And stones is going to watch the floormen and stream staff during games and figure it out quickly. They might not find proof but they'll figure it out. If they dont get shut down they will jump to crucify everyone involved. It seems like the only move for them after all this press. ****ing awesome job internet detectives!

think i mentioned possible racking up debts and maybe him being the graphics guy's agent on the app.

I don't think that one is anywhere close to the top 50 by itself it's almost reasonable.

I occasionally watched the stream and saw a hand very similar to the Moneymaker double AK vs 54o one where his opponents had AQ/AK and he had a very trash live hand and cold called a hefty 3bet/4bet with. I thought it was very "strange" and told even told one of my friends there was a good chance he was cheating after I heard he won most of his sessions. But, going from there to actually being able to act on it is much different.

That's the issue any one hand by itself isn't really that damning but when you collectively put it together in the right way it's pretty obvious to someone with a fair amount of poker knowledge. The problem is beyond a forum like this most people don't really get that.

So the probability anything happens to him really is probably fairly low. I think we should focus more on making sure something like this never happens again.

is mike postle in the 500z ignition pool?

IPoker, $2.50/$5 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 6 Players
Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.

Hero (SB): $513.38 (102.7 bb)
BB: $1,069.13 (213.8 bb)
UTG: $512.50 (102.5 bb)
MP: $1,003.50 (200.7 bb)
CO: $536.02 (107.2 bb)
BTN: $538.54 (107.7 bb)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Qh Kc
2 folds, CO raises to $15, BTN folds, Hero raises to $60, BB folds, CO calls $45

Flop: ($125) 7c Ad 5s (2 players)
Hero bets $40, CO calls $40

Turn: ($205) Jc (2 players)
Hero bets $68, CO calls $68

River: ($341) 2h (2 players)
Hero bets $345.38 and is all-in, CO calls $345.38

Results: $1,031.76 pot ($4 rake)
Final Board: 7c Ad 5s Jc 2h
Hero mucked Qh Kc and lost (-$513.38 net)
CO showed 4c 5c and won $1,027.76 ($514.38 net)

I watched the hand and found myself thinking after AhQh bet out the flop (though lollivepoker @ $175 CB into $710 flop) that it wouldn't be ALL that weird (pre-flop not withstanding) for Postle to jam after AJo "inevitably" mucked...then AJo damn-near min-raises, leaving himself only $350 behind. No way any player w/ bottom pair puts another penny into the pot there. None. JFC.

I don't believe this has been shared in the thread:

I reached out to a high stakes player who plays in Reno and recieved confirmation that Mike Postle has never played in any mid-to-high stakes games there (5/10 and higher). Which he referenced in the texts Veronica shared.

I can provide additional details via DM if necessary.

Unless they have a vested interest in certain parties not getting in trouble. This is one reason hiring their own attorney to do the 3rd party investigation is so lol

There's been chatter about possible cheating for the last 6 months among dealers and others at Stones. JFK has total control of IT, Tournaments, and the Live Stream. You can draw your own conclusions from there...

No question. My guess is Lipman's staff will hold the carpet up while he selects what to sweep under it.

I understand. Do you think that the evidence of the hands themselves, cumulatively, is proof of cheating beyond a reasonable doubt(this is what I really want to know, what is your judgement?), but that it would never win a conviction due to the realities of a typical jury, that they don't have the expertise to appreciate the evidence and still wouldn't after long explanation and so forth?

We play poker, most intermediate level players and up can see the anomalies and no logic or legal reason for them. The defense attorney will interview jurors, along with the prosecution. They will surely look for someone that appears to be confused, a simple type, etc.... They put 3 on the jury and the odds of doubt go up big time. Burden of proof is a big deal and helps to protect the innocent.

It's not a case of the defendant was seen a block from the crime by three people testifying it was around the time of the crime and a knife, albeit commonplace, matches others he has at home. Most jurors can comprehend that circumstance. Winrates, river bluffs always right, BB/he. etc... might as well be speaking Sumerian to some. Tough stuff and a good defense attorney will bring expert witnesses to state it was possible. Very specialized data and circumstances, some legal eagles ITT with far more knowledge than I have could explain it better.

I know you asked him but i have thought a lot about this. I think if they brought in some heavy hitters any jury would agree. They need statisticians and at least one big name in poker. I think we all respect doug and joey more than hellmuth or negreanu but the public would believe them more. My grandmother knows who they are. Also if the jury hadn't heard them by name before just hearing their bio they'd be impressed. Remember the average person still thinks an online pro is someone who can't cut it live and this is cheating live after all.

I played craps with Postle, he played like a nit. I could see him having a drug habit though.

Actually I think I do remember him bitching about some sports bet he was losing on, so it could be that.

Obviously easy to say now as certain points seem to be more and more clear, but that moving his right hand down to his lap (perhaps just a weird stretch) at 40:36 is also so suspicious. Different from the tucked left arm we've grown accustomed to in later streams but likely a phone position adjustment before the fake hole card glance.

True. I was wondering why Postle favours seat 2, and then you realise that with Kuraitis managing the filming, seat 2 has his back to the camera most of the time, which covers up most of his actions.

Plus Kuraitis was in charge of the (non) investigation and the Stones twitter account, and media.

And doing the interview with Postle to give him a platform to defend himself from the suspicions.

There are so many fascinating quirks about this case. I love the spot where Veronica is very sarcastically saying how weird Postles play is in the Marle session, saying it is almost as though he can see the cards. And the show suddenly cuts short shortly after. But she had aired her doubts to Kuraitis earlier, so it is fascinating they took the risk of letting her commentate again on Postle, as watching him cheat yet again was the final straw for her, and she went public with her doubts.

Well the proven cheat Phil Ivey won $20m on the site he owned, while losing on other sites, so yes, there are other superusers.

As has been pointed out, to be this greedy to the point of making it so obvious was incredibly stupid. Its clear they have no real idea about poker strategy and thought they could just pass off blatant super using as lol soul reading god. Both dumb as rocks and anyone who doesn't realize that is even dumber than they are.

imo, it would be extremely hard to get a conviction in a criminal case. theres just too many factors such as ppl not caring, flying under the radar, corruption etc. that said, i think a civil case has a good shot. We aren't trying to prove perfect play, bc he isn't actually playing perfectly. We are trying to prove that he is playing a purely exploitative style with absolute perfect information, which is easier to prove than one might think. You wouldn't have to understand all the nuances of poker. Mb one could start off with a simple toy game of high card where there is only one round of betting and he would fold a K whenever his opponent had an Ace but would raise when he had a K and his opponent had a Q. When he had a 3 and his opponent had a 2, he would just call to induce a bluff and call the raise, always acting perfectly in ever scenario. Couple that with him deep throating his crotch and bulgegate and you'd have a pretty good opening case against him.

i would also get an expert witness who was a statistician/poker play such as Bill Chen or Liv Boeree to testify as they would be able to both understand poker, the statistics as well as how to convey it to the laymen since they are both at one point college professors

Wow

The commentator say Mike went in the back to watch this hand w/ Taylor. Then say that was stupid the players don't go back there !!!

WTFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://youtu.be/Gaek0o6eYTo?t=8423

The problem with continually focusing on the math/stats is that the math/stats/poker experts only prove that MP's winrate is virtually impossible. Proving someone cheated (in court) requires a bit more. There is a big difference (in a criminal trial) between "he cheated and here is the equipment we confiscated used in the crime" and "his winrate is mathematically virtually impossible therefore he must be cheating." The equipment used shows how he cheated. The math/stats only proves his winrate is virtually impossible. Also, I'm sure you can get a stats expert to say MP's winrate is virtually impossible. Unfortunately, when that same expert is faced with the questions "did MP cheat? And how did he cheat?": I suspect no stats expert would be willing to answer definitely on those questions. Using DNA as an example; DNA can place a suspect at the scene of a stabbing, but you still need to prove the suspect did the actual stabbing.

Blah blah balance cheating range

Yeah, teaching the jury poker is not going to be allowed by a judge. You're not getting dozens or hundreds of hours to teach a jury strategy.
The best thing to do would be to have as many people cheated testify as possible.

Anyone know if Veronica has been hired anyone else yet? I feel like any pokerroom would want her given that she saw it and spoke up and stuck to her guns. I hope they rehire her and give her justins job and a fat bonus.

Maybe a jury wouldn't understand winrates and stats but I wonder if they would understand hours and hours of video of Postle cheating while they are looking at video specifically looking for cheating. All the phone checking and hat touching has to look odd even to people unfamiliar with poker.

Although I guess if you get a couple of Mike Matusows on the jury that could sink any case.

I referenced it yesterday in this post, but I think you had gotten to it before I did. If anyone can find any evidence of super-using in his 2018 appearances below, prior to Aug 22 2018 (appears to be the earliest we have found so far), please advise.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=2348