ty for clarifying

Prosecuted all the time is not nearly the same as "in all instances where it has happened".

Obviously he wants to present whatever the Stones did or didn't do in the best possible light. The rest is just how you would handle it.

I don't know that for sure obviously.

For all we know, there's no casino footage showing Postle's phone or anything with his alleged co-conspirators. Why can you assume one way and I can't assume the other?

Thanks, my goal in life isn't to have a high 2+2 post count...

An eye-witness saying he saw Postle act "suspicious" or saw a "weird" screen on Postle's phone is less compelling than the stream evidence.


Why do you assume that I assume that Postle would testify? I'm just relaying how he could handle a potential question if he were to testify in court.

Why wouldn't they believe him? He's a winning player of 16 years. I never said nobody ever wins a case when a defense makes an argument.

Yeah, the industry and regulators would like it to be swept under the rug. How does that help you prosecute?

That's your claim. Here's what my lawyer said:
"It depends on how much evidence. Prosecutors don’t want jurors to forget any evidence, so I would say half hour to two hours."


Again, why are you so obtuse? It doesn't have to be Mike saying the actual words.

It's more about presenting an alternate theory that can make sense to a jury.

I've had a look at some of their accounts (the regular commentators, not players who did it once or twice) and most don't really use twitter anyway, they just RT the Stones account once a month when they're gonna be on and stuff like that. There is one that is still posting regularly about other things and hasn't mentioned it.

In their defence, if I was in their position of having (let's assume) unwittingly overseen/been part of a criminal conspiracy, the first thing I would do would be to talk to a lawyer and then follow the lawyer's instructions, which I'm guessing would be keep your damn mouth shut, guilty or not.

Nobody that works there is going to be speaking out. They will speak to investigators, but not the public.

https://youtu.be/1vlmz8T86DQ?t=3688

1:01:28

Justin makes a VERY interesting bet here with the other commentator. (This is one of mikes early streams shortly after he first started to cheat btw.) Is this a coincidence that JUSTIN knows this early in mikes cheating expedition that he would have made a REDICULOUS call on the river with pocket 5s vs an all in ON THE RIVER vs A high. This simply can't be a coincidence.

Mike is blatantly cheating in broad daylight in this stream early in his cheating days in front of the man who owns the ****ing casino on commentary. I mean common there is no ****ing way Justin isnt in on this.
1:11:10 Justin cant wait any longer to get a response from his puppet so he calls mike LIVE and asks him about the hand. The response going from here is priceless. SOMEONE LOOK INTO THIS.

It's 100% clear Mike was cheating
It's 100% clear Mike is going to face consequences
It's 100% clear Mike have had help
- The graphics changing thing is a huge implication of this , plus many other things

I just hope that the people who where in on it also face their consequences but I am quite pessimistic on that one

I think that refers to Justin Kelly (the commentator), not Justin F Keraitus (sp?).
Justin Kelly is the commentator who says the strangest things imo, but I don't think any 'tators are actively involved in cheating. The commentators and production guys are a fairly close-knit group. They often show up in the YouTube/Twitch chat, making in-jokes with and trolling each other, and even sharing each other's log-ins, so there's all that groupthink thing going on.

It's important to note that the commentators see the hands 30 minutes after they are played, but they can receive notes, voice/text messages - or a shout comes through the screen/curtain - to give them information in advance.
Sometimes that info is something like "Mark has T9 in a big hand coming up, not AA like it says on the screen", or "Gina is going to go crazy in 15 minutes, so you might want to switch to the table mics for that".
I would guess that sometimes the message from the production/editing booth just says "Look out for a huge hand between XXX and YYY. There's an insane runout."
In short, if a commentator appears to be clairvoyant about a particular hand, it's because sometimes they've already been told what happens in it.

Indeed, it's possible that one of Kelly's buddies/co-workers sometimes messages him info about hands, because then Kelly can use that info to look like a perceptive commentator when he "predicts" the action accurately.
The commentators don't need to be "in on it" with Postle, but the delayed live stream means that they too can 'benefit' from receiving info (in advance) that isn't generally available to the viewers.

Coming back after 7-8 years away from here
I would suspect in a legal situation, someone who works at the Casino would spill all on Mike, thus there won't be any statistical expert witnesses. (I was an expert for 20 years in entertainment/media cases) Mike may get limited jail time, but I expect this will be a very big deal for the Casino, which could even go out on business on this. I also think folks like ESPN and other media companies are going to shy away and/or cancel poker programming. Big changes in poker broadcasting from this situation

A successful, mathematically oriented poker player would definitely qualify as an expert witness, assuming whatever opinion they gave was based on a sound methodology and was helpful to the jury.

Again, if I were the prosecutor, I would very likely use very limited expert testimony. Probably only to demonstrate how Postle's play changed when he was in God mode and when he wasn't. Because that would thwart defense attempts to muddy up the issues of probability and confuse a jury. You want to focus the case on things that jurors understand, like looking at cell phones, bulging hats, and friends that were in and out of town, and how the play changed depending on those things. That's a story a defense attorney really can't poke any holes into.

If by consequences you mean he won't be able to cheat on live stream anymore, then I agree.

lolz.... expert poker witnesses will have NOTHING to do with this prosecution (if it ever gets that far).

Either they link postal and team to the cheating devices or they don't.

End of story.

That and getting punched in that face in any card room he enters

I'll still bet the under on 2 weeks in jail for Mike Postle for this.

This is the only thing you said that is worth answering.

Cases are a jigsaw puzzle, or a mosaic. They are full of lots of pieces. Some of those pieces are fairly minor in and of themselves. But they fit in with the broader picture.

If someone, say, walked into the "peep room" and saw Postle there, talking to a co-conspirator, it might have meant very little at the time. "Oh that's weird, I didn't know they let players in there."

But now we have all this forensic evidence. And if it coincided with a date and time when God mode was turned on or off, or when Postle switched from his phone to his hat, or some other fact in the case, it could turn out to mean a lot.

So when you say it is "less compelling", you miss the point. Facts fit together. OJ Simpson speeding down the street and running a red light on a summer night in June 1994, as witnessed by Jill Shively, didn't mean very much in the abstract. When it turned out it happened at the exact time and in the exact place as it should have if he was fleeing the murder scene and trying to make it back to an already waiting limo driver who was going to take him to the airport, it means a lot.

I only thought about it after I posted in relation to poker and I don't know the answer - I know that when I went up I was found from citations from other published pieces and even in my case even though I was the original source to what was testified at trial it was another expert witness that testified to it rather than myself first-hand

I think anybody giving a concrete answer to this would only be speculating in hypotheticals and I don't believe we'll see it play out

Yeah, just like all the other cheaters too right? These guys are a dime a dozen. There are scumbags in every casino across the country. Things will be back to normal for him in poker rooms in no time.

who will be an expert to testify as to what a cheating device is and what it means?

somebody needs to introduce and testify to evidence and for that see above

Yep

If there's an actual, solid, independent investigation the evidence will be overwhelming and not circumstantial at all.. The IT software alone will have traces of it being linked to a live broadcast among other things.. which devices are logging in to watch live stream, etc.

It's not a matter of whether this case will hold up in court, it's whether there's going to be a real solid investigation into it. Wouldn't take much to uncover the evidence to convict imo with background in IT.

And lets all continue to give props to Veronica for initial whistleblow... it's definitely not easy coming forward and accusing someone of cheating. She risked a lot for the integrity of the game and that's huge. Same with Joey and Doug to back her up and gather more evidence on how he played.

The math and the mannerisms are enough. Two entirely different and independent measures for cheating by secretly receiving and using hole card information during live streams.

Physicals: The phone in the lap. The numerous glances after the hole cards are dealt, and often after the flop as well. The physical slip ups with facial expressions, hand gestures, etc coming before an opponent's hole cards are revealed. The bulge in the hat after the clampdown on cellphones at the table. The shaved head just above one ear. The inexplicably changing hole card graphics mid-hand. And many, many more.

Maths: Their co-incident occurrence with the physicals over a year and a half time frame. The highly unprofitable lines. The rarity of being called on the river with bluffs or of being value owned by a better cooler hand. The near complete lack of variance both across sessions and within them. And many, many more.

And the biggest maths evidence of all - the huge outlier win rate, approaching or exceeding that of proven UB superusers.
As compiled by 'Utopia' and posted here several times already - marginal winrate before the physicals and the other maths kicked in on July 18, 2018. The consistency of the winning thereafter. The exception to the consistent winning during WSOP2019 when certain Stones staff were out of town, accompanied by the change in style of play.

Are there any players who went to see Mac VerStandig who can share what was said?

Yea, I agree 100% thatd be the way to go and mentioned this several times myself, the stats could be introduced as supporting evidence but really its his body language and patterns of constantly looking at his phone while playing in a manner that can only be explained by him having access to perfect information of his opponents hole cards.

This is the part that doesn't sit well with me. The commentators were either too stupid to realize his play wasn't logical or they knew something was wrong but didn't say anything because they wanted to benefit from the "God" persona. Which makes them just as bad as Mike if they knew something and didn't say something

Their silence on this speaks volumes

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

guys, they have bad jobs as it stands and probably a few live paycheck to paycheck, they want this to blow over and keep their dead end careers

nothing good can come to their employment status for being the guy who won't shut up on twitter drawing more attention to something the casino probably hopes just blows over

i realize that's a lot of projection, but so is pondering whether or not them caring more about their own paychecks than your own witchhunt is even more so

The prosecution does not have to prove how a crime was committed- only that it was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, even if they never locate the devices (which is a contestable assumption- there's all sorts of possibilities that could result in the discovery of evidence that discloses or constitutes the mechanism for the cell phone, the hat, the keys, or whatever else was involved), so long as the evidence of what he does on the videos does not admit of a innocent explanation, a jury can convict him.

Again, think Scott Peterson. Assuming the prosecution is correct that he committed the murder, we literally have no idea about the specifics of how it happened. We don't know where he killed her, we don't know how he got her body to the marina, we don't know how he got her on the boat, and we don't know how he threw her off the boat. Nonetheless, the jury returned a conviction, because they found that the circumstances were not consistent with his innocence.