It didn’t even get to that part. This judge is saying that a person has no path to civil resolution under California state law regardless of if they were clearly cheated or not. It’s simply a “gambling dispute” and the courts will not hear it. You can cheat people in “gambling” as much as your heart desires under California state law with impunity. Predictably, a corporation would shapeshift from personhood to corporate lizardhood and recoup all of the money [strike]won[/strike] stolen from them and then switch back so they can refuse service to gays.
4 Likes
Doesn’t this effectively mean it’s legal to cheat at gambling in California? So a casino has not recourse like the suit against Ivey at Foxwoods? Similarity you would be nuts to play poker there as anyone can chat anyway they want with impunity.
Definitely legal to cheat another lowly individual person. Very much not legal to cheat and cost a casino money.
3 Likes
Why not the latter?
Because they own and run the system and fuck you, that’s why.
3 Likes
https://twitter.com/Joeingram1/status/1268326433698373634
Joey gunnin’ for that NYT job. Bedroom poker journalist is a pretty good talent fit iyam.
1 Like
grunching
wat
Guess they have to go to Paulie if they want protection… Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy’s gotta come up with Paulie’s money every week, no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you , pay me . Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you , pay me . Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you , pay me .”
3 Likes
Mind blowing. But scammers gonna scam.
Seriously. How has Postle not started gritting right wing idiots yet?
Lol poker. Russ Hamilton stole 8 figures and plays in major live events all the time without incident.
Isn’t CA an anti-SLAPP state? He’s suing ESPN who has unlimited money and I’m assuming access to top tier legal, and I’m almost positive they didn’t accuse him of cheating.
scott van pelt ran a segment on it. Used the cheat word. He said if a lot later on but who knows what the goal is, simply could be cheaper for espn to pay it to go away rather than the lawyers
Did SVP say “Mike Postle is cheating!” Hard for me to imagine that.
I’m just going off memory, but I don’t think Van Pelt said it that bluntly. His line was something like “Here’s what I don’t get, if this guy is truly this good why is he playing in some tiny game outside Sacramento. He could be crushing it for so much more at big games in Vegas. Seems pretty fishy to me”.
Once again, that’s me paraphrasing based on my memory of watching the segment many months ago. But if it wasn’t any more than that, I don’t see how they’re going to get ESPN for defamation.
Wait, this thread isn’t about somebody gaming our Rolling Stones song tournament?
4 Likes
ESPN prolly sent it over to their general liability insurance carrier. Assuming the insurance has a duty to hire counsel to defend the suit, it’s really their insurance company’s decision. I’d guess defending suits like this are relatively cheap as you’re just law broing it up, filing some motions to try and get rid of it. I’m sure the lawyers the insurance company hired already know the law so it’s not like you’re paying a ton for some research or whatever. My guess is some very nominal settlement that we’ll never know the terms of unless they can get it dismissed outright.
Every time I see the thread title my first reaction is still this. Damn it.
Except for this case guys like Polk and Ingrahm who explicitly said that Postle was cheating would have to actually show that Postle was cheating. Which isn’t a straightforward lawbro-ing at all, you’d have to basically teach the jury probability and poker. It seems like it would be a huge pain.