Published May 12, 2020
By Evert Caldwell, Rounder Life News Team
“Pocket kings” he said as he folded…”Good hand.”
To the casual observer watching The Stones Live Poker Show it really wasn’t a fold for the highlight reel, but for a small group, it was much, much more.
“It just doesn’t make sense!” Veronica Brill exclaimed when Mike Postle folded top pair with a gut-shot straight draw to a Marle Cordeiro’s $600 bet on the turn. “It’s like he knows.”
Postle had called Cordeiro’s $125 pre-flop raise holding the Q♦J♥, and called another $200 on the 9♦8♠J♦ flop. The board looked pretty good for Postle’s hand. He had top pair, a gut-shot straight draw, and a backdoor flush draw, so there was no surprise when he called $200 to see the turn.
The problem for Postle though, was that Cordeiro, holding Q♠10♦, had flopped “the nuts” (best possible hand) and he was drawing very thin. In fact, when the 4♠ landed on the turn, ending his back-door flush possibilities, he was drawing dead and could only hit one of three 10s left in the deck for a chop (split pot). When Postle folded his hand the saga now known as “Postlegate” was “born”.
His detractors say it’s clear he knew Cordeiro’s cards, because he folded. He should have called the $600 and in fact, Cordeiro’s recently filed Complaint claims he should have lost “thousands” more. The hand is one of two presented as “evidence” in that pending case, asking for $250,000+ in damages.
In the Complaint, after describing how Cordeiro raised pre-flop with the Q♠10♦, Plaintiff points out that Postle actually had a superior hand, the Q♦J♥.
Postle was in the small blind for $25 and there was only one more player to act, poker pro Matt Berkey in the big blind. Berkey folded to the raise and the two players, Postle and Cordeiro, continued heads-up.
The Complaint goes on to explain how the 9♦8♠J♦ flop gave Postle “top pair and a chance of improving to a flush, a straight, three of a kind, or two pair, while giving Ms. Cordeiro a straight.” Although Plaintiff lets the Court know the Defendant had draws to some strong hands, it fails to mention they were gut-shot (straight) and a runner-runner (flush) draws, which is relevant if attempting to accurately analyze the value of the hand.
It explains that Plaintiff bets $200 and the Defendant calls. A fair question to pose at this stage is why would he call if he knows her cards? He didn’t raise when he had her dominated pre-flop and now he calls when he’s absolutely crushed.
The response from Postle’s detractors when similar situations are referenced (where he’s put money in while behind), is that he doesn’t want to make it too obvious that he’s cheating.
These are the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenarios presented by those who’ve cried foul. If he calls when he’s behind it’s because he doesn’t want to make it too obvious, and when he folds, he’s cheating.
Postle Folds Top Pair With A Gut Shot To Marle Cordeiro
Plaintiff then describes how the 4♠ on the turn ended the Defendant’s flush possibilities, but, it points out “all of the (other) hands to which the Defendant could have improved remained viable.” It then suggests Plaintiff’s own straight “would not be detectable at this juncture.”
A straight would not be detectable at this juncture ?
To be clear, what Plaintiff would have the Court believe is that the Defendant, who has been a professional poker player for 16 years, would still not have noticed the straight possibilities on the board. Arguing Postle wouldn’t have seen the straight, so he shouldn’t have folded, is a very creative argument to say the least.
It then explains how Cordeiro wagered a “mere Six Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($600.00) at this point; a pittance of the Twenty Six Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($26,000,00) the Defendant was holding.”
What Plaintiff seems to be implying here, is that since the Defendant has a big stack, he should be willing to call the $600, no matter if he thinks he’s behind or not, since it’s just a tiny “pittance” of his money. In fact he should be willing to call or bet “thousands.”
He only had one pair. What exactly is Plaintiff’s argument ?
A review of the hand, assuming the Defendant knew the Plaintiff’s cards, shows he called pre-flop when he should have raised, then he called on the flop when he was way behind. When his backdoor flush draw possibilities ended on the turn, he gave up on the hand and folded, but Plaintiff says that’s not good enough. He should have bet more.
The Plaintiff’s “sales pitch” to the Court that Postle should have been willing to put thousands into a pot with one pair, reminded us of a poker scene from the movie classic, Stripes, where Dewey Oxenberger “Ox”, played by the late, great John Candy coaxed the young, gullible recruit “Cruiser” into putting all his money into a pot with just a pair of 4s.
We took the liberty and rewrote the scene with Postle as Cruiser, since “Ox” telling Cruiser his hand is “too good to fold” sounds a lot like Plaintiff’s pleading to the Court.
Postle : Maybe I should fold ?
Plaintiff : No, not with a hand like that… Dare me… go on, bluff me… come on, go for it!
Postle : How much should I bet ?
Plaintiff : You have $26k behind. If it were me, I’d bet everything.
Postle : Ok I’m in. What do you got ?
Plaintiff : Well, I have the nut straight. You have a pair of Qs with a jack. You lose, you see. If you would have had four queens, you would have won.
Also worth mentioning is that Cordeiro’s Complaint states, “Specifically, Mr. Postle used a cellular telephone, lodged between his legs so as to have its screen beyond the view of others, to access the identity of the Hole Cards of other players, in real time, while playing in Stones Live Poker Games.”
In a recent interview with Brill, Cordeiro seems to dispel her own claim that a cell phone was used as a cheating method, when she confirms that strict rules against cell phone use were in place at the “Postle table”. She also refutes Brill’s claim that cell phones weren’t even allowed in the room. When Brill suggested that was the case, Cordeiro says she was using her’s freely until she was transferred to the streamed game.
RELATED – Cordeiro fans Kuraitis conspiracy flames (Full Story)
This hand, actually presented as “evidence”, is likely to be viewed as convincing and powerful as the “PLO” hand included in the same Complaint (and the Amended Complaint in California).
In an article on rounderlife.com entitled “Unearthed Evidence Exposes Major Error In Lawsuit Allegations” we show video evidence which totally contradicts the suggestion there’s proof Postle “had illicitly accessed” information in that hand. The Complaint claims the Defendant would have no “real time knowledge” a card reader had malfunctioned, unless he was cheating.
Another newly released video (below) makes it clear that dealers were communicating with players at the table to let them know if their cards weren’t being “read” properly by the scanners.
Dealer at Stones tells Postle to “reset” his cards
“Whistleblower” Veronica Brill’s infamous “stunned” reaction in the booth was also mentioned in Cordeiro’s Complaint, in an apparent effort to confirm how suspicious the fold was.
However, in a recent interview Brill conducted with Jake Rosenstiel, it was revealed that Brill’s reaction to the “Marle Hand” may not have been as authentic as we’ve been led to believe.
*Warning* foul language throughout video.
First, Rosenstiel explains that it was Azaan Nagra who first suspected Postle was cheating.
He then clarifies that it was he himself, and Veronica who started the deity references to Postle which led to the memes, not Justin Kuraitis as Brill had previously insinuated.
“You and I were the ones who started that sh*t.” Watch her surprised reaction. He then reminds her the reason they started it all was to “troll religions.”
At 9:03 he explains how after a January 2019 stream, eight months before she went public, he and Brill went through the whole spiel of “Is he a god… how does he do it every single time”… and the line Brill repeated after Postle folded to Cordeiro – “it’s like he knows.”
As we’ve learned, a small group lead by Nagra, Rosenstiel, and Brill, had been throwing around the theory Postle could be cheating for months, but were never able to come up with any evidence to prove it. Rosenstiel says throughout his interview with Brill, the suspicions he allegedly took to Kuraitis were based on the way Postle “played hands,” and in particular that it didn’t match GTO (game theory optimal) play.
In explaining why Kuraitis wasn’t able to recognize what he felt was clear cheating, Rosenstiel says 95%-98% of players wouldn’t be able to recognize what was going on either, because “everyone sucks at poker.”
Although at times he sounds certain he believes there was cheating, at 15:21 he admits that in June or July of 2019 he still wasn’t convinced it was true.
The final example of his inability to actually provide anything of substance to support his group’s cheating allegations, is when a scheduled lunch with Kuraitis was cancelled just before Brill went public, because he didn’t feel Kuraitis would be receptive. This also seems to contradict the claims that Kuraitis or management wasn’t at least willing to listen.
Despite the uncertainty, Rosenstiel, who admittedly was trying to “catch Mike in the act”, spilled the beans that a premeditated plan was in place to out the group’s suspicions, when he warned Postle’s roommate that something was “coming down the pipe (43:05).”
So why did Brill decide to “go public” when her confidants, Nagra and Rosenstiel wouldn’t ? After all, they were the first to suspect something might be up. Why didn’t they do the dirty work themselves ?
The narrative the public has been fed is that it was this “female broadcaster” Veronica Brill who figured it all out and “blew the whistle” on a poker cheater, but it’s very clear through the Rosenstiel interview this wasn’t the case, although it makes for a good storyline. Also overlooked in the narrative is the fact that the case hasn’t been “solved” as many have been led to believe.
Part of the actual story, laid out for us by Rosenstiel, is that he and Nagra were the ones who started spreading the cheating suspicions against Postle, based solely on the way he was playing hands, and Brill was the only one “brave” enough to take the accusations public with no actual proof.
Would the story have had the same traction if Nagra or Rosenstiel had brought forth the allegations ? It’s very doubtful. In fact as WSOP commentator David Tuchman pointed out, if this had been brought by some random poker player, people would have likely just brushed it off.
So what prompted Brill to go public when Nagra and Rosenstiel wouldn’t, and she herself admitted there was only a “greater than zero % chance” what she was alleging was true ?
Part of the reason could be that Brill’s “vulnerability” was much different than that of Nagra and Rosenstiel’s. If she was wrong, it could be written off as a mistake by an admitted novice. If the “pros” came forward and made the allegations and they’re proven wrong, they would have much more to lose.
What did Brill have to gain ?
As one observer pointed out, she had been trying for years to become “a name” in the poker world.
Look at where she is now. “She’s the new media darling.” Everything’s turned around for her, and now she’s finally “relative” in the poker community, and all after being just “15 minutes away from total obscurity.”
Veronica Brill : The Real Local Hero Of The Stones Live Poker Cheating Scandal – CardPlayer.com
Other Questions For Brill
Brill controlled the lineup in her game.
After speaking with Kuraitis in March, why did she keep inviting Postle to play in her game month after month if she believed he was cheating ?
Why did she ask Postle to run her game in August 2019, the month before she went public ? Postle ran the game for her. Wasn’t that like putting the fox in charge of the hen house ?
Why is Brill adamant that Stones management should have been taking her concerns seriously, when at the same time, she was letting Postle play in and run her game ?
Why did Brill invite attorney Maurice “Mac” VerStandig to play in her game on June 15, 2019, just three months before she went public ? Did he fit the loose, action type player she liked to have in her game ?
Did Brill discuss her “suspicions” with VerStandig prior to going public on September 28, 2019 ?
VerStandig tweeting about “the legend” @Angry_Polak on September 27, 2019
Why not take the allegations to the California Gaming Control Commission, if it was felt Justin Kuraitis or Stones Management were not being receptive ?
Brill Folds Same Hand As Postle – “It Doesn’t Make Sense”
Why did Postle’s fold of top pair and a gut-shot “trigger” the response it did from Brill, especially when you consider she folded the same hand herself (see video below), in almost the exact situation to action player Dave O, for far less money ?
Commentator Kasey Mills relays that Brill said she “had a physical tell” on Dave O, but it appears she snap folded. Should Dave O sue ?
Veronica Brill Fold Top Pair With A Gut Shot To Dave O
RounderLife Thoughts On The “Marle Hand”
Rounder was made aware, and has confirmed, that Mike Postle had a backer during several Stones Live Poker shows, including the final stream on September 21, 2019. Why would Mike Postle have a backer if he was cheating ?
It’s amazing no one seems to want to consider the many variables that could have affected the decision making in this particular hand, which ultimately led to his fold. Of course few knew Postle had a backer during this stream or the instructions he was given to “tighten up” and “lock up the win”, but even considering that revelation, the fold was really nothing special.
Cordeiro was a new player Postle had never played with. It’s not an uncommon view that solid female players generally play a little closer to the vest and tend to bluff less than most guys, so folding to an aggressive bet on the turn is definitely not out of line. In fact it can’t even be categorized as anything close to a “hero” fold when the circumstances are assessed, including Cordeiro’s bet size, and the fact she had raised preflop.
It would also be fair to speculate that Postle wouldn’t have folded the hand to ‘perceived’ looser, action players like “Frank the Tank”, or Dave O.
Every winning player in the world has folded in a similar spot. Why is Postle not allowed ?
This fold actually pales in comparison to “hero” folds made all the time on other live streams. Are those players or operators being investigated ? Does locking phones in a “black lockbox” in the actual control room “ensure security” in those streams ?
Ironically, on September 27, 2019, the day before Brill went public with her cheating allegations against Postle, Garrett Adelstein, during an episode at Live At The Bike, folded the “second nuts” to Andy Tsai who was holding Q♦10♦ for the same “nut” straight Cordeiro held against Postle (watch video below). Adelstein’s fold was described as simply “amazing” by Jason Glatzer on PokerNews.
Watch Garrett Adelstein Fold Second Nuts At LATB
Watch Garrett Adelstein Fold A Full House At LATB
Pointing this out isn’t acceptable to those convinced of Postle and Stones’ guilt. Many critics, who by the way are involved one way or another with poker training sites, seem to be trying to sell the theory that no player can makes these type of plays and be a winning player.
You can’t make money calling with a 9-5 and folding top pair with a gut shot. It’s just not acceptable in today’s “GTO” poker training world.
Someone winning with this play style actually goes against everything these “solvers” are trying to sell for $59.95 a month.
Although it wasn’t a factor in this particular hand, very little consideration has been given to Postle’s familiarity with his opponents, their tendencies and betting patterns, how running it multiple times played into aggression frequencies, or how the match the stack format dramatically changed the dynamics.
A player could be losing the whole stream and win the last hand of the night to turn a losing session into a winning one, like Postle did here.
There were also former “history hands” with other opponents, and hands of the night that played a part in decision making, which, as we’ll reveal in an upcoming article, led to comments Postle made during hands.
Every hand and situation can be told from different perspectives, usually two or more, but only one side of the story is being told.
If you’re wondering why…
The reasons are quite simple.
Postle’s playing style can’t be taught by the “experts”…and
IT DOESN’T FIT THE NARRATIVE BEING SPUN.
More News – “Deep Pockets” Card Rooms Unfairly Targeted In PPC Debacle“
♠♥♣♦
Continuing Coverage of Our Investigation
New Numbers Cast Doubt On Postlegate
Rounder Report : Breakdown Of Mike Postle July 20, 2019 Stream At Stones
Postle May Have Played Regularly At Other Casino
Even When Gump And John S. Get It Right, They’re Wrong
Mike Postle Re-loads Twice In A Session He Plays With Bart Hanson : No Mention Of Non-Reported Add-ons In Interview With Win Rate Graph Creator John S.
I Told Mike Postle To “Make Some Money With The Moneymaker, From The Moneymaker”
Evidence Supports Mike Postle’s Version Of Infamous “Moneymaker Hand”
Mike Postle “Smoking Gun” Cheating Theory Flops With New Revelations
Mike Postle Asks Court To Dismiss Complaint
Reporter’s Errors Lead To Misreported Facts In Postlegate
Unearthed Evidence Exposes Major Error In Lawsuit Allegations
New Revelations Deflate “Postlegate” Narrative
Mike Postle Not Making All The right Moves Video
Statistics In ‘Postlegate” Completely Fabricated
In 2007 Rounder Magazine recognized Mike Postle as an elite pro and provided him with merchandise to promote the Rounder brand. No other considerations have been provided. Mr. Postle has never had ownership rights, nor has he ever been employed by Rounder. Rounder Life Media is not in a position to determine Mike Postle's guilt or innocence. This will be determined by the official investigation(s) being conducted, or through a court of law, not speculation. We will continue to pursue all relevant facts related to this case and report such, whether they support or disprove the charges.
