Cheating allegations at Stones (3 Viewers)

[Marius L]

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]

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.

 

[Mr Winberg]

The blue screen visible on Postles phone screen also suggest this is how they did it.

Don't jump to conclusions

Spoiler

 

[Josh Kifer]

Don't jump to conclusions

Spoiler

View attachment 351046

That's some good work right there....

 

[1A25R]

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"

and The dream Seat Poker Show is ....

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

 

[Marius L]

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]

So, let me guess -- The Dream Seat is the one that has access to the live feed?

 

[abby99]

Found it on youtube:

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

Dream Seat Explained

 

[Teach42]

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]

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.. .

 

[WedgeRock]

Windows Media player and blue screen....

Blue screen of death?

 

[BGinGA]

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.

 

[WedgeRock]

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?

 

[bsdunbar1]

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]

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.

 

[1A25R]

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?

1) yes, I have delay in the sound too
2) cause he is a millennial.

 

[Teach42]

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]

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.

 

[APatHand]

I think if no one can explain it, then it has to be

MAGIC!

 

[WedgeRock]

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]

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]

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/spreadsheet...0ndIUsyE_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.

 

[Moxie Mike]

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]

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/spreadsheet...0ndIUsyE_Nx7YLNTKVoQUR_VE/edit#gid=2044248290

From that document: (I added the arrow)


View attachment 351533

 

[Highli99]

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]

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.

 

[1A25R]

I hope for him that this do not ends on a dark alley a la good fellas style.

 

[arch3r]

 

[BarrieJ3]

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.

 

[Davism72]

Welp, guess I have to go watch Casino again.