Classic example of a hand that makes no sense regardless of if he did or did not know his opponents hole cards. (He did)
Just ****ing dumb either way.

Isn't that the hand that he folded and later lied and said he had 86 or something?

I think the 86 hand was the one where he made that absurd bluff on the river and they changed the hand to 98 so that it looked like he had the nuts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vaF0kwjQhg&t=1173s

A lot of the fun ones are in the spreadsheet from OP: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets..._JPHST-PtlCdM/

I was just watching the hand talked about above. 88 On 994T8 board where he just calls the river. The YouTube chat is still archived, a few minutes later JFK pops up in chat and says:

https://gyazo.com/70d56b38fa7b20608711f2dc3eebbb59

Seems very suspicious given how the commentators are still talking about how absurd the call was, sounds like JFK is trying to diffuse the attention asap.
It also would mean that Postle made an incorrect hero call with 87 on a dry board. Something he has pretty much never done before.

In that hand he bets the Turn when he is drawing dead, if he had 88 or 87.

Last night I just happened to stumble into a lengthy discussion about this in the middle of this thread. You can actually tell where, 30 minutes after the hand happens on the feed, JFK (presumably having just watched the feed) goes to ask him about it. Post 5900:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=5900

Since I remembered the name HarryKaneSomething, Googling with actually got me to the post referring back to it. However, I had to reset my posts-per-page to forum default for Google's link to work. Interesting....

It looks like Postle got away with it.

Plaintiff's attorney had one goal to get to discovery and depose Postle.

Cluster F

Now P is protected in bankruptcy and attorneys may collect something but the parties can look forward to seeing him playing in the near future.

Had this happened in NV it would have panned out much differently. The judge overseeing the postle case cited CA precedent which pretty much prevents gambling disputes from being litigated in court. There's more nuance than that obviously but that's the gist of it.

Yep, you would have thought the attorney and parties would have known that.

When no one stopped playing with him after they were positive he was cheating they lost all credibility.

I think they did try a second lawsuit on behalf of Marle Cordeiro in Nevada cause she lived in Nevada, and it lost. Something of the sort.

It was dismissed, but for a specific reason. The Nevada court said that there wasn't enough of a connection to Nevada (it wasn't enough that Marle lived in Nevada) given that Postle lives in California and the games in question were in California, so the Nevada court said they can't hear the case, and that she should file the case in California.

Since she (and her lawyer) knew that filing the case in California will only result in a loss due to the previously mentioned California precedent to not hear gambling disputes (this was all after the California lawsuit against Postle had been ruled on), they didn't bother to refile the case in California - no sense wasting time at that point.

In theory, assuming the statute of limitations hasn't run out, she could still file the case in California (maybe the state legislature passes a law that establishes that courts can hear gambling disputes...hey, it's theoretically possible).

To those who have read all the docs or have a legal background:

Did any of the plaintiffs argue that what he did was fraud rather than a gambling issue, hence as a fraud case can be adjudicated by the courts? Even though the law is somewhat archaic, I can sort of understand why you don't want your state courts settling gambling debts. Gambling by definition is risking a loss; referring to Postle's behavior as gambling is like calling robbing a bank gambling.

Or more to the point, imagine the Commerce or the Bike rigged those California player-banked blackjack games in favor of their confederates. Because the rigged game involved cards and took place in a gambling hall in CA, no one has any recourse? Clearly that can't be right.

Moreover fraud is a crime, whereas settling gambling debts would be a civil action. How can prosecuting fraud be a civil action? Or does the Placer County DA not want to prosecute?

I'm not a lawyer and haven't read everything, so I'm assuming plaintiffs' counsel made much better, legally-grounded arguments than these.

As I understand it the judge left open the possibility of filing a new suit against Stones and their staff (I think for civil fraud), since they were taking rake in exchange for providing an honest game but failed to do so. (It would be an important partial win to get to discovery and uncover just how much Stones knew about, hopefully ending the careers of anyone involved.) Is that still unresolved?

The evidence presented so far is that he:
1) won
2) looked at his phone
3) wore a hat

I'm sure the DA is extremely eager to assign top talent to this case

In all this flurry of filing lawsuits in the wrong venues, I'm curious if anyone has actually used the right venue. Was a complaint filed with the California Gaming Control Commission? What is the status? There's nothing about any complaint in the summary. Just the obviously useless lawsuit.

Right on.

There was only speculation that anything illegal was done.

They should have exhausted all the free remedies (Gaming Board) before filing. They would have told them about the law and may have suggested other avenues.

Anyone following this case knows that's a pretty biased summary. There's certainly more evidence than that ITT.

Whether a DA wants to work on a case that would require expert witnesses for the most damning poker-related evidence... who knows? It sounds like under CA law anyone inside or outside the employ of the casino could cheat other players and face no criminal or civil consequences, anyway, so not surprising the DA wouldn't waste time on it I guess.


I'm curious too. That wouldn't do anything to get Postle to pay his victims, but you'd think any serious commission would be concerned about even a hint of evidence suggesting an inside job. Are they just a joke rubber stamp commission?

Wrong. Penal Code 332 PC

But,yes, the Sacramento DA is not going to spend time/resources on this.

Well, sort of. There are hands where it seems like he knew the cards. There are also hand where it seems like he did not know the cards, and hands where he played in a baffling way that would not be correct if he did OR didn't know the cards. Often in the same session. The common denominator was an insane VP$IP and aggression level.

If in fact he won at ~1000 BB/100 over a big enough sample, yes, obviously he's cheating. However the people who were supposedly compiling stats seem to have missed some sessions, etc. So I'm not sure that number's accurate and it's way too time consuming to figure it out for myself. Winning 1000BB/100 in a non-randomly selected subset of an already small number of hands isn't such clear evidence. Nor is it good evidence if the game is deep and it hinges on a small number (say, < 100) of key hands.

And in CA, the gaming board is the ONLY one who can at least start the process of forcing Postle to pay his victims, if victims they are determined to be. You can't bring civil suit outside the board, which any competent lawyer should have known.

While the person "got away" with it.
Its unlikely he did this all on his own so probably had to split his winnings (maybe even multiple ways? Who knows?)
He has probably cost himself far more in future earnings.
Would anyone do business with him in the future after doing an internet search?

The court of public opinion is also very powerful.

D.

I doubt Postle would have been a winning poker player if he wasn't cheating. Postle would have been just another anonymous losing poker player. Doubt he would have been invited to the livestream very often ?

According to Postle (lol) in the interview he did with Mike Matusow he had been a professional poker player for 15 years before the cheating saga and all his income came from poker. Make of that what you will!!

Mike Postle is Ante Up Poker Tour POY
By Ante Up Magazine -January 26, 2016

Legal beagles:

Did Ver and Druff actually pay their legal fees?

Where canceled checks attached to their suit?

Is it kosher to sue for legal fees that were not paid?

Some flaw in this reasoning, can't quite put my finger on it.

California law does not provide a forum for plaintiffs to address gambling disputes, according to the court.

I believe there was less than speculation.

I believe the plaintiff's lawyers were allowed to see internet data that did not show the behavior alleged in the lawsuit.

There was something.

What was it?