For an actual lottery fraud see

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

and this brilliant feature on it in the NYTimes:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...d-mystery.html

Inside job with the random number generator

This is one of the better defense arguments: attack what is purportedly MP’s winrate. I’m sure several witnesses to the game will testify to the extensive rebuys and add-ons. What’s frustrating for many, but is getting lost here, is that MP doesn’t need to establish he didn’t cheat; he just needs to plant legitimate seeds of doubt in at least one juror’s head.

The defense will probably be able to find clips of other players displaying nervous tics (perhaps not as noticeable as MP’s crotch stare, but unusual nonetheless), and the phone staring itself can be written off in a number of ways (perhaps other players routinely look at their phones to watch the stream on delay). The defense doesn’t need to say that other players were acting just like MP, just that they were acting unusually (if defense can find player(s) acting unusually in sessions where they were big winners that’s even better).



If hard evidence on the phone is discovered that makes the defense case exceptionally hard, and probably not worth fighting.

The far more interesting aspect of the case at this point is who was/were MP’s confederate(s), and how did they aid and abet him.

Here are some Mike Postle highlights

Agreed. Dude clearly cheated, but all 1/3 games are clearly not equal.

This is not good advice since a civil case is way more likely than a criminal one and the other law advice is just uh, bad.

The poker game played bigger *because* he was cheating. There was a 60% clip guy playing like a whale never losing! A guy calling 4 bets with 5 and 9 high! When he wasn't on god mode the games were often mediocre.

If you don't think he cheated then these are the possibilities:

1) You're thick as ****
2) You're involved
3) You haven't played a lot of poker
4) You don't know what someone looks like when they're "Hollywooding"

Choose.

Postle and his supporters could try to "explain" the absurdly high win rate, as people have posted. Of course, the win rate did not magically appear out of thin air. We have the videos which show how he achieved such a high win rate. Making the correct decision in a vast number of hands, many of which do not make "good poker sense". Thus he had a very high win rate and a low variance (the ideal combination).

Prevailing against Postle in a civil or criminal matter would likely require something resembling a smoking gun. This could be other people coming forward and suggesting how he did it from a technical angle. Or phone/server logs showing highly suspicious communication or logins.

If there is a jury of non-poker players who can't really wrap their heads around win rates and GFX servers, here is my dream scenario. You have Matt Berkey come into the courtroom and hand each member of the jury a cell phone with a certain app on it. You bring in an RFID table and deal out 9 hands. Of course, nobody knows what anybody's cards are, but Berkey shows the jury how the GFX server "knows" what each player's cards are via the RFID system.

Then Berkey presses a button on the GFX server and, as if by magic, all of the players' cards then appear on each member of the jury's cell phone. You then show how Postle had access to that "app", either through his knowledge of the Stones Live Stream setup or through an accomplice.

Everybody would understand it is easy to win a lot of money playing poker if you know your opponents cards.

You’re being obtuse, which makes your conclusions suspect.

Of course I’m referring to criminal case advice in planting a seed of doubt. There is obviously no merit in discussing a civil case with a preponderance standard: no reasonable person could dispute the fact that he likely cheated; it's a slam dunk directed verdict. The more interesting and contentious part of the civil case is Stones and the confederates’ liability. MP is likely judgment proof anyway. You took it there b/c you don’t understand practical application of law. That’s ok, just don’t act like you know what’s “good legal advice”.

The game playing bigger wasn’t the point. The point was that Mike can argue that rebuys and add-ons were common and that HE was doing both, which affects his overall win rate.

Also, I would bet that a criminal case is probable to occur and, being far more interesting, is actually worth talking about.

Civil discovery is the gateway for criminal charges.

I did a search of this thread and saw that no one had mentioned Duper's Delight or Duping Delight.

This is something that Jeff Boski has mentioned.

"Duper's Delight is the pleasure of being able to manipulate someone, often made visible to others by flashing a smile at an inappropriate moment. Duper's Delight happens when the person telling a lie cannot control their happiness over pulling the wool over someone's eyes."

As with anything in this story, no one thing is likely to be a smoking gun. I thought Postle's reaction to folding JQ to Marle's QT on a 89Jx board was just one example of him wanting his opponent to know he can outplay them, that "you can only beat me if you have the nuts".

On his dick. Boner conduction technology. <rimshot>

This thread needs a glossary:

CTO: Crotch Theory Optimal
Joey Cochran: imaginary lawyer
God Mode: when a player can see everyone’s hole cards
Boner Conduction-Technology: when your phone is on or under your dick and has an app or messages that allow you to access God Mode

Feel free to edit or add as you see fit

Stream Date: 22 April 2019
Stream Name: $1/$2/$3 No Limit Hold'em w/ Kasey & Scott
Stream Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6AGzJWaYxU

Summary:
In this episode, we are interested in the moments where Mike “The God” Apostle goes in and out of God mode.There are some characters of note in the background.

We are also interested in the players he screws over. In this episode he screws everyone except Chris Moneymaker. He gives 2k in cash to Moneymaker and 1k to DJ to rebuy.
He folds multiple times to Moneymaker even when in God mode. One hand he lets Moneymaker bluff him off a $300 pot and he folds KK.

As the last half hour is played out, the commentary lets the audience know that the production crew is out slamming shots. I wonder are they celebrating Mike killing it?

Timestamps of Events:

@10:48 Lance Hudspeth fixing cameras. Lance has a degree in Computer Science. He is Stones Live Executive Producer

@11:48 Mike buys chip

@42:00 JFK

@43:00 Mike loses $500

@1:23 Yahav stacks Moneymaker

@1:24 Mike gives Moneymaker 2k in cash

@1:37:08 Who is this guy who does that hat nod some Ocean’s Eleven type stuff


@1:37 God mode is on and stays on for two hours plus

@1:48 folds flopped trips to trips

@1:53 Three bets with KK against limpers. Gets called by Moneymaker checks it and folds best hand on flop,turn and river letting Moneymaker win 300.

@2:26 Loses hand to YAHAV as no cards are shown on broadcast for Yahav. He tries to CTO on river but then has to fold due to imperfect information

@2:28 Orders food, drops food in mouth from above like a ****ing god

@2:31 Mike bets pot on river to make his opponent fold j10 to his 109. Even the commentators were like mike must be doing this to push his opponent off?

@2:47:43 hands 1k in cash to a player DJ (seat 6)

@2:57 Who is this employee

@3:09 Yahah gets tripled barrelled bluffed

@3:14 DJ who he lent 1k to earlier is now getting f’d

@3:17 This hand is probably infamous. P. Singh seat 5 gets ****ed. Some action preflop, Mike with AdJd flops AhQd3d while Singh has 33.

Mike face on seeing flop


Singh check calls Mike 130 bet into a 300 pot. Turn is a Ks. Singh checks Mike Checks. River is 6c. Singh bet 350 into a 606 pot. Mike wags the finger and spouts some bullshit. Seems like he first says “omg that’s too big” Makes fold.

@3:30:35 Mike pays a river bet of 100 to pay off a river flush against his river straight. Slaps cards down angrily.

@3:35 P. Singh gets ****ed

@3:38 Bluffs A-aron off top pair Ad8s vs Ac6h on a 3h7dAh 5d kh board. Uses a pot size bet on the river to achieve this. The commentators are perplexed by Mike’s play.

@3:40 Loses the min to Dave C

@3:45:55 “Are you there Taylor?” The commentators are asking if Taylor is behind them in the Server/Production Room.

@3:46 God mode off, Mike double barrels into the nuts against Yahav

@3:53 “Our Production team is out doing Irish Car Bombs”

@3.53 Folds to Moneymaker

@3:55 Folds to Moneymaker

@3:57 Mike stands up and turns his back to the table and starts messaging someone on his phone

@3.58 Still standing stares over at commentator’s booth/production room

@3.59 Tips waitress (Kind God)

@ Who is this Guy?


@4:02:45 God mode is on

@4:06 Folds to Moneymaker

@4:10 3-bets with 72, cbets against two callers on a a99 flop. Wins. Last hand of the night

This is from the Sac Bee article:

That's Postle's lawyer talking there. Just incredible. When you're only hope is the aw shucks, us normal folks just lose money at casinos so someone must be winning it defense ...

I think Berkey and maybe others talked about it but those before Berkey didn't name it as above but called it sociopathic behavior or something like that.

My thinking is that JFK wasn't even capable of being a technological accomplice until long after the cheating started, because he didn't have the technological know-how. He's a people person, a manager, not a software geek. Maybe JFK got involved in sending holecard data at some point, or helped to cover it up when he found out one of his staff members was involved, but I think it's more likely that his role in this fiasco was that of negligent show-runner.

My theory is that a certain someone got promoted to the role of editing/production assistant some time between January and July 2018, and then casually told Postle something like "It's so cool. In the booth I get to see all the holecards live..." and a plan was hatched by the pair of them from there.

This lawyer is going to appeal to the 85IQ jury they are going to try to get if this thing gets to that point. "Umm Golly Gee.....i can't win, so SOMEONE has to be winning, why not my client?"

The plaintiff team is going to have to be ready to REALLY teach the jury some rudimentary probability, even if it is with the 1 white gumball in a sea of 20000 red gumballs and say that Mike's winning was like picking this one gumball out 3 times in a row. You have to make it TOUCHABLE/visible to show the ridiculousness (note that I spelled that correctly.)

I think you NEED to make the defendant's lawyer GET INTO THE NUMBERS or he will try to gloss this all over with his Forrst Gump defense.

I don't know if this is 'courtroom legal' but what about even EXAGGERATING the odds and forcing the defendants to correct you so you can say to them....."Oh.....we were off in that calculation....but it shows us you DO understand probability....so perhaps YOU'D care to give the probability on (Situations X/Y and Z) If you can get POSTLE'S attorney to start spouting incredibly large numbers, then maybe the jury can see it?

The big mystery now is who was in fact Postle's accompice(s). I still think is was a techie or two.

I have an inkling that JFK wasn't an accomplice, He was obviously incredibly stupid and preoccupied with the success of his stream and the new hero who was becoming a wonderful marketing tool sucking him in to what has now become a disastrous situation. It will actually be interesting getting a ride from JFK once he starts his new career driving for Uber.

What you don't seem to understand is that Mike did not get lucky.

Winning the powerball is indeed luck. And in poker, luck is having AA vs KK. Luck is hitting a 2-outer on the river. Luck is when you have top pair, your opponent has a straight, but a flush comes on the river and you lose the minimum.

Mike did not get lucky. Mike made the correct decision 100% of the time, which is impossible... unless he knows his opppnents hole cards. He bluff-jams with 3 over cards on the board when he knows it's almost impossible to call him. He folds top pair-straight draw to a single regular bet. He calls all-ins with 9-5 when he is getting the correct odds because he is facing two AK's. In fact, the only times he seems to lose big pots is when someone hero-calls him with Ace high when he bluff-jams.

All those perfect decisions amount to a statistically impossible win-rate. So Mike did not get lucky, he made the correct decision every single time.

Enviado desde mi SM-G970F mediante Tapatalk

Not a lawyer but one of my lines would be... "we're not talking about random events as though he got dealt pocket aces 100 times in a row, we're talking about decisions, supposedly thoughtful ones, based on years of experience, by a professional poker player. We will explain, through expert testimony, that many many of his decisions were actually bad, even crazy unless he knew his opponents cards. The defense will claim that he is just that good, he's played with the same opponents for years and he can know what they have just by looking at them, every time. We call this, "the God defense". It'll be up to you to decide if Mike Postle is a God or just a goddamned cheater.

And by exaggerate you mean get the expert math/stats guy to take the stand and say the odds of X is 1 in 4 trillion when in fact the expert knows it's 1 in 2 trillion? So basically in what world would any expert agree to take the stand and perjure themselves?

Solid work!

Imo .... He reaches up to the numbers bar a couple times out of the first 4 keystrokes. Around the 6 or 7. There is also a J or K. And less convincingly a S and a C, that side is more hidden.

I don't see any I/O/Ps for sure. Or M/Ns.

The only actual word I can tie in to his actions is a possible "tx".

It could be a holdem holding he texts followed by some abbreviation.

Or an omaha holding, like 6c7cj4s. Followed by what could be an emoji depending on his keyboard setup.

Was this an omaha round? If not then I'm at a loss with everything between what could be 6c7c and the emoji.



Why would he send this to the peek room? Because it's a reasonable thing to send them, as in if he were helping them check the reader was working ok the text is totally legit. When the real meaning was agreed beforehand as 'it's broken' or 'turn it on' or whatever.

Well said - an important distinction to make.

Yeah, I think this is the danger of the win rate being used so often. I mean, I get why it is; it's the easiest way to explain what happened very succinctly, but it possibly translates to people who haven't followed this thread as "player got really lucky, which makes the haters mad".

That said, the outlandish win rate was used frequently in the Cereus super user scandal, so it can work, but perhaps it takes a little more explaining in the live poker context, since it's much easier to understand how someone could cheat when they have backdoor access in online poker. People can't quite as easily get their heads around how it would be possible for a live player to know others' hole cards on a regular basis.