Mike Matusow Defends Mike Postle Against Cheating Allegations

Mike Matusow isn’t buying the Mike Postle cheating allegations. “The Mouth” apparently, believes it’s possible to almost never make an incorrect decision at the poker table. And maybe he’s right. Or, perhaps, he’s being naive.

Mike Matusow

Mike Matusow doesn’t believe Mike Postle is a cheater. (Image: wsop.com)

Matusow isn’t the only poker player who believes in Postle’s innocence. Numerous Sacramento-area pros have come forward in defense of the accused cheater. But most players on Twitter, outside the Stones Gambling Hall community, aren’t buying the story. And that includes a prominent poker figure – Chris Moneymaker – who originally defended Postle.

Things aren’t looking good for Postle from a reputation standpoint, innocent or otherwise. But Matusow still has his back.

Matusow ‘Feels’ Like Mike Postle is Innocent

Maybe it’s Postle’s first name that has Matusow defending the accused cheater. Or, it could be the fact that both Mike’s seem to play a similar style, which is to use live reads, not game theory optimal (GTO) strategy, as their basis for making what they perceive to be the correct decision.

Matusow had some choice words on Twitter for those who have investigated Postle. Namely, Doug Polk and Joey Ingram.

Matusow knows a thing or two about making “live reads.” He openly denies the need for making sound decisions based on game theory. So, he may appreciate Postle’s apparent ability to make correct decisions without dissecting an opponent’s hand range. The only difference is that Matusow is, at times, wrong with his reads. Let’s take a look at an example of why live reads can’t always be trusted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF7k6akuFmk

In the above YouTube clip, Mikey’s live read against Phil Hellmuth failed him miserably. That isn’t a knock on Matusow’s game. It happens to everyone at times (except Mike Postle?). He was one of the best no-limit hold ’em players during the “High Stakes Poker” show days. But, it goes to show, you can’t always trust your live reads because physical tells aren’t an exact science.

On the other hand, those who have viewed countless hours of Postle’s play – shout out to Joey Ingram – have yet to find any examples of where the accused cheater made an incorrect decision on the river. And that’s why many poker players believe he’s a cheater.

Moneymaker Changes Tone

When CardsChat initially spoke with Chris Moneymaker on Tuesday, he believed in Postle’s innocence. The 2003 WSOP Main Event champ has a lengthy history with Postle that dates back over a decade of playing against the alleged “Stones Live” cheater. The two battled numerous times on stream, and Moneymaker considered Postle a friend.

After watching more clips of hands that Postle played, however, Moneymaker has changed his tune. Though he hasn’t outright called Postle a cheater, he admits he doesn’t like the “look of things.”

With Moneymaker now stepping out of Postle’s corner, it appears there are no big-name players who believe in his innocence. Or, at least none that are publicly coming forward. Well, except for Matusow.

Jon Sofen
Written by
Jon Sofen
LAS VEGAS -- Like many others, Jon began playing poker after Chris Moneymaker’s WSOP victory in 2003. Since then, he's become a prolific writer about the game, offering daily news coverage for the CardsChat community. Away from the table, he's a proud Midwesterner, and possibly the world's biggest Kansas City Royals and Iowa Hawkeyes fan.

Comments

xOneCoolHandx wrote...

Mike looks to be on the wrong side of this. I will concede that live reads can be amazing, especially if you are not playing against top flight competition, but I have listened to Joey Ingram and Doug Polk and watched countless videos watching Postle’s play. I am convinced he is either a cheater or borrowed a flux capacitor from Marty and Doc.

Matt wrote...

The mouth is a fraud himself, in the sense, he is not some big expert player. He was decent maybe 20 years ago, but as the game evolved and average strategies got more advanced, he was left in the dust. He does have a solid grasp of basic fundamentals so he can appear OK due to the high variance nature of the game. The only thing he has going for him is his name recognition marketing power.

I say he is a fraud because you see him playing in big money tourneys and cash games on TV, but it’s BS. The guy would have a hard time staking himself in a $200 tourney let alone a 10k. He does have a deep roster of well-off friends that allow him to “keep up appearences”, but the guy has very little action on himself when you see him on TV.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Did you know about our poker forum?

Discuss all the latest poker news in the CardsChat forum