Hi Ray:

I don't agree. You bring in a top notch statistician who can talk about the possible fluctuations of the game and do a good job explaining why probability theory can be counter-intuitive and the jury will become so confused that I believe nothing would be awarded in a civil case. In fact, if the defense asked the proper questions (which is a big if), I think this would be a slam dunk for Postle.

Best wishes,
Mason

Got it, thanks. Big difference.

Mason,

In a vacuum you may be correct but with all the other evidence of cheating, his performance while looking at his lap vs a no lap session, the time he asked a player to rescan his cards because the reader didn't pick them up, (LOL, how would he know) I think the jury could be convinced of his guilt.

Hi pro:

All of that is certainly true, but a good explanation as to how statistical theory can and does work is very powerful and should thoroughly confuse the jury, and that's the key.

Best wishes,
Mason

A good way to consider how a jury case against Postle would go is to consider how an average person is going to react to this case ... most jurors are sitting there as if they're being told a story ... the story is generally too long, and not about something they care about :

"a guy is accused of cheating in a poker game using technology to gain knowledge of his opponents cards"

at this point you believe it's possible, otherwise it wouldn't even be here in court, but you want proof

"a detailed explanation of standard deviations and variance and stuff you may or may not understand"

cool great, zzz ... do you have any proof?

"he won tons and tons of money and there are situations on film which experts in this game indicate are proof he was cheating"

cool glad they did the work i'm not watching all that **** ... how did he do it?

"we don't exactly know, here are our guesses"

hmm that sucks, but yeah he prolly did it

If this seems oversimplified, it's because you're looking at it with an in-depth understanding of poker, which makes it fairly obvious he was cheating, or you're looking at it trying to play devil's advocate to find ways he could potentially get off ... people who are unwilling to do any critical thinking are going to go with the majority, and people who want to do the extra work to really understand this are going to see the writing on the wall ... when's the last time you heard someone actually admit they're confused, or respond to a query with "i don't know actually" ... it's optimistic to think that people are going to be both unable to understand the evidence AND willing to admit that ... Postle is beat-city

Hi Rosa:

I don't agree with part of your analysis. Why would a statistician bother with an explanation of the standard deviation? I certainly wouldn't and I had a career as a professional statistician.

What I would do is look at the most extreme case. Probability theory tells us that out of a large number of people someone has to be the luckiest, and there has been a lot of poker shows where a lot of different people have been filmed playing poker.

Then concede that Postle may have been that luckiest person.

Then discuss what you think the luckiest person's play would look like.

Then compare Postle's play to that of the (mythical) luckiest person.

QED

This should thoroughly confuse any jury and confused juries don't vote to convict.

Best wishes,
Mason

Also the win rate calculations this forum relies on to verify its assumptions are riddled with inaccuracies such as including amounts won at higher stakes into low stakes win rates, and inflating amounts won by not accurately capturing rebuys and add on's will easily be torn apart in court.

Some very good points by Mason. It's not what you know it's what you can prove in court. Hopefully Verstandig is well aware of this and has the talent to push through.

By the time the lawyers, accountants and hired experts watch every hand multiple times and settle on a figure that has to be paid back (by the casino? Postle LOL?), will there be any money left for the plantiffs?

So what's Mike Postle doing these days? Crushing the phone app games?

The plaintiff's attorney fronts the costs for their case. That is why you want a large firm with deep pockets. They are investing in the case and therefore will not take on likely losers.

Good lawyers turn down many cases because there are better opportunities.

Most independent lawyers appear to believe Postle has the advantage. In particular, the inability of the plaintiff to be specific on the $ damages they incurred. Having the third best hand means you would not have won even if P was not in the hand.

mason is probably right in the outcome of a civil case especially if they go after the big money casino that has the lawyer power. but anyway they would likely settle before going through all the mud. you never know what a civil jury will do and award.
however the participants that received the winnings will have the irs problems as there is proof of winnings that likely have not been declared for years.

If you crushed hs poker 15 years ago there is no reason at all to assume you would be any good at poker these days.

95% of those guys, looking back on it now, sucked at poker. They would need tremendous work on their games to be considered good these days.

So 15 years ago the guys that crushed HS online did so without working on their games?

I have a friend who thinks he is a crusher at tournament poker because he binked a couple online tournaments for a few grand back in 2009. He is absolutely horrible, since I have known him back in 2014 I haven't seen him even cash a tournament live and online. It's so bad I won't even swap percentages of tournaments we play in together anymore. I am sick of being the only one who pays out.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the popularity opened him doors into multiple Pokerbros clubs

Mason, if the prosecution cross examines the statistician, couldn't they demonstrably prove that Postles crazy winrate is unheard of/ nearly impossible?

You're advocating the Chewbacca Defense, which only works if there's no opposing counsel to untangle the BS for the jury.

This one got me. How can anyone be good in 2009 and suck in 2020? Only binked a few?

So no news of Mike Postle?

But what is the hourly win rate we're talking about? And what is the per hour of play expense, for the accountants and lawyers to watch the video? I imagine very quickly those expenses will exceed the winnings of Postle.

Even if you get 3x damages awarded, if the casino is only responsible for 10% or so (which is ballpark as the '2 conspirators' are mostly responsible) then they'll need the judgement proof idiots to pay up, which we know they never will.

Counter-argument is that the winnings in total dollars was negligible, show examples of crazy runs that have happened that seem statistically unlikely, and the jury will be like 'pokers gonna poker'. Case closed.

News Flash: Players have gotten better; games have gotten tougher.

Exactly, which is why the prosecution of this case should not be focused on the overall winrate but rather on the actual hands that were played.

Hi Venice:

Read my Post #10781.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi pocket:

Except that it's not BS. The knowledgeable statistician wouldn't say anything that wasn't consistent with statistical theory. Again, read my Post #10781.

This is a little side story, but many years ago when I walked for Northrop, at a meeting, where I was the statistician meeting with a bunch of engineering managers, including our vice-president, he actually made me a $20 bet that what I was saying couldn't make any sense. From my perspective, it was easy money, and that's what I believe would happen here.

Best wishes,
Mason