That is not an error at all. All you need in a complaint is to plead the elements of the claim and sufficient facts to support each element. One that is done, complaints are construed broadly and all sorts of evidentiary matters not contained in the pleading can nonetheless be introduced.

Many good lawyers actually do very short complaints. The reason this one was so long was it was really intended a press release, but in no way are the plaintiffs precluded from pursuing any theory about Postle having connections to the cardroom.

postle didnt book small wins, he booked gigantic wins

Those are all random names. What about Bill Clinton? or Charles A. Lindbergh?

Show me the one example of a cash game player winning 180 out of 200 sessions (session being 5 hours or more). Just one.

The screen was often inaccurate. Someone on the plaintiffs' legal team (and someone on the defense's as well) will have to examine all the video and determine actual amounts bet.

They will almost certainly get casino surveillance footage and b-roll in discovery, so that will become easier.

Can a mod reban this guy? Comparing win-rates from live and online is innacurate, why? Because when your playing live you are only playing one table, which means any variance you experience playing live, you will not see the amount of hands you need to potentially reverse that variance in one session. When you play online, even if you do experience some variance, you are generally mass tabeling and seeing so many hands, therefor you have a higher probability of being able to reverse the variance and comeout with a winning session at the end of the day, you don't have this ability when playing live.

Someone perma-banned this guy, he is derailing this thread and just repeating the same nonsense over and over.


mod edit: Asking for someone to be banned is itself a bannable offense. PiB's posts are receiving close mod scrutiny. Feel free to place him (or anyone else) on Ignore.

Every pleading will be on the PACER website, and any trial will be public.

The only thing non-public will be discovery.

You might get treble damages under RICO, and they should get punitives, which will be between one and two times actual damages. Upper limit of recovery is probably about 1.5 million.

Larceny by trick is a tort and a crime too, you know.

Man you are clowning it up in this thread.

True enough (indeed, a lawyer's investigation is arguably privileged even when it exonerates the client), but part of the point of these things is to evaluate Stones' legal position.

In simple terms, if it comes back that Stones was neck deep in a conspiracy, the lawyers will most likely (1) offer the plaintiffs more money to settle and (2) advise Stones to throw itself on the mercy of the gambling commission to stay open.

I’m sure its going to take a while to find examples but I cant wait to hear back from you. My guess will be crickets!

Isn't the Mike Postle case about playing session after session almost perfect, when having his phone between his legs and getting his "reads" by looking down at it once in a while?

I don't really understand why we are discussing "rungood" here, Mike Postle doesn't have anything to do with this.

Every player knows that you have bigger winrate when one tabling, and then even bigger if you are better than your opponents and play live poker.

But yes of course you can compare them. Nowdays very good winrate online is like 5bb/100 (multitabling like 1-2bb/100), and live like at least 10-15bb/100.

Amount of hands you need to reverse your losing session goes to power two (how many hands you need to beat variance). Thus you need like 80ish (or whatever you put your numbers) or so more hands to have winning session multitabling online than playing live. And so many times you have more winning session by live play, since so much higher winrate, that if you multitable online.

You would need 25*80=2000 hands / hour, if you want same amount of losing sessions than when you play live.

LMFAO, those were 40 years ago with like 75 entrants(1980-1981). He probably could have kept on dominating if he wasn't such a coke head. Poker was a completely diff game back then where you could have a huge edge and ROI if you're a savant like Ungar was. There are way better examples of hot runs in more recent times. Why are we not accusing them of cheating? If Mike Postle crushed tournaments, it would work in his favor to prove he isn't cheating, but he doesn't. He only crushes live streams at Stones, and he crushes them in a way that can only be explained by nefariously knowing his opponents hole cards.

I actually do think his winrate was helped somewhat by rungood. He seemed to hit a fair number of gutshots and runner-runners over the course of his time on Stones.

But he was still, clearly, cheating, and cheating allowed him to maximize the value of his rungood (because he knew how much to bet or whether to check to induce when he got there).

Once again, you misineterpreted what I said. Find a player that is playing live and booking wins 9/10 times over a long sample size, you will not find him because he does not exist, the ceiling effect that exist in poker will not allow it.

He also crushed tournaments.

Hendon Mob
Mike Postle
Total Live Earnings $536,542
Best Live Cash $118,743
All Time Money List 4,050th
Connect with Mike
Nationality: United States United States Residence: United States Southaven, MS, United States
$500,000 milestone
United States All Time Money List 2,141st
Mississippi, USA All Time Money List 13th
All Time Money List Current Rank 4,050th
All Time Money List Best Rank 1,630th
Global Poker Index Ranking 4,313th
Popularity Ranking 3,444th

This is OT a bit, but I actually think a lot of live poker players overstate the differences between live and online play, and get sucked into wishful thinking about these things based on the fact that they don't have tracking software to track all their hands and because they think their amazing live reads allow them to do things they shouldn't be doing.

I would bet that OVER A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT SAMPLE OF HANDS (40,000? 60,000?), which in live no limit play would mean 40 hours a week for several years, the best live winrates are either no better than the best online winrates, or at best only slightly better. Because the reality is that in most respects the games are exactly the same, and while online players can misclick while multitabling, live players misclick too, because they are bored, distracted, or tilting. Further, many live pros make huge mistakes that they wouldn't make if they had a hand database showing them the plays actually lose money long term (again, often a result of boredom and lack of discipline).

I think the online stats are actually HIGHLY predictive of what Postle should have been able to do if he was a live crusher.

No I have said that you can make 1k$ per hour playing good 25$/50$. Size what they are pretty much playing. But yeah I accept there opinion, that not possible, but +500$/hour is possible.

When you play 1$/3$ with 25$ straddle it's like 10/20 not 1/3 anymore.

It's a different 'King's'

d/b/a means 'doing biz as'

It doesn't actually matter WHAT the win rate is. The video evidence shows that, sometimes, he cheated. Whether he cheated when he was BEHIND (negative win rate) and the cheating got him EVEN, or he WAS even, and the cheating got him 100BB/hr or whatever, the evidence of 'perfect river play' and folding TPTK in quite a few places, and all the other plays no pro would make is the real evidence.

If he isnt cheating, he should be #1 on that list. He hasnt even broken a mill in 16 yrs of poker while claiming to be one of the greatest players in the world. Dont get me wrong, 500k isnt bad, especially for his actual skill level, but its no where near the best and it certainly isnt crushing. Any fun player / business man could achieve that well within 16 yrs or less.

Not true at all. Online players are a lot better. And then there is possibility for live tells. Even if players are as good it can not be bad thing for good player.

nah lawdude you're wrong about this, live games are way different, the reg/rec ratio is much better (as in more recs) so naturally winrates are going to be higher, not to mention lots of live games are playing much deeper than 100bb which doesn't happen that often online and allows for higher winrates

that said, Postle's winrate is obviously lol_impostleble

if you want to bust him, you have to find out how much money he owed to someone. I heard that he owes a lot of money (could be fake news), and then u have a motive.
desperation. otherwise it doesnt make sense.

why would stones a multimillion dollar company risk their business for a few thousand dollars? and someone who can win without cheating?

They didnt play 1/3 25 straddle. They may have done something like that for 5% of the hands.

They did however play a match the stack game so if anyone doubled up they would be able to add money to the table and match that stack. They also would sometimes do a 300 dollar runout pre stream or inother words many at the table would throw 300 bucks and then run it out. The players could then match the stack of the winner.

Yes it is true the games were not your normal 1/3 500max games. They played a bit bigger. It was more like a 2/5 1k max type game. You have to factor many at the table having less than 1k as well. But the bottom line is when Postle got into big pots he always made the god mode decisions every single time by staring at his crotch. He didnt pick up live reads. He didnt stare at his crotch between hands. He stared at his crotch to see what his opponents were holding in real time during hands only after July 17th 2018. The evidence proves that!