I’m feeling charitable tonight

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impl...-fact_contract

great post

if it's just a lawsuit and not a criminal investigation then the plaintiffs won't be able to get a lot of this ie ISPs and I'm not even sure if an actual prosecution would be allowed access to his medical records

not a lawyer obviously, but just some thoughts - otherwise this is very well thought out

https://youtu.be/oOxc4qbQiLo?t=10346

Watch the 32 hand just before the quote from scott
2:52:20 Solid proof Scott knows mike is cheating.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you are the one that brought up "poker is a contract and cheating is violating that contract." Violating a contract is a breach of contract, not necessarily fraud.

There has to be a way to crowd source this.

Is there a piece of software available that would allow someone to watch a stream and re-construct each hand in a format that would transcribe a hand history?

I’d be willing to transcribe an episode, I’m sure others would as well if we could agree on a consistent method, hopefully one that gave a hand history after.

Nice. I think this is a new find for the thread, and I'm surprised that 001001's AI algorithm hadn't found it yet, because the reflection is shown for a few seconds. The screen doesn't look quite as fully blue as in a previous find, but it's very clear that Postle is going to great lengths to hide his screen while he's eating.

OK, god mode appears to be on for the 32o as well as Q8s. I've updated my notes. Thanks.
I don't think you know what "proof" means, though. The commentator uses a figure of speech. He means Postle is playing as if he can see the cards. He's responding to the chatbox when someone says "Mike is the ZONE tonight."
Do you really think the commentator would openly say Mike is superusing if he truly believed that, and/or was in on it?
The commentators (particularly Veronica and Kasey) only started eye-rolling and expressing their suspicions when commentating on Postle's hands much later on. Back in Aug 2018, the commentators just thought Postle was a great player with sick reads.

He was obviously referring to the RichardNaugan account who made a good point about buy-ins and I was just pointing out that some older accounts agreed with the points he was making. So saying it's just a bunch of new accounts arguing for Postle seems disingenuous. I'm just focused on the truth of the matter and the buy-ins and trying to figure out the accurate amount that Postle cheated. It wasn't 350k.

My favorite part of all this is that MP is going to have to get a real job after all this. He recently said his only income for 15 years was poker. Good luck getting a job, Mike!

He’s gonna need a name change before he can get any respectable job. A quick google search will show he’s a cheat

He probably won’t be able to get a job doing shady stuff either cuz his potential Boss will see what a dumb ass he is being so bad at cheating he got caught on camera

It is fraud. You are playing under the assumption that the other players aren't cheating. When they are cheating and obtain money from you under the premise they aren't cheating, that's fraud.

Is Scott the guy talking or the guy looking ridiculously nervous drinking water while the other guy is talking about postle seeing the cards? Oh it's the guy talking. Anyways its not proof of **** IMO, he actually mentions different hands in postle's opponents range that postle could be up against while justifying his ridiculous play.

The guy listening to the theory that postle can see cards did seem to me to appear quite nervous in those moments, but im probably imagining it.

Oh and in addition the commentator who said he could see cards? The very next hand postle has a very mediocre hand but it's like the nuts compared to his opponents actual cards (according to sklansky's basic theory folding would be a huge mistake), the announcer says "Mike has to fold, I don't see how he could continue here".

I'm fairly convinced actually that announcer does not believe postle can see cards during this point in the timeline.

Solid proof? Sure, Jan.

I am sure the law firm involved will employ people to do it manually. Would take forever, though. I think the poker stream software keeps logs, so when they get those in discovery, they will get to work.

Andrew Postle​: "my brother gets paid off when he is bluffing people think has something and when he has something people think he is bluffing lol"

Sure, Jan.

Everyone keeps quoting this image but he holds it close to the chest while eating, camera cuts away for ~2 seconds then he shows the guy next to him whatever is on the screen...

Doesn't seem like he could switch that quickly to a second app and show something that the guy would genuinely be interested in.

Whats that on mikes phone?

https://youtu.be/ed90Z6vSVwk?t=7700

What do you mean? Postle cheated in a hand while the commentator was literally telling us exactly what Postle was thinking while he was cheating and then proceeds to repeat himself over and over describing every play postle made as he was cheating. oh and then he tells the audience that he is in fact cheating! what more do you want from me?

Did he represent that it was a fair game? I don't see how entering a game represents to the other players that you won't cheat. One might make an argument that you are representing that to the casino, but since you don't sign TOS or make a verbal declaration of any kind, this doesn't seem to me to be fraud.

Not under the law.

Are there rules posted in Stones casino, or any casino, laying out the rules, and posted in a way that gives legal notice players are responsible for adhering to them?

Does cheating mean I can't deceive other players?

Am I right in saying that the legal folks are taking 46% of the funds that get awarded? If so, then that is their rush to get as much money as possible for themselves before others jump in on the legal action and tie up those making a case against Postle.

By playing he is representing that he is playing fairly.

Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Explain how what he did doesn’t match the definition of fraud. He is deceiving everyone at the table for financial gain. It’s black and white.

The lawyer suing MP and Stones said the same thing.

Is not saying anything when you're not required to say anything a deception? I don't think so. But if you think so than I guess to you it is fraud. Now; is not saying anything when you're not required to say anything a fraud from a criminal law perspective? I guess we can all debate that one to death. That said; I think it is a stretch (legally) in concluding that someone that sits down to play cards is making any representation other than that individual wants to play cards, even if the other players at the table have the assumption that all players are honest. Unfortunately; a person is not bound by the assumptions of others, even if it is the majority or vast majority assumption.

Rick, I had been going through the thread again and noticed how new accounts turned up, supported Postle then left. I wasn't referring to one account in particular or even the add on argument.

My niece told me the other day the moon is made out of cheese, which was then verified by my niece's friend. All kidding aside; just because a lawyer claims something in a civil suit doesn't necessarily make it so. In fact; some lawyers have been known to include claims in lawsuits that they in fact know will have very little chance of success for various reasons: sounds good, take a shot, potential free-roll, etc. I'm not saying that is what is happening in this case: but I think you get the point. Sometimes "the law" isn't necessarily "if this than that."

Granted I have completely read over the filing; if I was to take an educated guess, the inclusion of fraud is possibly more aimed at Stones than MP. I suspect they are alleging that Stones was potentially in on it (I'm speculating here); if that were to be true, then there is certainly a fraud element as it relates to Stones and the duty of care they have to the players on their live stream (and players in their casino, generally). Obviously if Stones was in on it that could constitute defrauding the players.

The new "theory" that Mike has a **********/camgirl anal-vibrator inserted and is getting buzzing warnings is the best.

In tonight's stream with Joey there's like 7 instances where Postle just does this weird shaking and eye rolling and grimacing and rearranges in his seat all at once like someone anally buzzed him. LOL

Mikes going to be spinning signs for lumber liquidators within the next few months.