Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 429

Thread: Stones livestream player Mike Postle accused of "live superusing"

  1. #341
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5396
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    37,564
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by duped_samaritan View Post
    Name:  
Views: 
Size:

    Do we know who this is? Justin the floor guy is a named plaintiff so it must be someone else, right?

    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    lol
    Yeah probably someone else.

    There's a few names I can think of, though I'm not sure which one is being referred to here.

    I saw in that Twitter thread that the judge gave Mac a hard time for having a bad internet connection (he was connected via internet to the proceedings, presumably because of COVID-19).

    I didn't think that was fair. Mac doesn't have control over his house or office's sporadic internet outages, nor can he be expected to maintain an expensive backup connection just in case this happens.

  2. #342
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5396
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    37,564
    Blog Entries
    2
    I am hearing that both Stones and nearby Thunder Valley will reopen on June 8.

    Stones will have 6 fewer poker tables than before, but otherwise operate normally.

  3. #343
    Silver JeffDime's Avatar
    Reputation
    263
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    36.1699° N, 115.1398° W
    Posts
    790
    This is an article from May 12 from the online pro Postle rag known as Rounderlife. This one is written by the esteemed journalist Evert Caldwell entitled “New Revelations Deflate “Postlegate” Narrative”. This goes on for a while but mainly jumps on the Marle hand and her lawsuit.

    In a vacuum the Marle hand was certainly not absurd that someone would fold top pair on the turn playing that deep. I do wonder why Marle went on her own as I am guessing she really is pissed she didn’t get paid off for that hand. I could only speculate on reasons why she went at it alone. Mac Verstanding I’m sure wasn’t crazy about not keeping this under one umbrella but when she was determined to sue for this hand specifically he really had no choice but to represent her to not over complicate things.

    Unfortunately, as has been part of the Postle strategy from the start Veronica Brill is attacked in the article.

    https://www.rounderlife.com/10459-2/

  4. #344
    Gold MrTickle's Avatar
    Reputation
    399
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,583
    Postle case dismissed

     
    Comments
      
      duped_samaritan: :(

  5. #345
    Un-fucking-real
    http://www.miraclecovers.com

    "Donk down, that’s what you say to someone after they have lost 28K straight?" - Phil Hellmuth, online

  6. #346
    In before dipshit @themouthmatusow says I told you so.

  7. #347
    According to court documents obtained by PokerNews via Pacer, the judge sided with the argument put forth by King’s that the plaintiffs' various claims were “not cognizable under California law because California public policy bars judicial intervention in gambling disputes, in part because the asserted damages are inherently speculative” as laid out in Kelly v. First Astri Corp.
    https://www.pokernews.com/news/2020/...udge-37385.htm
    http://www.miraclecovers.com

    "Donk down, that’s what you say to someone after they have lost 28K straight?" - Phil Hellmuth, online

  8. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by MrTickle View Post
    Postle case dismissed
    That is Horse Shit!

  9. #349
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5396
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    37,564
    Blog Entries
    2
    We will likely have Eric Bensamochan on the show (I think -- he's very busy this week, but I might be able to get him to squeeze in some time for us) to discuss this.

    From what I can tell, it looks like California law is simply immature when it comes to poker and gambling, and thus gambling losses are not recoverable, even if cheated. This is a huge hole in state law obviously, but I don't see it changing, as the judge noted that this potential change has been pending for over 20 years.

    https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1268273906521006080

    https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1268278181410140161


    Veronica posted the above, and then got trolled by a new fake account likely controlled by Postle himself.

    It has been sickening watching the various vicious attacks and threats against Veronica since outing this, mostly by Postle under fake accounts and by friends of his. It appears that some Stones asskissers have also been attacking her at times, as well.

    She deserves much better. Interestingly, it looks like the 88 plaintiffs hurt Veronica in her (small) libel claim against Postle, as the judge seems to have dismissed it because Postle's comments could have been aimed at any of the 88 plaintiffs.

  10. #350
    Silver JeffDime's Avatar
    Reputation
    263
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    36.1699° N, 115.1398° W
    Posts
    790

    Lightbulb

    Name:  D2E83709-FDF4-457F-9167-4E84A5CEA9C4.png
Views: 492
Size:  632.0 KB

    I have to criticize Joey Ingram here. I certainly hope he understands that the dismissal of this lawsuit has zero to do with Postle’s guilt. Postle is not a person that deserves another chance he stole hundreds of thousands of dollars and everyone with any understanding of poker knows it. He has shown zero remorse and I believe never will. If Joey is angling for an interview I can tell him right now he is not going to get it. Postle is never going to come on with Joey after Joey streamed endless hours of him cheating and was the main catalyst in uniting the poker world against him.

    My guess is Postle will make a statement and have maybe a softball interview or two from someone he either knows very well or that promises to basically let him blabber on about how great he was on UB. I guess Joey knows if he can get an interview with Postle it will do a huge number of views on his channel. It’s not going to happen. The courts have let him get away and the poker community must not. The only reason he should be given a platform for is if he decided to confess and we know that isn’t going to happen.

    I understand everyone is entitled to a defense but the fact is he is not going to be prosecuted so there’s no need to hear some kind of victory lap tour disguised as him just defending himself. The best we can do is to shun him from the poker world & that includes poker media. This is not censorship he can make statements or post videos as he pleases.

  11. #351
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5396
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    37,564
    Blog Entries
    2
    Joey's tweet is trying to entice Postle to come on his show in backdoor fashion, attempting to make it appear that Joey isn't judging him until he hear's Postle's side.

    I agree this isn't a good thing to tweet, because Joey has a big following, and this could confuse people. Also, as you said, it's unlikely Postle will take the bait. Other than his appearance with Matusow, Postle has kept away from making statements to the poker community, after he abandoned his Twitter account when his denials were failing to convince anyone.

  12. #352
    Diamond mulva's Avatar
    Reputation
    460
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,338
    Blog Entries
    4
    what did u fuckwads think was going to happen. of course it was going to get thrown out.

    only justice you're going to get is if somebody beats his ass senseless..it will still be hollow though
    Quote Originally Posted by bottomset_69 View Post
    Johnny Manziel will be the 1st pick in the draft. I truly believe not only will Johnny Manziel be rookie of the year, quite possibly he will be MVP as his style will shock defensive coordinators. Manziel may only be 6 feet tall, but he has size 15 feet. And he has HUGE hands. I know some NFL scouts so I know what I am talking about.



  13. #353
    Silver JeffDime's Avatar
    Reputation
    263
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    36.1699° N, 115.1398° W
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Joey's tweet is trying to entice Postle to come on his show in backdoor fashion, attempting to make it appear that Joey isn't judging him until he hear's Postle's side.

    I agree this isn't a good thing to tweet, because Joey has a big following, and this could confuse people. Also, as you said, it's unlikely Postle will take the bait. Other than his appearance with Matusow, Postle has kept away from making statements to the poker community, after he abandoned his Twitter account when his denials were failing to convince anyone.

    That’s what it is Druff a percentage of the mob is going to think because they are talking and Joey is saying let’s hear the guy out it’s going to cause confusion. You and I know he’s just trying to reel him in to come on the show because it would be huge. I can’t blame Joey as fruitless an effort that is to still try.

    The other part is Postle really seems to think that having the civil case dismissed may get him in some way back in the poker community. How delusional that he can’t he just be happy that it looks like he’s getting away with it at least from a legal perspective.

    I’ll give the devil it’s due though by contacting Joey and probably saying something like “I want to come on the show I just need to wait for some advice etc”. Postle keeps delaying it but dangles it out there while Joey goes easy on him publicly in the meantime. Not a bad strategy.

  14. #354
    Silver JeffDime's Avatar
    Reputation
    263
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    36.1699° N, 115.1398° W
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by mulva View Post
    what did u fuckwads think was going to happen. of course it was going to get thrown out.

    only justice you're going to get is if somebody beats his ass senseless..it will still be hollow though
    This fuckwad didn’t expect this to go well but was hoping for it to not be dismissed with prejudice. I’m doing so effectively never giving the victims a day in court.

  15. #355
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5396
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    37,564
    Blog Entries
    2

     
    Comments
      
      shoeshine box: Was 0.0% he was going to Lose. SAD.

  16. #356
    http://www.miraclecovers.com

    "Donk down, that’s what you say to someone after they have lost 28K straight?" - Phil Hellmuth, online

  17. #357
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5396
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    37,564
    Blog Entries
    2
    Small victory.

    A radio listener notified me that Stones appears to be about to settle the suit against them.

    https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1291928855498825728

  18. #358
    Article by Haley Hintze on that matter: "Settlement Talks Disclosed Between Stones Gambling Hall, Alleged Cheating Victims"

    https://www.pokertube.com/article/se...eating-victims
    http://www.miraclecovers.com

    "Donk down, that’s what you say to someone after they have lost 28K straight?" - Phil Hellmuth, online

  19. #359
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5396
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    37,564
    Blog Entries
    2

     
    Comments
      
      JeffDime: It appears he really did run like God...she’s cute.

  20. #360
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5396
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    37,564
    Blog Entries
    2
    Some information about the settlement was "leaked" to me today. I have not independently verified any of the below information, but the source seems reliable.

    Here's what's happening with the case against Stones.

    Background

    - There are 88 plaintiffs. However, this is NOT a class action suit. It's 88 individual plaintiffs suing together, who can make their own individual decisions.

    - The case against Postle was dismissed in early June. However, this is a separate case against Stones for allowing the cheating to happen. This case does NOT involve Postle, other than naming him as the main perpetrator of the scheme at Stones.

    - In June, attorney Mac Verstandig said that he was still "going forward" with the Stones case

    - In May, Stones had asserted in a filing that they don't owe a "general duty of care to gamblers", which in this case essentially means they feel they do not guarantee third parties won't cheat you in their casino. Stones was basically arguing that their responsibility ends at not cheating you themselves, but that they can't police all of their games for cheating. Stones also stated that these gamblers were suing them simply because they lost, and were unhappy about it. Mac responded by stating that Stones profited from the cheating (as it helped promote their poker room on a live stream, and Postle was used as a major attraction), thus this was more than just a situation where a player at a Stones table cheated someone else.

    - The Stones case was likely a difficult one for the plaintiffs to win. They had no concrete evidence of the cheating -- only circumstantial. Additionally, the circumstantial evidence was complicated, and difficult for players not closely familiar with poker to understand. Furthermore, and perhaps most problematic, there was no hard evidence that Stones assisted Mike in the cheating. Even if Mike did cheat, it was possible that he did it on his own without any Stones employees helping him. (I don't believe this, but it would be hard to prove in court that Mike had help.)



    The Present

    - At some point, presumably because he knew that his clients' chances of winning was low, due to the difficulty of proving these accusations, Mac became open to a settlement with Stones.

    - Stones was very aware of the fact that they were very likely to prevail in court. However, the publicity of such a case wouldn't be good for them, and the publicity would be especially horrible if they unexpectedly lost the case. Additionally, some of their own actions regarding covering up the cheating (such as the initial fake investigation) would come to light if this were to play out in court. Therefore, this was one of those cases where the party very likely to prevail was still better off settling.

    - In early August, a settlement was reached in principle. However, terms were not disclosed, and all 88 plaintiffs needed to individually agree to accept or reject the terms. Therefore, the matter was extended to September 11, 2020. Here is the PDF of a short settlement document: https://media.cardplayer.com/assets/...13-20Story.pdf

    - I have been told that the settlement offer is a fairy low, nominal sum of money. This is likely due to the fact that there are 88 plaintiffs. A number was given to me, but out of respect for Mac and the plaintiffs, I won't post it here.

    - I have also been told that Stones stipulated that a minimum of 65 of 88 people must accept, or the deal is off. I was NOT told how many are planning to accept.

    - I have also been told that the settlement includes a mutual non-disparagement agreement. The non-disparagement covers Justin Kuraitis and Stones, but NOT Postle. Additionally, Kuraitis and Stones will waive their right to sue over previous disparagement. All sides will acknowledge that no evidence of cheating was found by Kuraitis or Stones. I believe they will have to sign their name to a statement as such, put out by Mac.



    My Amateur Legal Analysis

    Stones is basically paying out a nominal sum of money in order to keep the plaintiffs quiet, going forward. This is actually smart on their part. If 88 people are hammering social media for years regarding being cheated at Stones, that could really be harmful. With most of the 88 going silent, this will help the discussion die more quickly.

    However, the value of this silence is not all that high. For example, Stones isn't going to lose a million dollars from these people continuing to bash them, even over time. Thus, Stones had to figure out what they were willing to spend to put an end to this whole thing and to keep these people quiet, and they arrived at a relatively low number.

    Why are they requiring 65 of 88 to say yes? For exactly the reason stated above. If roughly 3/4 of the plaintiffs don't agree to keep their mouths shut, the settlement isn't worth much to Stones. For example, say that 78 out of 88 refuse to the settlement. Even if 10 people go silent about Stones on social media, that won't help very much if 78 others are ripping them. Therefore, Stones wants the vast majority of the people agreeing to keep quiet, or even this settlement isn't worth the paper it's printed on to Stones.

    Would I accept this if I were one of the plaintiffs? Only if I was really hurting for money. The loss of ability to speak out against Stones wouldn't be worth a nominal payment. I don't know most of these 88 people, but I assume that the vast majority are not in dire need of a nominal payout.

    Why is Mac entertaining this small settlement at all? He knows that's the best they're going to do. Stones is aware they will win in court, and Mac probably knows it, too. While I can't say what's in his head, I'm guessing that he feels something is better than nothing. Since each plaintiff will decide individually, Mac probably feels that he will give them all the chance to take the settlement, rather than roll the dice in court and most likely get zero point zero.


    Once again, I want to reiterate that I have not verified the information given in this post, and I am going by what I was told. If I have any of the details wrong, I apologize.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-05-2020, 05:37 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-08-2019, 06:23 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-08-2019, 01:26 AM
  4. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-06-2019, 08:03 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-03-2019, 10:26 AM