I think you can easily win a civil case against Postle just by the evidence we have now. All you have to do is ask, based on the play of the hands, the crotch looking, and other evidence from the videos, which of the following is more likely:

a) Postle had illegitimately obtained information about everyone else's hands.

or

b) Postle is a mind-reading clairvoyant soul reader who could not only know when his opponents were strong or weak, but their exact holding in many cases where he made the perfect play to exploit this.

or

c) Postle ran godly hot not only in the deal of the cards, but in each and every hand decision and bet sizing decision in the suspicious sessions. This includes some hands where he must have purely by chance made plays that would be not optimal if he were cheating off-stream, and would not be optimal if he were playing normally, and which only serve to prevent suspicion that he was cheating given that it was live streamed.

By any sane accounting, the probabilities of b+c combined do not add up to 50%. You don't need to prove that b and c are impossible, or not reasonably possible, as in a criminal case. Now the question of whether Stones or some unidentified parties also bear responsibility is a different question that may or may not require additional evidence.

I personally happen to think that both b and c are not reasonably possible enough to acquit in a criminal case either. In my last jury duty case the judge repeatedly emphasized that guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all possible doubt.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm hoping he gets undressed.

I think this case is less open and shut with what we have so far (future evidence notwithstanding).

The plaintiffs have technical evidence. They are not going to present it and inform the defense until the pretrial preliminaries in court, which should be in over a year. Interrogating Postle and JFK will help too, but that isn't the whole case.

Taylor still working at stones. Did not see JFK

You're comparing it to random events but poker isn't only random. This issue is that he played so badly and was basically always right. He can come up with any excuse for playing 45 and 49 and all the other junk and then claim that he is god in that he can tell what his opponents have just from looking at them and it'll be up to a jury to decide if they believe him.

Stones is probably not happy with JFK.

They have probably got him stashed in a hotel room somewhere under guard just waiting to spring him as a surprise witness. At least, that is the way it works in the movies.

You have been watching too many movies. He is a witness, but not a surprise witness.

I would assume they wouldn't be thrilled that he was apparently doing something crooked that was going to cost them a fairly big settlement plus lots of bad publicity.

Wait. So you are saying the employee that was in charge of an operation that is now shut down, and has dragged the company into a 10 million dollar lawsuit, you assume the company isn't all warm and fuzzy about that employee right now? That is your assumption?

You're the one that was saying they are keeping him as some sort of prized witness, and deuceblocker was letting you know that their feelings towards him are quite the opposite.

So you agree that he has the correct view of this which is the exactly opposite of the view you just stated a few minutes before, and you are mocking him for prefacing his comment with "I would assume". Do I have that right?

I am going to go even further with my assumptions. First, I assume it is hot in Las Vegas in July. Second, I assume that the lawyers in this case are smarter than a hamster and the questions like "Why did you limp in preflop with 94o?" is the type of question that will never be asked in a disposition of any witness. But the learned legal scholars in this thread might have different opinions. Finally, I am going to assume that JFK will not be getting the "Employee of the Month" award from Stones.

I'm comparing it to random events because this is what middle America thinks of gambling.

He played badly? Ok the 49o why is it a bad play? Every once in a while someone plays the 49o. Ok so it's possible that people play it and win with it. Jury may buy this, we as poker players won't in Mike Postle's context.

If you think a random jury comprised of 12 people or however amount drawn from middle America is going to grasp this to the extent needed to make an informed decision I think that is a stretch at best.

At the same time, you think they have them stashed as a surprise witness. I realize that you might have embellished it for a little humor, but it still painted him as working hand-in-hand the Stones team. Then you rail on someone, not because he held the opposite view, but that the view is so obvious that it's ridiculous to even state it. That same view that you just took the opposite side of.

Just so we're clear that what you say from one post to another can take an entirely different stance, as long as it gives you an opportunity to troll someone. Carry on.

Have you watched a lot of the hand videos? What they will show the jury is, there are hands where he plays 94o, and folds post-flop when he's behind a very strong hand. There are hands where he plays the same 94o (or a very similar hand), and bets large post-flop to inducing a fold when he's behind to a weak hand. There are hands when he plays 94o (or a very similar hand), where he goes all in post-flop and his opponent has the same hand. And there are hands where he plays 94o (or a very similar hand), and makes a small river bet when he's ahead of a slightly weaker hand, and wants to get called. And they will show, that in the sessions where his phone is in his crotch, he doesn't make any of these plays against the wrong type of opponent's hand.

Then you look at hands where he holds AKo, and you see the exact same pattern post-flop. You look at all the hand where the phone is in the crotch and he always makes the right play for his opponent's holding. Then you look at session where the phone is on the table and you see how he plays the exact same types of hands, and is often wrong in those spots, i.e. folding the best hand, bluffing into a strong hand, etc.

A good trial attorney will be able to make average people understand this. It's their job. Why you can't understand it I don't know.

I apologize. I assumed my statement that Stones was keeping JFK stashed in a hotel room as a surprise witness was so obviously ridiculous that it would be recognized as such. My mistake for underestimating the stupidity in this thread.

I guess I should also point out that my previous post where I said I thought one of the defendants would tear a mask off their head in the court room and reveal themselves to actually be grumpy old man Smith mumbling about "I would have got away with it too if it wasn't for those meddlin' kids", I really don't believe that scenario will happen, that was just made up silly stuff too. Just to be clear.

Now, let's get back to debating if Mike Postle will plead the 5th or not to questions he won't ever be asked in a disposition.

Despite all that, I will still stick to my guns and assumption that it is hot in July in Vegas.

And shows off the magic dick he was staring at?


Regarding the discussion of convincing a jury that he was cheating based on t he HH ... I think a competent lawyer can get it across to a bunch of laymen. Between expert testimony and proper analogies to sports or other things that they can relate to.

The prosecution needs to show graphs of his sessional progress, the constant upward movement of each session where he had the hole cards relayed to him, as he didn't lose big pots that would show dips on his graph, but relentlessly won throughout each session, always winning.

Poker is a game of luck and skill, so there would be expected to be times when he had bad luck, and unluckily lost pots post flop.

But because he knew when he was behind post flop he did fake tanking and then folded his losing hand, and any jury could see this pattern of non stop correct decisions and upward progress with NO downswings during a session and NO losing sessions when he was being fed the opponents hole cards, whether or not they play poker.

I am convinced he was cheating because his playing reflects he had perfect information and was making correct decisions 100% of the time in a game that is set up to not provide perfect information to the players.

Showing a breach of the security of the hole card information from the stream or a mechanism for Postle to be relayed the information along with his perfect play should be adequate proof for the Plaintiffs to prevail.

There are all sorts of lawsuits involving engineering, computer, and financial issues. Presumably the lawyers manage to present the issues to a jury the 5% of the time the case isn't settled before trial.

We'll see.

Because it's gambling. Changes everything in the average person's eyes.

Couple of thoughts about whether they will be able to convince a jury.

First, most lawsuits never go to trial. There is too much uncertainty at trial. In a civil case, you know all the evidence before the case starts. All the witnesses have been deposed, and there is no ‘i plead the fifth’ because this is a civil case. Once all the facts are out on the table, somebody makes a settlement offer, there are negotiations, agreements are signed, payouts made and the case is dropped.

Second, if it does go to trial, then good attorneys, and more importantly good expert witnesses, can convince the jury. It is what experts get paid to do. It reminds me of the Atlanta Public School cheating casehttp://https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi...eating_scandal Like this, it was all about cheating, but it was a criminal trial so the burden of proof was ‘reasonable doubt’ not ‘preponderance of the evidence’. They had a statistical analysis of the test answer sheets where wrong answers had been erased and correct answers had been filled in. As I recall, a statistician testified that the odds that it was not cheating were roughly the same as flipping 3 coins and they all land balanced on their edge, one on top of the other. Sure, it is possible but EXTREMELY unlikely. They got convictions and put teachers and school administrators in jail. [in fairness, they had loads of other evidence from cooperating co-conspirators]

So the jury, assuming it goes to trial, is going to figure it is gambling, so you can play any junk hand and get lucky over and over again.

Presumably there will be technical evidence and maybe witnesses to the cheating. Then you have dispositions from the people cheated, Postle, JFK, expert witnesses etc.

As I implied, the plaintiff's attorneys should have a field day questioning Postle, JFK, and any defense expert poker and math witnesses.

The plaintiff's should have the much stronger case. The problem isn't so much with winning, but with how much damages they agree to. The losses at poker aren't that much and attorney's fees are deducted. I guess the possibility of punitive damages allows them to agree on a higher figure.

gt gives a reasonable answer. I have a little knowledge and experience of this. I am not an expert, but know a lot more than the people I am arguing with.

As for JFK, is he still working for Stones? They may not want to make an admission by firing him, but I doubt they really want him running the poker room anymore.

The Fifth Amendment can be invoked during a civil matter .... There may be consequences in the context of the civil matter, but a person can clearly invoke a 5th Amendment right.