I have a cold so it won't be a long show. But I can't stay silent any longer.
Printable View
I have a cold so it won't be a long show. But I can't stay silent any longer.
I’ve seen every minute of joeys streams and listened to the podcast. There’s nothing to rebut - he didn’t say anything. Might be the worst interview I’ve ever heard.
Druff, are you contractually obligated to do a long drawn out introduction on every podcast? Does it need to be a certain percentage of the total overall length of the podcast?
Why would you feel the need to mention Veronica's looks?
Asking for a friend.
About to do another for part 2.
Shorter intro this time
He was doing better on the intros for awhile, then fell off the wagon again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
As to your second question: https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post863643
The 2nd question was rhetorical. I had already read that explanation that makes absolutely no sense to anybody except Druff. It must be because Druff just thinks on a higher level than everybody else obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by KidPresentableHe was doing better on the intros for awhile, then fell off the wagon again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
As to your second question: https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post863643
The last intro was like 2 minutes.
Question 2Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey GuyThe 2nd question was rhetorical. I had already read that explanation that makes absolutely no sense to anybody except Druff. It must be because Druff just thinks on a higher level than everybody else obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by KidPresentable
His original description of her was “she’s 42 years old, but looks good for her age.”
I’m a pretty advanced practitioner of passive aggressive posting so I know it when I see it.
If Druff describes that as complimentary I’d have to wonder how he navigates real life with women. That just doesn’t play
Imagine telling a 32 year old “she looks good for her age” in a bar, for instance.
There are some female issues roiling under that scruffy exterior
shockingQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
There's no female issues at all. In fact, any women I've had relationships with will tell you I treated them well, and any women I've dated or interacted with online will tell you I've always been very respectful.Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarQuestion 2Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
His original description of her was “she’s 42 years old, but looks good for her age.”
I’m a pretty advanced practitioner of passive aggressive posting so I know it when I see it.
If Druff describes that as complimentary I’d have to wonder how he navigates real life with women. That just doesn’t play
Imagine telling a 32 year old “she looks good for her age” in a bar, for instance.
There are some female issues roiling under that scruffy exterior
Veronica actually used to have on her Twitter, "I'm 42 years old, so stop bothering me in DM", or something like that. (She recently replaced it with something else, after getting thrown into the spotlight over this whole matter.)
Shortly after the whole story broke, she actually thanked me for the "looks compliments" via Twitter DM, and wasn't being sarcastic.
I wasn't trying to kiss ass or score points, and she could see that. If you write that a woman looks very good for 42, she typically takes it as a lot more of a compliment than the usual insincere "omg you're so hot" crap they receive from pervs online. When you know the person giving the compliment is sincere to the point where they put a qualifier like "for age 42", then at least you know it's genuine and probably honest.
Believe it or not, most 42-year-old women are aware they're 42, and are aware they don't look as good as they did 15-20 years ago. At the same time, there's a lot of advantages older women bring (such as maturity and less shallowness), and they can still be physically attractive, even if not at their physical peak anymore.
There's also a big difference between talking about someone and talking to them. I would never say to a woman, "Hi, you look great for 42." But if she overhears me saying that, or if she reads me writing it somewhere, she typically comes away with, "This guy appreciates my looks and thinks I look great for my age", rather than taking it as an insult.
Anyone calling him Postle-ripper yet?
you should probably kill yourself
I found the coincidence in both part 1 and part 2 of Druff's coverage, that multiple times when he'd pause the interview to discuss how Postle is deflecting, and then immediately after him continuing the interview Matusow would say "Right" absolutely hilarious.
He's a well documented misogynist, any discussion of women always goes straight to appearance. Indisputable.Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarQuestion 2Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
His original description of her was “she’s 42 years old, but looks good for her age.”
I’m a pretty advanced practitioner of passive aggressive posting so I know it when I see it.
If Druff describes that as complimentary I’d have to wonder how he navigates real life with women. That just doesn’t play
Imagine telling a 32 year old “she looks good for her age” in a bar, for instance.
There are some female issues roiling under that scruffy exterior
the media is picking up on this but weirdly fixating on the rfid sniffing angle, instead of the far more plausible scenario where the integrity of the broadcasting system itself has been subverted, either via a insider threat or by subverting the existing security controls on his own (which is totally in play considering his apparent proximity to the system early on).
could also be something laughable where they discover they are broadcasting the rfid readings over wifi unencrypted and he's just sniffing the traffic on his cell phone.
I found an interesting post made in the past day on r/poker from a guy who basically went through and analyzed all of his sessions in the past couple of years and spliced them in an easy to see and understand video:
Quote:
So I am a professional poker player from the SE. I also have some experience in creating content and using things like Sony Vegas.
So I was engaged by this whole situation early this week, so I, like many, have been watching Postle hands all week.
I decided to take all of his videos from 2018, from the very beginning in January, till the end which was Dec 17th, 2018, and cut all footage of his hands and place them on a timeline in Sony Vegas.
I have cut clips from every NLHE session from Jan until July of 2018. I then ran them at 12x-20x speeds which allowed me to simply view hours and hours of nothing but him playing cards throughout.
I am currently rendering that video timeline for others to see.
As I was cutting, at the end of July 18th 2018 stream, I noticed for the first time in a cut that Mike did not have his phone on the table. So I stopped. Went back to the beginning of the stream and he had it on the table. Went back to middle and it was on the table. So at 2:01, pretty much dead middle of the stream, Mike sits back and drinks his water, and he puts his phone between his legs. He then scoots toward table and then looks back at the phone to make sure he can see it. You can see in the clip that mike has the phone on the chair in between his legs.
I go back to the first session cuts, and start running the video at 12x, through every session from Jan 2018 until that moment. Not a single moment in 6 months does Mike's body language change, or his phone move off the table. No hands in his lap, no looking into his lap, no grabbing his head, until 2:01 on July 18th stream.
I had watched the majority of the streams previous to July 18th and remembered a number of spots Mike called bad on river or bluffed into sets. For example on a K108x9 flop with like 4 hearts mike called off bad with K9 vs a Jack high flush, and bluffed into a set of 2's in another session. In every session before July 18th, if you go through you will find a mistake.
In those sessions, previous to July 18th at 2:01 you will also find he never cold calls 3 bets with weak holdings, many times folding decent hands to 3 and 4 bets. You will even see that he folds to a 3 bet in the July 18th episode before the 2:01 mark.
Before I move on, note his playing frequency. He played twice in January on back to back days. Doesn't play again till Feb 12th, then again on the 21st. Doesn't play again until April 19, then another month later on May 23rd, then a month later again in June on the 9th. Before July, he has 7 sessions in 6 months on live stream. Obviously he is playing somewhere else.
Between July 1 and August 6th, he has 6 sessions in a month vs 7 sessions for the previous 6 months.
In the previous 7 sessions before July 18th at 2:01, he earned $855 on average per session including his PLO sessions.
In the 7 sessions following the July 18th session, he averaged $4000 dollars per session for $27, 750 dollars total.
Going back to sessions.
If you look at the footage on July 18th after the 2:01 mark you will see one of the first cold call 3 bets with 52 offsuit vs KK. In this hand, Mike makes a blatant look at his phone between his legs after the 3 bettor leads into him. The board had flopped a 2. He looked back and saw KK, and folded.
In other sessions right after the July 18th 2:01 mark, you will see the same behavior time after time. And this same behavior continues for a year and a half.
Once you see all of the pre July 18th 2:01 footage sped up at 12x speeds, the cheating becomes so obvious its unbelievable how clear it is.
The hand analysis of hands pre July 18th and post July 18th 100% back up the physical tell / change he makes to his entire poker game, the increased frequency of playing also confirms a change on July 18th, his winnings back up a change on July 18th after the 2:01 mark. On July 18th at 2:01, you can literally watch GOD be born. His cold calling 3bet frequency increases, his soul reads in general are never the same again.
With the evidence of the the hand analysis, him telling people who's cards are not reading they need to fix their cards as Joey Ingram streamed tonight, and the other mountain of evidence, the only thing that was missing was when and how.
Well to prove he cheated, and how he cheated, you first must figure out when he cheated. To figure out when he cheated, you must figure out when he didn't cheat. Mike Postle didn't cheat before July 18th mid way through stream, and you can see in that moment him start his cheat.
I also believe, though I have not went through it, that if you follow through from that point, that you will see his cheating evolve from having the phone in his lap and arms on the table, to keeping an arm down there. I believe this was to keep the phone active due to it going to silent or locking. He then goes away from his looking straight down, as he does on July 18th, to later his patent turn my head straight down with my hat forward and don't mind me I'm just checking my hole cards. I think you will also see that not too long after the July 18th episode and a few episodes after, Mike moves almost exclusively to the 2 seat for obvious reasons.
Once I have a video complete, I will share some of these examples I have used here to show mistakes before July 18th and some of the most blatant physical tells he is looking at his phone during the most insane situations after the 18th session.
I have held out the potential for this man to somehow to have not cheated, but once you see when it starts, it's as clear as day what is going on. He cheated.
https://youtu.be/2aGD4FYX9NA
https://youtu.be/0zYySMEWzE0
I finally finished watching both of those vids I previously posted. This guy nailed it.
Its crystal fucking clear that he was cheating with his phone...right down to the precise moment he started doing it.
Also, shit like this makes me wonder who else was in on it; notice how the male commentator does his very best to deflect her suspicions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHmuAqJ_sVo#
This time lapse one is great material, but the juice is at the end. At about 33 minutes and change, Postle plays his last hand before moving his phone to his lap. He loses that hand to a triple barrel river bluff, and even reacts in a home game fashion of displaying humorous upsetness at being so brazenly bluffed, after which his mood changes when he sets up his phone in his lap and gets down to the business of being a superuser. Here are some stills from that part of the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
Postle’s mood is jovial as he contemplates how to respond to villain’s river bet pre-phone-in-lap:
Chatting to opponent just before folding:
While next hand starts, Postle preps his phone...
... and starts to place it...
...on the seat between his legs.
Done!
As he slides his chair back towards the table, he’s careful to keep his torso away from the table to have clearance to see his phone when he lowers his head to spy it.
But before he has a chance to check his phone, someone walking behind him catches his attention, causing him to quickly swivel his head around to see where they are.
And as this person moves behind him, Postle then glances to the other side to see if they have passed.
Satisfied that the interloper can’t see his phone, he drops his head towards his lap...
But that simple downward look apparently wasn’t giving him a clear enough view of his phone screen, so he cranes his neck to the right to get a better angle at it.
Alrighty then! Time to get serious as a superuser.
Is there anyway to listen to this show? No longer in the archive. New listener to the radio show and would love to hear thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff