Is there a reason why people should not be legally obligated to overcome the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt before they post on the internet whether they think someone is guilty or innocent? Yeah I can think of a few.
1 Like
You keep saying I refuse to admit people have more experience than me in poker. Can you point to a post where I did this?
It’s objectively true you have far more experience at high stakes poker than I do, more experience at live streams and you are a far better player than I am. I’d guess when compared to the pool of people who post in the two poker forums here I am bottom quartile in terms of skill.
But that all misses my point. Just because the above is all objectively true it doesn’t free you from the basic rules of evaluating data. It doesn’t give you license to wildly speculate and treat those speculations with equal weight as vetted data.
We wouldn’t be having a debate if the question was “can rfid tech be hacked”. You’ll note I have not weighed in on that at all. I immediately defer to your expertise on that. My issues comes when “it can be hacked” is immediately converted to “therefore it is evidence it has been”. At that point my training in epistemology kicks in and trumps the technical question because now it is a question of the correct way to build an argument.
I really am not trying to be a jerk here even though I guess I am coming across that way. My apologies.
1 Like
I am not sure what you are asking me sorry.
My ultimate point is I care about the best way to build an argument because these rules help us get to the truth. I especially care when the question effects real people given the many examples we know of false accusations and internet mobs driving people to suicide or causing them significant other harms.
Then I guess we are all on the same page that presumption of innocence has nothing to do with ‘building an argument to get to the truth’. But yeah internet mobs suck.
That’s pretty rich coming from you.
2 Likes
Look, he’s not the one who thought she had a jackhammer in her skin tight pants. I mean we can also evaluate the “quality” of the analysis…
2 Likes
The correct way to evaluate any situation like this is through Bayesian analysis. Try to set up an equation with priors and estimated conditional probabilities and see what the calculation produces. Then you can argue over the priors and estimates rather than the output.
When this initially went down I was pretty low on the P(cheating | J4 hand happened) in large part because my prior that HCL would be compromised was very low. In order for the game to be compromised you’d almost certainly have to have a dishonest thief as part of the production with access to the hole cards. When that was confirmed, the numbers adjust significantly.
4 Likes
That’s not what I said, I said you refuse to accept that we might have legitimate reasons for drawing different conclusions at different levels of certainty.
No but it allows me to get more info out of some of the same data than you. I’m not trying to be a dick about the better at poker part. A losing player with the same amount of live table time as me could evaluate a couple of things the same way.
To be clear, I’m not an RFID expert but I’ve researched what is definitely/theoretically possible for my own security in games.
I never said that though, people on the no cheating side have asked how cheating is even possible, so examples were given. Those shouldn’t change the % of a full and proper estimate on cheating likelihood, but for those who thought it was impossible to hack a shuffler or use an RFID reader, it should move their number because they were working off flawed assumptions.
No not at all, you’re fine today. You came across as a jerk a few days ago but that’s buried as far as animosity or anything, you apologized so we’re good.
This is right.
But that doesn’t make prior analysis of jackhammers in tight pants and winking cowboys any less stupid than they were prior to that knowledge being known. Clovis adjusted his analysis when actual information came out.
1 Like
That’s what I mean, there isn’t data to evaluate. What should we be talking about ITT? Opinions of people that work in the field seem like a good place to start 🤷
The only person that I’ve seen who’s come out looking good from this is Nick Airball. His came off completely believable and likeable on his interview with Joey. It also makes Garrett look pretty bad for including Nick Airball in his list of suspicious characters.
For instance gman writes "I also want to state that loaning $175K to someone you met one week prior is, in my opinion as a 20 year veteran playing some of the largest poker games in the world, not at all “common practice in high stakes games” as Airball says in his recent statement. Nick states that yes this is super normal for him and that basically Feldman has asked Nick to do this to keep the games going. Nick explained that while he knows it’s dumb, if he doesn’t do it, as a winning player, unless you’re Garrett (or another big draw), you have to bring something extra to the stream to be invited to play. Nick says that Feldman knows all this - and that all Garrett had to do was ask him to confirm it wasn’t odd.
Nick’s theory (which makes sense) is that Garrett tries to block other winning pros from getting to play on stream so he can have easier games, and that he was only included by Garrett in an attempt to make it harder for Nick to get on future streams by damaging his reputation.
Last note - Nick also points out that Garrett refuses to straddle - even when the entire table is doing a round, which seems pretty bad.
2 Likes
"Potentially related, Nik Airball calls into Joe Ingram’s Twitch stream on that Wednesday 9/28, the day before the J4 hand and the same night he is at Javier’s with RIP and Robbi. He goes on a long rant attacking several players including Andy Stacks, “the biggest loser in LA livestream history” (1:26:27), Eric Persson, “he’s just ****ing terrible” (1:26:53), Alan Keating, “that guy’s a ****ing idiot too” (1:27:40), Doug Polk, “He’s a joke” (1:32:38), and “Bill Klein and all the other ****ing idiots he gets to play with” (1:23:20). Yet, most of his venom is for some reason is saved for Garrett specifically:
1:13:12: “Garrett is the biggest nit in LA, and he’s my bitch.”
1:13:50: “I want to play with Garrett. I want to felt his ass. I want to make him taste the felt. I want to send him home on his bike. I want him to have to liquidate all his ing funds. All his IRA accounts, everything. I want to send him home crying to his wife with no money.”
1:17:04: “Come sit with me motherer.”
1:17:19: “Let’s see Garrett ****ing lose 5 million in a day and cry and sit at the table begging for a loan.”
1:18:44: “I want to play Garrett for every dollar he has to his name. Every dollar. I want Garrett to be homeless by the time I’m done with him.”
1:20:14: “Or do we want to see someone come stand up to the ****in loser, fake poker boss of LA”"
1 Like
Yeah - he admits he has a rivalry with Garrett and likes to talk a bit of trash. He was pretty drunk that night and he and Joey were having a laugh with him going at Garrett.
I don’t think he’s ever been out of line on stream, so don’t see why telling Joey he wants to beat Garrett and take all his money is a bad thing (even if he does use some colorful language).
Poker needs to be more like the WWF.
1 Like
The World Wildlife Fund?
1 Like
Sure
Nik had been pretty obnoxious at times when he’s “drunk” but i like it better than garrett’s pretend niceness
3 Likes
Whoa whoa whoa WHOA now
4 Likes
Did Garrett’s research miss this or is he being a dick?
5 Likes