Poker

Even if the judge plays poker the defence can argue that he’s an unorthodox player who is great at reading opponents.

Yes they could. Postle could claim he just gets strong hunches and that he’s made good money playing this way. Will be hard to prove anything else.

Did you see the clip of Postle’s kid brother telling the story of the time Postle rigged a raffle wheel when they were younger? It was rigged by coins added at the back, and always landed on the spot next to the winning spot. The little brother said Postle rigged it that way so suckers would always think they were oh so close. He commented laughingly that if there was ever an angle to play, his older brother would find it.

I’m thinking Postle shouldn’t call his kid brother as a character witness under any circumstances.

https://youtu.be/2kDtE9vrRiA?t=305

1 Like

Unless they can bring in computer analysis to show unusual patterns of play. That could be quite convincing. Especially if he showed different patterns of play in different situations.

It sounds like they have a line on who his inside guy is, so that could be a problem for him.

clears throat

image

POKER? I HARDLY KNOW ‘ER!!

1 Like

Yep. I think the casino is going to pay the biggest share of any judgment, though. The casino has a legal obligation to provide a safe playing area, one that any player could assume reasonably to be free of cheating.

In fact the casino should have been tracking players who win 50+ sessions in a row with some computer analysis all on their own. Hard to believe they didn’t know about Postle’s success in their own room.

1 Like

Everybody uses tracking software now, or at least they did when I was playing a few years back, so I’m kind of surprised in general

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1UjP-UpX8&t=331s

I don’t know, man. 7-2 off in the hole, no pairs, never anything but bad breath and a bluff. I might be sure enough I’ve lost the hand, no matter what the other guy throws down, to throw my hands up as soon as Postle did.

I would definitely be very sure I’d lost the hand in that spot. I don’t find this conclusive by itself.

2 Likes

This is why any cheating is going to be so hard to prove. It’s a combination of weird stuff.

I’ve bluffed all in with 7 2 off before.

You’re a brave man. I think the only times I’ve even bet 7-2 is in the big blind and if nobody ahead raised me. I’ve won by bluffing it and by hitting sets, but it’s rare. 7-2 is pretty much an insta-fold for me.

2 Likes

It’s not brave, it’s stupid. However, I have done it.

1 Like

Did you survive?

Plays like that are when one isn’t generally, ahem, thinking straight. I seem to recall getting people to fold in the past. Which is what Postle’s defence will be claiming in court.

1 Like

Got it. You’ve done it more than once. :grinning:

This is why they bottle cask strength whiskey, you know. To get you into these situations yet still grant the details some merciful fuzziness later.

1 Like

Has anyone here successfully cashed out with a VPN? Do the algorithms spot it?