Although many courtrooms are darkened at this time, action has been heating up in the Mike Postle case in California. One of the defendants in the case, Stones Gambling Hall, has filed new motions that, for all purposes, state that it isn’t their job to watch out for any of their patrons while at the tables. This step comes after their previous motions that basically called the plaintiffs in the case “sore losers” and stated that they were using the oldest complaint of gamblers – that they were cheated.

New Motion Issued Last Week

There were a few differences in the new motion entered last week by Mark Mao of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP on behalf of Stones Gambling Hall. Citing several areas of California gaming law, the new motion said that the damages were “too speculative” to be adjudicated – essentially, that the losses by the 89 plaintiffs are not able to be determined with factual information. They also state that the plaintiffs haven’t been able to show how they were defrauded, which is an important part in showing that the card room is responsible for their gaming losses.

The new motion follows up the motion for dismissal from the attorneys back in February. In that motion, the attorneys that Stones “had no stake” in who won during the broadcasts of their “Stones Live” streaming programming and, as such, the case against them should be dismissed. The main focus of the case, Postle, is acting as his own attorney and basically filed a “what they said” motion for dismissal, using many of the same arguments as the Stones attorneys, soon after the February action from Stones Gambling Hall. This is all coming towards a major decision – if the courts are open – on April 16.

Postle Cheating Case Transfixes Poker Community

For those that might have missed this story (and, if you have, welcome back from your vacation under that rock), the Postle/Stones Cheating Scandal dates back to late 2018. Looking to garner similar success to their California brethren, the Bicycle Casino, and their popular Live At The Bike streaming program, Stones Gambling Hall started up Stones Live!, a program that had much lower stakes ($1/$3 No Limit Hold’em cash games) but quickly caught the attention of the poker community.

On the show, Postle became an almost God-like figure in making some outlandish decisions that always seemed to work out in his favor. For almost a year, Postle made these astonishing moves and scooped up an alleged $300,000 from his nearly perfect play. But people began to wonder if there was more to it than just excellent poker from a person who was not a household name in the poker world.

One of the broadcasters of the Stones Live! program, Veronica Brill (who was a player in the games and is also one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit), began to muse about how Postle consistently made such outstanding (and well-timed) moves and brilliant laydowns when he was beaten. Brill began to question these things publicly, which brought more attention to the broadcasts, and not in a good manner.

One of those who examined the video from the Stones Live! programming was noted podcaster Joey Ingram. Ingram dedicated hours to examining the videos from the show, including interviewing Brill, and discovered that Postle quite often would glance into his lap while hands were ongoing and at crucial moments in the play of said hands. Ingram alleged, in the end, that Postle was staring at a viewing device (perhaps a cellphone) in his lap that transmitted the live feed of the table to him – and not the other players at the table. Many others agreed with Ingram’s observations.

Currently Stones Gambling Hall is closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Stones Live! has not broadcasted since the civil lawsuit was filed against the card room and Postle in October. The courts in California have also been shuttered for the past few weeks, so the April 16 date for a hearing could be pushed back. The saga is continuing, however, and that hearing – whenever it is held – could be important in whether it goes forward or not.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.