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.

Nobody is even dispusting that he has always been cheating, he very well may have been playing good in some of these other games where he was not cheating.

With that said, when we look at his runs where he is cheating, he clearly does not play good pre-flop, he then turns into Zeus post-flop.

Mike plays exactly like someone that knows the hole cards, that is why he is willing to play so loose pre-flop, he could care less about his equity pre-flop, bad odds or good odds to call, equity/position and your odds are useless when you know your opponents hole cards.

Lol

Still *crickets* from the California Gaming Control Commission? Did they take the week off?

Good update, but I was hoping CSI would be in there confiscating all their electronic equipment to search for evidence.

?

It's like you win one extra HU all in pot every three hour of play. 1000bb deep PLO edges against not so shiny players can be massive.

Not doable? I disagree. Not doable against best player of the world yes, not doable against typical amateur players who barely know PLO rules? For sure it is.

Ok well yeah it's not optimal to be vpiping 63% in any NLHE full ring game unless you can see the cards of course. That should be obvious to any pro.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement. You are incorrect.

I'm all for creative lawyering, and this is what you basically have to try to prove as a plaintiff's lawyer, but this is going to run into problems both on the elements of fraud and punitive damages. WRT the elements of fraud, did Stones really make any representation at all other than that this guy ran like a God at the poker table? They never said he was honest or anything. Indeed, on multiple occasions, their employees actually implied he might know his opponents' cards.

And WRT to punitive damages, in California, the "malice fraud or oppression" standard is interpreted tightly. It isn't enough to represent to the world that your game is honest and it isn't. Punitives are reserved for the most serious, despicable conduct, where a party conceives and executes a scheme to deliberately injure the plaintiffs. Obviously, Postle qualifies for that, as do his accomplices. But is that really what the casino was doing?

Nope. Why would I be banned? I'm trying to find out truth and if I can help solving the puzzle. And don't you think it's a plausible scenario?

godeep promised to post better so received a last-minute reprieve from the governor

now we are waiting for his improved posting to begin

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.

LoL wut. Omaha has way too high of a variance for $1k hourly at 1-3... maybe at the very best of sessions but that's not average.

They are asking for a pro rata amount per player based on the amount of time they each played with Postle, not trying to figure out how much each won/lost or were cheated out of.

lawdude,

H is incalculable.

Thanks for the response. My knowledge of fraud pleadings is only what I learned in school and I am not familiar with CA law, so the clarification is much appreciated. I guess I was thinking of something analogous to an implied warranty in that "Hey, we're running a live stream of you playing poker" carries with it an implied representation that the casino would be taking reasonable care in maintaining security and preventing its employees from sharing card info with another player.

Also my point was more trying to expand the actual damages pool beyond the $250K directly won by Postle. It does seem that punitive damages against Stones is unlikely.

Best sessions are like +50k$ in these games.

3k$ in front of you (at start and then some point most players have more) and very loose PF play, 6 max.

That's not necessarily what they are asking for in court. That's a private agreement among the plaintiffs to divide up any award.

you said 100 bb at 1-3 != $3k stacks.... that's 5-10+

I said 1000bb. It's like 10/20 (maybe just slighly less) online since PF everyone is just so call happy.

Oh ok still think you being super generous on that estimate.

Omaha is swongy game.

Maybe slightly. But like 500$/hour is a very conservative estimate for a good high stakes player.

Just for clarification, do you think mike postle cheated? Or are you in the middle?

You keep saying he plays good, you do realize mikes winrate was not known until people started suspecting his play was bizzare, then people started breaking down his win-rate.

I don't know how you can watch his runs where he is cheating and say he plays good, the guy just literally plays like someone that knows his opponents hole cards. If you consider consistently bluffing in 3-5 way pots at 1/3 with 9 high good, I guess then.

No that's what I read in the lawsuit. Line 138.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link...e-dc7d1610c53b

I just don't want to take sides. No idea. Seems to play solid poker. Hard to say after that. Player goes all in with 54o is not an evidence. There is many players it's good idea against at times (fold too much, and if called you are guarenteed with action later).

1000bb deep winrates are much higher than in 100bb. Live games are played bigger than online.

It's even possible to breakeven player to run hotter than sun and win 250k$ games that are as big as Postle played.

Have the decks improved so much that they are indistinguishable from normal cards? Last time I played in a streamed game they were slightly thicker and lumpy, you could tell where the chip and antenna were. They were also "poker" sized instead of the "bridge" size people usually play with.