You can make more money if you take all the +EV plays instead of waiting for specific ones. All you need is enough of a bankroll to withstand the added swings. This isn't a tournament.

pretty funny to follow his twitter account and with everyone else commenting

There's something off indeed.

"Where for" actually went why in Shakespeare's time. Romeo was asking why Juliet was from this rival family.

Whatever electronic, computer, physical, and eye witness evidence of cheating the plaintiffs have won't be presented until discovery etc.

Play of hands, expert poker and math witnesses, depositions of people cheated, Postle's presumably evasive deposition, Postle looking at his concealed cell phone repeatedly. The fact that the phone Postle was using is presumably destroyed. Stones showing Postle's name as Apostle and God. JFK is apparently no longer working at Stones, and the live stream has been cancelled, both close to admissions of guilt.

It's a civil case, so who has the stronger case, the plantiffs or the defense presumably arguing, it's gambling, you can get lucky and win?

I find it vastly amusing that people with hundreds (or thousands) of posts and who have been here multiple numbers of years, will actually take the time out of their busy day to engage in a debate with a troll.

I don't think you guys are really understanding the reality of the situation. We all know that he cheated, because we understand how poker works. Any sort of trial...be it judge or jury...will have people deciding his fate that will not understand how poker works. And that's assuming that the DA even decides to take this to court, which they may not, because they don't understand how poker works.

Here's all he'll have to say:

"Why did you fold this good hand when you were behind?"

I used LIVE READS to tell that I was behind

"Why did you call this bad hand when you were ahead?"

I used LIVE READS to tell that I was ahead

"Why did you shove with this bad hand when your opponent had a bad hand?"

I used LIVE READS to tell that he was weak

And people who don't have a deep knowledge of poker will nod their heads and say "That's reasonable enough." Without a smoking gun, or someone flipping, it'll all be circumstantial evidence which, while we understand how to interpret it, I don't have faith that the average person will.

In front of a jury yes. On interrogatory answers and in deposition testimony for a "prematurely" filed case - no. A motion in limine takes care of a jury ever hearing the Fifth being asserted.

will be interesting to see how they use expert testimony. or who for that matter.

are they allowed to ask experts questions to the effect of "what do you think the chances of him cheating are?"?

Lost it on backdoor quad draw.

I call that, "the god defense" and would characterize it so. During crotch looking, with phone placed in the most bizarre location ever(which also just happens to be where no one can see it) he makes the perfect play as tho he can see everyone's cards and calls it skill. I would get some famous live pros on the stand to describe their assessment of his purported skill. I think they would say that if he's not cheating he is god himself but, the jury could disbelieve that testimony; who knows.

A jury could believe someone who claims that he meant to scare the victim but accidentally shot him dead, and just happened to benefit substantially from the victims death; who knows.

Most of those sessions were not god-mode sessions. In May-June 2019 his alleged accomplice(s) was/were otherwise engaged, either in Vegas, or busy in the commentary booth instead of in the peek room.

Some people are presenting logical, factual arguments here.

Some others "hope" for certain outcomes because "that's how it should be and what he (Postle) deserves". This does not always translate to a just outcome.

This is a TOUGH case to try on a civil or criminal level.

Period.

This isn't cheating the Borgata, chips were not flushed and later collected as evidence.

He cheated other people and the casino to some extent was complicit.

When the common man is cheated in poker (or gambling), close to no one cares on a level that will provide any significant punishment.

I remember so many people telling me Jesus, Lederman and Bitar were going to jail. I remember telling them pointedly "they are going to beat this".

There are many people who want this situation gone - and fast...

There are limited resources to fight on either level and the DA in a criminal setting likely doesn't care that gamblers "may have" been cheated.

Let me be proven wrong though.

Some people are presenting logical, factual arguments here.

Some others "hope" for certain outcomes because "that's how it should be and what he (Postle) deserves". This does not always translate to a just outcome.

This is a TOUGH case to try on a civil or criminal level.

Period.

This isn't cheating the Borgata, chips were not flushed and later collected as evidence.

He cheated other people and the casino to some extent was complicit.

When the common man is cheated in poker (or gambling), close to no one cares on a level that will provide any significant punishment.

I remember so many people telling me Jesus, Lederman and Bitar were going to jail. I remember telling them pointedly "they are going to beat this".

There are many people who want this situation gone - and fast...

There are limited resources to fight on either level and the DA in a criminal setting likely doesn't care that gamblers "may have" been cheated.

Let me be proven wrong though.

I totally agree with the above.

This.

I would say conviction in a criminal case would be nearly impossible. If I were Mike's lawyer I'd just tell them how Stu Ungar called with 10-high no pair in a $50K match (http://somuchpoker.com/calling-with-...matloubi-1990/), and also show video clips of Daniel Negreanu calling out opponents' exact hands and say "See? It is absolutely possible to know your opponents' exact hands based on live reads. It's a proven fact in poker."

How you gonna prove that Mike wasn't doing that BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT? Plus all it takes is ONE juror out of 12 to agree. AND they can to a certain extend select jurors (pick those bad at maths or like to gamble).

Gotcha. He still had some very small wins on ‘God-mode’ which I attribute to his loose-playing style for the stream.

He didn’t maximize his winnings by any stretch. He also won a bunch of times not on God-mode.

I don’t see a jury convicting him of anything without harder evidence or a witness. Way too much uncertainty. There is nothing outlandish about a single individual hand. Many of his plays are debatable, even with God-mode. He played far from perfect. He just seemingly made perfect plays on the turn and river on hands he should never have played.

The casino seems far more at fault for not protect the integrity of the game. People suck and are of course going to cheat. They knew there were suspicions. They could have gotten to the bottom of it while it was happening and didn’t. The first investigation was a joke.

Hopefully the new investigation gets to the bottom of it and it stops all the conjecture (including mine) which isn’t good for the game.

Oh, is that all he did? Just made perfect plays on the turn and river? And he played hands that someone who doesn't know his opponents' cards never should have played? It's almost like he knew he'd be able to play perfectly the rest of the hand to make it +EV going forward. I wonder how he was able to do that.

You still don’t get it.

He played hands that he shouldn’t have played even if he knew all the hole cards. He shouldn’t have been in those challenging spots in the first place.

His win-rate is far below where it should have been and very unimpressive for a game this big. He had to though. For TV. Playing much fewer hands does not make for entertainment. He was the story. He had to play all those hands. The trade-off to play that was that he would need info on his opponents’ cards or he would have gotten murdered.

He barely won some sessions despite God-mode. He pulled off a very challenging stunt and only a super-elite player could do what he did, having to basically play ever hand. I absolutely believe that he is an excellent player, with an extremely long and dedicated history of winning.

Stop. Just stop.

Anyone that doesn't see he's a cheating bastard doesn't know anything about poker.

He played a max exploit strategy when he was staring at his dick (in NLHE, he was still too stupid to win when playing PLO and seeing the cards). This is not a "he was playing loose for TV" situation.

.

Full troll mode engaged.

May i ask you what stakes do you play?

You seem to have no idea how poker works, honestly.

If you play his ''style'' of Poker @ nl10 online you would be losing tons, just so you know.

Hell, even in my 10usd home game with drunk friends you would be losing sesh after sesh (like some friends of mine usually do, lol)

Sounds like most people in the jury pool.

One of the reasons why I don't think the DA will bring charges.

Let's assume the plaintiffs prove their case against Postle in the civil case.
Does he have any money to cover the damages?

The real money is in the case against Stones. Can they convince the jury that Stones was complicit or that they were negligent in not catching Postle early on?

Let’s be realistic:

No county or State DA in California is going to spend time and tax dollars on Postle when they can’t even manage the case loads of all the violent crimes being prosecuted. This is straight civil and everything else is nerds enjoy reading themselves type

Of course he would be losing without knowing the cards. He would be crushed.

I will bet anyone that if you set a poker software simulator with seven fish and me with the same cards he got, I would make over $1 million. I think the best players in the would would clear it for far more.

He didn’t come close to God-mode perfect play. He played odd-mode for entertainment purposes with the proviso of making a little bit of money. But no where near what he should have with him being an elite player against a bunch of fish with perfect knowledge.

And I don’t think he intentionally loss less to disguise his play. I think he was committed to playing a lot of hands and used everything at his disposal to ensure he didn’t suffer a massive loss. This wasn’t a risk-free strategy and he had to sweat out some major bluffs on the river. Many sessions were break-even. I think he worked very hard to win what he did and only an elite player like himself could have pulled this off playing so many marginal hands to the river.