[reascenda]

My dude over an 8k sample of hands he's winning at approximately 100x the rate of the best players, while deviating colossally from optimal strategies. The probability of winning at the rate he does is beyond the one to the number of atoms in the universe level.

This is as egregious a case of cheating as you're ever likely to find.

[SamReidHughes]

I think that by itself is a weak argument, because let’s say he was superbly good at reading people. That could explain a huge win rate. But there is a ton of other evidence. And a people-reader wouldn’t have his eyes in his lap.

[newfangle]

Nobody actually reads people in poker. What the actually do is categorize different players into different player types based om hiw they play and then they exploit their suboptimal strategy. Sometimes someone flinches or looks nervous but generally that actually means they have a really good hand not a bad one.

[abductee_hg]

I agree with Mike, until there is evidence, we have to use the Presumption of innocence. There might be rational explanations for his high success rate. Savants exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome Let's not forget that this Guy is just doing the improbable, not the impossible, so...

[paggle]

Usain Bolt deviated colossally from optimal sprinting structure/style and beat the world record by a crazy number of standard deviations. And that actually happened. So these things are not just false because they're improbable.

[reascenda]

Poker is semi solved, not like chess is of course but to the point where good bots always beat good humans over a large enough sample.

There are objectively better and worse ways to play poker if you make some assumptions about the behaviour of the other players. In a small sample those assumptions may be false, but in a large enough sample it's extremely unlikely to be the case.

So it's extremely surprising to see a winning player employing crazily non optimal strategies (like betting 54o AI pre flop in a three way pot). That is just a losing play in the absence of information about the other players holdings.

The idea that he's reading people is absurd, even independently of the evidence of him not actually looking at people while betting. Live reads (to the extent they help at all) are incorporated in the win rates of the best players already.

[jimktrains2]

Bolt's record, while impressive, is by no means unexpected or "crazy". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_100_metres_world_recor...