By Evert Caldwell | Staff
It’s been five years since poker pro Mike Postle was accused of cheating on the livestream poker show at Stones Gambling Hall in Citrus Heights, California.
When “whistleblower” Veronica Brill first aired her suspicions publicly, numerous experts weighed in, breaking down several “insane” hands Postle played.
The very first hand highlighted by popular podcaster Joe Ingram on his YouTube channel, showed Postle just calling a bet after making a full-house on the river against a bigger full house (made on the turn).
“Is there any argument for that right there?” Ingram questioned.
In the hand Postle is shown holding the 8♥8♣. He raises $30 pre-flop. His opponent, Bryan, has the 10♥10♣. Postle can be seen looking down toward the phone he was known to keep in his lap.
After the 9♥9♦4♠ flop, Postle bets $50 and Bryan calls. To this point, most agree nothing seems out of line – with the exception of Postle staring in his lap.
The turn card was the 10♠ giving Bryan a full-house. Postle, who allegedly knew Bryan’s cards, bets $80 drawing dead.
When some questioned why Postle would bet in this spot, if he knew his opponent had a full-house, Ingram dismissed the pushback.
“He can’t make it (cheating) super f*ing obvious.”
The less than objective framing, which brings into question Ingram’s true intentions just 6 minutes into his “investigation”, also flies in the face of ESPN sportscaster Scott Van Pelt’s “neutral” portrayal of his coverage.
“I credit Ingram for taking great caution, to give a guy who’s apparently very well liked the benefit of the doubt.” – SVP
Additional evidence supporting the theory Ingram crafted a cheating narrative rather than seeking the truth, is the revelation he was aware the hand was reported as a misread during the StonesLive broadcast, but rather than share the “counter” evidence with his audience in real time, which would have taken some of the steam out of his “clear-cut” cheating pitch, Ingram elected to withhold the crucial info until later in his show.
The omission, coupled with his deceptive gaslighting comment, “Is there any argument for that right there?”, knowing full well there was, marked the first instance of coercive persuasion tactics Ingram used throughout his investigation to sway public opinion.
In another hand many referred to as “the smoking gun”, Postle appears to make “a wild bluff on the river with 8-high in what’s been dubbed the “T-BONE hand”.
With a board of 3♣10♠7♠5♥J♥ Postle makes a $855 river bet with 8♦6♠ into an already bloated $1,500 pot. His opponent, T-BONE, who missed his draws, then re-raises to $2.4k with 9♣6♣. Postle deliberates, before moving all-in for his remaining $4k, prompting a fold.
While the hand looks to be either a “soul read” by Postle, and T-BONE, or something nefarious, according to Postle neither is true.
“I had 6-4o” he’s since revealed.
Rewatching the hand accepting the revelation, Postle’s play isn’t suspect at all. In fact, his re-raise on the turn with the nuts, and river jam – “make sense”.
A closer look at the hand reveals the dealer pitched Postle’s first card directly over seat one’s card reader. This was known to cause misreads. When they occurred, and they happened a lot, techs would often replace the misread card(s) on screen, with random ones, leading to confusion.
It’s possible one of Postle’s cards may have been the the 4♦ seat one, OZZY, is shown folding. In addition to clear evidence showing Postle’s first card was pitched over OZZY’s card reader, the theory is supported by the understanding a seasoned pro like OZZY, sitting with $6.3k, and over $30k in play, would never fold 6♦4♦ (as shown), to a $40 pre-flop raise.
When Stones techs changed Postle’s cards to the 9♠8♠ at the end of the hand, Ingram and others believed it was done for nefarious reasons, but in an exclusive interview with Rounder, one Stones tech explained if a hand was playing out in an unusual fashion, and a misread was suspected, they would “pic a winning hand” and change the cards in order to “make the hand make sense” to viewers.
Misreads were so common on the stream, that Stones installed a PokerGFX “test” feature option, which allowed techs to “re-read” a player’s cards during a hand.
In light of Postle’s claim he had 6-4o, it appears the test feature either wasn’t used, or if it was, it was used late in the hand, and techs had already chosen 9♠8♠ to “make the hand make sense.”
In discussions Rounder had with Justin Kuraitis, who was sued along with Postle and Stones but eventually exonerated, Kuraitis made it clear he instructed techs not to replace misread cards with random ones, insisting he wanted to “maintain the integrity of the game” but admits it did occur.
He also pointed out, that overall, his staff “did a fantastic job on a limited budget” and were basically learning something fairly new to the industry “on the fly”.
Whether or not Stones used the test feature, or just changed the cards, isn’t clear, but either scenario is a possibility.
Ingram, for his part, was adamant cheating occurred in the hand, fueling speculation an employee was “in on it”, laying the groundwork for the multi-million dollar lawsuit against Postle, Stones, and Kuraitis.
‘Solve For Why’ poker training academy owner Matt Berkey, and Hustler Casino Live producer Ryan Feldman, who both presented themselves as experts in PokerGFX software capabilities, were largely responsible for shaping the public’s “misunderstanding” of how rfid worked.
Each claimed the alleged graphic errors on the Stones livestream weren’t possible, and that techs would have no way of checking a player’s cards during a hand. They were wrong in both instances.
Feldman has since admitted he wasn’t aware of the “test” feature option used by Stones. Matt Berkey, although informed directly that Stones had purchased the expensive upgrade, still denies the feature exists.
Addressing his slanted coverage of the scandal in an interview on March 4, 2024 with Doug Polk, Ingram to his credit, admitted his antics “got out of hand.”
Ingram also pointed to misinformation he initially helped spread, and to the surprise of many, even suggested Postle be allowed to tell his side.
“He says he didn’t play perfect on every river (as alleged)”, Ingram replied to Polk after he repeated debunked winrate claims.
*Ingram reported early on in his investigation that the data poker training site owner Bart Hanson and other respected pros cited and relied on heavily to “convict” Postle in the court of public opinion, was “disgusting” and “incorrect.”
Responding to Polk’s assertion Postle played perfect poker, Ingram pointed out, “I’ve been through some of the sessions where he wasn’t playing in that same style. I’m trying to be open minded. I’ve only watched like 20 sessions. There’s 90 sessions on there.”
If it wasn’t clear already that Ingram isn’t convinced Postle cheated, he erased all doubt when he concluded, “I want to see the guy play poker!”
The interview which marked Ingram’s return to the spotlight, and POSTLEGATE, appears to have been spurred by an impromptu appearance by Postle himself, on an “Omar of The OTC’s X Spaces” a few days earlier, which led to a follow-up (Omar) Spaces, where it was reported that a group of MIT workers, also avid poker players following the Postle case, concluded new data evidence cast serious doubt on Postle’s guilt.
“I’m not sure if I told people this”, a speaker identified as “M” shared, “but the guy who I’m working with at MIT, I met him playing poker. He’s a really dedicated poker player as are all the guys at MIT.
He continued, “When some of the updates to the data came this morning, where it looked like to me that his winrate was nothing close to what they were saying. The dollars that he won was nothing close to what they were saying. They claimed originally that he won about three hundred thousand, then it came out that he won a hundred and fifty thousand. They said he won 94% of his sessions, then it came out that he won 76% of his sessions.
They claimed that his winrate was super-crazy high based on one-three ($1-$3), but it was also documented that the games never even played a hand at $1-$3. It played higher. They straddled, they double-straddled, they had blind raises. So, if you keep all that in mind – how Postle played, in terms of his results, my guys concluded it’s definitely an outlier which means it’s rare… but to say that’s proof of cheating is absurd.”
The conclusion from anonymous “MIT workers” totally contradicts statements made by data expert and political pollster Nate Silver, who shared his analysis shortly after the scandal broke.
“He would play perfectly… He would play like ten standard deviations more.” – Nate Silver
Responding to the “MIT analysis”, including the discovery of 20 losing sessions, others weighed in:
“The irony is he didn’t win that much money.”
“He had several big losing sesions, but why is it every video clip I’ve seen, he never loses a hand? “
“I don’t know. Maybe we were duped.”
“I was like everyone else at first. They made it sound like there was no doubt, like there was some huge smoking gun, but nothing came out.”
Where is it? Where’s the proof?
