One of the leading virologists of Germany is making an educated guess that the virus originates in Chinese raccoon dog farms:
Q: What do we know about that intermediate host – is it the “poor pangolin”, as it’s come to be known?
A: I don’t see any reason to assume that the virus passed through pangolins on its way to humans. There is an interesting piece of information from the old Sars literature. That virus was found in civet cats, but also in raccoon dogs – something the media overlooked. Raccoon dogs are a massive industry in China, where they are bred on farms and caught in the wild for their fur. If somebody gave me a few hundred thousand bucks and free access to China to find the source of the virus, I would look in places where raccoon dogs are bred.
Is it so unreasonable to think there’s (conservatively) a 5%-10% chance he was not cheating? As the judge correctly pointed out, the plaintiffs don’t even have a solid theory of how the cheating occurred. Their argument is that maybe he was using an [unknown] cheating device with help from an unknowable number of John Doe co-conspirators. The only direct evidence they seem to have is that Postle won a lot of money at poker.
Like I said, I’m a novice who didn’t attend poker school or study the seminal works of noted poker authorities so I don’t really understand these claims about it being zero. I’m not a poker professional working in a poker laboratory doing poker experiments under the guidance of poker experts who’ve spent billions of collective man-hours publishing poker research in peer-reviewed poker journals. What I do know is that poker is about playing the man, not the cards; that’s the one simple fact these so-called experts always overlook.
Fair enough. His win rate has been calculated. It is not possible under fair conditions. It’s the same way the UB cheaters were found. Imagine a scatter plot. All win rates are plotted in one clustered group then many many order of magnitude off by himself is postle. You honestly don’t need any more details about how he cheated once you see the math.
His results before and after the cheating started were very different. He went from paying off for stacks in cooler spots and sometimes bluffing into monster to never ever ever doing either.
His winrate was obscene and impossible. Like I’m not big on any winrate being impossible, per se, but there is a ceiling on it and even though it’s higher than many thing it’s way below what he was winning.
Even if you’re the best at live reads in the history of the world, sometimes you’re just going to be wrong. Someone’s going to glance in a certain direction because the cocktail waitress bent over, look down because they’re tired, blink a lot because they got something in their eye, look away and watch the TV because there are 10 seconds left in the game, etc, and you just pile it in off a live read and dust it off now and then. (Side note, any time you catch the feigned disinterest tell of someone watching TV and look up and see a commercial, they’re monster.)
There are plenty of theories regarding communication devices, we just don’t specifically know which one. But his behavior got really weird right when he started winning big, he started putting his cell phone in weird places, he had a bulge in his hat, he started putting his head down or putting his hands on his head a lot.
Yeah, no matter how good you are at this, you can’t be 100% because of some of the examples above. I’m a big believer in live reads and pretty good at it, but they don’t occur in a vacuum environment where the only thing influencing the person’s physical reactions is the poker hand.
Lol wtf is wrong with you people. What more can the guy do to let you know he’s making a point? FFS he even said “poker school” and “peer-reviewed poker journals” lol
ETA: “poker laboratory doing poker experiments” lmao
A. The virus is transmitted from a bat to a worker at a lab studying the virus, possibly through an intermediary animal. The worker then goes out into the world and transmits the virus to other humans.
B. The virus is transmitted from a bat to an intermediary animal, then to humans at a wet market.
Does knowing whether it was A or B affect figuring out how to treat COVID-19? Does knowing whether it was A or B affect what American foreign policy towards China should be?
The coronavirus outbreak first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan late last year and was widely reported to have originated in a food market.
Since then, however, some senior US politicians have suggested that the source was a research facility in Wuhan that had been carrying out research on bat coronaviruses. China has dismissed the idea.
Mr Pompeo said earlier this month that there was “a significant amount of evidence” that the virus came from a laboratory in Wuhan. He later appeared to step back, saying “we know it began in Wuhan, but we don’t know from where or from whom”.
And on Saturday, the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology told state media that claims that the virus could have leaked from the facility were “pure fabrication”.
I honestly have no idea if this is a troll post or not. So, if it is, then, well done!
If it isn’t, think of it this way. The standard of proof for something is criminal is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. This guy’s play is solidly in that range.
In some very literal sense, I suppose the chance of him not cheating is not zero. But it’s way lower than 5% and certainly beyond any reasonable doubt. Is there absolutely zero doubt?Maybe not in your mind, but that observation has no practical relevance.
