Quote:
Originally Posted by AKQJ10
Anyone following this case knows that's a pretty biased summary. There's certainly more evidence than that ITT.
Well, sort of. There are hands where it seems like he knew the cards. There are also hand where it seems like he did not know the cards, and hands where he played in a baffling way that would not be correct if he did OR didn't know the cards. Often in the same session. The common denominator was an insane VP$IP and aggression level.
If in fact he won at ~1000 BB/100 over a big enough sample, yes, obviously he's cheating. However the people who were supposedly compiling stats seem to have missed some sessions, etc. So I'm not sure that number's accurate and it's way too time consuming to figure it out for myself. Winning 1000BB/100 in a non-randomly selected subset of an already small number of hands isn't such clear evidence. Nor is it good evidence if the game is deep and it hinges on a small number (say, < 100) of key hands.
And in CA, the gaming board is the ONLY one who can at least start the process of forcing Postle to pay his victims, if victims they are determined to be. You can't bring civil suit outside the board, which any competent lawyer should have known.