Ok.

Under cross examination, he is asked to explain it all in detail, asking specific questions and jurors are confused.

Mr. Poker, in your expert opinion is it possible that someone with no knowledge of poker could make a single one of these calls?

Mr. Poker, is it conceivable, regardless of how small the odds, that someone could run red hot for a period of time?


Reasonable doubt achieved. Incredibly difficult case to criminally prosecute.

As someone that has dealt with false accusations firsthand, I 99.999% of the time side with the accuser....in case they are innocent. This appears to be so obvious and egregious that there really is no reasonable argument that can be made in support of Postle, from a knowledgeable poker player's aspect. Stones has some culpability here and it sure seems like this Justin character is his inside guy.

You illustrate the problem of using the internet to run a trial. Most people, doing most of the talking, have no idea what they're talking about.

You are not correct. You could walk across the street to talk to a neighbor for thirty minutes. Then you could walk back home and find all your chocolate chip cookies are gone and your eight year old, who was home alone, and who loves eating cookies, says he's not hungry enough to eat dinner. That's circumstantial evidence that he ate the cookies. It's good evidence.

He could tell you that he saw the dog eating the cookies. That's direct evidence. It's poor evidence.

Some circumstantial evidence is good. Some direct evidence is poor.

The issue with circumstantial evidence is that people tend to assume that lots of it signals guilt --- even if all of it is poor.

I doubt a jury would convict someone based on Joe Ingram's type of evidence, that someone folded top pair to a shove in a protected pot. They'd have to be pretty ignorant to agree with him.

Importantly the lack of evidence (circumstantial or direct) is not proof of innocence.

Do you have a link to this? Justin was admitting to being the person who relayed this information to the announcers? If we can get a screenshot or clip of him saying this, that puts him in the producer's booth.

Greed made him/them push the enveloppe just a little too far.

+1

Why would anyone need access to live hole cards during stream? There should be no communication from that box, and also only hardwires.

Do they have cam and RFID?

This is what most scammers and cheats do - they get bolder and bolder the longer they get away with it. He's likely a very narcissistic person and probably feels like the rules don't apply to him, that everyone else deserves it, or cheating players out of a few thousands bucks isn't a big deal.

wow.

You can see if from each session he makes more and more , just like he’s testing everyone’s limits, to the point where he’s just like YOLO f u all I’m god you can’t stop me

There are a lot of legal opinions coming from people who are not lawyers nor do they know what they are talking about.

Damn, i would like to see Mike playing in the Bike stream, some random 1-3$ or 2-5$ holdem, for 5 hours, without any phone, hat, glasses, hoody.

Damn i would like to see, his majestic reads, chkraising etc. That would be great .

That's the signal for "Question Mark."

Impossible, this is NVG

And? Your point being?

I don't want to belabor but... we're not talking about random events like a lottery as though the complaint is that Mike keeps getting dealt AA but that his decisions are almost always perfect based on what his opponents are holding(for large money decisions-not usually preflop).

Regarding his win rate, it's not that it's unlikely but that it's impossible in an honest game. How does one prove it's impossible, I don't know but I would show the court honest play and honest games. Yes, difficult to educate folks, I agree. Anyway... thanks for the reply and you may be right.

Let's see how he plays from here on out with the FEDs watching his ass. If he continues to win, maybe he's stupid or just good. If he starts to lose, we can all agree.

That's pretty much how I thought of him before the scandal broke. After watching a bunch of the hands and reading through lots of analysis, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a cheat.

is that hat picture for real? loooooool

Yes

from this stream at about 27 mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vaF0kwjQhg&t=1638s



The commentary and chat was going on about the insane flat call and JFK was there with the 'info' within 30 seconds. JFK is Justin - if you go to his channel you see his going sober Vlogs.

It might be worth anyone who is looking thru all these old streams to skim the chat for whatever JFK posts.

EDIT: nvm, I was thinking about another "RFID erorr" hand

Was just thinking exactly the same thing.

Poker is a game of some skill, unlike Powerball is which is all luck

I agree it's impossible to have the winrate that we see with MP. But a prosecutor can't, more accurately, shouldn't bring up something being "impossible" as evidence that someone is guilty of a crime. Once a prosecutor brings up something being "impossible" they will then have to prove that it is in fact "impossible". Something being "impossible" is akin to absolute certainty: you do not want to present (at trial) the idea that something is absolutely certain. Beyond reasonable doubt is already a tough bar to clear, proving something as impossible would be even tougher without rock solid direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is a good starting point for a proper criminal investigation as it can establishes probable cause. Hopefully more direct evidence can be uncovered with a proper criminal investigation. At which point charges can be more confidently laid: and if need be, have a stronger case for a trial if you can't get the accused to own up to it or negotiate some sort of plea.

So does the RFID feed go directly into the graphics program and onto stream? Then how would anyone know it was wrong? If it's copied by a person from the feed into the stream then all the talk about RFIDs not being wrong is irrelevant because we would just claim human error.

Could you imagine the kind of edge this guy could get in a HOME GAME though?

He's obviously the best in the world, but I would assume he'd have a GREATER EDGE.

i got called for jury duty once. some guy was giving all the right answers and was trying to be selected. i asked him why after and he said that his job will pay him and he wanted a break.

prob still not the brightest bunch though overall.