Quote:
Originally Posted by wiiziwiig
To piggy back on this, would it also be possible to go after possible winnings a player might have received in the session had there not been a cheater present? So not only would they get their lost money back, but also some expected ROI on the session, which I think one of the British casinos attempted to do against Ivey, not sure they were successful in that, but they went after not only the money they lost, but the money they expected to have won from Ivey had he not been edge sorting. Could they also go after phycological damages incurred from being decimated by a cheater? Mental game is huge in poker, and the psychological damages to a players confidence in their game after playing week after week with a cheater could have seriously affected their potential to earn income at the tables in any games they played on or off stream.
In a legal vacuum, the plaintiffs are entitled to their out of pocket damages, which are calculated as:
H - A
Where:
H = the amount they would have won or lost had Postle played honestly.
A = the actual amount they won or lost in hands Postle played.
The problem is a matter of proof. You could try to hire an expert who could write a report calculating H for each Plaintiff. But it's going to cost a lot of money to prepare and it might still get excluded as speculative. Are we going to make Postle a hypothetical TAG? A TAGfish? A LAG? What post-flop skills are we going to counterfactually assign to him? How are we going to know what his bet sizing is going to be, or when he is going to fold?
In contrast, the $250,000 that he actually won is a usable estimate of the plaintiffs' damages that will require no expert report and no risk that an expensive expert will be excluded at trial.