I hope I never get you as an attorney. If you are one. Good luck trying to convince non poker players he cheated. The jury won't be 12 poker pros.

The point is that if you have a number of experts in a field who all agree on something then a jury can take it as very likely that they will be correct. If experts are split in opinion then you can't draw that conclusion.

So they choose the more credible expert. AKA who has the best personality, credentials, credibility.

No it's not enough. It's not enough to even get your claim to the jury. Apparently you haven't been paying attention to what happened to the lawsuit and why.

Bart's chess hypothetical is a good thought experiment. This probably wasn't his point, but it points out how the "incomplete information" aspect of poker is so key to the allegations against Postle.

It seems barely feasible that a complete unknown could have incredible aptitude for chess and, in their very first ranked games, start playing at a Master level. Moreover, I don't know if 100 GMs could conclusively determine that a computer engine was used, versus our neophyte just having an innate, superhuman ability to calculate much like a computer engine. It might be hard to tease out the difference between the two.

(I don't know enough chess to know if a human could be that machinelike, ignorant of strategy but amazing at tactical calculations.)

Postle most outrageous plays fall in a category of "plays an expert would never make without knowing the cards." The 54o-AK-AK hand might not be fully convincing in isolation -- loose players take all kinds of gambles preflop -- but together with several other examples, it's hard to argue he was just superhumanly brilliant, nor superhumanly lucky.

So the prodigy defense could make sense in chess, but makes no sense in poker given the evidence against Postle. A moderately competent player, never mind a prodigy, isn't going to get all the chips in with 54o three ways preflop.



That's because of an antebellum California law that basically gives cheaters free rein to do their thing without the courts getting involved. In no way is that a judgment on the quality or sufficiency of the evidence.

I agree with every above but simply want to add that while poker is normally a game of incomplete information to both participants and observers, we know that through technology used to televise poker the "incomplete information" is shown to the observers and not shared with the participants. The only real question is how did Postle gain access to the information.

JFC, anyone with half a brain is sure Postle cheated. Anyone who thinks a court is going to be involved in resolving the cheating at poker issue has less than half a brain. Pick a side.

I dont blame the naysayers. The subject has pretty much run its course and people are bored so they play devil's advocate for fun

The experts never agree. Why would you hire one that doesn't support your case?

I'm not sure Postle would have a credible poker expert to back him up in his defence that he didn't cheat. For comedy value he could get Mike Matusow

What is the conclusion of the story?

V and Duff are out attorney's fees with the hope of getting blood out of a stone for reimbursement?

Not necessarily.

Efforts are being made through the court system to collect, through both of our attorneys.

I'm not going to lie and say it's going to be easy, but we're also not just sitting and wishing that he cuts us a check.

I've said it many times on my site and on my show, but I should mention here that we made an offer to Postle last year.

During the mandatory "meet and confer" between attorneys, my lawyer offered that I would eat my attorneys fees at that point if Postle dismissed me out of the case with prejudice. ("With prejudice" ​means that he couldn't re-file against me at a later time.)

My lawyer stated that we planned to file an anti-SLAPP motion which was almost sure to succeed, and that it would leave Mike on the hook for attorney's fees if it was granted. He also reminded Mike's attoreys that I should never have been named in the first place. I didn't get involved in the Postle story until it had already blown up huge all over the internet, and I had no involvement in the whistleblowing process or anything else. I was simply an observer with a poker forum & internet radio show, who was commenting on what was already happening.

Mike refused. He said he wasn't dropping me out, and was proceeding.

So we did exactly what we said we'd do -- we filed the anti-SLAPP, and now he owes the fees. We tried. Mike could have dismissed me out of it back in November, and that would have been that -- at least for me. I should never have been named in the suit. He chose not to, so here we are.

You would think, at some point, all sides could come together and agree to tell their sides of the story so everyone can get some money out of this mess. Of course there could be legal hassles even after all this time.

Mike Matusow plays the lead.

He could take the lead and be the moderator of the discussion but turn up stoned and not properly engage with any points raised. He would also still not have watched any footage of the live streams so have no clue what anyone was referring to in the interests of staying neutral

Partially. Are you aware of any criminal prosecution that relied ENTIRELY on circumstantial evidence? In a case that supposedly involves a fraud? I would think that to prove FRAUD you need DIRECT evidence that there was IN FACT a fraud. DIRECTLY.

Since Druff is a journalist I don't know how he wasn't dismissed from the suit.

The funniest thing is that some think a scum bag is going to behave like a gentleman after he lost.

Trying to attach his sports card collection is amusing. A portable, unregistered, liquid asset that is easy to hide?

I am aware of such prosecutions. On example might be insider trading. In some cases, there might be direct evidence (ie a witness who says trader x paid me for this inside infor). However, in some cases, all the evidence might be circumstantial (ie timing of trades, manner of trades etc). The prosecution must use that circumstantial evidence surrounding the trades to convince a fact finder that the trader must have had certain info to trade in that manner. (In a way, factually quite similar to this scenario).

Those cases are extremely difficult to prosecute and generally involve very large sums of $$.

Just because a case could be prosecuted doesn't mean that it would or should (based on the resources the prosecutors will have to use and chances of winning). Making a layperson serving as a juror understand complex ideas with which they have no experience is difficult. Many prosecutions have been lost because jurors didn't understand the evidence or just didn't like the witness. O.J. prosecution is a classic case of these problems - DNA was not well understood at the time and the prosecution did not present that evidence well at all. I also prosecuted DNA cases in the early days and it was an uphill battle sometimes.

This is one reason why I said early on in the thread that I found it highly unlikely that this case would end up in criminal court.

There is an even better reason no criminal prosecution will ever even be contemplated - there has been no casino or gaming board investigation finding wrongdoing.

The testimony around those facts would completely sink any prosecution based on circumstantial evidence.

The question I asked several pages back is still relevant: for those who claimed they were harmed, did you file a complaint with the gaming board? If so, what was the outcome?

When they knew they were being cheated but continued to play they lost all credibility.

If Postle played football (soccer)

https://twitter.com/unluckyfootie/st...055299584?s=19

Or if he played American college football, he'd be Ole Miss on the last kick of this game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jR8hMnJusQ

The entire time I said there would unlikely be any criminal prosecution regarding this. Now the chance is actually zero, but even back two years ago, the chances were very close to zero.

The CA Gambling Control Commission is VERY weak when it comes to any kind of customer experience issues.

Additionally, this wasn't likely to be well understood nor aggressively investigated by local police.

Law in USA is pretty confusing especially to outsiders but it seems remarkable that this type of scamming people out of money isn't at least investigated. I'm pretty sure it would be in most countries... and maybe in other states in the US

The first step to getting an investigation would be to file a complaint with the california gambling commission. It's hard to be 100% sure, but so far I've seen zero evidence that any of the supposedly harmed parties did so.

If anyone knows otherwise, I'm all ears.

From earlier in the tread ...