I think its pretty easy to convince a jury here, and I also think that the optimal lawyer in that situation is a good jury advocate, not a poker player. (Indeed, if this ever got to a trial, I would urge that the prominent poker players who are listed on the pleadings cede the floor to a skilled civil litigator with jury trial experience to do the trial.)

The key is NOT to get bogged down in statistics, which a poker player-lawyer might get tempted to do. What Postle DOES on the videos, and the correlation between his playstyle and the timeline, shows he did it. And all of that is totally understandable to a jury without ever mentioning a winrate.

Yes and we have these. Why is this concept so difficult to understand for people?

It's bizarre.

I believe that’s typically all getting captured by the Poker GFX software. The hole cards read by the RFID technology is just one part of it. Everything else that gets displayed on the on-screen graphics was entered by someone, so I can see that it would be able to essentially capture a full hand history if the person entering the info is thorough enough.

You can also obtain the information through the light patterns from the screen through your eyes as it converts the information and downloads to your brain.

I was not clear but I was also referring to the information in the graphics (stacks, bets, pot) that get calculated using the GFX software in addition to the hole card info.

When I was gathering my data I relied on the graphics for the hole cards, but I followed the action to verify that the bets on the graphics matched what was on the table. It takes longer, but you can see the chips that are being bet.

Sometimes the graphics got the bets incorrect. So other than the hole cards I didn't rely on them for the information.

Also you can pretty closely estimate people's stacks and make sure it is consistent with what the graphics were reporting. Those were wrong sometimes as well.

That doesn't mean we don't have the HH or can't obtain them.

That's what I think people are assuming who say this.

Yeah, but TimM’s post seemed to imply that all that would be gotten from that system is the hole cards, so I was pointing out that it has more than that, subject to the accuracy of the person entering the data.

If anything, I think most mods allow plenty of leeway, especially in NVG. Someone usually has to be very determined in their efforts to prove they're an asshat before they get banned, and it's usually after a warning.

I imagine the complete play history has already been outsourced by the plaintiffs to some data entry firm in India.

I hope they sent it somewhere abroad rather than India, as the quality there tends to be very low. However, I agree that should be part of the evidence they are assembling.

When did India become domestic?

1) Crotch staring theory: Is this theory combined to theory that Postle have some kind of brain damage with a short term memory loss? If not why stare, when typically there is only one opponent in hand and in hold'em players are dealt with two cards? Not hard to remember to anyone with half functioning brain. One or two fast looks are enough no need to stare forever.

2) Theory that he is cheating because of statistic: There is red- and blue line variance. This theory only holds if it is unlikely enough to run that hot to win as much. If it's like one in a trillion, then it's clear. One in a million and we are at least very close.

At the moment: We don't know true winning amount and thus not know true winrate. And we don't know variance. There is only speculation based on bad information.

My take: Postle's winning are inside the range that one can win by running super hot during like 10 000 hands we are talking here. Could be that I'm wrong, and I have no problems with that at all. If I'm wrong I'm not a way off. It's like it's a realm of possibility to win 50bb/100, but Postle won 65bb/100 during 10 000 hands (assuming that we convert winrates better known NL variant so that they are equivalent to games with no antes, bomb pots etc.). I have no money in line here and are not emotionally invested to this at all.

3) Theory that Postle plays clearly shows that he sees his opponents hole cards: Not true at all. Just by watching stream and thinking what would be an optimal play there if you know your opponents hole cards reveals that. So, this theory only holds, if we assume that Postle sees holecards and is hiding that information by playing a way that it is not evident.

4) Postle's plays clearly reveals that he is cheating: Problem here is that if someone with Youtube poker channel with a million followers would make video where Garrett Adelsteins would be accused as cheater, most of the poker world would believe. Because it's not about evidence, but popularity game. Same as in the high school. It's shown here as well, when people are banned on discussion forum from saying the truth that there is a ton of lazy argumentation in this case. High school bullying in it's best.

5) There is live reads at low stakes NL especially. Very many times good live readers are able to make heroic folds / calls and raises since their opponents are so easy to read when they have it and then when they have not. If those plays are evidence then it's evidence that Daniel Negreanu is a clear cheater, when he plays WSOP. Just by closely looking how he plays shows it.

After all these no idea if Postle cheated or not. Only thing
I know is that there is a lot of very lazy argumentation in this case.

ComeOnNow.....excellent name

ComeOnNow waited for like the instant he was unbanned to pick up right where he left off.

Kudos to your determination but Jebus you’re annoying and wasting time


You’re right about a lazy argumentation - you were lazy and ignorant in writing what you did. You need another timeout to try and process why you’re so wrong in so many ways.

Ok. Now I'm confused. Is new theory, that Postle get holecard information at river?

Perfect is not correct word btw. Most of the time is true (not arguing aganist camp which says too often). Then there is even some Youtube videos, where they laugh that cheater Postle made a bad play in river and lost.

Personally I don't like forum, where people are called by names against posting guidelines, but whatever.

Why don't you play higher if you are that good? That was advice give to younger me when I played some NL1000 and was cocky how good I was. Good advice. Did not played higher bc love my money. Maybe you have that same reasoning.

Please give an example hand (or multiple) where Postle doesn't play like he knows his opponent's hole cards. What hand do you think he deviated from optimal omniscient play???

ComeOnNow,

I’m not going in shitposting circles with you. You don’t have the sophistication regarding the matter at hand to be addressed further. The mods can handle you or you can enjoy the musings of SimpleRick

I know this is probably a troll but the perfect information at the river is the fact he knows ALL the cards. Its clear he knows the hole cards before the flop.

This whole thing just goes to prove how dumb and greedy Mike Postle was. If he would have only selectively used this knowledge there would have been a ton of hands where its clear he didn't know what is going on. If he would have bluff/folded a few times against a rebluff it would leave enough doubt in peoples mind.......

But..... criminals are dumb and nearly always get caught. Hope it was worth all the mess you have caused for yourself.
God knows who some of the psychopaths he cheated out of money are.
Good luck with that!

Like here: (35:16)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w4TguWyUH0&t=769s

Postle T8s, Matt H: KK.

Pre if holecards know optimal for Postle is fold.

Now Postle raise and call 3-bet to 600$

Flop: K84 (one suit Postle have)

Matt H: raise 450$. Postle have 5% equity and he calls. Correct play is fold, if hole cards are known.

Both PF and flop are huge mistakes if you know your opponent cards.

Turn brick 3

And now Postle folds.

Same stream (50:30):
Joe B K7s, Postle J7s.

Board: 68T72 (flush possible river)

Postle call flop 400$ and call turn 500$. Then check river. Highly unoptimal, if cards are known.

And those two are just two first hand I watched to Postle play to find examples to you. Pretty much sure there is no stream, where there is not multiple similar types of examples.

Not sure we can have a debate with someone that can't put together coherent sentences in English.

The river plays are pretty damning evidence. As are some of the funky flop call, turn fold situations.

I'm always amused by the "Postle Used LIVE READS" argument. When we can watch him stare at his dick the whole hand and not pay any attention to his opponent's mannerisms.

I said I wasn’t going to engage further so welcome to ignore land

https://youtu.be/6w4TguWyUH0?t=2040

So ... you don't know what you're looking at. They're $6k deep. The implied odds of stacking the guy makes the $600 preflop pretty reasonable. Especially with the way the preflop action went.

The flop bet is tiny relative to the pot and the stacks. A call looking for a BDFD isn't a terrible idea as you know you're stacking the KK if you get there. Without running the numbers I'd expect that to be pretty close there.

So we've got a correct Preflop play, a close flop play, and a correct turn play.

It's not if you know before you raise PF that your opponent have KK.

450$ and you face 100% time turn bet, which you can not call profitable with any turn card. Sounds like 450$ mistake to me. Ok, maybe you can call some diamonds if turn bet is small, so 400$ mistake.

There are tons of hands like that. 100% clear Postle plays highly unoptimally, if he knew hole cards.

Produce some more hands then. Because that one is him running a max exploitation line with a reasonable estimate of a backdoor draw's odds.

Also, in English next time.

When you can see your opponents' hole cards (especially when your opponents are active), you want to play a ton of pots and don't mind bloating pots. Concepts such as direct odds, implied odds, etc., kinda lose their meaning in that situation as you can max-exploit on the river. And, of course, you'll very likely have ample opportunity to win back any lost money in future deals.