Correct. And that is Postle's position too, that it is wrong to accuse without definitive evidence.

For what it's worth, what TimM drew up in his example would be pretty strong evidence. Circumstantial, yes, but strong as hell. As you know, circumstantial doesn't mean weak, in the same way that direct evidence doesn't mean strong.

The analogy gets a bit contrived if I try to come up with a way the nurse could financially benefit from these babies dying, and then someone unearths an old video of her sister saying "my sister is so greedy she would kill babies if it would make her a buck".

And yet, there are real cases like this, where medical professionals get accused and investigated on very thin evidence, and then real evidence is found. I remember this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Angelo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_...y_(criminology)

Don't forget the nurse stares at her crotch for 15 seconds before every baby dies.

I've gone down a bad internet rabbit hole...

What I have been saying is 100% correct. no need to get c*nty. If you accuse someone the way they didit opens you up to Defamation, Slander, and Libel. I am sorry i assumed you could have figured out what i mean after the posts I made. All my fault. I forget some people can't go form A to D without stopping off twice. Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion this late in the game though. It was very beneficial.

New to the forum. I'll keep in mind that some of you have nothing better to do than nitpick each word instead of being able to get the gist of it. I must say I am enjoying posting and reading posts. The same bs nonsense I overhear at the poker table is very prevalent here.

Of course there needs to be damage caused by all the players that bashed MP, that should go without saying along with other things but that doesn't seem to be the way here.
This seems to be a more, lets see if so and so leaves out a meaningless detail so I can pounce on him, then waste my life trying to show my intellectual superiority. And of course the posts miss the entire point, but thank you for the lesson.

Hi, new user who has lurked in the forums for a while, and have read every single post in this thread.

I think you are from the UK like me, in which case you are probably aware of this exact case in the news right now. Probably a case worth following..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-54913047

We will see if the lawsuit is successful and opened them up to your three causes of action. The filing of the lawsuit does not determine if he will succeed with his claims. If he loses the lawsuit, were you 100% wrong?

You don’t communicate very well because you lack understanding of the issues, misuse and misunderstand terminology and you clearly lack any ambition to waste your life proving any intellectual superiority. And, of course, you don’t seem to learn anything from being corrected by every poster in this thread that responded to you.

Yes, that case was on my mind when I made the original comparison. I think people have got so filled with self righteous anger against Postle, they have lost sight of the fact that accusations should have evidence in order to be taken seriously, otherwise it is just circumstantial suspicion, which is not persuasive. The point that people have made about high levels of surveillance in hospitals is well made, but that is because of the heightened awareness from rogue medical staff. Postle may be the same, in future if any player has impossibly high win rates in a series of games, people now may think it is possible the player is cheating, and they may try to find evidence of this before openly accusing that player.

Evidence against Postle, even being circumstantial, has been irrefutable sooooo....

Meh, not necessarily.

For example, the exact dollar figure he won is somewhat questionable because it often did not account for add-ons, which the person compiling even admitted. As a result, there are also some estimations of win rates that are based on this data PLUS they don't account for things like straddles.

So irrefutable? No. Still damning, though. As Todd Witteles said on his own podcast, you could cut the total winnings in half, and it would still be a highly unlikely figure in light of many other factors.

Of course, other circumstantial things, like the placement of the phone before and after his uptick, are not in question. He certainly moved the phone from the rail to his lap at a very specific point, and the video certainly shows that he repeated look down (ostensibly at his cards, but realistically into his lap) in a way that he didn't do before.

One thing I'd like to do, and maybe will do at some point, is to quantify how much he looked at his phone during hands back when he kept the device on the rail. Then compare that to the amount of time spent looking at his phone during the year in question. After all, this would either support or refute the idea that he was merely checking sports scores or dick pics or whatever was on that screen.

nah, it is a slam dunk. Whether he cheated people out of $200K or $250K because add ons or whatever wasn't accounted doesn't change that.

Yeah, that's fair... that it's some large amount is not in question.

And not for nothing, it's why I look forward to Team Galfond's research (if he ends up doing it). I'll be very curious to see the exact figures, statistics, etc. I often go back to that Postle vs. Potripper graphic -- interesting to see exactly where it puts him on there.

How long before this ridiculous myth of impossible win rate is put to bed? You don't calculate standard deviation for 1/3 when your playing 10/25. You don't get to input variance as nitty 500 zoom when your calculating for loose game full of fish. You don't get to exclude rebuys and add ons. The single bit of unconflicted evidence in this case is crotch staring.

OK, this case boils down to two big questions.

1 What is the evidence against Postle?

2 How strongly does the US law take that evidence into account when deciding if it is fair to say Postle cheated?

This thread has explored 1, and found the evidence in total that he looked at his crotch before playing an hand and had a astoundingly high win rate in streamed games, that contrasted with his results in non streamed games.

This threads legal minds have looked at the above evidence to explore 2, but do not seem to have a consensus on whether or not the evidence is strong enough to show on the balance of probabilities Postle cheated, so it is legitimate for people to make that accusation against him.

https://firstamendmentwatch.org/libe...-sets-standard

Looks like what you think matters, doesn't actually matter in the US.

Were any of the defendants making intentionally false statements? No.

Did any of the defendants believe they were making probably false statements? No.

Is he a public figure or is it a matter of public concern? That seems to be what will set the bar.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-1311
PETITIONER.o!'I.AllolilFF: Michael Postle
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Veronica Brill

ORDER RE: DELAY IN SCHEDULING
INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CASE NUMBER:
34-2020-00286265

The Court finds good cause to delay the scheduling of the initial Case Management Conference for this case given the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on court-wide operations. Among the affected operations is the Court's Case Management Program (CMP). The Court's CMP calendars have been and remain suspended until further notice. After the CMP Departments resume operations, the Court will schedule the initial Case Management Conference in this case and issue a Notice of Case Management Conference and Order to Appear.

The deadline for filing and service of the Case Management Conference Statements will be based upon the date for the initial Case Management Conference once it has been scheduled.

Parties shall continue to accomplish service of all parties named in the action.

Parties shall continue to ensure that all defendants and cross-defendants have answered, been dismissed, or had their defaults entered.

Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on any party to the complaint. The cross-complainant shall have the same obligation with respect to the cross-complaint


Dated: I0/01/2020

RICHARD K. SUEYOSHI

Richard K. Sueyoshi, Judge of the Superior Court

Joe Ingram has vanished since Postle started legal proceedings. Sad to see so many good people getting ****ed by this

A Japanese-American guy in Sacramento? Probably a 30 percent chance one of my parents knows him.

Okay, that number is certainly an exaggeration, but that's how that community is, at least for their generation. I think the internment bonded everyone. My mom was born in the Tule Lake camp. She could meet someone whose sister's college roommate's parents best friends were interned there, and they'll become instant friends.

He's been active on twitter for the last few days.

Ae you new to poker? Both live and online games are full of known cheaters. Casinos don't really care and therefore don't 86 them and other players don't care too much either.

If Mike Postle walked into the Bellagio poker room today, I'm not even sure if anyone would say a word to him.

That is such a wonderful thing to hear. Thank you for sharing that.

/case got got
/close thread

Is your standard based on what is impossible? DNA tests are "only" 99 point some amount of additional 9s percent accurate. They still prove guilt in a court of law

Statistically, I'm pretty certain you could break down Mike Postle's play to a similar level. Did you see the graph of his VPIP/winnings that compared him vs. Potripper vs. the rest of the population? All it takes is for someone to see that graph and actually understand enough about poker. Then there are like god knows how many other compounding factors on top of that that make it even more certain he cheated

He's guilty well beyond a reasonable doubt, times about a hundred. Courts (and many in this thread) just likely don't have the understanding to know what that looks like in this situation