There were no Rule 26 initial disclosures?

For readers who have been keeping up with the Twitter dialogues since Mike Postle and Justin Kuraitis released their respective post-settlement statements...

Several high profile members of the poker community are organizing an effort to scrape the Stone Live Cash Game hand histories that Mike Postle was involved in, and extrapolate that data into a spreadsheet that calculates how much Postle won during those live streams.

why are people still bothered trying to come up with new stats for this?

100% of players know he is guilty
Theres nothing you can do legally

So why bother? Just accept it and move on? whilst never forgetting Postle/Stones

Here's a story that Andrew Burnett posted earlier today via HighStakesDB.

https://www.highstakesdb.com/10568-p...legations.aspx (Sep 20, 2020)

"The Mike Postle gang may have just picked on the wrong person – the recent Twitter storm created by Justin Kuraitis and Stones Gambling Hall bringing Phil Galfond into the Postlegate cheating scandal with a vow to investigate..."

There are a few reasons to do this.

First off, for the past year, and especially during the past 6 months, Postle has had various troll friends of his harassing people on Twitter who were associated with the accusations.

While most of poker still believes that Postle was guilty, some of these trolls have changed a few minds through repetition. They basically keep repeating over and over, "Joey Ingram cherrypicked hands", "Veronica was just trying to get poker famous", and "The win rate was grossy miscalcuated", to where casual observers weren't sure what to think.

When I've had people asking me if it's possible that Postle was wrongly accused, I tell them to watch the old Joey Ingram videos of his play. However, those videos are really long and are mostly live riffing, with occasional "gotcha" moments mixed within.

Also, there's that documentary coming out, which may or may not have a pro-Postle tone.

Also, one of Postle's friends (Khou Fang aka poker_thug/poker_grandma) keeps implying that a libel/slander lawsuit is coming against various people in poker.

For all of these reasons, it would be great to have a definitive, well-analyzed full picture of Postle's sessions, winrate, actions, etc.

Bart Hanson finally made a nice hourlong summary this week of the worst Postle hands, as some of you have already seen. That was a great start.

But still... we are getting the "cherrypicking" crap. Galfond's project should take care of that.

Now, are we likely to get any kind of concession from Kuraitis or Postle's friends at that point? Of course not. They will stick to the same "Postle was wronged" narrative until their dying days. However, once there are comprehensive, respected studies we can easily link, that pretty much shuts down the conversation.

This would also be very useful for anyone sued for saying Postle was cheating. After all, truth is the ultimate defense to any libel/slander lawsuit.

guys just move on if you cant do anything about it, no more complaints its been too long move on

I also feel the same way, for the most part.

People are focusing upon the wrong thing when criticizing Mac. The settlement amount, while low, isn't his fault. He actually did better than he'd have done had he won in litigation, as the settlement amount ($40k) was more than the rake paid ($30k), and the rake paid was the maximum he could recover.

I don't blame Mac for immaturity of California law.

However, it seems that he might have ignored the public implications of this settlement, as it is quite different from something like a settlement from a car accident.

This settlement was monetary, but it had non-monetary costs to the plaintiffs, which needed to be considered.

Among other things, the statement Stones/Kuraitis wanted read mostly like a full exoneration for them, and that's not good. It's not good for poker, and it's not good for the plaintiffs. 62 people signed their name to a statement they likely don't believe (that they're "satisfied" Kuraitis had no involvement and did nothing wrong), and this could lead to public shaming on social media and elsewhere.

For example, is anyone going to take Jeff Boski seriously again after he put his name on that BS statement to receive a whopping $400? Talk about selling out for peanuts.

There was also the factor of Stones/Kuraitis weaponizing the statement in order to taunt the victims and whistleblowers, which they most definitely have. This isn't a surprise at all. The plaintiffs should have been warned that this was a possibility before they signed their names to it and collected their $400. I definitely wouldn't have.

As their attorney, Mac is forced to present settlement offers to his clients (even crappy ones), and to arrange settlements to which both sides agree (again, even if he personally disagrees). I understand that, and I don't blame him for that part.

However, he also has the power to recommend that his clients NOT take the settlement, and I feel that's what he should have done here.

The non-monetary costs of accepting were just too high, in comparison to the very modest monetary gain for all parties.

I'm a little baffled why Mac didn't recommend against this. Perhaps the professionalism of Stones' attorneys caused him to believe that Stones/Kuraitis weren't going to weaponize the statement to troll people on Twitter. I doubt Mac cared about the $15k or so he was paid for this. That's likey peanuts to him, and he defiitely could have done without it.

In fact, had he advised his clients to reject the settlement for the above reasons, and they did so, he would have been seen as a hero, and I'm guessing a Shaun Deeb type would've stepped up and paid these people the same amount anyway.

Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I really wish that Mac had advised his clients not to take the settlement, given what was likely to follow.

I say all of this as someone who likes him personally, and I've been impressed with most of his work otherwise. It's great to have an attorney who specializes in poker cases, so I don't agree with a lot of the trolling against him. I think he's a smart and ethical guy, and we should be glad to have him. I just wish this particular part of it went differently.

It's so infuriating, as an experienced player, to see Postle+partners getting away with this. It's so clear there's a near 100% he was cheating.

However, even if winrate+stat type data are compiled good luck convincing a jury. The general public has such a poor understanding of probability and statistics. Also the overlay into poker is an additional large nuance. My confidence in the average Joe "getting it" even when presented with good arguments, is very low. Much more likely to buy into "he just soulread /liveread and made the right decision" over and over even though we know it's impossible over the sample. In fact, this is likely what happened the first go around in court.

It's even more tilting to see Mike and Justin end zone spiking in our faces, but I highly doubt there's a convictable case without hard evidence (ie text or call with smoking gun admission)

who is "they"?

you are really aligning yourself with some high level thinkers here jay.

so bizarre how someone who has been posting on this thread since the start can still fail to critically assess the difficulty of the situation at the time this was made public. And prefer to throw blame around at people other than those involved in the cheating.

at that time. the whistleblower had already privately raised the issue to management, been told it's been investigated and that there is nothing to see here. At that point in time, like everyone else, she did not know what was going on, just believed something was amiss. so the choices were:

1. Easy option: shut up, ignore it and carry on. Avoid sitting in games with Postle
2. Hard option: Speak up that something is wrong

(3. alternate reality fantasy option of the genius posters above: Angry Polak, independently of the casino, conducts a covert sting operation. With her own funds hire some retired navy seals or CIA operatives to intercept phone signals, descend in from the ceiling and of course strip search him etc. etc.)

thankfully she took the hard option to speak up, which is what led to the detailed video analysis that has informed us since

In fairness, I think FlatTireSuited was poking fun at the fact that you referred to Veronica in a reply to AngryPolak, suggesting you didn't know they're the same person. I had the same response.

Sort of reminds me of "The Jimmy" episode of Seinfeld.

I am me

Unhappy, yet stunningly beautiful, polak, to the best of your knowledge has a criminal investigation been initiated? How do most people feel Postle accomplished his cheat, what methods?
Is Postle still allowed to play there? Does he? Do you?
There have to be others in the know; why, in your opinion, has no one ran their mouth and spilled the beans?
Thanks and good for you for having the courage to report him.

It's not nearly as fun when it's broken down like that!

I met Veronica in Vegas. Incredibly nice person who did something that a vast majority of people would never have had the guts to do, and for her troubles she's gotten nothing but hardship and spiteful trolling and gaslighting by Postle and/or various associates, henchmen, worshippers, or other denizens of the Postle-is-the-victim world. Questioning the decisions she made and in the order she made them just because, with the benefit of hindsight, a different course of action might have been able to produce a far more satisficing result for justice is absolutely absurd. Captain Hindsights, in general, and definitely to this sad saga, just suck.

Yup. The constant Twitter troll attacks on Veronica (and even a few here) are particularly infuriating to watch.

She did something selfless and took a fair amount of reputational risk by coming forward with this, and she's taking needless abuse from idiots trying to question her motives.

I expected it from Postle's low-life buddies, but everyone else doing it should be ashamed of themselves.

I especially like the one where Veronica should've gotten some agency to secretly monitor JFK and Postle's bank account activities. lol

I am sorry, the fact that Veronica thinks "some people entertaining some sort of sting operation lead by those of us who thought he was cheating is lol" and others agreeing with her shows how pride is preventing her admitting she and those she spoke about her doubts with, which included Joey Ingram, screwed up on this by not getting any evidence before going public. It is not lol to get evidence before making an accusation, it is common sense, to prevent exactly what happened after the allegations from happening.

By going public they gave time for the guilty people to cover evidence, and to stop doing their cheating again in a live stream, so there was no longer a chance of Postle being caught red handed, or caught at all. Results speak for themself, the case has been a failure, and the people involved still clearly aren't doing a post exercise review to work out what went wrong.

Lawyer Mac's understanding of the law seems very poor, as his action ran into legal obstacles that he should have anticipated, and thus realised the case was not practical. He saw it as a chance for him to make his name as a poker law specialist, but it has achieved the reverse of this.

As the crimes were committed during filmed streaming, the option those with suspicions should have taken was to have met, sat down, watched the film together to brainstorm what Postle was up to, and someone very quickly would have noticed he kept looking under the table before playing a hand, and then someone could have sat next to him in a subsequent streamed game to see exactly what he was up to under the table.

Veronica is great, and impressive in most areas, but she has a blind spot about how badly she went about getting this addressed once her complaints to Kuraitis were ignored.

Mate, you are a stooge to say such things about Veronica. What do you think she is, a private investigator? She went to Justin with the accusation, and what happened? NOTHING.

So, instead of trying to do some half-a## investigation (without access to all things you think she does have access to), she made it public. She shut the whole thing down so that the locals (and people flown in to play at Stones) could no longer be cheated.

She wasn't thinking about timing and Joey Ingram - she was thinking about putting a stop to a massive cheater / something illegal.

Your idiotic (sorry, but it is) statement needs to replace the name "Veronica" with "Justin" and wonder why he didn't do anything? How did all of this go on under his nose - either he was in on it or he is 110% incapable of running a poker room and (clearly) even Stones' twitter account.

I won't speak about Mac, and I don't think you should either unless you're a lawyer and know the subject - because it seems clear that if you cheat a slot machine (man v machine), the law will come after you with passion. But in poker (man v man) / gambling disputes, things are much different.

Did she ever answer the question as to why she continued to invite Postle to her private game after she believed him to be cheating?

Yea, guess it makes sense what she did, it just sucks that's after all this time we get this half assed resolution to probably biggest cheating scandal in modern times.

She couldn't have known there already isn't proof of some sort, and protecting the players and stopping the cheating was a priority.

The fact that courts can't decide when it comes to gambling is just disheartening, it just incentivizes cheating.

So you state she was speaking with Joe Ingram before the suspicions were made public? Is this accurate?

You and others above do have a romantic, fantastical notion of an everyday citizen catching the bad guy through a cunning undercover sting operation. Too many movies

You keep saying “they” as in they went public, who are you referring to? Didn’t seem like anyone else was complaining to management about this or bringing it to light

Results speak for themselves. Despite the casino and poker mgmt providing no assistance whatsoever, as soon as the suspicion was made public the cheating was stopped. Immediately. Postle was also persona non grata in poker from that day since.

Pretty good result compared to the status quo at the time.

Why is the “case” solely the problem / responsibility of the concerned whistle blower?

“post exercise review” makes you sound like a moron tbh

No you have a blind spot in not being able to recognise the difference between being an armchair expert with 20/20 hindsight vs. the reality of actually dealing with a difficult ongoing situation

You are rewriting history, she didn't go public to shut the thing down, she went public that she thought one of the players there was cheating.

Yes, Justin not doing anything would ring alarm bells, I wonder at what stage Veronica and the people she shared her cheating concerns about wondered if Justin was colluding with Postle. I understand she knew and trusted Postle and Justin, and that it would take time to even begin to imagine that people you thought you knew well and liked you were actually cheating you and your friends, so Postle doubts would be more immediate, and then gradually ones on Justin once he failed to act on the concerns and actively supported Postle.

The fact Justin seems to have emerged unscathed is another of the very unsatisfying outcomes of this flawed investigation, as he was negligent if not involved, and fraudulent if colluding with Postle. This is comments mate, if one thinks a lawyer has brought about a poor case one has the freedom to say so. Legally enforcing gambling debts is a minefield, so when the emotion of the situation lifted the picture of having gathered no evidence, in an area that is very hard to bring a case in, make it a risky case to even try to bring to court.

I have always thought this would make a great film, as it has all the plot of a great film, betrayal, gambling, friendship, Veronica's actions are dramatic, so who knows, some good may come out of it all indirectly, and the whole world will learn not to play poker against someone who keeps looking under the table.

Sorry, you are wrong in saying the cheating at Stones stoped, as you still dont know how it was done, you can't say with certainty it has stopped. That is another unsatisfactory outcome, it still wasn't established beyond doubt what he did.

If you think post exercise review makes me sound like a moron I guess you don't work in roles where once a piece of work is done, you look back on it to see how it went, and if it could have been improved. Or post exercise review, for short.

I said right from the beginning they had gone public too early with their suspicions, not just saying this now for the first time. If people like you think doing a prosecution without getting evidence first is sensible, good luck.

When you are discussing a poker player outing a poker cheat and you talk about “post exercise reviews” you do sound like a moron sorry

You keep saying “they” without answering the question about who you are referring to. You also didn’t answer the question about whether your statement that she was talking to Joe Ingram before going public is factual.

And yes, we do know the Postle cheating stopped. Only way you could doubt this is if you are in denial that he was cheating, which judging by some of your other posting actually wouldn’t be a big surprise

Please give him a break. His management consulting firm sent him on a weekend course, and the teacher said: "Post Exercise Review can be applied to every facet of your life!"

@Jay Why Culturally, we have evolved in that poker players no longer pull out guns, firing away at the other cowboy that's cheating, but we are not quite where your grinder in Sacramento thinks: "Hmmmm what would a McKinsey VP with an MBA from LSE do in this situation? I'll start setting up meetings and creating flowcharts in PowerPoint."

WIRED article on the Postle cheating scandal