BB/hour.
1570820516659.png
 

Moxie Mike

Flush
Site Vendor
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
1,225
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Mike's winrate is so far beyond what is theoretically possible that I feel it's actually the most damning and direct evidence that something untoward was happening.
I'm in complete agreement that the guy was cheating - that's kind of beside the point I'm trying to make.

Say this goes in front of a judge or a juror who's a non-gambler/non-poker player and they were prevented with this theoretical 'evidence'. It's quite difficult to conceptually understand win rates and variance without experiencing them first hand. It's not a stretch for them to conclude that these results are nothing more than a mathematical anomaly. It's akin to winning the powerball at 292,000,000-1. Winning is extremely unlikely, but it does happen from time to time.
 

arch3r

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
3,260
Location
Northern Virginia
I don't think winning regs will need to be proactively proving they weren't also cheating. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, even Mike got it for a while. I do think in that hypothetical it would certainly take a mountain of evidence to prove someone was cheating that was winning at a normal-ish winrate, and that's very scary if you are playing in a streamed game.

I get what you are saying about winrates being theoretical - but Mike's winrate is so far beyond what is theoretically possible that I feel it's actually the most damning and direct evidence that something untoward was happening.

Have a look at the spreadsheet that's tracked his results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MCfupw2gOZSDj_qvfL0ndIUsyE_Nx7YLNTKVoQUR_VE/edit#gid=2044248290

From that document: (I added the arrow)


View attachment 351533
download.jpg
 

Highli99

Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
3,705
Location
Maryland
Nobody likes a pedant,
in fairness to wedge he is an attorney which makes him a professional, board certified pedant. His comment got me to snort a little.;) But Shakespeare has it right when it comes to lawyers.


This isn't a pure game of chance like dice
I like to believe there is an element of skill in dice games. Especially LCR.

It's extraordinarily unlikely - but not a provable fact.
Just have to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt. I’d wager in this forum many of us are past that threshold. Even circumstantial evidence can be enough for murder conviction. There is space for conviction between reasonable doubt and certainty, even though certainty is preferable.
 

timinater

3 of a Kind
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
673
Reaction score
1,114
Location
Saskatchewan
Say this goes in front of a judge or a juror who's a non-gambler/non-poker player and they were prevented with this theoretical 'evidence'. It's quite difficult to conceptually understand win rates and variance without experiencing them first hand. It's not a stretch for them to conclude that these results are nothing more than a mathematical anomaly. It's akin to winning the powerball at 292,000,000-1. Winning is extremely unlikely, but it does happen from time to time.
The standard to convict is to a reasonable doubt, not a mathematical impossibility - luckily. I'm certain an expert witnesses could distill the math down to a couple simple visuals that clearly illustrate the point of how out of line his play is. Combine that with the body language etc. and it's not looking good for the fella.
 

BarrieJ3

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,757
Location
Indiana
I'm in complete agreement that the guy was cheating - that's kind of beside the point I'm trying to make.

Say this goes in front of a judge or a juror who's a non-gambler/non-poker player and they were prevented with this theoretical 'evidence'. It's quite difficult to conceptually understand win rates and variance without experiencing them first hand. It's not a stretch for them to conclude that these results are nothing more than a mathematical anomaly. It's akin to winning the powerball at 292,000,000-1. Winning is extremely unlikely, but it does happen from time to time.
Maybe I watch too much law in order and don’t get it. Aren’t people regularly convicted when there is a 1 in 292,000,000 chance of being jnoocent? There’s a burden of proof, and its certainly not absolute.

Again I guess I have no clue, but I thought the science and forensics used is not always 100% undeniably true, and often times just 99.9 or whatever.
 
Top Bottom