Suspected cheater Mike Postle sued for millionsOctober 10, 2019 1:23 am
Poker social media and news sites has been a buzz all week with reports of high-profile cheating by poker pro Mike Postle on the Stones Gambling Hall live streamed game, Stone Live.
The accusations were taken up a notch yesterday after a lawsuit was filed against Postle and a list co-conspirators.
The lawsuit was filed by former Stone Live commentator Veronica Brill, one of the original whistleblowers to come out with accusations against Postle, along with 24 other poker players.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California, seeks damages of more than $30 million from Postle, King’s Casino (owner of Stones Gambling Hall), Justin Kuraitis (Tournament Director and Stone Live Poker Production Manager), and any unnamed coconspirators in the alleged fraud.
The lawsuit claims they believe they know the identity of at least one coconspirator, simply referred to as ‘John Doe 1,’ who assisted in Postle’s cheating, but they are refraining from naming them until solid proof can be obtained.
The exact breakdown in damages the plaintiffs are seeking in the lawsuit is $10 million from Postle, $10 million from Stones and $10 million from Kuraitis.
The defendants are accused of nine counts of racketeering, fraud, negligence and libel. In the lawsuit it details evidence collected against the accused, including Postle high win rate which is noted to be six-times higher then what the top players expect to achieve, the infrequent timing of Postle’s losses, RFID malfunctions on the live stream and the unusual way Postle constantly looked at his phone.
They are accusing Postle of receiving information about other player’s hole cards through his cellphone and/or through another communication device concealed in his hat.
Part of the lawsuit listing some of the evidence read:
“Analytical observation reveals Mr. Postle’s exponential winnings cannot be explained through finely-honed abilities to ‘read’ opponents, as myriad optimal plays made by Mr. Postle required not merely an analysis of his opponent’s self-perceived strength or weakness in a poker hand, but rather the precise composition of such hand; while such may be anecdotally attributed to guess work in a vacuum, Mr. Postle was continuously correct in making such assessments over a period of time in excess of a full year.”