I think it could be simplified to something along the lines of 1) $250,000 to $350,000 goes back to the players to repay their losses. 2) Pay each player 5bb/hr for each session he was in for every hour he played. 3) Emotional and psychological distress / pain and suffering restitution could be a lump sum of $10k-$50k to anyone losing over $10k or some figure to Postle. Obviously Postle doesn't have this much, and his future earnings are uncertain since he is a full-time poker player and won't be playing much poker in his future. Seems like they would have to go after Stones if they really want to get paid, but if they go after Stones, might as well go really big and try to settle out of court.

what's your point though, are you trying to argue it's possible for Mike Postle to have this winrate being legit in the game he was playing?

Live games play a lot slower than online ... And obviously one hand isn't evidence. Read the almost 10k posts in the thread lol

Thank you mate! I am new to forums, never posted before. But I am grateful to be part of this community!

I was just watching a video where a guy claims he was a floor boss in California and gives a plausible scenario: (also claims he wants to help Joey out with solving the crime)
The goal was to make him a superstar. And that means book deals movies etc. So millions... And that would mean it could be a conspiracy maybe bigger than the ap/ub scandal was.

That's not a plausible scenario. It's a wildly imaginative scenario. The plausible scenario is he was cheating for the quarter million dollars he won at the felt and the continued winnings he expected to gain.

plau·si·ble
/ˈplôzəb(ə)l/
adjective
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

That's less specific than their statement to the media (which said a pro rata share based on hours played), and rightly so. The court could use any number of methods for dividing up the money, such as number of hands played against Postle, amount of money voluntarily put into the pot, or something else entirely.

The plaintiffs apparently made an agreement as to how to divide up the damages, but the Court can award them in a number of different ways.

It's not just the 54o hand, I actually do not even find the 54o hand suspicious.

I am about to say something and I am not saying this to be a condescening prick, if you truely think mike is playing solid poker when he is clearly cheating, and you don't find anything suspicious about his play, it's probably because your not a good player.

Lookup blackrain79s cheat sheet, it's free and you will get somewhat of a basic understanding of low stakes poker, you will understand why some of these comments your making are silly.

A high portion of the videos on Crush Live Poker use Stones footage. Most of it is from higher stakes than what MP was playing or various sorts of Omaha games. However, I found videos with MP playing there. I can't post them, because you need a subscription to watch them. The analysis I saw was critical of MP's play, but of course his play miraculously worked. The CLP commentary was way better than the live commentary from poker dealers or whatever saying MP was a "force of nature".

I probable play now and pretty much for sure in past have played higher than you.

There's no basis for (2). Speculative damages are prohibited, even in fraud cases. You get your out of pocket losses, plus punitive damages if you fall within the narrow bounds of that statute.

(3) has to actually been proven. Contrary to popular belief, emotional distress is not a free for all where the jury gives you anything you want. You want your psychiatrists' bills? Well, you will have to waive the therapist-patient privilege and put them into evidence. You want emotional distress? Prepare to be cross-examined as to exactly how you suffered.

Again, not saying there's zero possibility of an emotional distress award here (it's possible), but it isn't something you can really count on (and again, the damages are fairly low here- you might get $25,000 for your emotional distress or something).

Tell us how high you play then pal. What current stakes and highest stakes played??

Yes these 5/5 games play deeper than normal bc they are 'top up to chip leader', as well as having a loose atmosphere. Capped or uncapped, doesn't matter, his win rate is still insane. Even if you calculate his bb per 100 hands at 20/40, he has an insane win rate. I posted about this a few days ago.

Polk and Boski live now

Boski with jacket with ACR and Stones patches. Very nice. lol

I am curious what the commentary on MP's play was. Do you have any notable quotes? I found Jonathan Little's commentary on MP's play, pre crotchgate, pretty funny, saying both players in the hand were a OOL. It was the hero call with A9 where MP lost.

Guess you haven't perused much of the video sessions he's played in then.

Is it easy to average $1000/hour at 1/3 PLO?

Fantastic Work both of you!

Pro rata based on hours was how they wanted to divvy up the punitive damages. (para 113)

**** you too, I could've just lied to you like most poker players would've.

Sure, go play like Mike! He plays solid and you should copy his play, go start bluffing 4way pots at 1/2, tell me how that works at for ya!

Not easy, but I am pretty sure doable, if you are a very good high stakes player.

Is here any live pro's who think that 500$ hourly is not possible 1000bb deep live 1/3 PLO? I am pretty sure it is and then some.

I am arguing against that lol very high winrates are not possible in soft games.

Boski arguing ACR is ok because he's met them and they're nice guys. Everyone said Mike Postle was a nice guy too, yet Boski did a video about Mike's cheating but shills for ACR. Amazing how a sponsorship can shape an opinion.

DOnt waste your energy on either a troll, Mikes Friend or someone so dumb in all things poker that hes not aware of it (Dunning Kruger effect).

Question for Lawdude:

Could the damages exceed Postle's winnings by a good amount? I could see a court finding every single hand he won on stream to be fraudulent and require him to repay the winnings. That is, you would go through the streams and every pot that was scooped to him is damages to all the other players in the amount they put in the pot.

Is that implausible?

Would there need to be an offset for hands he lost/folded?

I tried to fix a bunch of recent posts in which the quoting of prior posts was messed up.