Quote:
Originally Posted by PTLou
certainly not going to question your legal opinion.
but would seem circumstantial evidence in a murder trial is a bit different than circumstantial evidence in this case (win rates, poker strategy, crotch peeks etc etc)
wouldnt a crim case come down to whether or not they uncover direct evidence of cheating or not? if so, why would they muddy the case with poker stuff that will be very hard to explain to jury.
We've covered this upthread, but the way to win this case is through all the evidence that doesn't have to do with winrates.
The basic storyline is this: guy starts playing on the stream and plays a relatively standard style of poker, including paying off with some second best hands in coolers, folding the best hand, and folding hands with a chance to win. Then he suddenly buries his phone in his crotch and, only on days when his buddy is in the control booth, he starts playing like he knows everyone's hands and amasses $300,000 in winnings doing it. Just as suddenly, his buddy leaves for Las Vegas and he can't do it anymore and changes his play style back to the way he did it before. His buddy comes back and he starts wearing a bulging hat which he grabs onto like an NFL quarterback and he plays like he knows everyone's cards again.
None of this is outside of the understanding of the jury, and all of it is supported by hard, irrefutable evidence.