Justin seems to keep repeating the statement from the plaintiffs' lawyers that they didn't find any cheating, ignoring that it was obviously forced to the $40K.

this is one of the best tweets

I still think this before and after the cheating started is by far the most compelling piece of evidence against Postle. https://www.reddit.com/r/poker/comme...first_cheated/

@Angry_Polak

I was a fan of the show / watched it along with Live @ The Bike. Question. Harlan seemed to be a damn good player and (looks like) the type of guy that would have a thing or two to say about all of this, as he was in the mix with MP quite a bit.

Have you spoken to him? Any thoughts from him?

(Edit: And I hope you find closure from all this drama and get "fun poker" back in your life. We all admire your courage.)

Harlan is a solid guy and has a business and life. he doesn't like getting involved in the madness. he was a part of the law suit.
he knows that Mike cheated

Jeeez ignore that clown

Postle cheated for sure though

For future cases like these i feel like there should be some kind of honey pot instated before going out with it publicly since it looks like its impossible to prove things like these after the fact. So catching the perpetrator with hand in the cookie jar is the best bet we have ?
Would just catching him using the software open on his phone be enough to win these cases ?

The case was dismissed because the courts couldn't get involved in disputes between gamblers and it was impossible to determine the amount of damages. The plaintiffs didn't get to present any evidence, so it wouldn't matter how strong the proof was.

Have peeps seen this interview with @Angry_Polak addressing Justin's weird-ass letter to us all?

https://www.poker.org/interview-vero...or-postlegate/

The case was messed up when they went public with their suspicions before they had got any firm evidence on him.

No firm evidence has ever been presented. There is tons of circumstantial evidence of his impossible win rates, and unbelievably good play in very specific circumstances (when he played streamed games from Stones) but still no one has been able to prove what he did to get that.

But it was interesting to go back and read the first posts in this thread, and realise just how little progress was ever made in getting a smoking gun, because they blew the whistle too early.

The cards changed midstream in a situation where it’s physically impossible for the reader to say oh I miss identified these two cards, here are the real ones.

With smoking gun, what do they get?
Civil case is still a no-go.
Better chance at a criminal charge, but you would have to convince the DA to prosecute.

A smoking un is if he was wearing a bone conductor device, they could have got him using that red handed and taken it from him during a stream and shown it was transmitting live hole card information to him.

They could also have placed cameras in the room where the production staff were working to see how they were communicating with Postle, and how they were monitoring the action on the table.

They could have monitored Kuraitis and Postle, to build up a picture of their collaborative relationship outside the casino.

They could have looked at Kuraitis accounts to see if money was transferred to him from Postle, as Postle was winning, so would have had to pass Kuraitis his share.

They could have spent more time looking at the film if the game they were so suspicious about, to see what looked odd about them. As soon as the public saw the constant looking down was commented on, why didnt those with the suspicions take the time to look at what they were concerned about, before going public with vague allegations that they thought he was cheating but they didn't know how.

They could have placed cameras to record the seat Postle always sat at, so they could show what he was looking at on his phone under the table.

The list of missed opportunities to get the evidence together goes on and on. So circumstantially it is clear he did it, but at present as it stands, no definitive evidence has been presented publicly.

I wonder how many signatures they got?

I'd set the line at 7.

Who is they and how would they look at his accounts?

The same people setting up the cameras in the casino to catch him, duh!

PokerNews article by VerStandig


"Was the statement carefully worded to ensure I would not be signing my name to a falsity? Yes."

It would depend on what the investigations uncovered. If it were money laundering suspected by Kuraitis and Postle for example, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network would investigate.

"I knew this would go nowhere but I printed off it regardless" -Big Mac

A few months ago I actually thought that this was the smoking gun until I did more investigation on that hand. From my earlier post:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=11335

"In fact, anytime the cards display for a player they can only be changed by manually overriding the system. That means the action tracker technician has to physically type in the players' hand from the selection of cards that is left in the deck, in real time. Anytime you see cards change in the middle of the hand, someone is changing them (the action tracker technician) at the exact time the hand is being played out. So anytime a hand is changed while the physical cards remain face down the tech is guessing as to what that player has. This is why on LATB you only see these manual types of overrides at the end of the hand, after showdown, because the physical act of the cards being turned over is the only way to tell what the player has. There are no backup hole card cameras.

In my research on this issue, however, I discovered that hands have been changed similar to the 89ss hand on Stones Live, in the past (during the middle of then hand). Again, each time that happens, the tech is making the change without actually knowing what the player holds. I spoke with a technician that worked at Stones between 2016-2017 (pre Postle) and he said that their were so many complaints from the players that the graphics were incorrect during a hand (mostly due to a sensor in another seat having a card dealt over it and registering as the card for that seat) that there was a culture of the action tracker technician changing the cards on his own--through pure conjecture--to make the hand make more sense. Normally this would happen when an aggressive action was made by Seat 1 or Seat 9 with a hand that made absolutely no sense -- like cold 4 betting with K3os, AND also the player next to that player (seat 2 or seat 8) 's cards not registering at all. If that sequence of events happened it was quite obvious that one of the S2 or S8's cards passed over the S1 or S9 player and registered as one of their cards. This of course did NOT happen in the Postle hand but the technician I talked to said that the action tracker tech would still sometimes change cards during hands on his own, even without an obvious fault in the readers."

Bart, good video. On the ak, ak, 54 hand, how do you respond to the fact that your equities are wrong because, assuming MP was seeing all the hole cards, he would have viewed two 4s in other players hands, lowering his equity below 33%, making it a no-call situation?

(I always thought this was a poor hand to show he cheated because he is behind, aand not getting the right odds to call the all in bets. Plus, the advantage of the hole card information increase significantly once you know all the community cards or, at minimum, the flop and you have chips left to bet.)

We can either believe that Mike was working with incomplete information and never ever made a decision for stacks that was wrong in each scenario, such as running a theoretically correct bluff into the nuts or making a theoretically correct hero call vs the nuts (something that poker superbots Libratus and Pluribus did often because such situations occur frequently in poker) because he is just that good

or we can believe that his ability to escape these "cooler" situations was a product of him having more than the normal amount of information other players would have. i.e. he cheated.

If people want to believe that it is possible to avoid losing massive pots every single time (unless you get hero'd by a hand that should always fold, shout out to Rich with the A9 ) then that's fine. But you're just wrong, because that isn't how the game works.

If Postle was accessing something other than the processed feed, he wouldn't have the equities as you see them.

It's also likely Postle was not tracking every card preflop. He was looking for opportunities to play as many hands as possible because of the tremendous implied odds, and a lot of his preflop considerations of other players' cards were to determine whether to call or raise preflop, and not looking to fold due to a few percentages of equity.

This is all ofc true. The problem is that it doesn't really help that it's true, none of these things changes anyones mind. Because anyone thinking Postle isn't guilty is far too dumb/unknowledgeable about poker to understand why what you write is so blatantly true. And those who understand it already know Postle is guilty