I'm not a lawyer but I think, without more evidence than what we've seen on stream there is no chance of a criminal charge, zero, like less than zero but, if they find more evidence and are confident of a conviction they will certainly pursue it despite case loads, etc, because it does threaten tax revenue. If people lose confidence in California casino's the government will lose some business to other states. It may be that few know about this incident now but once investigations are completed, it may get a lot more press and even if it doesn't, the reputation can spread organically and hurt business.

I agree with most of what you said and yes some savvy players will just wait til they can go to Vegas to play vs playing in CA. However the most common CA player is a total degen who just plays to play and they will keep gladly filling commerce, Hustler, Bay 101 and the other major rooms and paying their absurd rake to see flops

erry1 Please stop paying dividends to troll posts.

I agree that it is unlikely there will be criminal prosecution. However, the civil case is not just going to be based on how Postle played hands. I am sure a big part of the defense will be to try to confuse jurors who don't understand poker. However, it is really unlikely Stones will not settle the case thinking it can win at trial.

Arguing with someone who thinks Postle is innocent is an act of total futility, as if they can't already clearly see his guilt for themself, their judgment is so poor their opinion is worthless, so that convincing them of his guilt isn't worthwhile, as even if they then agree he is guilty, their opinion is worthless.

I don’t think anyone (that I can tell) thinks he is completely innocent.

The debatable part is if he would even be find guilty based only on statistical evidence and professional poker testimony. Too many unanswered questions from his odd playing style, lack of concrete evidence and no corroborating witnesses.

Given the public info alone, I don’t think there is a chance he goes to jail or even is found guilty civilly. I’ll wager on it. Too many way to cast doubt. And it’s not like he stole from retired Grandmas. Probably not that much sympathy for degenerate poker players.

And he isn’t the prize anyway. He is worthless. It’s the casino they are after. A jury may not like a big, bad company and believe they failed in their duty to properly investigate.

been taking a trip down memory lane and found this gem from 2016 https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...erica-1591640/

https://youtu.be/JOew5mNY9XY?t=14694

lol! this is from the 10/19/18 stream. still with a year of these shenanigans yet to come

Please educate us on the facts that prove clearly and convincingly (a middle of the road standard of proof) that Postle is "guilty" of cheating so that we can all agree with your worthwhile opinion.

Try typing in "youtube" and then "Postle poker"

He called off with 5 high, knowing the player behind would call and give him pot odds of 3 to 1 with a 40% chance of winning. He knew he was obviously behind with 5 high but somehow ended up against the only combo of hands that two good players get all in pre 3 ways that his 5 high is + EV against. 99+% of the time he’s at best 20% to win in that spot but no, the time he actually did it he’s 40% to 3 x his stack.

What were stack sizes? Obv. Postle is a cheat but my only hesitation with this play is what prevents the last player to act with AK to shove it in? Then what .. I mean you still have 5 high and need to hit. Even being able to see everyone cards it's stupid play imo

3k, 4K and Postle on 7k+. IIRC it was Postle button raise, moneymaker small blind 3 bet, big blind shoves, Postle calls, moneymaker calls.

If it helps your thinking the last to call with AK will be thinking he has to hit against potentially 10 10 and QQ having a win percentage of 36% in a 3 way pot. Yet this joker manages to find 40% 3 ways with 5 4? No...

Lawyer here. The civil case is 99.9% likely to result in a confidential settlement agreement. Not a question of if, but when that will happen. I would expect Stones to pay most of it, mainly to protect its reputation. Sadly, that means we will never learn much if anything that is uncovered in discovery.

Also, I am too lazy to figure out where this case is venued, but it should be fairly easy to keep tabs on how the case is developing through the state court website or through PACER for federal courts.

I think it has been determined that this play is +EV and he made the correct call.

There are other situations where though where he played -EV cards.

Reasons:
A) He thought he could outplay them on later streets
B) He was disguising his play by intentionally losing hands
C) He was told to play loose
D) He made mistakes
E) He wasn’t receiving the correct info

He clearly did something. This is where the casino failed because they didn’t do an investigation while in progress considering the reports and suspicious play. He could (and should) have been caught red-handed along with any confederates.

Now though, the casino is in the awkward position of having to defend someone who obviously manipulated the game (even if not to the maximum potential possible). A jury won’t feel bad about punishing a business, especially one whose business is taking money.

This is the most interesting and viable alternative to the current narrative.

Be careful. You are called a troll if you interfere with the narrative that he was a massive cheat.

He was a MASSIVE manipulator and a mini-cheat.

This characterization makes it sound like you believe he would have gotten the vast majority of winnings without knowing his opponents hole cards. Is that what you're saying by "mini-cheat"? He could have had most of that win rate but decided to cheat (and risk losing that ongoing windfall) to just bump it up a little?

And your premise for his motivation to do that is what again? That he did it as a favor to Stones to be able to play in those juicy games?

And no, you're labeled a troll when you conclude things like the thread only has shown evidence that is statistics based, which is only one small element of one part of the evidence provided.

Yes, he would have won somewhat in the same range. He is an experienced pro that is used to playing in front of the cameras vs. a bunch of fish. His sessions would be far different but he would definitely be the biggest winner.

Mutual. They may have paid him like a prop. He took a lot of risk with his playing style and he was lucky he was playing against bad players with his playing style.


The way he played hands and the statistics do not add up to a person who is solely interested in maximizing profit. It shows an elite poker player that took unnecessary risk for also a lower return.

I would assume Stones does not want anything made public. I don't know why people are assuming they don't have additional technical and eye witness evidence.


They made a federal case of it.

OK. Thanks. I don't know why it took me this long to confirm to myself that you should not be taken at all seriously, but this does it.

To make clear to others: golfnutt has concluded that Mike Postle did in fact cheat but he would have won an amount in the same range even if he did not see the hole cards of the other players.

I won't be reading your posts anymore. Carry on.

This thread seems constantly infected by trolls defending Postle. Perhaps someone has an interest in confusing the issue.

He took a risk playing this style ?

Did I miss something ? He played this style because he knew what cards everyone had and knew when they missed a flop he could bet them off. Or if had kk and a flopped could bet them off.

Are you trying to say he should of played tighter even though he knew what cards everyone had ?

He, or his lawyers, will be in the courtroom many times for pre-trial motions. You should rephrase this that it won't go to trial/summary judgment.