Not even remotely accurate. Jeff shills for a company so shady that the site we're discussing the matter on wont event accept their advertising money. Integrity isn't supposed to be transactional - you can't spend 36 minutes talking about a guy cheating then spend just 30 seconds superficially justifying your sponsorship from a shady outfit by simply saying the employees you've met seem nice and genuine. Lots of people said Mike Postle was a great guy too.

This is correct, I choose to use Boski as they were well aware of my legal name. They had the 36 page class action lawsuit highlighted and on hand.
I assume they called me Bahski because it was a different reporter doing the voice over.

I did find it strange they would use WSOP clips when they were very careful to cover up the deck of South Point Casino playing cards I used as a prop.

Once again, ignore previous posts but come in here and comment on other things.

Are you like trooper who just is classifying this as being a hater?

I actually like your vlogs too but it’s funny you’re willing to trash Mike P as a cheater but rep a site that is arguably shadier.

Repost from Postle thread:


The producer or director in the field may not be the same person as the segment producer in the studio who works with the editor. So you have one person in front of Jeff and they are on top of it and the other producer just wants stuff finished before broadcast and dgaf

why are you so sweaty during the ABC interview

was it the bright lights of hollywood?

Boski translating Kitty Kuo tweets is fairly entertaining.

pocketzero,

Jaman hasn't apologized yet. I think you should boycott this forum until he does.

meanwhile Jaman doing alright

Haven't seen you in a minute. Maybe you've been busy digging up more half-naked videos of Marle.

You need some material man? Let me comb through Youtube for you.

No thanks, I'll leave the creepy stuff to you.

Ladies, ladies!..

Sure, ACR is the nut low as far as online sites go, but in the grand scheme of poker scumbaggery, they barely register compared to the Stones/Postle scandal..

Not sweaty, I think it was the Nivea for men moisturizer I used. The reporter grilled me for over an hour. 1 hour = 10 seconds of footage in the local news world I guess. Bring in John Stossel!

Thank you. I will translate more when appropriate

This schmoe is a lawyer? What a moron, he doesn't even know the definition of "impossible".

Good luck to the law firm finding a jury stupid enough to believe "he wins too much" = cheating. I think they're going to be coughing up some cash to the defendants for costs.

You won’t educate yourself on the situation so pull a Trooper and don’t even worry about it bro

At least he got one point right.
The real target of the lawsuit isn't Postle. It's Stones.

Technically the correct word would be "improbable" but I'd argue that the word "impossible" conveys a more realistic view of the situation. If I hear the word "improbable" I'd think there was maybe a 10% chance he wasn't cheating. Or perhaps a 1% chance, or a .1% chance, or a .01% chance, or a .001% chance but this is many more magnitudes less likely than that.

IMO, the amount he won is just supporting evidence. One can tell he's cheating without knowing his winnings, without noticing him staring at his crotch and without noticing him applying pressure to his hat.

I find it fascinating that you want to stake your reputation on this guy without watching one of his sessions, without reading the thread, and without doing any due diligence whatsoever on the matter.

BTW, I'm not even sure you watched this lawyer's entire video because he made more points than simply '"he wins too much" = cheating'.

Jeff, I saw your interview with Doug Polk. When he asked you if the lawsuit was civil or criminal, you told him it was both. Just so you don't look bad on future (possibly national audience) interviews, only law enforcement can file a criminal complaint, which usually follows an arrest. The class action with your name on it is civil.

However, it's still possible that after more and more evidence arises, a criminal case might be opened up. Also, let's say a court finds POStle guilty and he loses the civil case. What happens is the court files a judgement against him for x amount of dollars. Collecting those x dollars is another story. So best case scenario is he loses the civil case (and probably claims he's bankrupt), but someone in government decides to arrest him and starts criminal proceeding. Hopefully we don't have to wait that long and they're already looking into it.

So no criminal case has been opened on this yet?

Not to my knowledge but all it takes is a few of his victims to go to the police agency in Stone's jurisdiction and convince the detectives he's a cheat for them to arrest him and be givin a court date. And this time the plaintiff is gonna be The State of CA vs POStle and his shady accomplices.

If he did what he did in the corporate world he would be put in jail for a long time.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Hey, someone got it right.

This might very well turn out to be something much bigger. Wouldn’t be surprised if Postle is offered immunity or a light sentence in exchange for his testimony against Stones..

Civil cases have nothing to do with immunity and sentences.

In my opinion, do NOT waste time watching the above video.

1. This "lawyer" did not even bother to read the complaint filed by Mac Verstandig on behalf of players.

While no civil complaint, even a verified one, does anything more than set out allegations, it is axiomatic that ANY lawyer commenting, in a vlog or otherwise, should be required to have at least READ the complaint. This "lawyer" did not do so.

2. Apparently he is not familiar with US law, referencing the law "at least in Quebec" at some point.
3. Apparently he ignores whether there is some duty by a casino to offer fair gaming under its gaming license (under California or US federal law ?), aside from some derivative, personal injury liability for negligence of other breaches of duty by its employees ...
4. He also refers to the Defendants as "creditors" , at least twice, which makes no sense, period.

My bottom line review of this vlog, do NOT bother viewing it.

There is a lot of nonsense "legal" discussion going on, I would defer to what gets filed or discussed by credible lawyers. I find this guy's bleating, as a "lawyer", without even educating himself as to the actual litigation claims, disqualifies him as an expert in the topic upon which he is speaking in his vlog.

1. was my biggest thought from that video. He said he didn't have it. EVERYONE had it and most read it at least partially.