Mike Postle and his lawyer are gearing up to face the accusations

[the_hnicos]

I've been avidly following this since it broke and while I think we all know he is guilty I'm worried if they are going to be able to prove this in court... I feel like the system can be gamed by lawyers too easily and this is all going to blow over w/o proper punishment handed out. Stones is going to be trying everything they can to make this go away, and money talks, I'm sure they aren't going to spare any expense on this thing when their gaming license could be at risk.

 

[zinzir]

There is not an upper limit to, how fast you can lose money in poker, because there is no limit to, how bad you can play. There is however an upper limit to, how fast you can win, because you cant play better than perfect. When you literally never make a mistake, then the rest is variance, and at some point variance become a statistic improbability.

I beg to differ, Sir. If there is a limit one way, there is a limit the other way too. Astronomical loss rates in poker as just as much of a statistical aberration as astronomical win rates.

I suggest you make a cheap experiment: go to ACR and play a 1-2 cent table with a min buy in of 80 cents. Try to play the opposite way you are considering to be optimal and be ready to re-buy a few times. See how you did at the end of the session. Depending which side of the variance you are on that day, you might end up with a winning session. Repeat as many times as you like and compare the outcome with your normal play, you might be surprised to find out it's not an astronomical difference at all.

I don't see how you think there is no Evidence in this case, really have you not seen all the STREAM breakdowns that have been done, the countless times where plays were made that have been off the reservation to say the least. The only thing I will agree with you is that we are all innocent until proven guilty, Patterns that we use show a course of action, this action SCREAMS CHEATER....

I was talking about evidence to be presented in court, not the kind of evidence you are presenting, which builds up a great case to investigate Postle for cheating, not to convict him.
Example: Guy with no job splashes loads of cash left and right, has a super expensive car, dudes keep shaking hands with him in a way suspicious of exchanging small objects with him, and people say he's the man to see if you want drugs. Most people would agree he's a drug dealer, but can the prosecutor take this guy to Court and expect the judge to convict him of dealing drugs based on that type of evidence? No, the guy needs to be caught selling drugs, with the real drugs presented as evidence and witnesses to testify that they saw the actual drug dealing taking place.

This is just the same as someone might being able to explain, why his car was parked near the place, where a murder took place, other than he is the killer. Maybe he visited a dentist, and the dentist can confirm this. That is how, crime cases are being solved. The person accused need to explain the things, that look suspicious, and if he is unable to do that, he is usually convicted.

You are right about the murder example, but it's hardly the same thing. The case was opened because a murder took place, there is a dead body. In Postle's case all you have is a screen image of someone who looks like he's dead, but he could be asleep, or just meditating
Also, I hope nobody is convicted of murder just because he can't explain things that look suspicious. In my opinion you are making a confusion here between not having an alibi and being guilty.

 

[terryk]

Anyone with half a brain can deduce that Postle was cheating by watching the video footage,,,it's not even close. :damnmate: Convincing a jury is another story,,,,

 

[CallmeFloppy]

I wasnt the first one to think this is another possibility- he could be a time traveling wizard.

This is another possibility, but would still be cheating.

Please hang on while I try to explain this possibility.

Obviously he can't have a future self who knows the cards sit at the same table as his past self. The commentators would have gone nuts having two Mikes to explain for and worship and we all know the largest religions have one god. (but then if they got a third mike then they might be able to have a holy trinity . . . .hhhmmm) I guess he could have sent the Young Biff . . er. . Past Mike the information in text messages from a different phone by Old Biff . . er Future Mike and that is what he is reading off his phone. Bad signal quality would explain the long pauses.

Or he was just reading the Grey's Poker Almanac off his phone and lost his spot.

 

[Dutydog]

When you state it that way, 45o all in pre with 2 others is um...

I'm not proficient in poker but I don't think it takes a genius to know that's just stupid play, right?

I'm trying really hard to be neutral but some things just really need some explanation.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. That seems to be the fundamental flaw in his defence. I would have thought his lawyer would be better off saying nothing in public at this stage.

 

[fundiver199]

I beg to differ, Sir. If there is a limit one way, there is a limit the other way too. Astronomical loss rates in poker as just as much of a statistical aberration as astronomical win rates.

No they are not. online poker players have collected trillions of hands on their trackers, and the data clearly show, that depending on stakes the upper limit for winning is somewhere around 10 BB / 100, while the worst players lose at up to 100 BB / 100 or 10 times as fast.

This is why, you often see a whole table full of sharks circling around a single fish, and if the fish is bad enough, he pay for the rake of the entire table, and all the sharks can still take out a small profit. The distribution of winrates in poker is not a symmetrical curve, because everyone is not equally good.

 

[fundiver199]

In Postle's case all you have is a screen image of someone who looks like he's dead, but he could be asleep, or just meditating

We also have a winrate, that no poker player in history has ever achieved without cheating, and we have dusins of hands, that were played in a way, that only makes sense, if he knew, what his opponents had. And we have footage of him acting in a way, which only makes sense, if he knew his opponents cards.

I am not going to go through all the examples. You can start by watching the videos made by Doug Polk, if you are actually interested in the case and not just in looking smart in a forum. Over and out.

 

[BUSB0Y]

There’s no way I could convict the guy of cheating beyond a reasonable doubt though. If this was a murder trial w same evidence, could you convict the guy w a clear conscience? Most of you are implying that “yes” there is more than enough evidence to convict... but there really is zero physical evidence. W/o any smoking gun, as disappointing as it is to hear, fairness suggests that he gets a pass same as OJ Simpson.

 

[terryk]

There’s no way I could convict the guy of cheating beyond a reasonable doubt though. If this was a murder trial w same evidence, could you convict the guy w a clear conscience? Most of you are implying that “yes” there is more than enough evidence to convict... but there really is zero physical evidence. W/o any smoking gun, as disappointing as it is to hear, fairness suggests that he gets a pass same as OJ Simpson.

Yep,,,,both guilty. OJ got his,lol,and Postle will too. and yes,i would convict both without a sleepless night.

 

[Shells]

I guess we will have to wait and see! I'm sure there will be updates as time goes on.

 

[BUSB0Y]

Yep,,,,both guilty. OJ got his,lol,and Postle will too. and yes,i would convict both without a sleepless night.

I obviously can see your (and everyone else's) position.

However, and it's a big however, if YOUR OWN life was on the line, I'm sure you'd appreciate a juror like me with a very open mind.

Imagine a situation in which Mike Postle was really some alien god with superhuman powers, and it was more important to him to keep this a secret than to clear his good name. So he made it look like he was cheating, when in fact he actually just knows what people have. Since you have no physical evidence, you cannot prove this theory wrong either.

So you will have executed an innocent man. Not just a man, but the only alien to have ever visited Earth. You think you can sleep well at night, but can you really?

 

[HobokenNJ]

In my opinion, it is a very good defense. The burden of proof should be on the accusers' shoulders. They need to prove that there were headphones under the hat and that he was receiving real time information about the opponents' hands. Anyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The burden is on the accusers' shoulders... and its based on the preponderance of the evidence. I think most fair-minded people would come to the conclusion (based solely what's available today) that the accusers' have met their burden.

It's outlined in more detail elsewhere in this thread, but in a nutshell -- (i) impossible winrates; (ii) unexplainable plays (except of one knows the hole cards); and (iii) the fact Postle does not routinely play elsewhere or for higher stakes (that is, if he's a Poker God why not cash in). The jury will be allowed to make inferences on how the cheating occurred.

 

[BUSB0Y]

The burden is on the accusers' shoulders... and its based on the preponderance of the evidence. I think most fair-minded people would come to the conclusion (based solely what's available today) that the accusers' have met their burden.

It's outlined in more detail elsewhere in this thread, but in a nutshell -- (i) impossible winrates; (ii) unexplainable plays (except of one knows the hole cards); and (iii) the fact Postle does not routinely play elsewhere or for higher stakes (that is, if he's a Poker God why not cash in). The jury will be allowed to make inferences on how the cheating occurred.

Fair enough. I know murderers have been convicted on less than this circumstantial evidence.

I still have reasonable (or unreasonable) doubt.

Not sure about you guys... but-- I can both 1) know a person is guilty but 2) allow him to go free because I can't prove it.

Same as you sometimes know you're good on the river but still fold to an all-in bc it's a bad spot and you can look for a better one.

 

[HobokenNJ]

Fair enough. I know murderers have been convicted on less than this circumstantial evidence.

I still have reasonable (or unreasonable) doubt.

Let's distinguish two things -- (i) in a civil suit, the burden of proof is much lower (preponderance of the evidence) and (ii) in a criminal suit, its higher (beyond a reasonable doubt).

So it's possible to split the baby. Big civil claims that are successful. No jail time.

Where I sit, I think the civil claims look pretty good (w/ some chance a jury will misinterpret the evidence). Criminal -- I don't have a best guess at this point.

 

[zinzir]

We also have a winrate, that no poker player in history has ever achieved without cheating, and we have dusins of hands, that were played in a way, that only makes sense, if he knew, what his opponents had. And we have footage of him acting in a way, which only makes sense, if he knew his opponents cards.

I am not going to go through all the examples. You can start by watching the videos made by Doug Polk, if you are actually interested in the case and not just in looking smart in a forum. Over and out.

Have you heard of the saying "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones"? You are so fired up about Postle having to be convicted for cheating, but taking things out of context and using them trying to prove your point is flat out cheating in a discussion or debate. What does win rate have to do with your murder example I was talking about there?

By the way, accusing me of "trying to look smart in a forum" was such a cheap shot and a personal accusation that I had done nothing to deserve, I had addressed you only with respect and consideration. Even now I still perceive you as a discussion partner, for just because you have a different opinion does not make a bad person by any means. This is not a contest, my friend, we can both be right, both be wrong and anything in between, that is what's great about forums.

I have watched enough to see what evidence the accusers have thus far: win rate, bulge in the hat, phone on lap, at times he looked and behaved in a suspicious way, "incorrect" plays leading to wins. Am I missing something?

This thread is about Postle's defense in Court, not about our opinions about him being a cheater or not. Postle looks like a cheater, walks like a cheater, and quacks like a cheater, pretty much everyone agrees about that, but in Court none of that counts.

The only explanation he will probably give is about his win rate, the rest of the evidence is so circumstantial that all his lawyer has to do is say "Objection", and the Judge will throw it out before even making it to trial.

But for discussion purposes let's take this extra evidence point by point:

- Bulge in the hat: he can flat out admit he was using bone conduction headphones, they are perfectly legal and available for purchase, some are specifically designed to go under the hat, they work just like regular head phones but instead of air they use bone to transmit the sound. One could potentially cheat using bone conduction headphones just like he could using regular headphones. During the interviews it is both normal and expected for people to take off their headphones, both air conducting and bone conducting.

- Phone on lap: there is no law against keeping phone on his lap, he could legally keep it between his butt cheeks if he wants

- Looking suspicious: ridiculous evidence in a court of law for obvious reasons, but, hypothetically, if that could be used to convict someone, all black men in the US would be in prison, according to the Police

-"Incorrect" plays leading to gains - that's the easiest one. Just download from Cardschat thousands of posts made by people complaining about their "correct" plays leading to losses

 

[BUSB0Y]

Let's distinguish two things -- (i) in a civil suit, the burden of proof is much lower (preponderance of the evidence) and (ii) in a criminal suit, its higher (beyond a reasonable doubt).

So it's possible to split the baby. Big civil claims that are successful. No jail time.

Where I sit, I think the civil claims look pretty good (w/ some chance a jury will misinterpret the evidence). Criminal -- I don't have a best guess at this point.

Oh yea for sure they're gonna win the civil case.

 

[Criplgamer]

Oh yea for sure they're gonna win the civil case.

Depends on the state. In some states if they seem you to even have 1% liability for what happened then the suit fails. I do not know California law . His defense will likely say that his fellow opponents were liable due to their inattentive state at the table, poor play(folding winning hands), as well as bringing other players winning percentage against him over time into it.

This isn't cut and dry. They will have to prove what device he used and how it was used. Otherwise Mpostle walks and it's game over. I've been in a civil trial. Less proof yes, still have to have proof. So far we have graphs and charts, and video but cannot see how he used his phone to gain an edge.

With the above being said, I prefer the rule Mississippi has. Of you are in a hand you cannot have your phone in your hand, or lap and be on it at the same time. I'm sure this scandal will end up causing many states and card houses/casinos to adopt this rule. I'm happy for it.

 

[HobokenNJ]

Depends on the state. In some states if they seem you to even have 1% liability for what happened then the suit fails. ...


This isn't cut and dry. They will have to prove what device he used and how it was used. Otherwise Mpostle walks and it's game over.

On the first sentence, I believe you're thinking about 'contributory negligence'. Not sure how that's relevant here. Furthermore, not only does California not have the concept, it was at the forefront of getting rid of the concept.

On the second, not sure why they have to prove "what device" etc. If the jury all thinks cheating has occurred, not sure why they'd throw up their hands and say "no claim" b/c they can't exactly figure out how it occurred. There's a related concept in tort law.

 

[zinzir]

Let's distinguish two things -- (i) in a civil suit, the burden of proof is much lower (preponderance of the evidence) and (ii) in a criminal suit, its higher (beyond a reasonable doubt).

So it's possible to split the baby. Big civil claims that are successful. No jail time.

Where I sit, I think the civil claims look pretty good (w/ some chance a jury will misinterpret the evidence). Criminal -- I don't have a best guess at this point.

The evidence might seem good to you as a poker aficionado, but the jurors will not be like you, for it's unlikely that poker players will make it past jury selection.

But let's say, hypothetically, that in a civil lawsuit Postle is found guilty based only on the evidence presented thus far. What kind of implications such legal precedent would have on the gambling industry as a whole? I hope you can agree with me that after a precedent is set, the following similar lawsuits are going to be even more difficult to defend.

How would a gambler feel if he knew that he can gamble and lose everything he ever owned and he can do nothing about it, but in the extremely unlikely event where he actually hits the amazing winning streak he had hoped for all his life, he could be sued and still lose everything based only on his unusual spike in win rate and "incorrect" plays that turned out to be winners?

I think it would be a dangerous precedent, where even Casinos could sue their clients based on big wins resulted from "incorrect" plays, while players would be laughed at when they lose their money playing "correctly".

 

[HobokenNJ]

T
But let's say, hypothetically, that in a civil lawsuit Postle is found guilty based only on the evidence presented thus far. What kind of implications such legal precedent would have on the gambling industry as a whole? ...
I think it would be a dangerous precedent, where even Casinos could sue their clients based on big wins resulted from "incorrect" plays, while players would be laughed at when they lose their money playing "correctly".

I don't think this could be correctly described as setting a "precedent" since there's no expansion or contraction of law. The jury's determination is one of fact -- e.g., "was there cheating". I'm guessing the law is pretty settled that if you're cheated, you can recover from the cheaters.


Further, I personally think the world will be a more just and proper place if the lawsuit wins, and I don't think your parade of horribles is anything to seriously worry about.

Assuming we agree he's cheating, let's not one guilty party go because -- hypothetically -- some degen somewhere might be hassled in the future. One big score isn't going to be enough to convince a jury that cheating has in fact occurred. And this lawsuit isn't going to change that.

 

[zinzir]

Further, I personally think the world will be a more just and proper place if the lawsuit wins, and I don't think your parade of horribles is anything to seriously worry about.

Assuming we agree he's cheating, let's not one guilty party go because -- hypothetically -- some degen somewhere might be hassled in the future. One big score isn't going to be enough to convince a jury that cheating has in fact occurred. And this lawsuit isn't going to change that.

I respect and appreciate your opinion. I guess I'm just old fashioned still believing that letting a criminal walk free is a lesser evil than convicting an innocent man. (innocent being the degen not Postle).

 

[zinzir]

I don't think this could be correctly described as setting a "precedent" since there's no expansion or contraction of law. The jury's determination is one of fact -- e.g., "was there cheating". I'm guessing the law is pretty settled that if you're cheated, you can recover from the cheaters.

I think it's obvious from the terminology you are using that you are in the process of becoming a lawyer if not already one. I am not, so please excuse my ignorance in not understanding how there would be no expansion of law in case Postle is convicted based only on his win rate and/or "incorrect" plays leading to gains, without any hard evidence.

 

[BUSB0Y]

I respect and appreciate your opinion. I guess I'm just old fashioned still believing that letting a criminal walk free is a lesser evil than convicting an innocent man. (innocent being the degen not Postle).

It could be a different matter if they can get some (former) world class players to testify, like Doug Polk. Do you think these players will put their credibility on the line in a courtroom? If you march Phil Ivey in the courtroom (who the average Joe may actually know) and if Phil says "**** yea he cheated 100%" I think it's a done deal for the jury. Maybe Tom Dwaan and some other T.V. celebs even if they're not actually that good. Bring in some old school people like Mike Caro and Doyle Brunson. Game over.

 

[zinzir]

It could be a different matter if they can get some (former) world class players to testify, like Doug Polk. Do you think these players will put their credibility on the line in a courtroom? If you march Phil Ivey in the courtroom (who the average Joe may actually know) and if Phil says "**** yea he cheated 100%" I think it's a done deal for the jury. Maybe Tom Dwaan and some other T.V. celebs even if they're not actually that good. Bring in some old school people like Mike Caro and Doyle Brunson. Game over.

I don't think even Doug Polk would testify under Oath that Postle cheated 100%, let alone the others mentioned by you. He might say Postle looks 100% suspicious, and even that would be a stretch hardly contested by Postle's lawyer.

Did you notice my above post about the expansion of law? Could you please elaborate on how convicting Postle solely based on win rate and some Unorthodox plays would not constitute an expansion of law and set a precedent? I'm not trying to challenge you, just being curious about your rationale behind that statement.

 

[DS3]

It could be a different matter if they can get some (former) world class players to testify, like Doug Polk. Do you think these players will put their credibility on the line in a courtroom? If you march Phil Ivey in the courtroom (who the average Joe may actually know) and if Phil says "**** yea he cheated 100%" I think it's a done deal for the jury. Maybe Tom Dwaan and some other T.V. celebs even if they're not actually that good. Bring in some old school people like Mike Caro and Doyle Brunson. Game over.

I understand where you are going with this….but suggesting Phil Ivey as an expert witness is perhaps a little wrong note. The Average Joe will also know Ivey got busted for scamming (via the courts) millions from multiple casinos for edge sorting!