Its such a close match of proof and responses that I think if one is innocent the other is and if one is guilty the other is also guilty. So we only need to find proof of one of them and the other is linked together.
quantum_tunneler says in response
They are similar events but literally no correlation. These are independent events. It is like you tossed two coins and you see first one landed head, you are saying these two coins are in such similar situations that the other coin ought to be landed head.
That’s just not how probability works.
1 – Obviously independence implies uncorrelated but not conversely. Uncorrelatedness is linear independence.
1.3 – My favourite definition of independence between 2 random variables is the 1 that links it to correlation : ( at least if they’re integrable or something ) X & Y are independent if and only if E[f(X)g(Y)] = E[f(X)]E[g(Y)] for all f,g s.t. the expectations are defined ( 1 version says something like bounded Borel-measurable or something ), i.e. f(X) & g(Y) are uncorrelated / have zero-covariance for all f,g. So, we have uncorrelatedness / zero-covariance between X & Y when f & g are the identity functions.
3 – But that’s for 2 random variables. Actually, what’s the concept of ‘uncorrelated’ for 2 events?
I guess the definition is that (this all takes place in some probability space) events A & B are uncorrelated if the indicator aka characteristic aka binary (I use ‘binary’ to mean 1-or-0 not ‘2-valued’) aka Bernoulli random variables 1A & 1B are uncorrelated and independent if 1A & 1B are independent. Are indicator random variables actually independent if they are uncorrelated and hence folkore (?) there’s correctly no distinction between the concepts of ‘independence’ & ‘uncorrelatedness’ when it comes to 2 events A & B (because these concepts are equivalent for the random variables 1A & 1B) ?
Hmmm…all this time in elementary probability classes…I’m almost certain (hehe) they didn’t make this emphasis that we’re correctly not making a distinction between uncorrelated and independent EVENTS.
Well, maybe there were indeed some exercises or even examples like ‘Show Bernoulli and more generally 2-valued RVs are so and so.’
I don’t ever recall some exercise in a textbook (again folklore) that said in a chapter after correlation of random variables is introduced that went like
Suppose we make new definitions “uncorrelatedness-prime” of 2 events as such and “independence-prime” of 2 events as such. 2 events are “uncorrelated-prime” if they are “independent-prime”. We see that “uncorrelatedness-prime” of 2 events is equivalent to our usual beginning-probability-definition-of-“independence” of 2 events. If 2 events are not “uncorrelated-prime” only if they are “independent-prime”, then from the start we should have just used the term “uncorrelated” instead of “independent”! This would terminologically be unsatisfying!
Show that 2 indicator random variables are uncorrelated only if they are independent and hence we are fully justified in using the term “independence” of 2 events. Show in general that 2-valued RVs are uncorrelated only if independent.
Or after covariance ( since correlation requires knowing what standard deviation is…not that it would be hard to make that leap but anyway ) :
Suppose we make new definitions “zero-covariance-prime” of 2 events as such and “independence-prime” of 2 events as such. 2 events are “zero-covariance-prime” if they are “independent-prime”. We see that “zero-covariance-prime” of 2 events is equivalent to our usual beginning-probability-definition-of-“independence” of 2 events. If 2 events are not “zero-covariance-prime” only if they are “independent-prime”, then from the start we should have just used the term “zero-covariance” instead of “independent”! This would be terminologically unsatisfying!
Show that 2 indicator random variables have zero covariance only if they are independent and hence we are fully justified in using the term “independence” of 2 events. Show in general that 2-valued RVs have zero covariance only if independent.
All the champions who had the championship privilege of retaining by drawn classical had fewer black wins, i.e. no champion had more black wins and then retained. 3/3 = 100%
Then again, they could ‘afford’ to take risks w/ white because of the privilege? Idk.
In open, this happened 2/2 = 100% of the time.
In women’s, this happened 1/1 = 100% of the time. 1981 Maia vs Nana.
Statistics – rapid tiebreaks only
open (excluding 2006 WCC)
3
more black wins lost
2
66.67%
more black wins WON
1
33.33%
women
3
more black wins lost
0
0.00%
more black wins WON
3
100.00%
total
6
more black wins lost
2
33.33%
more black wins WON
4
66.67%
In total, there is 4/6 ~ 66% consistency, in that the player w/ more black wins won rapid tiebreaks.
In women’s rapid tiebreaks, there is 3/3 = 100% consistency
In open rapid tiebreaks there’s only 1/3 ~ 33% consistency. 1996 Anatoly vs Vishy.
Statistics – all
open (excluding 2006 WCC)
5
more black wins lost
4
80.00%
more black wins WON
1
20.00%
women
4
more black wins lost
1
25.00%
more black wins WON
3
75.00%
total
9
more black wins lost
5
55.56%
more black wins WON
4
44.44%
Statistics Notes
1 – The only 2 players who are listed here more than once are 1 in each of open & women’s. Both are listed exactly twice. Both had more black wins. Anatoly in open & Wenjun in women’s. Of these 4 WCCs, the only WCC where the player w/ more black wins lost is 1987 Anatoly vs Garry.
2 – Fun fact : Nepo now in 2023 is in a similar situation as Vishy as 1996. It’s been pointed out that Vishy lost 2 classical (FIDE/PCA) WCCs before becoming 5x classical (FIDE/PCA) WCC. Furthermore :
Part0 – The term ‘slow rapid’ is undefined. It’s used for both the 2019 & 2022 WFRCCs.
1 – For 2019
The claim is
Each duel consisted of two “slow rapid” games (45 min for first 40 moves, 15 min for the rest of the game) with victories worth 3 points, two “fast rapid” encounters (15+2 time control) with wins equal to 2 points, and a couple of blitz games (just one point for a victory).
Link 2 – They also say ‘slow rapid’ like in quotes. LOL.
Wesley So defeats Magnus Carlsen yet again! The third "slow rapid" game of the FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Championship final ended in White's favor.
The time control is so-called ‘slow rapid’: Each game is 30 moves in 25 minutes, plus 5 minutes for the rest of the game after move 30, plus 5 seconds increment per move starting from move 31.
Part1 – Short version in case you know Gasai already some stuff about time control conversions
Afaik:
(0,10) is blitz.
[10,60) is rapid.
[60,120) is unrated classical.
[120,infinity) is rated classical.
So what’s ‘slow rapid’?
I see only 2 possible definitions for slow & fast rapid.
Def 1 – slow rapid means unrated classical [60,120) and fast rapid is rapid [10,60).
–> this means Wesley So is not classical WFRCC but slow rapid WFRCC while Hikaru is (fast) rapid WFRCC.
Def 2 – slow rapid & fast rapid cut up rapid [10,60) into resp [35,60) and [10,35).
–> 2 issues here. 60min is not in either of these. Also, 32.5 is in [10,35). So neither 60 nor 32.5 are slow rapid. Lol. Wesley So is again classical WFRCC while Hikaru is fast rapid WFRCC.
Def3 –> Since 15+2=17 is fast rapid, [10,X) is fast rapid & [X,120) is slow rapid for some 17 < X < 32.5. like say X is some arbitrary number like X=20 or X=30. Lol yeah right!!
Part2 – For more explanation
Part I.
(0,10) is blitz.
[10,60) is rapid.
[60,120) is unrated classical. –> apparently if you’re 2200+ or 2400+ or something, and you play a game that’s 60min per player w/o increment or bonus time (or an equivalent of this) then the game is counted as classical but it’s unrated.
[120,infinity) is rated classical.
Part II.
According to this https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/41479 when it comes to increments and bonus time and stuff you should assume the game is 60 moves. Eg a game of 5min + 6 sec increment per move – Is this rapid? Or blitz? In chessc*m this is considered blitz
because chessc*m counts the game as 40moves so 5min + ( 6 sec / 1 move ) x 40 moves x ( 1 min / 60 sec ) = 5min + 4min = 9min < 10min
but in FIDE this is considered rapid
because FIDE counts the game as 60moves so 5min + 6 sec x 60 moves x 1 min / 60 sec = 5min + 6min = 11min > 10min
This is NOT a shitpost. This post is the result of MONTHS of investigation and observation. There are some who will not believe me, but this is a SERIOUS post that’s written for those who are open-minded enough to give it SERIOUS consideration.
If you want to skip the post and jump to the comments to see it RIDICULED and MISREPRESENTED by the MINIONS who serve the chess and poker ELITES, then you are LAZY-MINDED — and probably BAD at chess and/or poker as well.
That said, this post represents my OWN OPINIONS only.
SUMMARY OF CONTENT
Introduction: General theory
Magnus-Hans vs J4
“w”esley-Petrosian vs Mike Postle
Other staged drama?
Conclusion: Outside of the Matrix
INTRODUCTION
General theory: “the Chess-Poker Matrix”
Based on a combination of personal experience, observation, and intuition, it is my opinion that the chess elites — with the help of many minions (i.e., shills) — have been engaged, over the past few years, in a massive conspiracy to warp their fanbase’s perception of reality. Furthermore, I believe that the poker elites have been engaged in a similar conspiracy that is being perpetrated IN PARALLEL.
I know that the word “conspiracy” is a loaded term. I’m not accusing anyone of conspiring to commit crimes — or to cheat at chess/poker.
I’m suggesting that the chess and poker elites are playing a Game of Trolls, i.e., engaging in “role-playing” to make staged drama seem real. I believe this includes staged scandals (including “cheating” scandals), staged beefs, staged “heel turns,” and staged reconciliations.
WWE kayfabe seems to have been an inspiration for much of the drama — and this could very well qualify as the largest “troll job” perpetrated by an entire industry since the early days of pro wrestling, when people still believed that it was real. What’s especially unique in this case, is that I think it’s being perpetrated by TWO industries in parallel.
I don’t think that ALL of the drama in the two games, over the past several years, falls inside what I’ll call “the Chess-Poker Matrix” (e.g., I’m pretty confident that Ding’s recent victory over Nepo was REAL drama). However, I do think that MUCH more drama falls inside the Matrix than most casual observers believe to be possible. If my theory is correct, then I can’t share every incident — I’m sure that I’m simply not aware of many of them — but I will share a few notable examples later in this post.
Who are the chess elites? People like Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, Ian Nepomniachtchi, Fabiano Caruana, Wesley So, MVL, Eric Hansen, Anish Giri, Alexandra Botez, Ben Finegold, Hans Niemann, Andrea Botez, Levon Aronian, Alireza Firouzja, Eric Rosen, Levy Rozman, Dina Belenkaya, Maurice Ashley, Tigran Petrosian, Daniil Dubov, Daniel Naroditsky, Ding Liren, David Howell, Robert Hess, Danny Rensch, and many more.
Who are the poker elites? People like Garrett Adelstein, Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Doug Polk, Matt Berkey, Joey Ingram, Veronica Brill, Charlie Carrel, Prahlad Friedman, Mike Postle, Poker Bunny, Shaun Deeb, Robbi Jade Lew, Dan “Jungleman” Cates, Mike Matusow, David Williams, Andy Stacks, Haralabos Voulgaris, DGAF, JRB, David Paredes, Phil Hellmuth, Tom Dwan, Rampage, Eric Persson, Nick Vertucci, Ryan Feldman, and many more.
Who are their minions? Another word for “minions,” in this case, would be “shills.”
The word originally denoted a carnival worker whopretended to be a member of the audience to elicit interest in an attraction.Some sources trace the usage back to 1914, or as far back as 1911.
Can I prove that “shills” for the poker and chess elites exist? No, but I strongly believe they do.
I’ve posted enough to r/poker to believe that shills for the poker elites — and in particular Hustler Casino Live (HCL) — are very active there. And I believe that shills for the chess elites — and in particular chess.com — are very active on r/chess.
I think they are active across other forms of social media as well.
My background in the HCL Poker Scandal Discord Group
I alluded to “personal experience” as one of several factors I’m basing my theory on. I’ll explain briefly.
I followed along as the Magnus-Hans drama played out in September. But though I enjoy chess and follow it casually, it isn’t my primary game. I’m a former full-time poker player, and poker is the game that I know and love best.
When the J4 incident happened at Hustler Casino Live (HCL) at the end of the month, my attention shifted from the chess drama to the poker drama.
Here’s the J4 hand, which Garrett Adelstein accused Robbi Jade Lew of cheating in:
Garrett Adelstein and Robbi Jade Lew, after the J4 hand on HCL
From the perspective of an experienced poker player, I found Garrett’s reaction perfectly understandable. I’ve NEVER seen a hand like this one in the thousands of hours of poker that I’ve played. It’s not at all comparable to other “wild hands” that you may sometimes see played by drunk recs (though those who are less experienced at poker may not recognize the difference).
A few weeks after the J4 hand, I was invited — on the basis of online observations I’d made — to a Discord group of poker pros and former pros investigating possible cheating on HCL. The Discord group included famous names (including Garrett himself) and also lesser-known names (including yours truly). But numerous Discord members ended up either leaving or being booted from the group — and this eventually included Garrett. There was no shortage of conflict or drama in the Discord.
Eventually, I also ended up leaving the group. Later on, I gave my perspective on my time in the Discord group in a two-part Reddit series:
For those who do not want to read through those two posts (both of them are longer than this one), this is what’s most relevant to the current post: my personal opinion is that the J4 hand on Hustler Casino Live was likely a staged cheating scandal.
HCL-associated personnel (including Garrett Adelstein and HCL owners) continue to speak about the hand as if it were a real hand, not a staged one. The poker elites do, too.
But the experiences I had the Discord group — including my interactions with Garrett — eventually led me to the opinion that Hustler Casino Live, ALL of the poker elites, and a LOT of minions are involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the true nature of the J4 hand.
MAGNUS-HANS VS J4
Similarities between the Magnus-Hans and J4 scandals
What does this have to do with chess? One day, several weeks ago, I was struck by some uncanny parallels between the Magnus-Hans Sinquefield Cup and Garrett-Robbi HCL scandals.
I’ve listed a number of similarities below, but I think that some of these are more relevant than others. I’ve bolded the bullet points that I think are particularly relevant:
Both took place in September 2022
In both cases, one of the best players in his game suspected cheating from an up-and-comer (I’m aware that it’s not a perfect analogy to compare a GM such as Hans with an amateur poker player such as Robbi)
Both scandals involved suspicious post-match (or post-hand) conversation where the suspected cheater could not properly explain his/her reasoning for certain actions
Additionally, in both cases there was at least one VERY suspicious piece of post-game convo: Hans saying that he just happened to look at Magnus’ obscure line that morning and Robbi telling Garrett “You let me do this to you poststream too” BEFORE he had directly accused her of cheating
Despite all of the above, poker pros seemed to be split 50/50 on Robbi and titled chess players 50/50 on Hans. Magnus and Garrett took as much heat (from other pros and on social media) as Hans and Robbi did
There was suspicious online activity in both cases, including (imo) apparent “shill” activity (e.g., here on Reddit)
Both scandals included vibrating device theories
Both scandals spawned broader discussions regarding security and game integrity
Both dramas had a lot of comedy mixed in
Both dramas brought publicity to their respective games and benefited those games’ content creators. Additionally, both HCL and chess.com benefited from this publicity (they gained both name recognition and subscribers/users)
Both cases would eventually (seem to) involve the law: the $100 million dollar lawsuit filed by Hans and the arrest warrant filed against HCL employee Bryan Sagbigsal for stealing chips from Robbi after the J4 stream. Hans’ lawsuit was filed in October 2022. The arrest warrant against Bryan was filed in November 2022. Since then, there have been no updates in either case.
Neither Robbi nor Hans has been “canceled.”
In my personal opinion, the KEY similarities are NOT coincidences: I believe that these similarities exist because the dramas were staged in parallel.
A closer look at the key similarities
FIRST, poker pros seemed split about 50/50 on Robbi and titled chess players 50/50 on Hans. There has never been a general consensus from poker pros or chess pros in either case (despite what, in my opinion, amounts to highly suspicious behavior — assuming the scandals are both real).
It is notable that most cheating scandals are NOT ambiguous. But in September 2022, two such scandals — each making huge waves among its respective fanbase — happened in the same month.
Note that there is a motive for ambiguity when STAGING a cheating scandal: it prolongs mystery. When pros are split 50/50 on a cheating scandal, this results in more “fan engagement” than can be achieved with a LESS ambiguous scandal.
Consider Ben Finegold’s defense of Hans and criticism of Danny Rensch in this clip. Could Ben (and Karen) have been acting here?
Ben Finegold’s take on Hans Niemann and Danny Rensch
SECOND, both dramas had a lot of comedy mixed in — though cheating is a serious matter. In both cases, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask: were some of the actors involved in the dramas, well, acting? You can ask yourself if this seems like a real lawsuit prepared by a real legal team:
Notorious for his inability to cope with defeat, Carlsen snapped. Enraged that the young Niemann, fully 12 years his junior, dared to disrespect the “King of Chess,” and fearful that the young prodigy would further blemish his multi-million dollar brand by beating him again, Carlsen viciously and maliciously retaliated against Niemann…
The answer to this question is a matter of personal intuition, so I will not present additional arguments here. If you followed one or both dramas closely, however, there may have been a NUMBER of actions/words/incidents where you asked yourself: is this shit for real?
THIRD, there have been no updates regarding Hans’ $100 million dollar lawsuit since it was filed in October 2022. Similarly, there have been no updates regarding the arrest warrant filed against HCL employee Bryan Sagbigsal (for stealing chips off of Robbi Jade Lew’s stack after the J4 stream) since it was filed in November.
WHY have there been no updates? Is it possible that the lawsuit and arrest warrant were STAGED documents?
If my theory that both dramas are staged is correct, then I think that the chess.com “Hans Niemann Report” would also have to be a staged document:
(What’s more, I think that a lot of the comments on the post that I’ve linked to above — and many other Reddit posts on this drama — were likely written by chess.com shills PRETENDING to be audience members like you and me. I expect that there will be shills in the comment section of THIS post, too.)
FOURTH, neither Robbi nor Hans has been “canceled” by their peers. Poker pros and titled chess players continue to parrot the “innocent until proven guilty” phrase. But the amount of suspicious behavior in both cases (if they were “real” scandals) is considerable.
Do I have “hard proof” that these scandals were staged in parallel? No, I don’t. I DO think that there is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence that they were QUITE LIKELY staged in parallel.
And in that case, Hustler Casino Live, chess.com, ALL of the poker elites, ALL of the chess elites, and HORDES of minions are involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the true nature of the J4 and and Magnus-Hans “cheating” scandal.
That sounds about right to me.
Ultimately, though, this is a matter of intuition — and what I’m providing here is my “read” (to use a poker term), which you are free to agree or to disagree with. (This will be a theme of this post.)
“W”ESLEY-PETROSIAN VS MIKE POSTLE
If the Magnus-Hans and Garrett-Robbi (j4) cheating scandals were staged, were those the first staged cheating scandals in their respective games? I don’t think so. I believe each was preceded by a less ambiguous (but still staged) precursor “cheating” scandal.
But the further away we move from the J4 scandal (where my opinions are in part based on my experiences in the HCL Scandal Discord Group), the deeper we go into the realm of intuition. If you want me to provide “hard evidence,” you’ll be disappointed. I’m neither an elite or a minion. I’m on the outside, and all that I am able to provide here are my reads.
Mike Postle cheating scandal
The most famous poker cheating scandal of the last five years, aside from J4, is the Mike Postle cheating scandal:
In 2019, commentator Veronica Brill (who now co-hosts a podcast with Hustler Casino Live co-owner Nick Vertucci) voiced her suspicions that Mike Postle had been cheating on the Stones Gambling Hall live stream. This was based on the fact (I think it’s perfectly acceptable to call this a “fact”) that Postle made “god mode” poker plays at a frequency that simply does not exist in reality.
Later on, Postle was specifically suspected of cheating via hole card information that was fed to him from a suspected conspirator on the production staff, manager Justin Kuraitis.
Poker influencer Joey Ingram analyzed many of Postle’s “god mode” poker plays during his live YouTube streams. He also shared evidence of Postle staring down at his crotch during hands, as screenshotted here:
Mike Postle playing CTO (crotch theory optimal) poker
For the past few years, I thought that Mike Postle was one of the most blatant cheaters that poker had ever seen. But in recent months, I’ve come to believe that the Postle scandal was staged — and that all of the poker elites have been covering THIS up, too. How?
First, I needed to come to the conclusion that the J4 scandal was staged. Once I came to that conclusion, I needed one more data point to come to the read that the Postle scandal was staged.
(If you believe in intuition — and I do — then sometimes one data point is enough to draw a conclusion. You can still be wrong, of course.)
I do think there are other data points that point toward the Postle scandal being staged. But I’ll just present the one data point that convinced ME, personally, that it was staged. I’m referring to this tweet from Mike Postle’s suspected accomplice Justin Kuraitis, which was posted during the J4 saga:
Hi @RobbiJadeLew I am sorry to see you go through the same thing/actors/playbook as I did two years ago @StonesLivePoker@StonesGambling I think you are doing great handling these influencer/morons. If you decide to hold them accountable, I would love to help. I am in your DMs.
Tweet from Postle’s suspected accomplice Justin Kuraitis (during the J4 saga)
If the J4 saga was staged (and I believe it was), then this tweet ALONE suggests to me that the Postle saga was staged as well. My line of thought here is pretty simple: IF the J4 saga was staged, then this tweet must also have been staged. And if this tweet was staged, then the entire Postle scandal must have been staged.
This is basic intuition, not hard evidence. But once again I’m only giving my “read,” and reads can be wrong. In the absence of hard proof, which I simply do not have access to, my read is what I have to offer. Consult your own intuition.
Tigran Petrosian cheating scandal
Now, does Mike Postle’s “crotch staring” remind you of any scandals in chess over the last several years? How about this one?
Tigran Petrosian’s reply to “w”esley “s”o on chess.com
Like Mike Postle, Petrosian was observed repeatedly looking down during the games he was suspected of cheating. Could the Petrosian and Postle “cheating” scandals be PARALLEL staged “precursor” scandals to the Magnus-Hans and J4 scandals — helping to “set the table,” so to speak, for the latter scandals?
And could Petrosian’s famous reply to Wesley So on chess.com have been an intentionally (rather than unintentionally) comedic part of a staged cheating scandal?
My gut says yes, but I have no more to offer on this than that. I can’t offer hard evidence. Heck, I can’t even offer “logic” here. All I can say is, my gut tells me the Petrosian drama was staged. (Perhaps there are others who followed it more closely than me who could present a better argument on this.)
OTHER STAGED DRAMA?
If the four cheating scandals mentioned above were all staged, well, how deep does the rabbit hole go? Could there have been other staged drama in chess and poker these last few years?
In my opinion, the answer is almost certainly yes — and I think that the extent of just how much is staged would boggle most casual observers’ minds. Now, I assume that I myself am not aware of many of the staged chess and poker incidents that have taken place over the past few years. But even a basic level of familiarity with chess and poker news is sufficient for me to question MANY incidents.
Staged beefs?
For example, I believe that many of the “beefs” in poker and chess over the last several years have been staged. I won’t cover them all. But to give one of the more blatant poker examples, consider this recent beef between poker players Nik Airball and Matt Berkey:
Matt Berkey and Nik Airball confrontation — caught on camera!
I’m not the only person who think this is a staged beef. Others have expressed this opinion on r/poker as well: the conflict between these two players — which includes the above confrontation (conveniently caught on camera) and also a “HU4Rollz” match — feels like a staged WWE-style beef. I think that this post from u/insanelyphat (whom I’ve bickered with at times on r/poker), which reads a bit like a shitpost, comes pretty close to the truth:
But this example is, in my opinion, just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to poker beefs. I think there are many other examples (too many to keep track of, in fact).
What about chess?
I don’t follow chess as closely as poker, but the beef between Hikaru Nakamaru and Eric Hansen reminds me of certain poker beefs (including the one between Matt Berkey and Nik Airball). I simply do not believe that the fight below (ALSO conveniently caught on camera!) is a real fight, folks:
Hikaru Nakamura and Eric Hansen fight — caught on camera!
The fight above feels to me like staged “backstory” (the elites can do some VERY detailed work sometimes, in my estimation) for the “Chessbae” drama between Hikaru and Eric — which also feels staged to me. Here is a post about the “Chessbae” drama, which chess fans may be familiar with:
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: no, I don’t have “hard proof” that Anish’s Twitter hack was staged. I’m once again giving my read, which you are perfectly free to agree or disagree with.
If I’m right about that Twitter hack being staged, though, then this brief exchange between Magnus and Anish, which was part of the drama, would also be staged:
Magnus-Anish Twitter exchange: a staged beef about a staged beef?
If this exchange was staged, then this is what could be referred to as “meta-trolling.” What I mean by that: in my opinion, this tweet exchange represents a staged beef ABOUT a staged beef.
Does this remind me of anything in poker? Yes, it does. A few months ago poker player (and casino owner) Eric Persson “angrily leaked” some private messages from poker player “Mr. Dr. Batman.” In these DMs, Mr. Dr. Batman suggested to Eric that they start a feud. Eric expressed DISGUST at the suggestion of a staged feud. (Eric, who owns approximately 7000 casinos, is ABOVE that shit, of course.)
But I believe, based on a combination of personal experience and intuition, that this was another staged beef ABOUT a staged beef.
Eric has since deleted the specific tweet about Mr. Dr. Batman’s suggestion that they start a feud. However, the Reddit post by u/insanelyphat that I linked to earlier mentions the incident:
The only other remnant of evidence that I was able to find to indicate that the incident happened is this other r/poker post (which has now been deleted):
I screenshotted one of the relevant comments from this Reddit post below:
Comment about Mr. Dr. Batman (MDB)-Eric Persson “feud”: a staged beef about a staged beef?
My experience leads me to believe that the trolling can go even deeper than the two chess and poker “meta-trolling” examples (assuming that I am correct about those) that I’ve provided above — but I won’t get into every single example of “trollception” that I believe is out there.
CONCLUSION
Anticipating criticism
I have a very busy weekend ahead, so I don’t know how much time I will have to reply to comments on this post. Let me try to anticipate some of the criticism that I may receive in the comment section.
FIRST, some may say that I’ve given no “hard proof” or no “hard evidence.” I agree! Ultimately, I’m not an insider. I don’t have access to hard proof/evidence. I can only provide my reads, which people are free to agree with or disagree with.
SECOND, some may say that I’m a victim of “confirmation bias,” i.e., I’m looking for patterns that fit my theory. I would strongly disagree with this. The patterns that I’ve observed are, in fact, part of what LED to my theory. But I started with no theory at all besides “J4 was a cheated hand.” My experiences in the HCL Scandal Discord Group resulted in me changing my mind many times. I’ve been wrong about a lot, but I’ve also been able to change my mind when presented with new information. And my current theory represents my best attempt to use intuition and (to a lesser degree) logic to integrate everything I’ve experienced and observed.
(Furthermore, I briefly looked into other games like checkers, backgammon, bridge, Scrabble, Go, and Magic: the Gathering. All of those games appear to be clean. I found NO evidence of any similar conspiracies in those games. So no confirmation bias shown there…checkmate, minions!)
THIRD, some may ask WHY all of the chess and poker elites would put so much effort into playing this Game of Trolls. It’s important to remember that people who play games for a living are not “normal” people (I should know: I used to play poker for a living, too). I have no reason to doubt that they’d do this purely for the fun of it — but there may also be a financial incentive with regard to fabricating drama (which leads to increased engagement).
FOURTH, some may say that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for this many chess and poker elites (plus minions/shills) to be involved in such a massive parallel conspiracy without the secret somehow leaking out. My bizarre experiences in the HCL Poker Scandal Discord Group ultimately taught me to put aside such preconceptions. Saying that a parallel conspiracy of this kind is impossible — or impossible to keep secret — is ultimately still a preconception. And preconceptions do not qualify as evidence.
Remember, there once was a time when a majority of people thought that pro wrestling was real, not staged. If it was possible to keep such a big secret for years back then, well, why not now?
Outside of the Matrix
I’ve only scratched the surface. I think there is a lot more staged drama out there that falls inside the Chess-Poker Matrix. I believe that the drama doesn’t ONLY include feuds and scandals; it also includes feel-good stories and reconciliations. But the bottom line is, my opinion is that the chess are poker elites are not being 100% authentic. They are engaging in role-playing: on social media, on Twitch, on YouTube. People reading this post can look for all of this themselves. I think it goes farther back (we’re talking YEARS) than you might be willing to believe. And I think it’s still going on now.
If my theory is correct, would I judge this parallel conspiracy harshly? No. I think it’d be an impressive feat of imagination, coordination, and commitment.
And while engaging in role-playing means that you are “putting on a mask,” that also doesn’t mean there’s no authenticity in what the elites are doing (assuming my theory is correct), either. They are telling the story they want to tell. And the best works of fiction lie somewhere between “truth” and “meaning.”
I’ll leave everyone with the following tweet. This was sent by former HCL director Patrick Curran on October 9, 2022, a little more than a week after the J4 hand (and it inspired the title of this post):
A few days after this tweet was posted, I started “following the White Rabbit” when I accepted an invite to join the HCL Poker Scandal Discord Group. This post is the end result of months of following the White Rabbit — both while I was in the Discord group and after I left.
If my theories in this post about what is real vs. not real are correct, then what that means is that more than a half-year after joining the HCL Poker Scandal Discord Group — where I found out just how deep the rabbit hole went — I finally found my way out, and ended up outside of the Chess-Poker Matrix.
I believe I posted in r/avrillavigne too, but yeah now I can’t find. And since API is dead I can’t use reddit camas search to dig it up.
Ah wait I found it in google via a user meveronica_s – post ID qxoryo – date 2021Nov20
posted in r/CasualMath – post ID wm1fda – date 2022Aug12
posted in r/musicmemes – post ID 14qxg64 – date 2023Jul05
Part1 – Duplication
I could swear in 2011-2 i saw some forum thread about this (but not in reddit) that even included the months. idk. lol.
2002+2=2004
2004+3=2007
2007+4=2011
2011+5=2016 (average of 2013 and 2019)
2016+6=2022
Edit: (2022Aug) Here’s a table version:
Album
Year
Difference
Let Go
2002
N/A
Under My Skin
2004
2
The Best Damn Thing
2007
3
Goodbye Lullaby
2011
4
Avril Lavigne (self-titled) and Head Above Water
2013 and 2019 (ave is 2016)
5
Love Sux
2022
6
Part2 – Some comments in r/avrillavignemusic :
Gabrielmarm – ‘Here we go 2029 for AL8… damn’
theABKnetwork – ‘It’s also funny how the first 3 avril albums align with the releases of the first 3 spiderman movies. And goodbye lullaby, would have also aligned with the cancelled spiderman 4.’
me :
avril: 2011,2013,2019,2022 average to 2016.25
spider-man: 2012,2014,2016 (cap am 3),2017,2019,2021 average to 2016.5
0.25 so close
Part3 – Comments in r/CasualMath :
help_i_need_a_nap – ‘Why you gotta go and make things so complicated?’
Part4 – Some comments in r/avrillavigne :
callmebymyname21 – ☠ Why is Avril always plagued by conspiracy theorists lmao
meveronica_s – ‘There’s no album in 2016, before the Lyme disease (2015), she released an album in 2013.’
swedocme – ‘People, the guy’s not a conspiracy theorist, he’s just pointing out an almost consistent pattern. Just fun math.’
PeterPaul0808 – ‘It is false, if you concidered the fact that se was battleing with Lyme disease between 2013-2019. In 2019 just started touring and in 2020 Covid came and she had to stop everything. So I don’t see the devil in this pattern.’ –> Hmmm…I’ll comment now ( 2023Jul05 ) ‘Relevant username?’
Part5 – 2023Jul Edit – Oh yeah actually there’s also a pattern in the months :
At least initially. I guess I that forum thread I read must’ve been around 2011 – 2012 latest.
Release Date
Month
Year
2002Jun04
Jun
2002
2004May19
May
2004
2007Apr11
Apr
2007
2011Mar02
Mar
2011
2013Nov01
Nov
2013
2019Feb15
Feb
2019
2022Feb25
Feb
2022
For the 1st 4 albums, the months (Jun, May, Apr, Mar) form a (finite) arithmetic sequence w/ common difference -1, just as the years (2002, 2004, 2007, 2011) form a (finite) ‘quadratic sequence‘ meaning the differences (2, 3, 4) (aka the ‘derivative’ of the sequence I guess like what Stolz–Cesàro theorem, a discrete version of the continuous L’Hôpital’s rule) form a (finite) arithmetic sequence … oh yeah the formula is based on triangular numbers – yearn=2001+Tn = 2001+(n)(n+1)/2, where n=1,2,3,4.
And indeed yearn+1 – yearn = (2001 + Tn+1) – (2001 + Tn) = an := n, which indeed is just arithmetic because an+1-an=(n+1)-(n)=1, which is constant.
Part6 – Full maths re predictions
Part6.1 – Based on years assuming 2016 average – 2029
year
differences
double diff
2002
2004
2
2007
3
1
2011
4
1
2016
5
1
2022
6
1
ave
4.00
1.00
prediction
2029
7.00
Part6.2 – Based on years not assuming 2016 average – 2025
year
differences
double diff
2002
2004
2
2007
3
1
2011
4
1
2013
2
-2
2019
6
4
2022
3
-3
ave
3.33
0.20
prediction
2025
3.20
Part6.3 – Based on year & month assuming average – 2028Aug21
year & month
differences
double diff
2002Jun01
2004May01
700
2007Apr01
1065
365
2011Mar01
1430
365
2016Jun17
1935
505
2022Feb01
2055
120
ave
1437.00
338.75
prediction
2028Aug21
2393.75
Part6.4 – Based on year & month not assuming average – 2025Apr21
year & month
differences
double diff
2002Jun01
2004May01
700
2007Apr01
1065
365
2011Mar01
1430
365
2013Nov01
976
-454
2019Feb01
1918
942
2022Feb01
1096
-822
ave
1197.50
79.20
prediction
2025Apr21
1175.20
Part6.5 – Based on exact date assuming average – 2028Oct02
exact date
differences
double diff
2002Jun04
2004May19
715
2007Apr11
1057
342
2011Mar02
1421
364
2016Jun24
1941
520
2022Feb25
2072
131
ave
1441.20
339.25
prediction
2028Oct02
2411.25
So actually it’s not quite 2029 but late 2028
Part6.6 – Based on exact date not assuming average – 2025May24
Wholesome Award – When you come across a feel-good thing (I believe this was in 2022.)
All-Seeing Upvote Award – A glowing commendation for all to see (I believe this was in 2023.)
[ begin duplication ]
Hello! 1st time poster here.
In another series, I have a ship with similar ages and a similar age gap. (Don’t look up my comments in this sub.) This ship forms the basis of a theory/hypothesis I have that, if any good, would remind me of the Darth Jar Jar theory. Hence, Jar Jar + that age gap = reminded me of the Padmé x Anakin age gap which we see as 14yo vs 9yo in Episode I The Phantom Menace and then 24yo vs 19yo in Episode II Attack of the Clones.
Of course, this age gap has been brought up a million times eg this meme and this tweet (and my response), both of which compare the age gap to other ships in Star Wars like Rey x Ben and Leia x Han.
Anyway,
I checked this sub for several discussions on the age gap, but so far I haven’t found any that talks about the “Half-your-age-plus-seven” rule for Padmé x Anakin (except maybe this?) and in particular how the minimum number of years until the rule is satisfied is precisely the duration between Episodes I and II:
Btw, I think the formula is for minimum years, m, until age gap requirement is met for people aged x and y assuming x>y and with gap g = x/2 + 7 – y > 0 is m=2g or if you like m=max{18-y, 2g}, i.e. the maximum between the number of years until the younger party is 18 or twice the gap.
That’s all. Did I make any mistakes?
Also, I don’t think anyone decided to set the timeline largely with this age gap in mind. But neither do I think is this purely a coincidence. I think it just goes to show how predictive the “Half-your-age-plus-seven” rule is.
[ end duplication ]
Screenshots of table :
Reddit :
WordPress :
User –Anakin–Skywalker said also on 2022Aug03
Quote:
Sir, if we had you on the air during the time AOTC came out, I think a good chunk of people would have retracted their hateful comments on the weird age gap. The only thing that I see a bit strange is that they met when he was 9. However, people grow up and stuff like that happens. Padmé never, ever, ever thought of Anakin like that, but she was clearly taken aback by Anakin when she saw him as a tall, strikingly handsome, debonair young Jedi. During the movie, she continues to be coy when she is around him and says, ” You’ll always be that little boy I knew on tatooine,” and “Please don’t look at me like that.” It’s only until later that she realizes the unbearable attraction she has towards him, and can’t withhold it any longer. Everyone felt it moved too fast, but to me, it seemed very natural to move fast: They are two beautiful young people, with apparently no room for relationships (one being forbidden), and who finish each other’s sentences in oh so many ways. Gosh, I love that movie.
Mathematiciowned 