https://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=47805

Based on these it is pretty clear that Postle have make enough to make living playing tournaments. Not big money, but living.

And this comes other way around. If you think Postle have not played poker as living hood, then you should have at least some kind of evidence for it. Have some insider said that?

civil and criminal have different standards. you can be found not guilty, have case thrown out of criminal court and still be sued in civil. criminal is beyond reasonable doubt, as we all know, but in civil court it there is a lower standard. has nothing to do with innocent or not guilty.

well, you specifically addressed me saying he is guilty, since my entire point of view is based on mp not being charged or found guilty of any wrong doing that is why i said legally.

Not at all. That 539K number doesn't have entry fees deducted. Nor does it have any deductions for events where he didn't cash. He could easily be a losing player at tournaments. Nor does it have any other expenses deducted like travel, hotels, etc. That is not the profile of a player with god-like reads.

https://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=47805

Numbers 2015-2019: buy-ins 23266$
Amount won: 170k$

Mostly not hotel etc. for Postle since games have been played at Stones.

Multiplier to get good assumption of real total buy-ins depend on what you assume. Is there edge to some direction before bubble etc., but is probable somewhere between 6 and 8. 1100$ buy-ins are rarely played, so they can easily make some difference.

But based on those I would assume that Postle is net winner from tournaments in years 2015-2019: +10k$-30k$.

Ok. A lot less that I would have assumed it to be.

^^^ Confusing. It seems you're saying he bought in for more than he won, yet is a net winner.

I know this much: he's a massive winner in cash games being live streamed by Stones when his phone is in his lap, and he spends a bunch of time during the early part of hands looking at it.

You do realize that the database does not include tournaments in which he entered and did not cash, right?

That's what multiplier there is for. Pretty easy to approximate somewhat accurately how many tournaments have been played, when it is known what percentage cash.

Sure let us just beat a dead drum.

That is what I said. You are not "found innocent" if you are found "not guilty" of a crime. You are acquitted on the criminal charges and cannot again be charged for the same crime.

You are always presumed "innocent", unless proven guilty in a criminal proceeding.

Sorry, R&R, that horse may not yet be dead, there were no criminal charges in this matter. As for a different horse race, .....Keep in mind for 2021, sometimes someone seeks a Presidential pardon without even having been charged with a crime. Doesn't make him innocent and doesn't affect criminal liability for State-level charges that have or may be brought.

Has any Defendant been served yet with the Complaint?

Ha, ha, ha. I am sure it would be all over this thread if they were.

Yes, it was never proved he cheated. It is also true that all of the people who used their platforms to call him a cheat have also not been proven wrong.

Also, I can't believe that we are in 2020, in a thread with more than 12,000 replies, and anyone would still consider using Hendon Mob prize totals to prove whether someone is or isn't a winning player.

Especially astounding given that we're almost three full years armed with Daniel Negreanu's prizes vs. buy-ins revelation.

The 0.05 percent of you who enjoy baseball might like this:

Player A had 117 career MLB home runs.
Player B had 117 career MLB home runs.
Player C had 121 career MLB home runs.

So clearly, Player C was the best hitter of the bunch.

LOL.

https://fullcontactpoker.com/year-end-results/
"Events 291
Cashes 68
ITM % 23.4"

Enough cashes to approximate total events played even if Daniel would have not disclose them.

Most tournies Postle have played is even against small field.

Forgive me if it's been addressed earlier in the thread but I have a question for the lawyers. If you are claiming loss of income don't you have to make a reasonable claim for what the amount of lost income would be? If you cant work for a year, for example, it would be reasonable to claim your last years salary. How would that work for a poker player though?

I'm one of those .05%. Wayne Gross was the regular third baseman on the 1979 Oakland A's, which was probably the worst Oakland A's team ever.

loss of income is just one thing in this case.

Pretty crazy that they went from being the worst team in baseball in 1979 to having the best winning percentage two years later, with almost the same group of players. I say "almost," because a certain outfielder joined the team right around the All-Star Break in 1979.

Wait a minute...

You could argue the A's uptick truly started in the middle of the 1979 season: they won only 26 of their first 100 games, but 28 of their last 62.

And we saw that Mike Postle also experienced a sudden uptick in the middle of the summer.

I think I cracked it.

It isn't up to mike to prove them wrong. Also, it is impossible to prove he didn't cheat. I could say you like to sleep with dogs, how could you prove me wrong? Say you prefer cats? I am unsure of the point you tried to make. In the United States if you accuse someone of a crime you need to be able to prove it or risk opening yourself up to lawsuit if you caused damages.

At the end of the day I just think it would be nice for the doug polk, joey ingram opportunistic *******s that they are to be held accountable for their actions. I'm sure they made money from all the videos they did on the subject. You shouldn't go around accusing others when you can't prove it. And to all the players that want to chime in on his unrealistic win rate, etc. that means nothing.

As quoted, you are completely 100% incorrect. Most people accusing someone of a crime actual have complete immunity in the U.S., regardless if the accused is found guilty or not. Thanks for sharing your incorrect opinion so late in the game though. It was really beneficial.

For starters, my point was simply to refute this part of your previous post:

I'm unsure why you're unsure, as I specifically wrote the inverse of your own words:

My point is the sentence as written, particularly in context to your sentence as written. Shouldn't be a lot of gray area here, but I'll leave it to others to decide if I was being cryptic or ambiguous. (And mea culpa, apologies, etc. if I was.)

Not for nothing, when it comes to the hypothetical accusation that I like to sleep with dogs, it would be relatively easy for me to prove it wrong. (Okay, pretty difficult here in an online forum, but easy in the real world.) I'm allergic to dogs, there is zero evidence that I have ever slept with a dog, and plenty of evidence that i.e. my residence, and by extension, my actual place of sleep is and has been dog-free.

Still, that's a fair larger point on your part: there are plenty of hypothetical accusations you could have raised that would be nearly impossible for me to disprove. You just happened to stumble upon a poor example. Not your fault, you didn't know.

As for this...

It is now. The burden shifted on him when he became the plaintiff in a defamation action. When he was the defendant in the previous complaint, he had no legal obligation to prove his innocence. Rather, the burden was on Verstandig to prove that he cheated. But by flipping it around, Postle, or his representation, now has to show that "all the ppl" are guilty of making false accusations, which means he has to – wait for it – prove them wrong.

Also...

This is also a conditional, with the condition being "if you caused damages." Postle will have to prove that, too. Of course, this part should go without saying, but I thought I'd mention it, since you were previously "unsure" about the meaning of my previous post.

I have no doubt that Postle used some sort of transmission process to be shown or told what cards the other players had, or simply if he was ahead or behind in a hand. But there is no actual evidence to support that, bar the circumstantial mathematical odds against him winning so consistently in streamed hands, and performing so much better in those streamed hands than non-streamed hands. But given there is no other evidence against him, he can quite easily show the film from Stones, which his accusers use, and flip it round on them and say, "here is the evidence, there is no cheating going on here, the claims I cheated are therefore false".

This case is like a nurse being in a hospital where lots of babies die under her watch, which would raise suspicions, but with no firm evidence that is all there would be, suspicion, and so to call the nurse a murderer, in the same way that Postle was called a cheater, is dangerous, even if mathematically and circumstantially it is most probable.

This case is like a nurse being in a hospital where lots of perfectly healthy babies die under her watch, and it's a huge statistical anomaly compared to death rates all other hospitals. Also there is hallway security camera footage showing her going into rooms and being alone with each baby before it died. But we don't know how she did it so we can't do or say anything, right?

In that case, I wouldn't consider the nurse being a murderer as the most mathematically and circumstantially probable explanation. She could simply be horribly incompetent or negligent. (And yes, negligence can be criminal, but it does not necessarily constitute murder.)