Completely 100% disagree. Again maybe I'm an idealist and wrong but...

Would you play in a game he was playing in?

If you was a room manager would you allow him to play in your room?

I don't understand this myself.

So the gambling contract is non-binding. Does this make any debts paid a gift? And could you argue you were intimidated into paying? Whole thing seems like a deterrent against any private gambling?

It would be extremely ill-advised for Postle to appear on Joey's podcast while there is still the spectre of litigation hanging above his head. Not all of the claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff's attorney has indicated an intention to amend their complaint.

With regards to Marle's solo complaint filed in the federal court in Nevada, I believe the logic (if I remember the claims correctly) is that she was induced to come from Nevada to California to play poker on the stream in order for Postle to cheat/defraud her via Crotch Mode. Diversity jurisdiction wouldn't make sense because that's for defendants to elect against plaintiffs in order to get a more impartial trial (in theory at least). This is all about federal question jurisdiction. Marle will have a different judge, but i don't see a different outcome. Although the idea of a judge who may have heard cases regarding cheating in Nevada casinos does raise an interesting situation if the judge allows the concept of a "device" to factor into his reasoning. The problem I see is that the plaintiffs apparently aren't able to pinpoint how exactly this was pulled off.

I'm with Veronica though, I think Postle should be welcomed back with open arms. Set up weeks on end of livestreams and give everyone a chance to come back and win back their money. If he keeps up his winning pace, hats off to him.

Pokerstars has more integrity than brick and mortars these days.

Card rooms won't let him play? On what rake forbidding premise?

He won't play because he can't win. He'll go get a job and slink away.

How so? I've watched a lot of your videos on it and it seemed to me that you did your near best to analyze the issue as meticulous as possible. Did you save up resources for the off chance that the case gets rejected in court?

From what I've seen, I go with the general consensus that he cheated. Though I never really understood why he and his team should've chosen the most amateurish way of communicating - i.e. via instant messaging while streaming themselves doing it. Is the Postle crew really that ******ed when cheaters have already used RFI systems 10 years ago?

Yes. All he had to do was pick his spots to cheat and he would have never been caught. Two or three hero calls/folds per night and he crushes the game without raising suspicion. He's actually a moron.

The fact that a complete moron can get away with cheating without repercussion should remind everyone that casinos/card rooms are looking to protect their money, not yours.

you'll serve yourself well by never underestimating the (brazen ?) stupidity of most criminals.

I definitely concur on the point that he could've gotten away with a subtle approach (assuming he indeed did cheat). However, I guess that's the pathological aspect of a cheater - at least of the amateurs. These ppl seem to lack the ability to accept the defeat of not beating a game. And once they resort to creating edges where initially none have been (aka cheating), they want everybody to eventually realize their greatness and pull off these heroic plays.

However, it still doesn't make sense to me that they are more than a decade behind when it comes to the implementation. They must at least have googled "how to cheat". And if they had done so, they would've found myriad better ways. It's not like you have to reinvent the wheel - there are companies that have the sale of just that as their service.

Again, from a poker player's perspective the whole story seems clear. Even given the absent of clear evidence. But that's obviously not how the legal profession approaches a case.


PS: Don't get me wrong, I think scammers are utter scum. But the whole issue was around 40 sessions, right? That's probably below 2.5k hands. That's 4 tabling zoom for 2.5 hours. I know, there is more to the story than that, but that sample is literally white noise. Just imagine he's not guilty, no evidence, yet he get's sued for 30 mio and everybody wants to see him hanging. Marle included.

How many times in a row does someone have to successfully double on 20 and pull an ace before you accept that they know the ace is coming? You don't need thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of hands.

2.5k hands is white noise when you're ascertaining someone's win rate in a fair game. It's not white noise for this kind of blatant cheating. How many hands did Potripper play in that tournament? That was more than enough to say he was 100% superusing, and it was something like 100 hands.

Tens of hands are a bit low mate, but I get where you coming from. As I said, I am with the general consensus. But that is fortunately not enough to convict someone. The potripper incident was long before my poker-life, but to my knowledge it included a confession.

Whatever, I was just interested in how Joey plans to proof something that he and all the remaining eyes on this issue failed to do so far. Just curious, when we should start the gofundme for his bail

If he wants to proclaim his innocence he has to explain all of his sudden head down mannerisms and thick hats when he was in god mode. Other than "everybody was checking their phones" and "hats do be thick sometimes"

You mean for the general public? Because in court it's the exact opposite - they have to prove why his phone-checking is different than what indeed everybody else is doing.

I am not sure how it started, but given the trend to do investigations on stream or on twitter (BP), it might be worth a try to conduct future ones offline.

I was responding to his upcoming appearance on Joey's podcast where he proclaims he will tell "his side of the story". So general public.

Yeah my bad, just realized that.

If Postle comes on Joey's podcast to convince the public of his innocence, he is either (1) guilty af, happy that he dodged a conviction, and now simply wants to whitewash his reputaion in the community or (2) the freakin nicest human being out there. No sane innocent person would let someone ruin his life and then miss out on the chance to get richly compensated for it. At least not if we're talking US, where you get easily 7+ figures while you'd get < 20k in Europe .

He still could have gotten caught. His cheating system was very ambitious. Did you ever consider that maybe he always expected to get caught?

He would have felt like a real idiot if he cut his own income by making -ev plays and then still got caught. Aside from costing him money, doing so would have been in direct conflict with one of his primary objectives.

As an aside, I nearly wrote that maybe he never expected to get away with it, but fact is he did get away with it, so he can't feel too bad and those of you calling him dumb are just jealous haters pissed you were unable to pull off what he did.

Very much this. There was probably a meta-game involved that we won't know about with him executing the cheat the way he/they needed to. Such reasons could be:

His expectations for how long it will last for. If he had partners, did they have different time-tables for when they wanted to quit?

A partner means less of a share for him and would influence the amount of total money to make the risk worth it for his share.

Did influences make him/them feel its +EV to assume it'll last < 1-year rather than for years? Perhaps he/they knew the stream could end at the close of the quarter/year due to management rumblings. Perhaps something within production needed to be done and executing that end of it was risky too (other personnel needed to leave for accomplice to do whatever).

Did he/them feel its better to extract the most money while the stream was relatively unknown, then perhaps hold back some as games/streams/articles occurred. I'd assume they went light in the beginning and ramped up to meet the monetary risk/reward needs of people involved.

You could form some conclusions of the meta-game by looking at all the win sessions to see where they were in the progression of the cheat. If they had any inclination of the game/stream possibly ending or too much heat for the setup of the cheat (backend switching of things) then it would make sense to deploy it to extract more money each time.

Seriously, who the f**k cares about what strategy a cheater felt might maximize his overall take from his cheating ?

However, have at it, even if its solely for your own amusement.

Pros looking to maximize their earnings?

Lol mate, some people on the internet have a discussion that you find unappealing and you get the urge to let them know? That somehow reminds me of the guy at 2:55min --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YulXp2Vy7lM&t=2m55s


To the gentlemen before you:

You presume him to choose the stupidest and least elaborate way of conducting the cheat, but on the other hand be reflective enough to assume he'll get caught etc? Hard to imagine tbh. Not to mention the assumptions regarding the ending of the stream, for which not the slightest indication exists.

Taking into consideration to get caught would also imply that he took the respective degree of penalty into consideration. I don't know the US law, but that should be the point where someone who is that reflective quits the idea of risking everything for a 2/5 game.

One thing regarding his crotch staring. Judges, as they have to deal with niches on the regular, typically get themselves specialists that counsel them on the specifics of the case at hand. I really believe that these ppl will come to the conclusion that the way he allegedly conducted the cheat is so stupid and outdated, that it will eventually be taken as an argument for his innocence.
Even if he had no chance to use RFI cards, marked cards, lenses, or whatever, it simply would've taken a single spy ear-piece to listen to his commentating buddys. That's it. $30 invested for an earpiece which is so small that you need a pincette to get it out again and therefore a near-zero chance for someone to see it.

According to Veronica one of his twitter handles is

https://twitter.com/poker_thug

Extra scummy if it is.

By "his" you are referring to whom?

you

Does not work that way in this country, mate. Each party should prepare its case and, in advocating its position , explain any "niche" factual issues to the Court, whether by expert testimony or otherwise.

The California court never got to the facts however.

What's so bad about being a Jared Jaffee fan?

Nice try.

Ah, ok. I had a judge holding a civil law course in university (non-law track) who mentioned that judges are confronted with cases regarding niches on the regular. And that a judge, besides his judicial expertise, is required to work his way into these niches - what oftentimes is supported by experts. (But non US and maybe I just mix things up.)
Generally, I am not saying that poker and cheating is necessarily a tough field to get a grasp on, but what if the game played for money was dota and the main evidence would be a super unusual way of play pulled of by someone who had played only for a few weeks so far? A play that experienced players can easily agree on would take years of daily grinding to be able to pull off and is therefore a clear sign of cheating. Has a judge the ability to convincingly decide whether this indeed is the case and hence is a sign for a factual cheat?

But I saw that your profile says that you're a lawyer since 30 years, so you'll prob know pretty damn well what you're talking about. Thanks for clarifying. Even though you showing up and telling ppl unsolicitedly that you don't care about what they are talking about is a good indicator for you having way too much time on your hands and not getting much action in your job