Bart Hanson analyses some key Postle hands.

Tikay10

This is fascinating if you have a little time to spare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQkI_4pjmaw&feature=youtu.be

Tikay10

There's some oddities in there.

Bart describes & shows what he calls a few "call only hands".

In one Postle just calls with a full house against a better full house for a small bet.

In another, Postle has the A flush & opponent catches the straight flush & bets $130 from a $400 stack - & Postle just calls.

There's no doubt in my mind that Postle was cheating & could "see" his opponents cards, but if he knows he is losing, why call at all?

Tikay10

In one hand Postle has K-K & folds pre-flop to a fella who has Aces.

Tikay10

Here's the Bart Hanson tweet. Well worth reading the replies it gets.

https://twitter.com/BartHanson/status/1307085629814116360

hhyftrftdr

Tikay10 said:

There's some oddities in there.

Bart describes & shows what he calls a few "call only hands".

In one Postle just calls with a full house against a better full house for a small bet.

In another, Postle has the A flush & opponent catches the straight flush & bets $130 from a $400 stack - & Postle just calls.

There's no doubt in my mind that Postle was cheating & could "see" his opponents cards, but if he knows he is losing, why call at all?

Would look very suss (even more so than it already does) if he folded in spots that he shouldn't despite knowing he is beat.

This is the crux of it for me. I have no doubt that he was cheating by some means, and if he was sensible with it he coulda flown under the radar for years making good money.

Call the spots you should call, even if beat.
Go broke in spots you should go broke.
Don't get greedy with the God like reads and plays, just use them sparingly.
Really push the marginal spots where it's going to be difficult to decipher if it was a good play/read or something more sinister.
Take players to value town when you know they are a pair/kicker/flush behind you.

Thinking he's cheating and proving he's cheating is so hard to do, especially in a game like poker. Unless you catch him in the act then it's all open for interpretation, despite how damning the 'evidence' may look to people who play the game.

Had Postle kept a lower profile he could've milked this cow for years.

kapowblamz

I've barely paid any notice to all this business. Most of the talk is people trying to prove or disprove that he cheated so I don't even bother reading or getting involved.

Postle cheated. There is no doubt whatsoever.

rabdeniro

Tikay10 said:

In one hand Postle has K-K & folds pre-flop to a fella who has Aces.

What do you think of the Fedor Kruse situation ?.

Tikay10

rabdeniro said:

Tikay10 said:

In one hand Postle has K-K & folds pre-flop to a fella who has Aces.

What do you think of the Fedor Kruse situation ?.

@rabdeniro

Arguably, his case is worse than the Postle case. And I'd say he is definitely guilty.

rabdeniro

Yep it looks ropey.

Tikay10

For those interested, the 2+2 Fedor Kruse thread is linked below. (WARNING - lengthy read).


https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/evidence-rta-case-glitchsystem-fedor-kruse-1777628/?highlight=kruse




A more concise & brief version is on Poker News, here;



https://uk.pokernews.com/news/2020/09/fedor-kruse-solver-cheat-high-stakes-cash-39469.htm

weecheez1

hhyftrftdr said:

Tikay10 said:

There's some oddities in there.

Bart describes & shows what he calls a few "call only hands".

In one Postle just calls with a full house against a better full house for a small bet.

In another, Postle has the A flush & opponent catches the straight flush & bets $130 from a $400 stack - & Postle just calls.

There's no doubt in my mind that Postle was cheating & could "see" his opponents cards, but if he knows he is losing, why call at all?

Would look very suss (even more so than it already does) if he folded in spots that he shouldn't despite knowing he is beat.

This is the crux of it for me. I have no doubt that he was cheating by some means, and if he was sensible with it he coulda flown under the radar for years making good money.

Call the spots you should call, even if beat.
Go broke in spots you should go broke.
Don't get greedy with the God like reads and plays, just use them sparingly.
Really push the marginal spots where it's going to be difficult to decipher if it was a good play/read or something more sinister.
Take players to value town when you know they are a pair/kicker/flush behind you.

Thinking he's cheating and proving he's cheating is so hard to do, especially in a game like poker. Unless you catch him in the act then it's all open for interpretation, despite how damning the 'evidence' may look to people who play the game.

Had Postle kept a lower profile he could've milked this cow for years.

You need a wee bit of watching far too much knowledge 🤔

DoyleBrun

More ammunition for the "poker is rigged brigade" and it won't matter to them that this was live poker.

hhyftrftdr

weecheez1 said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Tikay10 said:

There's some oddities in there.

Bart describes & shows what he calls a few "call only hands".

In one Postle just calls with a full house against a better full house for a small bet.

In another, Postle has the A flush & opponent catches the straight flush & bets $130 from a $400 stack - & Postle just calls.

There's no doubt in my mind that Postle was cheating & could "see" his opponents cards, but if he knows he is losing, why call at all?

Would look very suss (even more so than it already does) if he folded in spots that he shouldn't despite knowing he is beat.

This is the crux of it for me. I have no doubt that he was cheating by some means, and if he was sensible with it he coulda flown under the radar for years making good money.

Call the spots you should call, even if beat.
Go broke in spots you should go broke.
Don't get greedy with the God like reads and plays, just use them sparingly.
Really push the marginal spots where it's going to be difficult to decipher if it was a good play/read or something more sinister.
Take players to value town when you know they are a pair/kicker/flush behind you.

Thinking he's cheating and proving he's cheating is so hard to do, especially in a game like poker. Unless you catch him in the act then it's all open for interpretation, despite how damning the 'evidence' may look to people who play the game.

Had Postle kept a lower profile he could've milked this cow for years.

You need a wee bit of watching far too much knowledge 🤔

I look at my crotch a lot anyway, deffo nothing dodgy going on at the next SPT.

mumsie

A further discussion on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFWkgH4bDWs