30 minute delay on the commentating.

Commentators view the hands on a 30 minute delay(just like the YouTube/Twitch audience), so this wouldn't be possible.

Can't believe nobody has mentioned this so far:

"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

-MP

Someone (with a lot of free time) should go trough the livestream's and note all the hands down in HH format that a tracker can use and load in all the hands

This way we can visually see his performance and graph before and after the july 18th
And we can also see his winrate and stats and how massively they changed

We would also confirm his undeniable on stream profit, add ons here and there would not matter. Only error can be in the stream seizings that could be an error from dealer or from who actually put it in on screen.

Someone should probably also download all the streams off youtube and put them in the cloud somewhere in case Stones decided to take all of them or some key streams down.

You aren't wrong to raise the issue of standard of proof, which is an important aspect of law and jury instructions, but in practice, juries convict all the time on circumstantial cases so long as there is no innocent explanation for the activity. And those convictions survive motions for JNOV and appeals.

No matter how many times people say it, you don't need to show the method the defendant used to win a criminal case- only that there's no innocent explanation for what happened. Look at the evidence that convicted Scott Peterson. Nobody has any idea how he did it (assuming he did). But he not only got convicted, but got the death penalty.

Does anybody have a link and timestamp to the original stream where Postle first places the phone under his crotch?

Specifically this part from Joe's latest video:

https://youtu.be/dH5uaaCmvpM?t=353

I'd like to pull original high quality frames and work out if we can see what he types into his phone here before he pulls up whatever app it is he leaves open at his crotch

edit: nevermind have found it and pulled the frames

my initial reaction is that it looks like a chat/message notification which he opens, replies to, and then leaves open

thanks

Is there a jury for these types of trial?

And if there is, wouldn't it be a problem if the jury do not understand the maths behind poker?

You can probably find it on their youtube channel the date would be 18 july 2018

For my work I've had to transcribe hundreds of hands from human written notes into PokerTracker readable HHs. I can tell you that it's extremely tedious and time consuming.

I even wrote a python script to streamline the process and cut down the time by a factor of 5, and it still takes FOREVER.

I can't even imagine having to do it for thousands of hands.

Exactly the same as the AK v AK hand.

How does he know?!

Wiping hard drives isn't my area, you are correct. My area is the law.

So you should read Phillips Electronics v. BC Technical, where a spoliation sanction was imposed against a company that "wiped" its hard drive, which left enough data on the disk for a forensic image to reveal portions of the "wiped" files and to show they were tampered with.

Or read Pacific Coast Marine Windshields v. Malibu Boats, where the same thing happened.

I realize that given enough time, a computer expert can do a thorough wipe of a hard drive. But the likelihood of anyone doing that here is extremely remote- the person would need to be able to access the computer for a long time with nobody getting suspicious.

And I certainly can't run wiping programs without administrator status on work computers I have worked on. If you can, you can, I guess.

https://youtu.be/HvE09nhHLJk?t=10207

That one? His first god mode was July18th 2018 stream. This was the same stream just rebroadcasted.

Whats between his legs at 02:50:22 ?

I'm not an expert in the field either, but it's fairly common knowledge that "deleting" files usually just frees up locations to be overwritten. Meaning that the data still exists until overwritten.

This is exactly what data recovery services do.

You are describing every circumstantial evidence case.

Are you going to convict Scott Peterson? People are insensitive jerks when they are having affairs. They lie to their mistresses. They step out on their wives when they are pregnant. They buy boats and like to take them fishing. They buy concrete to fix their driveways. None of that makes them murderers!

You are doing something that is much more common with non-lawyers. You are acting in grave fear of what the defense lawyers are going to say. The defense lawyers say what they always say. They muck things up. They try to confuse juries. And sure, sometimes it works.

But the fact that the defense lawyers will have talking points does not make a criminal case weak. It just doesn't. And it certainly doesn't make it complicated.

A complicated case is one the jury has trouble putting all the pieces together in. I gave an example. Financial fraud cases are often complicated. Lots of money going back and forth, the jury has to be educated about various complex financial transactions, etc. Lots of expert testimony.

This isn't that. This is actually an EXTREMELY simple case. There is no innocent explanation for ALL the things that are happening here. Sure, the defense attorney's can say there's nothing wrong with looking at a cell phone. And a good prosecutor will MOCK that argument. Make fun of it. "Sure, there's nothing wrong with a cell phone that it just happens you only look at when you are making radically different poker plays that only make sense if you could see your opponent's cards. That's what the defense would like you to believe. That there's a perfectly innocent explanation for only looking at your cell phone, hidden in your crotch where none of the other players can see it, every time you are playing like you know their cards, and at no other time."

This is not in any sense hard to do. It just requires basic oral advocacy skills, nothing more.

I'll preface this with saying I think he's clearly guilty, based on what I've seen here. But....

The Postle Defense:

1 - The win rates are wrong. They are only showing results from the stream, and I admit I ran very well. But this is not so unusual during a few hours of play. And if you look at my total win rate, taking into account my losses off camera, my results are normal. High, but not out of the ordinary. This is a witch hunt using incomplete information!

2 - The graphics you see on the stream are often wrong! You think I'm making crazy plays, but oftentimes I had totally different hands! You are only seeing what the RFID is showing, but on some occasions, this is incorrect. I'll call a supporting witness from Stones to confirm this. I'll also show you video of hands where the cards were clearly read incorrectly. You see, who knows what I really had during the so called suspicious play you've seen. And I can't recall all of those hands now, it was so long ago!

3 - Yes, I started to look down at my crotch a lot. It's because I had my phone there. You see, I was sports betting. I let it get out of control. I really became addicted to this around July of 2018. I couldn't even sit at a poker table without constantly watching games, making bets, etc. It's also why my poker play changed, as I started to take more risks to win more money. I guess I got lucky in poker with this newer, riskier style, that I only introduced into my game to finance my sports betting addition. It's also why I started to play much more from this time, I needed the money! So yes, my style of play changed, and I looked at my phone a lot more. But this is because of my sports gambling addiction, not because I'm cheating at poker!

4 - There is no digital forensic analysis linking this so called hack to me. While it's possible the stream was hacked, anyone could have gone into the control/server room, it was never locked, and you've heard testimony that people were going in and out all the time, taking their mobile phones in there, leaving bags, etc. There is zero evidence that I hacked those systems, or was colluding with someone who hacked those systems. I cannot be held responsible for the security at Stones.

So you see Your Honor, there are very legitimate reasons why I started to play a different style in mid 2018. And while it helped me win more, you don't have all the information, and my winnings weren't as good as it seems on this stream. I've shown the court this is just a fraction of the overall poker I was playing, so any analysis of my "superhuman" win rate is incomplete.

And while it's true I looked at my phone often from mid 2018, it was because of a terrible sports betting addiction that took over my life. I am so ashamed about this. But in no way did my phone help me cheat in poker. I was simply looking at my phone during play. And as I've shown, many other players at the table had phones and viewed them occasionally.

Finally, while the court has heard compelling evidence that servers may have been compromised, there is zero evidence that I was involved in any way. In fact, the court has heard how easy it would have been for many, many people to compromise those systems.

That's the one - thanks. Pulling the full HD video now to extract those frames and take a closer look.

If anybody else has frames or sections they think they should be pulled send me the links and timestamps - some of the grabs being used in this thread are low quality screenshots.

That's also a great section to take a closer look at

Youtube comments on upload of one of Mike's superuser sessions. Disgusting.

Yes there's a jury, and no, the jury doesn't have to understand the maths behind poker to convict.

The only things that would require expert testimony here are:

1. Showing he played differently in God mode; and
2. Showing that the plays he made in God mode only make sense if he knows his opponent's cards.

There are other subjects one could introduce by expert testimony, depending on the evidence that is discovered. But you can prove a case with those two facts plus all the circumstantial evidence discussed in this thread.

To put on this defense, Postle would have to take the stand.

And defense lawyers cannot risk putting him on the stand. Once you put the defendant on the stand, he is wide open for cross-examination on everything he did.

And he's just going to look really bad. You've already seen how poorly he explains hands he plays in interviews.

But in court, it's a whole different dimension.

Here are some examples.

If he says "I had a feeling about a player, based on my experience." Can you elaborate on that feeling? Was it based on something he did? Are you familiar with the term "poker tell", Mr. Postle? What is a tell? Did you have one on Joe Jones? What was Jones' tell? Did he give it off in this hand? What specifically did he do in this hand that convinced you he had you beat?

Now in this other hand, you check-raised Mr. Jones? Did you have a tell there? What is Mr. Jones' tell when he is strong?

If he refuses to identify a tell, you mock him. "So you are telling me that you make decisions for thousands of dollars based on nothing more than a feeling?"

If he identifies a tell, show him video of other hands where he gives off the tell and isn't strong, or doesn't give off the tell and is strong. Impeach him.

If he says "I had prior experience", go into detail. What experience? Tell us about a hand you played against Susie Smith that informed your decision here? And then take him down that road. Look for inconsistencies.

If he says he was betting on sports, ask him to identify specifically what games he was betting on? Why he only checked his phone when he was facing action and never when he was out of the hand? Why did he hide his phone? Don't lots of poker players bet on sports? Aren't many of them sports fans? Have you ever discussed a sports bet at a poker table.

And on and on.

He just can't take the stand. He'd get destroyed. Which means any defense that involves him taking the stand and giving some wild explanation is a non-starter for him.

Ok, maybe. I defer to your experience. I'm not a lawyer.

But why would I even engage? I would say, "I'm not sure I had that hand you claim I had. As we've shown the court, oftentimes the reader is incorrect. And to be honest, I can't recall that hand, it's one of thousands I played that week. You keep asking for explanations for hands I don't believe I had."

Also, are you sure you want to start talking about "check-raising" in court to a jury? I can see the jurors eyes glazing over... Or one of them, who once played video poker once and swears he won 10 dollars, saying, "I've done that, I think it's a smart play, not sure what's wrong with a 'check-raise' there."

Look, I agree it looks terrible for Mike. But he only needs to convince one juror there is smoke but not necessarily a fire. Perhaps a fellow sports bettor whose life went downhill for a bit, but who is also trying to turn it around. And feels poor Mike has suffered enough.

he loocc at sacc
he attacc
but he also hacc

You realize who controls who appears on a jury, right?

And Prague, as lawdude pointed out...a defense isn't a one sided monologue. If a defendant is on the stand, they are to answer questions from the prosecutor. They aren't giving off a long winded prepared speech.

How often is he looking in his crotch when hes not involved in hands?

From what I've seen (a few hours of footage) he's only looking at his co ck when hes involved in hands. I don't think the defense can find someone with a pulse that can't make that connection and be convinced how ridiculous this all is. I know you're trying to play devils advocate,PraguePoker, but he's ****ed. It won't go to trial anyways. There will be a plea.

He mentioned that he and other players WATCH stream constantly on their phones. Don't you think that it would be noted if they often see cards being displayed incorrectly?

Right, so Lance stopped being 'Executive Producer' in April 2019, but continues to work at Stones?

I guess this is when he fell out with Justin?