The problem with your perspective is that you, as someone familiar with poker and this situation, are making certain assumptions that a jury might not. In a game where people were allowed to use cell phones (at least initially) there are many arguments as to why he looked at his cell phone often - checking on his kid, acting as an agent, watching sports center etc. At that point one has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were guided by some outside information. One could argue that he looked at his cell phone all the time and also won because he was a superior player or just lucky. You then have to explain to a jury that he made certain decisions after looking at his cell phone which were not normal under the circumstances. Does looking at his phone look suspicious? Maybe, but does that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was cheating - not necessarily.

I recently was involved in a homicide trial where there was surveillance video of the defendant entering the murder scene soon before the murder happened. No one else was on video other than the victim. The prosecutor argued that no one else could have committed the murder. However, there was, potentially, another way into the building with no camera. This was enough to confuse the jury and the defendant was found not guilty.

My point is that with the high burden of proof in criminal cases a conviction is never certain. As to looking at crotches and bulging hats things like that tend to be less convincing than you might think. There is a phenomenon that prosecutors deal witb regularly known as "the CSI effect". Because of media portrayals of criminal law - jurors expect hard scientific evidence in most cases. That means that in a case like this a jury would want to see proof of the "hacking" not just a puffy hat or a crotch look.

An experienced attorney would argue " are you going to convict because of a hat or because he looked at his cell phone?" Most jurors would have a hard time with that without evidence of what was on the phone or in the hat. I had cases where police testified that they saw the murder suspect throw the gun in the bushes after the shooting. However, the jury wouldn't convict because the defendant's fingerlrints weren't on the gun. This despite expert testimony that it is notoriously difficult to recover fingerprints from firearms.

Again, my point isn't that conviction isn't possible but that, in a criminal prosecution at least, it is far more complicated than you believe.

They took a bunch of former poker dealers and made them commentators. Have you ever heard poker dealers talk about poker before? Clearly not. Who the hell cares about their knowledge of poker. They were commentating on low stakes games for a small stream in some podunk poker room that nobody even plays at. You think they're going to hire Doug Polk to do the commentary or something?

BTW, the fact that you think these commentators have the least amount of poker knowledge tells me that you clearly have never set foot in a poker room in your life because I could literally point out dozens and dozens of people that know less about poker than them. The people I would point out also happen to be their main target audience.

By that logic anyone that hyped up Lance Armstrong must have been in on it too. If the commentators didn't know he was cheating then they were not in on anything. Furthermore, it was not their job to police the games. Period.

While I sort of understand what you're saying, that's really not being "in on it". To me, that phrase implies that they are aware of what's going on.

Your theory, as I've said before, is plausible. Them actually being part of the cheating and integral to the plan is what I think would be a stretch. I'm not sure which it is that Xenicide is suggesting, because he/she seems to not be interested in a lot more than sarcasm and insults now, so I can't be bothered to ask.

I meant the least amount of poker knowledge for someone who could form semi-coherent thoughts about poker for 4 hours on stream.
Why did you cut out the last sentence. I said they would not be liable, but it means that something fishy was going on with the commentating in general. Its not their fault but the person who told them to say these things are at fault.

Gump is talking on Twitch now:

https://www.twitch.tv/hustlerhunny

He doesn't because he can't. He does not have the money. His reasoning that he doesn't play in other rooms is because of his family. Yet, he plays $100 tournaments at least weekly? A dude who made a quarter million last year but doesn't move up because of his family fires $100 tournaments at least once a week just out of...the love of the game?
Does anyone buy this?

I know crushers, people who have won big titles online and off and not blown the money on cocaine, hookers, sports or whatever. They're not wasting 12 hours a week playing $100 live tournaments.

I also should clarify that all of my comments apply to criminal prosecution only. Civil litigation such as that being filed by Mac VerStandig has a lower burden of proof and a completely different discovery process. I have very little experience in civil litigation and have no basis to form an opinion on the chance of recovery from MP or Stones in that arena.

He was buying in for more than that in the games he was playing. He doesn't live in LA so you're asking him to waste a lot of time and money when he's a single father that has a daughter to raise. How is the pro to rec ratio in those games compared to the games Postle was playing in?

Trying to argue that he was playing in the wrong games is really lol. The games he was playing in were super juicy.

No, which is why it's so curious that you've made so many posts about it.

This seems like a valuable call out.

https://youtu.be/0vaF0kwjQhg?t=1505

JFK types in youtube chat (quote):
"I went and asked him, turned open ended and rivered a pair"

If 'went' means physically went and asked him... maybe that timestamp would be visible on the video with the 30 minute delay...

Also, good point Wild Card... why change the RFID feed based on a player mucking his hand and saying: Oh that hand? I had 87o...

After hearing that, management changes the card graphics on live stream? after not even seeing the hand but just hearing what a player said he has... frankly...

NOTE: it appears Mike may be talking to JFK at exactly 30 minutes after the comments... but of course, changing the graphics based on a player's memory of a hand is a little much

So, to get this straight: you believe his explanation and do not view his behaviour as unusual?

From what I've seen it appears to be Mike, Justin and Taylor with Lance getting some consideration. If it's three out of four of them you can get a $1 trifecta box for $24 but you would obviously key Mike as the winner to reduce your cost.

A solid player could make good money on those tables. I've been up 20K + in 5har game. Some of the jewelers like to call, period, if they are in a hand. I've caught flights to Vegas on Southwest from Burbank for $50. He could afford <10% of his "hourly rate" on a flight.

Solid players, not even crushers, would not waste time on $100 games in that scenario.

Not necessarily. It's very possible that, as an example, JFK was just trying to grow the stream and wanted to use his poker hero, Mike Postle, to grow it.

The casino should be at fault for not running secure games and for allowing a cheater to run rampant over its customers but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the commentary.

I cut it out your last sentence because I was not commenting on it. This time I cut out your first sentence(s).

That hand is kinda old news, but it's definitely crucial to the investigation.
JFK is intermittently patrolling the room. You can see him behind Mike just after the 88 v TT hand at 21:32. At other times, he was behind that wall he's just emerged from, possibly watching a live feed, possibly with holecards up.
JFK was also active in the stream chat when it was broadcast half an hour later. You can see him chatting on there (he has a moderator's spanner icon), and that's where Casey saw JFK's claim that Mike had 87.

At some point, JFK may have spoken to Postle. If you keep watching the video (for 25 minutes after the hand), maybe you'll see him speak to him directly. Or maybe he texted. Or maybe he invented the whole idea. I believe he actually says in the chatbox "I went and asked him".

To summarize a few possible realities:
1. JFK was watching live but without knowing holecards, or just noticed a big hand that intrigued him while he was roaming the floor. JFK spoke to Postle to ask him what he had in that hand where the board came 994T8 and Postle flat-out lied, and JFK believed him, and JFK then unwittingly passed on this lie to the YouTube chat later on.
2. JFK was 'secretly' watching with holecards up and couldn't believe Postle's play, so went and asked him about it, and believed the lie about the RFID failure, so passed it on in the chatbox later.
3. JFK was aware of the cheating, so pretended to have spoken to Postle, and invented the story about a holecard mix up, when the hand came up on the YouTube stream.
4. The RFID was wrong, and Postle told the truth for once in his life, and Justin relayed correct information. (lol)

There may be another scenario I haven't thought of. With all these suspicious activities regarding staff in the room, you have to consider that there might in some cases be a "normal" explanation. None of the above scenarios look good for Justin Keraitus though. He's either naive, gullible, and negligent about livestream security, or a cheat.

Yeah but your point wouldn't have made any sense about Lance if you included my last sentence where i said the commentators werent liable.
W/e i made my point. Nothing else to say take it for what its worth.

We might have a carryover to the next case as i highly doubt there will be THREE finisher in this case.... i would just put those $24 on Mike to win a 1/20 odds and take the $1.20 profit.....Exacta might be a good bet, but i am still not convinced about Justin "knowingly doing anything".

From the first few posts it looks to me like Mike has a key/team viewer/access mode and with that he sees the stream/hole cards.....Do i believe Justin is involved? YES i think he might have given access to the peek room, or the stream key or something like that... COULD that have been without knowing about the "fix"? I think it could be.. dont forget that Mike has a lot of tech experience and i would have no problem believing that he might have said to his buddy that he would like to have a look at the system, because XXX or XXX.... This seems his easiest way in, or he just went in when no one was there and the peek room was open as others have posted (and i am taking for granted)....

I checked the video, it appears that Mike is talking to a man in a suit (JFK) 30 minutes later after youtube chat...

but Wild Card's point is: noone but mike saw the hand he actually had

A solid player could make good money on the tables I've witnessed at Stones. How often do you fly to Stones? LoL @ flying to Vegas if you are looking for the best games.

Given the situation, why the hell would i believe him about anything? Why would anyone? Nobody believes him. No need to write a dozen posts about why he isn't a great crusher. He is not stealing anyone's glory because nobody believes him.

I want to hear more from the potential wolves.

My point isn't that he's stealing my valour as a winning poker player or anything to that tune. It's that as you state, he is obviously a liar. Then, it's important to know why this began. People largely steal money because they need money.

Whether or not Mike crushed it earlier in the poker scene, no one seems to think he cheated until quite recently. Why? Was it just his idea? Did he have help? Where has the money gone? His brother stated he's always looked for an edge or cheated. Is it possible his cheating goes even further but we won't know about other instances off stream?

Did I give a reason why I flew to Vegas to play or did I use the cost of the trip as an example? Same went for San Francisco. PS...never went to SF for poker.

Seen a few comments about JFKs whereabouts during the 88 hand and I found this a few days ago

Again, the best evidence by far we have of interference from a Stones employee is the 86o/98ss hand where the graphics change. There is no other explanation for that and Taylor is confirmed to be on graphics that session.

Its come out that he bets sports a ton. Someone said that Mike was known to go busto and borrow money even within the last year which makes no sense given his results here. He was also an agent on ppoker which is a chinese app that has agents handle their player funds. Imagine knowing your agent bets sports? My theory is he fell behind because he was using player funds to bet sports and got buried. Thats when he started to cheat and a combination of him being burying, still betting sports, paying back moneys hers borrowing to play in the game, and losing on ppoker himself he had to put in these huge hourlys or wouldn't have got back to even.

So many people are speculating that he overdid it because the money was being split 3-4 ways. I would bet if he was a crusher he almost certainly cant beat 2-5 nl without cheating today. Any crusher that decided to take this unethical plunge would know what to do to make it look good. This guy thinks what hes doing is obtainable by doable. He has the ability to watch the replay of his crimes to make sure next time he does it he gets better at it and either ignores it or just thinks what he did looks legit over a long sample. Hes not a crusher hes an idiot.