GCA "Tourneys Russ Won"
Newgca
I have confessed to being a cheat at cards for most of my life. People fail to
accept I did not cheat alone. I have always cheated with packs, more organized
than many of you would contemplate. You have to understand my professional
poker playing career began in 1965. Poker was far different in those days as
only a few western states allowed card rooms. British Columbia,Alberta and
perhaps Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada did also.
I started my career in Seattle, Washington and expanded. Tournaments as you
know them were a new concept. One table freeze-outs were not. This is most
probably how tournaments of today started. By the mid seventies many card rooms
had tournaments. These were sporadic and occurred in many card rooms that no
longer exist.
Until 1980, when the Bell Club opened in Bell, California, the biggest card
rooms in the world contained 35 tables, a far cry from some of the mega card
rooms of today. These card rooms were in Gardena, California and all card rooms
there contained 35 tables as this was the law.
Dozens of small card room dotted the Pacific coast from the sixties through the
eighties. At one time or another, many of these places would have a tournament
or a tournament weekend. What do you imagine went on at this time?
This was the dawn of poker tournaments and no one knew anything, except the
cheats. As I have told you before, what do cheat's do better than anything,
except cheat. Here the slaughter began to evolve, as most tournament players
are now backed instead of being able to pay their own way. You can thank the
cheats for this and please don't think it has stopped. It is on hold as the
same people involved before are still in charge at this time.
Tournaments in the 70's and 80's were limited to far smaller amounts of
entries, as casinos didn't have as many tables and laws were far different. IRS
laws were far different and reporting of winnings was non existent. While the
WSOP was the biggest tournament in the world, not everyone was allowed to play
and cheat it. Certain Vegas cheats had exclusivity on the WSOP and only the
satellites were left to those that were not affiliated with Vegas cheating
packs.
Records were never kept in most places and the media was not present as it is
today. Most tournament entry fees in those days was about $100 or $200, and the
main money in these came from side betting who lasted longer. Many tournaments
were limited to 10 tables, as license fees were different.
Cheats excelled in those days. It was a smorgasbord as I have written in
previous posts. Last longer bets were the norm as egos were at stake. Cheats
didn't care about anything but money and had quite an edge on those playing for
sport or recreation. Cheats were in with management and procured boxes of
tournament chips prior to tournaments, for a flat fee and a percentage of the
win. The wins did not come from winning the tournament, but from winning the
last longer bets, that many people made in those days.
A tournament with an entry fee of $100 was limited to 80 or 90 players and
would have a prize pool of less than $10,000. While these pools were usually
divided in a 50% 25% 12 1/2% 5% and 2 1/2% etc, first place would not pay over
$5,000. This is where the last longer bets came into play. Cheat's with
management on their side, were able to coordinate last longer pools with the
bigger players at a rate of at least a $1000 a bet. An average amount of
players entering the side bet pools were about 1/3, so the side pool was
normally many times larger than the total prize pool of the real tournament.
The pool contained less players, players with money, the type cheat's want to
gamble with.
I talk from experience, and I can't remember a time that a cheating pack I was
in didn't win a tournament [make the money, as first place meant nothing]. We
were not after glory, simply the money, and the money was in the side action.
In those days, lines could be placed on an individual winning a tournament with
the given amount of entries. Many times in fields of 80 or 90 people I was
listed as 5-7 to one. No matter how many tournament chips you may have in your
pocket, things can go wrong. The point is you always get to the final table
with more than adequate chips. Let the games begin, as if it could be done, it
was done.
There were no chip counts and no one knew anything. Boxes of chips were added
to the tournaments and no one was any wiser. Money people side bet in those
days, long before they learned their lesson. These were times your could get
people to give odds of 5 to 1 or more to win the tournament, with a field of 80
or 90. With accomplices and people in management on your side it was easy to
overcome most obstacles.
In the seventies and eighties I played in hundreds of tournaments in the west.
I won tournaments in British Columbia, Alberta, Canada, Washington State,
Oregon, Montana, Colorado, California, and Nevada. Many of these card rooms are
no longer in existence and in these days of old, records were not kept as they
are today. Besides, most of these card rooms no longer exist.
I stopped playing tournaments when I could no longer get any last longer bets,
about 6 years ago, 1996. Since that period I have backed cheating packs with
regularity. A few years ago tournament play became over saturated with
cheaters, doing the same thing my pack was doing. Side bets or last longer bets
of $500 or more had become obsolete. Ten to twenty years ago, you could expect
to make 30 bets. Those days are gone and if you get a couple these days you
would be fortunate.
No glory, the only motivation was money. Money that was split in accordance
with the percentages with those I was involved with in cheating the
tournaments. I am on record as stating when I was recovering from heart surgery
in 1994, a place in Oceanside called Jerry's Place was very susceptible to our
methods. We [my pack and myself] must have split 1st place at least 50 times in
row in a bi-weekly tournament they had. The year was 1994 and as far as I know,
the license for that casino was transferred over to Oceans 11. I personally
purchased 4 extra boxes of non logo chips from the Gamblers Supply in Las Vegas
for this deed. Chips were left in and management did nothing about. Imagine 4
extra boxes of $100 chips [slightly off color and brand new] and management
does nothing about it. Guess where these people are today?
Cheating tournaments was just a normal occurrence in those days. Records of
tournaments are not available as many of these card rooms no longer in exist.
In the early 90's, after my second heart-attack, a group I was involved with
preyed on the daily and weekly tournaments in Vegas [Aladdin, Sam's Town, etc].
Needless to say, we never lost any we entered, as we always were supplied with
chips for our entrepreneurial enterprises.
You ask for records, there are none. We didn't give our names in those days.
Phony ID's and SSN abounded, so did anonymous. This was the way it was. It has
not changed since, though it may be stated it has. Others have taken over with
groups like I and others had. Our day is gone as people became tired of losing
to the same people. People will finally learn their lesson, how long it takes
is the story.
If you don't think I won hundreds of tournaments with my cheating pack, so be
it. This was the way it was and not much has changed, except it became far less
profitable as more and more cheats entered the arena. When side betting or last
longer bets stopped, I stopped playing tournaments. The year I stopped for good
was about 1996, though I may have played a few tournaments since. I cheated in
those also as I made sure I had side bets before I played. Extra chips I always
had, as they are like the tools a carpenter uses.
I can honestly say I can't remember playing a tournament honestly. I may have,
as there were really quite a few I played over a 35+ year career.
Russ Georgiev
Georgiev Cheating Analsyst, formerly
Gambling Cheating Analsyst
It is hard to fight the truth, logic just gets in the way.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Tournaments Won by Russ Georgiev & Company
<big snippolla>
What I see here (in the post snipped) is a fairly interesting,
fairly well-written trip down memory lane, tournament-wise, circa
whatever the years were (without re-reading it). It's probably the
official, encyclopedia Britannica version at this point, in other
words, the version any old-timer would probably tell. It has the ring
of truth-- let's give Old Mudflap credit where credit is due-- also
definite style points for typing, grammar, etc (Most Improved Award?
or do we detect the hand of someone else at work here?)-- the latter
of which (typing, grammar, etc) were formerly, we might even say
notoriously, weak points in the Russ 'oeuvre', as all dedicated
Russ-watchers are aware. I don't THINK you would have to travel any
farther than the oldest sourpuss in any card-room to hear the same
version of this-- minus the cheating pack stuff perhaps. I will only
point out that (putting on my statistician's cap for a moment) out of
the hundreds of victories Russ claims to have won, I didn't realize
the cheating pack would be sharing the glory. Suddenly it isn't Russ
winning-- now we're counting wins by "him and the pack" (In other
words, if one of the OTHER members of the cheating pack wins the
tournament, does that go into the "win" column as a Russ victory? A
minor thing, but for those keeping score at home, this would really
pad out the Russ All-Time Career Total. Obviously, Russ's "hundreds"
of victories goes into the record book with an asterisk, if that is
the case). Another suspicious sentence issuing from the Russ
Hedge-A-Torium, that caught my eye, was the one about victories not
mattering anyway, it was really the last longer bets that mattered, or
whatever the exact wording was, I forget.
On another matter, no records of any of this stuff exist, of
course. This came out of left field for me-- I didn't have the
slightest idea this was coming. It just hit me like a thunderbolt.
Something involving Russ can't be proven. Who knew? Certainly not
me. While I do get the picture, at least as projected/portrayed, it
is difficult to believe that no records of ANY kind exist. This did
occur during the 20th century, after all. To cite one rather tedious
example, in the current book I'm reading (Wyatt Earp this time--
finished with the Doc Holliday book), I note that on March 25, 1882,
money order #5664 was recorded at Tombstone, Arizona, payable to Mrs.
H. Marcus of San Francisco, payable to Wyatt Earp's WIFE'S mother, but
that the money order was actually purchased in the name of Josephine's
friend Annie Lewellen, who, as we know from numerous other records,
was the mother of Josephine's childhood friend Sarah Lewellen. (A
copy of this money order is in the Glenn Boyer collection; the
original of the money order is in the Jeanne Devere collection,
Tombstone, AZ; a letter from Sarah Lewellen to Albert Behan showing
various other aspects of this money order transaction is at the
University of Arizona library in Tucson, and so on, and so on.) At
any rate, keeping this sort of thing in mind (and a ton of other
similar examples that could be cited) it just seems improbable that if
we fast-forward a hundred years (from the 1880's), that no records of
anything would exist. Records exist at Hiroshima, for God's sake, and
a major traumatic record-and-document-rubbing-out situation occurred
there. But we'll let that one drift with the tide and give the Big
Boy the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Wayno
Robert Ladd
Robert Ladd
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3d8a9fdd...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On 20 Sep 2002 (Newgca) wrote:
>
> >Tournaments Won by Russ Georgiev & Company
>
> <big snippolla>
>
> snipping Wayno's snipe <
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>How gracious of you. I'm sure Russ is thrilled.
>
>Robert Ladd
> >But we'll let that one drift with the tide and give the Big
>> Boy the benefit of the doubt on this one.
>>
>> Wayno
Russ originally claimed he had won hundreds of tournaments. I
asked him to name one. Just one. Out of hundreds. If you look at
what he said, you'll notice he didn't do that. So let's all just
agree to pretend that no records of any kind exist for this period of
years in American history-- unlike, as I took pains to point out,
other periods in American history.
RussGgca
>or do we detect the hand of someone else at work here?)
You can detect anything you like, but the result is I wrote this without any
help. All a matter of IF.
> the latter
>of which (typing, grammar, etc) were formerly, we might even say
>notoriously, weak points in the Russ 'oeuvre', as all dedicated
>Russ-watchers are aware.
Never underestimate the power of a world class anything, let alone poker
player.
>I will only
>point out that (putting on my statistician's cap for a moment) out of
>the hundreds of victories Russ claims to have won, I didn't realize
>the cheating pack would be sharing the glory.
I shared in the money, and I received the "LION'S" share. Glory I couldn't
spend and was thus deemed excess baggage. I wonder why they make stealth
bombers?
>Suddenly it isn't Russ
>winning-- now we're counting wins by "him and the pack"
One man does not make a cheating pack. It is close to impossible for one person
to scam in a casino today. Cheating in poker is a "team effort", which people
may comprehend one of these days. I guess I didn't "WIN" since I was affiliated
with a team. It was sure nice to get the money when I didn't place highest.
Funny thing is I have only lost one last longer bet in my life in a tournament.
If I am not mistaken, it was in a Commerce NO LIMIT Tournament about 7 years
ago, about the end of my days of getting last longer bets. If I am not
mistaken, the person who won the ONE bet I have ever lost is John Espisito. In
this tournament I made about 8 last longer bets for $1000 and one bet for $500.
Entry fee was $300 I think and I outlasted everyone as usual, except for the
one blemish I shall forever retain. I was also out with chips and had a feeder
supplying me with chips. Probably 200 entries and all I could get was 8 lousy
last longer bets from all of the best tournament players in the world. If you
think they knew something, you are sadly mistaken. Most were suffering from
"backer delema". So I hung my spurs up again and headed for the cash cows for
good.
>A
>minor thing, but for those keeping score at home, this would really
>pad out the Russ All-Time Career Total. Obviously, Russ's "hundreds"
>of victories goes into the record book with an asterisk, if that is
>the case).
Do you think I care about the glory? I would of stayed home if they would have
mailed the money to me. Fact was they weren't considerate enough to do so, so I
had to do it the old fashioned way, STEAL IT.
>Another suspicious sentence issuing from the Russ
>Hedge-A-Torium, that caught my eye, was the one about victories not
>mattering anyway, it was really the last longer bets that mattered, or
>whatever the exact wording was, I forget.
That is where the money was in those days. Three of us in tournaments with a
box of tournament chips at our disposal, making last longer bets with as many
people as we could. It was just an appetizer compared to the banquets Chip and
Doyle were having.
>It just hit me like a thunderbolt.
>Something involving Russ can't be proven. Who knew? Certainly not
>me.
Just for the record, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada used to have many
poker rooms afew years back. Loggers, Athens, Lumbermans and Port Moody were
only a few. I don't think any still exist. I venture to say it would be
difficult to name a dozen card rooms still around from the old days, even from
the late eighties. Most would have to be in California as most had not survived
after the mega casinos of the 80's took over. I would not count Washington's,
as they were all closed down in 1968 when a Republican Government took over.
$2 limit card rooms appeared back when the Democrats were reinstated in 72.
>While I do get the picture, at least as projected/portrayed, it
>is difficult to believe that no records of ANY kind exist. This did
>occur during the 20th century, after all.
Most probably many records would exist, I wish you the best on you new quest.
>But we'll let that one drift with the tide and give the Big
>Boy the benefit of the doubt on this one.
>
> Wayno
>
There is NO DOUBT in the eyes of those around. NO DOUBT in their minds either.
High stakes players believe me in an overwhelming majority. These were my peers
and they now know the score. END of STORY. All the BS from you and the minions
are could not stop the truth from being believed, at least by the group
intended to listen.
Keep firing away as it will only spell your doom as books will be out in mass
before the end of the decade.I don't mean from me either. Others are involved
and time is the only element at risk here. The truth is coming out to the
masses, Wayno and lil ole you won't even be considered a minion.
Wayno, I only cheated for the MONEY, I swear. If I wanted Glory, I would have
married her.
Russ Georgiev
Jodder
Newgca wrote:
> You have to understand my professional
> poker playing career began in 1965. Poker was far different in those days as
> only a few western states allowed card rooms. British Columbia,Alberta and
> perhaps Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada did also.
>
Are you sure your career didn't begin in 1865, far as I know in 1965
British Columbia,Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were a part of Canada.
RussGgca
>asked him to name one. Just one. Out of hundreds.
Easy to do Wayno and in a casino many would know and which is still operating.
If I am not mistaken I won two out of three the last time I played in their
three day schedule. The place, Lake Elsinore. Time winter of 94. Previously in
that year I had split 1st place in Jerry's Place at least 20 times in a row. I
didn't want to be a hog, because it was so blatant if you watched. Many times I
would not play a hand or win a pot and every time I went to another table, I
would have more and more chips. On an ocasion or two, I never won a pot until
the final table. Strength in this tournament came in the fact it was limit
until the final table, when it went to No Limit. My cohorts continued winning
the tournaments until the place closed down. I was in Oceanside for heart
surgury in 1994 at Tri Cities Medical Center. Remember, this was a very bad
year for me as I nearly died [worse year for others that I lived].
During a period I was in Canada in the 80's, I won many tournaments in a row at
the Athens Club. I even dumped to a buddy as we were able to get 1st and 2nd,
besides all the side bets. Obviously the person who came in 3rd sqauked as it
was rather BLATANT. I had both other parties down to nary a chip and let my
pard have the blind and took out the opposition on the next hand. He was all in
and it would only of cost me 1 tournament chip, but several thousand Canadian
dollars. They [card room] called Canadian immigration on me and I was asked to
leave the Canada, at least go back to the border and re-enter. I thus drove the
20 odd miles to the border and turned around and was back within an hour.
Vancouver is a GREAT CITY, one of the most fun places I have ever been, but
Canadians were always a few years behind in poker in those days. Besides in
those days, I NEVER LOST as most games I played in were Pot-Limit.
In my 30+ year career playing poker, I went from 20 years ahead of my time, to
10 years behind times. Not in poker however, as I missed the computer age.
Where the hell did these computers come from anyway?
I won tournaments in every card room I played, while on the road and home.
Billings, Montana [Royal Flush and another place]. Great Falls, Montana in Joe
Goots place back in the 70's. There were so many card rooms up the western
coast it is impossible to remember. Tournaments were just another way to
extract the money in places that had smaller action. I used to charter planes
to fly into remote places just to play poker for the weekend.
Russ Georgiev
Robert Ladd
If you'll look closely you'll see, "only a few western states allowed card
rooms." Then he states, "British Columbia, Alberta and perhaps
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada did also."
Robert Ladd
"Jodder" <Jodde...@SPAM.MEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D8ABFD4...@SPAM.MEhotmail.com...
RussGgca
>> perhaps Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada did also.
>>
>
>Are you sure your career didn't begin in 1865, far as I know in 1965
>British Columbia,Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were a part of Canada.
>
>
>
as I am sure I know more about Canadian history and geography than the majority
of Canadians or Americans, vast majority. I had to as I played all over Canada
for several years in numerous proviences, as well as the Yukon territory.
Russ Georgiev
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>>(Most Improved Award?
>>or do we detect the hand of someone else at work here?)
>
>You can detect anything you like, but the result is I wrote this without any
>help. All a matter of IF.
>
>> the latter
>>of which (typing, grammar, etc) were formerly, we might even say
>>notoriously, weak points in the Russ 'oeuvre', as all dedicated
>>Russ-watchers are aware.
>
>Never underestimate the power of a world class anything, let alone poker
>player.
I said you had improved, Russ. I didn't say you were Homer, or
Tolstoy or something. Let's not blow this out of proportion.
>>I will only
>>point out that (putting on my statistician's cap for a moment) out of
>>the hundreds of victories Russ claims to have won, I didn't realize
>>the cheating pack would be sharing the glory.
>
>I shared in the money, and I received the "LION'S" share. Glory I couldn't
>spend and was thus deemed excess baggage. I wonder why they make stealth
>bombers?
>
>>Suddenly it isn't Russ
>>winning-- now we're counting wins by "him and the pack"
>
>One man does not make a cheating pack. It is close to impossible for one person
>to scam in a casino today. Cheating in poker is a "team effort", which people
>may comprehend one of these days. I guess I didn't "WIN" since I was affiliated
>with a team.
Well this was sort of my point. If any member of the cheating
pack wins, is that then considered a tournament win for Russ? If I
can include 4 or 5 acquaintances in MY total, then I've won hundreds
of tournaments too. The conventional definition of winning a
tournament is that you are the last guy standing and have all the
chips. If your cheating buddy Moe is the one who this definition
fits-- at the end of the tournament he has all the chips-- then
technically speaking, you did not win the tournament. We understand
that you got the money. We understand that you and Moe chopped up the
dough outside the poker room, and that everybody's happy. But you did
not win the tournament.
>It was sure nice to get the money when I didn't place highest.
>Funny thing is I have only lost one last longer bet in my life in a tournament.
>If I am not mistaken, it was in a Commerce NO LIMIT Tournament about 7 years
>ago, about the end of my days of getting last longer bets. If I am not
>mistaken, the person who won the ONE bet I have ever lost is John Espisito. In
>this tournament I made about 8 last longer bets for $1000 and one bet for $500.
>Entry fee was $300 I think and I outlasted everyone as usual, except for the
>one blemish I shall forever retain. I was also out with chips and had a feeder
>supplying me with chips. Probably 200 entries and all I could get was 8 lousy
>last longer bets from all of the best tournament players in the world. If you
>think they knew something, you are sadly mistaken. Most were suffering from
>"backer delema". So I hung my spurs up again and headed for the cash cows for
>good.
>
>>A
>>minor thing, but for those keeping score at home, this would really
>>pad out the Russ All-Time Career Total. Obviously, Russ's "hundreds"
>>of victories goes into the record book with an asterisk, if that is
>>the case).
>
>Do you think I care about the glory?
There must be some sense in which you care about the glory,
because you were bragging about having "won hundreds of tournaments".
You must think there is something impressive about this, either to
yourself or others, or you wouldn't have mentioned it.
>I would of stayed home if they would have
>mailed the money to me. Fact was they weren't considerate enough to do so, so I
>had to do it the old fashioned way, STEAL IT.
>
>>Another suspicious sentence issuing from the Russ
>>Hedge-A-Torium, that caught my eye, was the one about victories not
>>mattering anyway, it was really the last longer bets that mattered, or
>>whatever the exact wording was, I forget.
>
>That is where the money was in those days.
That's fine. If you had said, "I've won hundreds of last longer
bets", then this fact, above, and your original statement would have
been in allignment.
I'm sure the publishing industry is waiting with bated breath
Russ. They've just never seen anything like this. What'll happen is
that it'll be a minor blip on their radar screen that will come and
go, just like everything else. If you think this thing will rate more
than half one page in People magazine, where the average reader scans
it at the hairdressers, mumbles "Hm, interesting", and then turns the
page... well, I think you're uninformed. It isn't going to be a movie
with Kevin Costner playing Russ.
>I don't mean from me either. Others are involved
>and time is the only element at risk here. The truth is coming out to the
>masses, Wayno and lil ole you won't even be considered a minion.
>
>Wayno, I only cheated for the MONEY, I swear. If I wanted Glory, I would have
>married her.
I understand that. It's just that bragging about having won
hundreds of tournaments is a rather ineffective means of convincing
people that you only care about the money-- and you care nothing about
winning tournaments.
>Russ Georgiev
Dennis Shuflin
> From: Larr...@charter.net (Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips)
> Well this was sort of my point. If any member of the cheating
> pack wins, is that then considered a tournament win for Russ?
Is any tournament gain that results from cheating really a win?
If I rob a gas station can I say I earned the money?
What this bozo did has nothing to do with using real poker skill to win a
tournament, comparing himself to people who do is the height of deluded
narcissism.
Dennis
Robert Ladd
be an important concept. When in fact it was a simple hyperbole in the
pursuit of another point.
Of course, the original point gets lost in the shuffle as you again "prove"
that Russ is lying about some innocuous claim.
As you can see below, Daniel and Russ were sparring over a particular
tournament play. Daniel threw a wild punch by questioning how Russ could
speak from experience by questioning whether Russ had ever won a tournament.
DanielN wrote:
>>Perhaps you could share with us an example of when this play worked for
you
>>on your way to winning a tournament.... wait, have you ever won a
tournament?
Russ replied:
>I'll wait for you to share where you played a hand like you suggest "pup".
By
>the way, I have won 100's of smaller tournaments over the years. We just
had
>different ways of doing things, as we always cheated. Where do you think
men
>and the rest learned about chip passing and dumping, a playbook?
Russ responded with his answer in reply to Daniel's implication that he had
no valid tournament experience to speak from. It was a statement using
hyperbole.
Since you're the "Russ lie" police, and you're greater glory comes from
catching and proving Russ lied about some point so it can be entered into
his "lie" record, you've again done a marvelous job.
If Russ ever mentions that he picked up a big book, and it "weighed a ton",
I'm sure you'll go on and on asking Russ to name what book it was and where
he bought it so we have proof that he actually picked up a book that heavy,
and again find another "lie" that can be marked on the "Russ lie" police
blotter.
If anyone you know makes a statement that they are really tired and they
could "sleep for a hundred years", I'd tread cautiously if you think you
have caught them in some type of lie. I seriously doubt that they are
trying to deceive you into believing that they are actually going to sleep
that long.
My guess is that you may have used a little hyperbole here and there in your
writing too Wayno.
Caught in your "lie trap", Russ had to explain the point, and you can now
strut around since you've caught him in some grand attempt to deceive the
entire RGP community.
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3d8b1c08...@news.cis.dfn.de...
I didn't see this as "bragging" to convince anyone of anything. I saw it as
a response to Daniel's claim that he'd never won a tournament.
After seeing Russ' response I'd have to say it was probably closer to truth
than hyperbole, but I'm sure you've got your own opinion which has tossed
objectivity to the wind.
Robert Ladd
Bennett Niizawa
> I had to as I played all over Canada for several years in numerous
> proviences, as well as the Yukon territory.
Holy cow! Was that you trying to scam Bugs Bunny during the gold rush???
http://www.tultw.com/bios/bjs.htm
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Typical Wayno. You take some statement, out of context, and blow it up to
>be an important concept. When in fact it was a simple hyperbole in the
>pursuit of another point.
Oh, now it's hyperbole. Maybe it was just a "figure of
speech"...? Hold on a second-- let me look that up, and see if we
can't shoe-horn it into that category....
>Of course, the original point gets lost in the shuffle as you again "prove"
>that Russ is lying about some innocuous claim.
>As you can see below, Daniel and Russ were sparring over a particular
>tournament play. Daniel threw a wild punch--
Daniel threw a wild punch? Frankly, the punch doesn't seem all
that "wild" to me. Daniel is a real player who wins real tournaments
that have occurred on real dates at real locations against real
opponents, all of which is verifiable. He has every right to wonder
about Russ's record-- one which, as it turns out, includes smaller
tournaments, at hard-to-verify locations, and cheating. For all
anybody knows, Russ can't carry Daniel's jockstrap. Have we seen any
evidence to the contrary? Maybe you've seen some-- I haven't.
>by questioning how Russ could
>speak from experience by questioning whether Russ had ever won a tournament.
>DanielN wrote:
>>>Perhaps you could share with us an example of when this play worked for
>you
>>>on your way to winning a tournament.... wait, have you ever won a
>tournament?
Frankly, that's still my question too. Russ and his "pack" have
won hundreds of tournaments. That's the most recent word we have.
Prior to this it was Russ winning hundreds of tournaments, now it's
him and his pack. Well, I gotta tell you quite frankly, Robert, me
and a "pack" of about 4 or 5 of my close personal friends have won
hundreds of tournaments too, and we didn't have to cheat to do it.
Still other people, as Dennis Shuflin has pointed out, would even
question if ANY of these are victories. If you basically "steal" a
tournament, by bringing your own chips and whatnot, have you "won" the
tournament? In light of this, the question might not be whether "Russ
has won hundreds of tournaments", the question might be, "Has Russ won
any tournaments at all?"
I'm guessing this is the thrust of what Daniel meant by his
question, and it was right on the money. It hits the bulls-eye.
>Russ replied:
>>I'll wait for you to share where you played a hand like you suggest "pup".
>By the way, I have won 100's of smaller tournaments over the years.
Lol. In Russ's latest version: "in the seventies and eighties I
played in hundreds of tournaments". Played.
>We just
>had
>>different ways of doing things, as we always cheated. Where do you think
>men
>>and the rest learned about chip passing and dumping, a playbook?
>
>Russ responded with his answer in reply to Daniel's implication that he had
>no valid tournament experience to speak from. It was a statement using
>hyperbole.
Oh, now it's hyperbole. Next it'll be a mis-statement. Any minute
now it's going to be an accidental word-usage, or possibly some kind
of massive typo.
Russ wrote what he wrote. It's there in black and white. You can
bend over 275 degrees to the vertical in attempting to recast it as
hyperbole, as a witty turn of expression, as a satirical allegory, as
late-night horseplay, or whatever else you want but the rest of us can
see what he wrote.
>Since you're the "Russ lie" police, and you're greater glory comes from
>catching and proving Russ lied about some point so it can be entered into
>his "lie" record, you've again done a marvelous job.
When Russ makes some statement with a hole in it so big you can
drive a semi through, yes, if I'm sitting here watching TV and I'm
bored enough, I'll usually be there to drive the semi through. I
wouldn't put this particular outing in that category, however. This
is more like a hole the size of a Dodge Minivan and two Toyota Camrys.
>If Russ ever mentions that he picked up a big book, and it "weighed a ton",
>I'm sure you'll go on and on asking Russ to name what book it was and where
>he bought it so we have proof that he actually picked up a book that heavy,
>and again find another "lie" that can be marked on the "Russ lie" police
>blotter.
If Russ said "the sun was going to come up somewhere in the world
tomorrow" I would start to seriously wonder about that because of
Russ's previous spotty record in this regard.
Maybe you could explain to Russ that if he puts quote marks around
some of his statements-- as you did above, in "weighed a ton"-- then
readers won't take what he says to actually be what it says when we
read it and that way he'll be off the hook.
>If anyone you know makes a statement that they are really tired and they
>could "sleep for a hundred years", I'd tread cautiously if you think you
>have caught them in some type of lie. I seriously doubt that they are
>trying to deceive you into believing that they are actually going to sleep
>that long.
>
>My guess is that you may have used a little hyperbole here and there in your
>writing too Wayno.
Here and there? I use hyperbole all the time. One particularly
good use of it is to recast something a person actually said, in black
and white, into a slightly different framework, in order to draw the
curtain back on how incredibly stupid that person's original statement
was. So yes, I use hyperbole frequently.
>Caught in your "lie trap", Russ had to explain the point, and you can now
>strut around since you've caught him in some grand attempt to deceive the
>entire RGP community.
Strut around? I doubt it. I haven't really struttted around
since Russ wrote: "Daniel made a deal. PERIOD", and you bent yourself
into a 360 degree pretzel attempting to explain that this was
something other than what the words actually say.
>"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:3d8b1c08...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> On 20 Sep 2002 05:49:43 GMT, russ...@aol.com (RussGgca) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Wayno, I only cheated for the MONEY, I swear. If I wanted Glory, I would
>have
>> >married her.
>>
>> I understand that. It's just that bragging about having won
>> hundreds of tournaments is a rather ineffective means of convincing
>> people that you only care about the money-- and you care nothing about
>> winning tournaments.
>
>I didn't see this as "bragging" to convince anyone of anything. I saw it as
>a response to Daniel's claim that he'd never won a tournament.
lol. If it was "hyperbole" in response to Daniel's question,
then bragging enters the picture. This is nothing more than Russ
building himself up by pounding on his chest, Tarzan-like, to tell
everyone how good he was. Look up "bragging" in the dictionary.
>After seeing Russ' response I'd have to say it was probably closer to truth
>than hyperbole, but I'm sure you've got your own opinion which has tossed
>objectivity to the wind.
My response is that Russ's "pack" seems to have more actual
victories than he did, that a good argument could be made that
stealing a tournament might not even be defined as "winning" it, and
that if this definition is applied then this significantly lowers
Russ's number of "hundreds", and that combing through a thesaurus to
find a word like "hyperbole" in the attempt to explain all this away
seems like bending over so far that it's very noticeable.
>Robert Ladd
Wayno
MinTroPoker
>
Hey Homer, Plato is waiting for you with your share.
>If I rob a gas station can I say I earned the money?
>
Duh, I wonder what the robbers would say.
>What this bozo did has nothing to do with using real poker skill to win a
>tournament, comparing himself to people who do is the height of deluded
>narcissism.
He states many others do the same, soes that seem to be the part that eludes
you. Men has been accused by Russ and Daniel as well as others yet he is still
playing. Better converse with Socrates before coming with your ds.
Mini Tro
Dennis Shuflin
pathetic.
Michael O'Malley
have to give up now, you made em look like fools (again). Next thread...
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3d8b4db2...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Donald-john Macquarrie
I am under the impression that poker tournaments are no longer allowed in BC
(although still legal in Alberta and Saksy I think). Do I have you to blame
that I can't play a poker tournament in my home province lol? Keep up the
interesting posts (general history, poker content etc.) DJ
"RussGgca" <russ...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020920025422...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Ok Wayno, stop it (please:)...you win by a land slide. Robert Ladd and Russ
>have to give up now, you made em look like fools (again). Next thread...
I just hope that sometime when I do something incredibly stupid--
always a distinct possibility-- that I have Robert Ladd defending me
because of his dogged, determined, tenacious, arguing style when it
comes to defending really stupid stuff.
Lynnda Clark
>
>If I rob a gas station can I say I earned the money?
>
>What this bozo did has nothing to do with using real poker skill to win a
>tournament, comparing himself to people who do is the height of deluded
>narcissism.
>
>Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Are we addressing the wrong problem? Money is money and does what money is
intended to do. If you are a cheat does it matter how you get the money? I have
some startling news for you, most people don't care how they get it. If I were
a bank robber I would had a good day if I successfully robbed a bank.
Are you one of those people that sees martyrs the world over? Most people come
with price tags, and that is fact. Offered one million dollars to start writing
Russ was a good guy, I suppose you would turn it down, so another person would
take up the slack. The problem to be addressed is how poker management allows
this to happen for decades. Should we just bury our heads in the sand and
dismiss the issue. We allow casinos to drop our money and should expect
protection for this. Are we getting protection or are we getting the shaft?.
I read the tournament article by Russ and it sounds like the truth to me. We
keep attacking him when we should focus our attention on others, mainly those
we trust to keep our money and us secure in the games we play. The travesty
lies not in what Russ has done, but the fact he hasn't been stopped in decades.
To believe he is a cheat, (I would question anyone that didn't) then we must
believe he cheated for decades. Why wasn't he stopped from playing or being
employed by major American casinos. Here lies the real problem of this
situation. How many others are or were involved with him? How many others like
him are around?
This issue we face is how was cheating able to be accomplished through the many
years reported, under the all seeing eyes of management? Many must be involved
as you wouldn't be able to accomplish these acts by yourself. The rationale is
here, to read and comprehend. Can Russ possibly be the only one doing this? The
explanations seem so simple, as it doesn't seem possible he did these things
unassisted. He has named cohorts, yet they are all dismissed. Wouldn't some
authority at least look into allegations. Unless Russ is right and it is a
cover up of massive proportions. The more I read the more I tend to believe
this.
It would be impossible for any sane person to believe Russ has been a cheat for
thirty years and conducted business with utter impunity. It would be impossible
for others to not be conducting business in the same manner. It seems these
acts were condoned and immunity was granted.
We run, hide and cry where is the proof? The proof is right in front of us if
we take our blinders off. Management is involved and a cover up is going on. To
believe Russ is a cheat is to believe he had management assistance. Of course
we can dismiss the issue of him being a cheat and go into denial he is
perpetrating some fraud. Believing he is not a cheat would really test a
person's intelligence.
I believe Russ is a cheat. I believe management has to be involved. I believe
management is covering their asses. If Russ is cheat, (you will never be able
to convince me he is anything else) why was he not stopped by the security and
surveillance in the casinos? Thirty years is quite a run and many have been
here as long or longer than Russ. I don't claim to be a math major but can add
2 and 2 when the situations calls for it.
Lynnda
RazzO
now.
razzo
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" wrote:
> I just hope that sometime when I do something incredibly stupid--
> always a distinct possibility-- that I have Robert Ladd defending me
> because of his dogged, determined, tenacious, arguing style when it
> comes to defending really stupid stuff.
--
==================================
RAZZO.COM EMAIL:
http://www.razzo.com ra...@razzo.com
* *
POKERWORLD.COM http://www.pokerworld.com
==================================
eleaticus
Then consider the absurd idea presented in rgp time after time that it
happened 'then' but doesn't now. I guess their logic is that the more money
and players and casinos and personnel involved the less opportunity or
motive there is to cheat, inverse-exponential evidently.
Eleaticus
"Lynnda Clark" <lynnd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020920153747...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Robert Ladd
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 "Robert Ladd" wrote:
>
Wayno, this all started with Russ and Daniel arguing over a point on how to
play a certain situation in a tournament. Russ very untactful tells Daniel
that his concept is stupid, naturally Daniel gets pissed and questions Russ'
tournament experience. Had it been most anyone other than Daniel, I doubt
Russ would have taken off the gloves and been so rough. Had it been most
anyone other than Russ, my guess is Daniel would have just shrugged it off
and say something like that's you opinion.
Now, being realistic, if some 20 something kid is telling YOU that you have
no right to question him because he's won a lot of tournaments, and you'd
had more experience than that kid could possibly have had, because you were
playing before he was even born, then you might just blow up and defend you
experience with an exaggeration. It wasn't even thrown out as a boast, but
seemed more to be defending his right to tell Daniel that he was wrong in
his assessment of how to play that situation.
Of course, you have to jump in, being that you're the self appointed "Russ
lie" police and blow the statement out of proportion.
It wasn't meant to be anything more than explaining that he had plenty
enough experience to question Daniel's assessment of how the situation
should be played. But you've now got "proof" that Russ uttered another lie,
and the parade goes on.
Robert Ladd
Robert Ladd
get any sleep for days knowing that.
Robert Ladd
"Michael O'Malley" <rzi...@lvcm.raise.com> wrote in message
news:6NJi9.48090$S32.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
RussGgca
>pathetic.
>
From: sextontoc (sext...@lvcm.com)
Subject: Re: Doyle Brunson
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
View this article only
Date: 2001-06-05 07:53:20 PST
I do know Russ. I have played with him and I will tell all of you that he
is a great poker player (without cheating). But if he or anyone else
doesn't think Chip and Doyle are sensational poker players and couldn't beat
any honest game, then they truly are misguided and aren't as poker
knowledgable as they think.
Mike Sexton
Robert Ladd
Maybe a trip back to grade school would help. I'm picturing a scene from
the Beverly Hillbillies where Jethro/RazzO gets stuck in one of those little
desks when going back for his 3 R's.
Of course, you'd probably glue your lips to the ass of the kid that wins the
classroom spelling bee.
Robert Ladd
"RazzO" <ra...@razzo.com> wrote in message
news:3D8B7C17...@razzo.com...
Robert Ladd
causes you to jump into threads for no other reason than to twist the
situation so that you can tally another lie in the Russ ledger. I'm here to
help you be a better person Wayno. Some day you'll thank me for it.
Robert Ladd
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3d8b71a1...@news.cis.dfn.de...
RussGgca
Wayno and others. I couldn't care less about playing tournaments or the glory
they get you. In fact, I never mentioned them until called out the other day
about playing in them.
I am not one out for GLORY. This used to be a very negative aspect in the
business I was in. I have won my share of money in tournaments and have shared
in teams of mine winning in WSOP events as well as other events. We cheat in a
"team style" and as I have stated before, I will not give up the members of my
cheating packs. It is common knowledge to many people and they have a right to
post their names.
Last longer bets were the main places to win money in tournaments. I don't care
about wins. I care about the money. I just mentioned the tournaments as a
response to Daniel as stating I have never played. Their are many negatives to
playing tournaments and any smart individual could possibly imagine what they
would be.
Remember one thing in life. In order to be able to get into a position to steal
the big money, you must be equal to the task. The best players are the scammers
as I have stated from day one. How does one get to level in the first place
without being able to play?
Scamming was done as insurance in order to avoid any prolonged bad runs and in
order to have a place to play. It is always good to have a game you can play in
to be able to support you. Thus having a nucleus of a half dozen scammers or
more playing for exceptionally high stakes, paints quite a picture and makes
quite a trap to some unsuspecting individual hoping to find an honest game
while 5 or 6 scammers have sat down to trap some prey.
Russ Georgiev
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>> Snip it.... snip it in the bud <
>
>Wayno, this all started with Russ and Daniel arguing over a point on how to
>play a certain situation in a tournament. Russ very untactful tells Daniel
>that his concept is stupid, naturally Daniel gets pissed and questions Russ'
>tournament experience. Had it been most anyone other than Daniel, I doubt
>Russ would have taken off the gloves and been so rough.
lol This was Russ "being rough"? lol...
See? This is exactly why I want to have you be the one defending
me when I do something stupid.
>Had it been most
>anyone other than Russ, my guess is Daniel would have just shrugged it off
>and say something like that's you opinion.
>
>Now, being realistic, if some 20 something kid is telling YOU that you have
>no right to question him because he's won a lot of tournaments, and you'd
>had more experience than that kid could possibly have had, because you were
>playing before he was even born, then you might just blow up and defend you
>experience with an exaggeration.
I'm thinking maybe Russ should label his exaggerations in some way
from now on-- make them clearer that that's what they are. For
instance, if I say I was talking to a girl in a cocktail bar last
night who had a boil on her nose the size of a Buick, that's sort of
'self-labeled' and self-explanatory. Now Russ isn't capable of such
fine, subtle euphemisms as this. So maybe he ought to either avoid
them altogether, or put them in quotes or something. Otherwise, when
he writes something like "Daniel made a deal. Period", or "I've won
hundreds of tournaments" some of us are liable to miss the hee-hawing
hilarity of it all and take the words at their face value. And since
we're not Kreskin, we can't tell that Russ is secretly slapping his
knee with laughter when he writes this stuff, thinking what a
hilarious exaggeration it all is, and we naturally have no choice but
to take the words for what they say, at face value. Do you see our
dilemma?
Then there's the other problem: hyperbole and/or exaggeration is
probably a poor "style choice'" for anyone who is in the Accusing--
People--Of--Cheating business. Russ might want to look into a more
fact-based style.
>It wasn't even thrown out as a boast, but
>seemed more to be defending his right to tell Daniel that he was wrong in
>his assessment of how to play that situation.
>
>Of course, you have to jump in, being that you're the self appointed "Russ
>lie" police and blow the statement out of proportion.
>
>It wasn't meant to be anything more than explaining that he had plenty
>enough experience to question Daniel's assessment of how the situation
>should be played. But you've now got "proof" that Russ uttered another lie,
>and the parade goes on.
lol
Have you ever seen an argument or debate going on between two
sides that went on for a year and a half where one side produced no
proof whatsoever of its position? Do you recall any precedent for
this, in world history? (Apart from the Salem Witch Trials, of
course-- but even there they had weird squawking and moaning they
could introduce as evidence.)
>Robert Ladd
lol... I'm going back to watching TV. Sayonora
Steve Badger
> Are we addressing the wrong problem?
Yes, the time wasted by people in this newsgroup on nonsense is a pretty
staggering one.
> Money is money and does what money is
> intended to do. If you are a cheat does it matter how you get the money? I
have
> some startling news for you, most people don't care how they get it. If I
were
> a bank robber I would had a good day if I successfully robbed a bank.
I have some startling news for you, most people have scruples. Some don't,
as we see here.
> Are you one of those people that sees martyrs the world over? Most people
come
> with price tags, and that is fact. Offered one million dollars to start
writing
> Russ was a good guy, I suppose you would turn it down, so another person
would
> take up the slack. The problem to be addressed is how poker management
allows
> this to happen for decades.
What is "this"? Please be specific.
> Should we just bury our heads in the sand and
> dismiss the issue.
What issue? Please be specific.
> We allow casinos to drop our money and should expect
> protection for this. Are we getting protection or are we getting the
shaft?.
> I read the tournament article by Russ and it sounds like the truth to me.
So you are gullible. Okay. The sad fact is again that Russ prey on the
gullible suckers of the world. he makes claim that are obviously untrue and
that he not only can't back up but he runs away from immediately. Still
some gullibles ignore that completely and believe a fairytale.
> We
> keep attacking him when we should focus our attention on others, mainly
those
> we trust to keep our money and us secure in the games we play.
Focus attention on these others because why? Please be specific.
> The travesty
> lies not in what Russ has done, but the fact he hasn't been stopped in
decades.
> To believe he is a cheat, (I would question anyone that didn't) then we
must
> believe he cheated for decades. Why wasn't he stopped from playing or
being
> employed by major American casinos.
Because his level of cheating is puny in comparison to his meglomaniac lies.
Honest to God, how many dozens of times this have to be shown to the
fish-hook in the mouth folks before they get it? Russ' statements are time
and time and time again shown to be objectively untrue or enormous
distortions. The man claims to have won hundreds of tournaments but can't
name one single date. And still some few folks don't get it.
> Here lies the real problem of this
> situation. How many others are or were involved with him? How many others
like
> him are around?
Here lies the real problem, but you can ignore that if you want.
> This issue we face is how was cheating able to be accomplished through the
many
> years reported, under the all seeing eyes of management? Many must be
involved
> as you wouldn't be able to accomplish these acts by yourself. The
rationale is
> here, to read and comprehend. Can Russ possibly be the only one doing
this?
What "things"? Please be specific. Saying "winning hundreds of
tournaments" is not "being specific"? It's being an idiot.
> The
> explanations seem so simple, as it doesn't seem possible he did these
things
> unassisted. He has named cohorts, yet they are all dismissed.
Aha. Finally to the reason to answer another one of these sad posts. Russ
has NOT named his cohorts, aside from Bruce Migdal. Don't you gullible
folks think that is just a wee bit weird? That he names all these folks
that he hasn't the slightest information about but doesn't name anybody in
this "pack" of his (that won hundreds of tournaments). How gullible to the
millionth degree are you? He's had a year and a half to name people he's
cheated with, but he hasn't.
> Wouldn't some
> authority at least look into allegations. Unless Russ is right and it is a
> cover up of massive proportions. The more I read the more I tend to
believe
> this.
What allegations? Please be specific.
> It would be impossible for any sane person to believe Russ has been a
cheat for
> thirty years and conducted business with utter impunity.
What is not sane is for any reasonable person to be sitting around believing
Russ meglomania fantasies. The guy is an ex-prop. He's hugely in debt from
drugs and gambling. He's a complete failure as a human being. He preys on
the weak-minded and gullible. He's been dishonorable his whole life and it
has gotten him nothing except the ability to continue to prey on the weak.
> It would be impossible
> for others to not be conducting business in the same manner. It seems
these
> acts were condoned and immunity was granted.
>
> We run, hide and cry where is the proof? The proof is right in front of us
if
> we take our blinders off.
So what are the dates that Russ won his hundreds of tournaments? Please be
specific.
> Management is involved and a cover up is going on.
Involved in what? Please be specific.
> To
> believe Russ is a cheat is to believe he had management assistance.
To believe Russ you have to be a fool, period. He's been objectively wrong
every time something can be objectively shown. Pretend that isn't so, but
waste your own time in doing so please.
You don't need management assistance to be a lowlife hustler.
> Of course
> we can dismiss the issue of him being a cheat and go into denial he is
> perpetrating some fraud. Believing he is not a cheat would really test a
> person's intelligence.
LOL.
> I believe Russ is a cheat. I believe management has to be involved. I
believe
> management is covering their asses. If Russ is cheat, (you will never be
able
> to convince me he is anything else)
Of course not. If you have ignored reality to this point, why should you
care to educate yourself now?
> why was he not stopped by the security and
> surveillance in the casinos? Thirty years is quite a run and many have
been
> here as long or longer than Russ. I don't claim to be a math major but can
add
> 2 and 2 when the situations calls for it.
If only you would.
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com
Peg Smith
<rl...@cox.net> writes:
>...It wasn't meant to be anything more than explaining that he had plenty
>enough experience to question Daniel's assessment of how the situation
>should be played...
But, Robert, he still hasn't shown that he has a lot of experience in winning
tournaments (the hard way). All he's shown is that he and his cohorts have a
lot of experience in manipulating tournament outcomes by passing chips to each
other.
Peg
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>>"Tourneys Russ Won"
>
>Wayno and others. I couldn't care less about playing tournaments or the glory
>they get you. In fact, I never mentioned them until called out the other day
>about playing in them.
And then it just sort of slipped out that you had won hundreds---
>I am not one out for GLORY. This used to be a very negative aspect in the
>business I was in. I have won my share of money in tournaments and have shared
>in teams of mine winning in WSOP events as well as other events. We cheat in a
>"team style" and as I have stated before,
Where have you ever stated this before? That cheating is done in
"packs"? That you cheat in "teams"? Just kidding...
>I will not give up the members of my cheating packs.
Did somebody ask you to?
>It is common knowledge to many people and they have a right to
>post their names.
>
>Last longer bets were the main places to win money in tournaments. I don't care
>about wins. I care about the money. I just mentioned the tournaments as a
>response to Daniel as stating I have never played.
And then you just mentioned, offhandedly, that you were about the
hottest small-tournament player on the face of the earth. You just
dropped this comment in passing... it didn't mean anything...
>Their are many negatives to
>playing tournaments and any smart individual could possibly imagine what they
>would be.
>
>Remember one thing in life.
I love the paternal tone here. It's almost as though we're all
sitting at Russ's knee, listening to the master.
Well, here's another thing to remember in life, Russ: don't cheat
your fellow man. And here's another thing: If you get a chance to
stab your fellow man in the back, don't take it. And there's a whole
bunch of things like this, along these lines, and if you string enough
of them together, you end up having an honorable life. How about that
for some off-the-cuff grandfatherly advice?
>In order to be able to get into a position to steal
>the big money, you must be equal to the task. The best players are the scammers
>as I have stated from day one. How does one get to level in the first place
>without being able to play?
>
>Scamming was done as insurance in order to avoid any prolonged bad runs and in
>order to have a place to play. It is always good to have a game you can play in
>to be able to support you. Thus having a nucleus of a half dozen scammers or
>more playing for exceptionally high stakes, paints quite a picture and makes
>quite a trap to some unsuspecting individual hoping to find an honest game
>while 5 or 6 scammers have sat down to trap some prey.
You've said this about 60 times.
>Russ Georgiev
Now I'm going to watch TV. Ladd should have a field day with
this.
Dennis Shuflin
> From: lynnd...@aol.com (Lynnda Clark)
> Dennis
>
> Are we addressing the wrong problem? Money is money and does what money is
> intended to do. If you are a cheat does it matter how you get the money?
Being a thief is one thing. Playing poker well is another.
This thread began with Russ (who has never won a major tournament)
belittling Daniel N. (who has won many major tournaments). That's what I was
responding to.
I, and many others here on RGP have addressed all the other issues you
raised many, many times over the last year and a half.
I'm sorry, I simply don't have the time or inclination today to go any
farther with this.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Well said.
>
>Then consider the absurd idea presented in rgp time after time that it
>happened 'then' but doesn't now.
Since you say this absurd idea is presented in rgp time after
time, could you cite one instance of somebody saying this?
Thanks in advance.
eleaticus
Eleaticus
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3d8b9d37...@news.cis.dfn.de...
susan
"Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bcMi9.48774$S32.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
>I'm here to help you be a better person Wayno. Some day you'll thank me
for it.
>
> Robert Ladd
Great line Robert
Robert Ladd
about how much experience Russ had or didn't have. It's not about whether
he cheated during the tournament play or not. It's not about whether his
opinion about the tournament situation was right or wrong.
It's about the attack that Russ receives from outside sources when during an
exchange between Russ and Daniel, Russ makes an exaggeration to make his
point. Suddenly, Wayno comes out of the woodwork ready to prove that Russ is
lying.
Why is it Wayno's job to prove Russ is lying? The argument was between Russ
and Daniel. Wayno's anti-Russ hair-trigger goes off whenever Russ makes any
statement that has potential for his "lying Russ" crusade.
Rehashing and paraphrasing the event, Russ said Daniel wasn't considering
the possible best choice during a tournament situation, and Daniel responded
saying that Russ wasn't experienced enough in tournaments to tell him what
was right or wrong. Russ made the mistake of saying he'd won 100's of
tourneys, which wasn't for the purpose of lying, but for the purpose of
offsetting Daniel's "no experience" claim.
Stepping back and looking at it rationally, and after reading Russ' post, I
would have to say that Russ probably does have the experience to form an
opinion about whether Daniel's play was correct or not. Whether Russ'
opinion is correct or not, I don't know. You see, I don't have the
experience to evaluate whether Russ or Daniel was right.
Everyday there are people in this forum that offer advice that is absolutely
wrong. They speak from no experience or so little that it is meaningless
what they say. Yet most of the time their opinions aren't challenged. Most
are ignored, sometime they are chastised and they don't respond. Every
word that they type isn't scrutinized looking for it's lying quotient.
Robert Ladd
"Peg Smith" <pegsm...@aol.comnocrap> wrote in message
news:20020920174635...@mb-ct.aol.com...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>You know it has. Usually in the "70s and 80s" form. You know, back then?
>
>Eleaticus
Uh huh-- I understand. Can you cite one instance?
Lee Munzer
"RazzO" ...
> Almost like it is "sweater" back from college. Obviously I mean an English
major
> now.
>
>
> razzo
>
>
>
> "Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" wrote:
>
> > I just hope that sometime when I do something incredibly stupid--
> > always a distinct possibility-- that I have Robert Ladd defending me
> > because of his dogged, determined, tenacious, arguing style when it
> > comes to defending really stupid stuff.
I had planned on spending less time on RGP, but if Sweater returns, I'm all
ears (eyes). Sweater was worth the price of admission. He was tireless and
clueless, but very game in his efforts to get somewhere. Unfortunately, he
always arrived to play naked and all vaselined up. His playing field was a
sheet of ice with a 20% uphill lie.
Lee
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
> Russ made the mistake of saying he'd won 100's of tourneys,...
Now it's a mistake. Before it was hyperbole. Any minute now
it's going to graduate up to being a Pure Act of God, something for
which there is no known explanation.
The fact is, if somebody hadn't taken the time to question this
absurdity, you'd still be munching along, swallowing the hook, the
line, the sinker, and the pole like usual... without a second thought.
This is why it's a good idea for somebody to be paying attention.
>Every word that they type isn't scrutinized looking for it's lying quotient.
You know, maybe it's not such a bad idea if Russ knows in advance
that somebody is going to take a look at what he says. It might cause
a cut-back in some of the 'hyperbole'.
>Robert Ladd
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>I had planned on spending less time on RGP, but if Sweater returns, I'm all
>ears (eyes). Sweater was worth the price of admission. He was tireless and
>clueless, but very game in his efforts to get somewhere. Unfortunately, he
>always arrived to play naked and all vaselined up. His playing field was a
>sheet of ice with a 20% uphill lie.
>
>Lee
There was just nobody like him. Never had the slightest idea what
was going on. Didn't matter what the subject was or the thread or the
topic under discussion. Asked the same questions over and over--
never understood any answer anybody gave him. I miss the little
bastid. I picture him hoeing a garden somewhere in a floppy hat,
hoeing real slow-like, and the owner coming out and saying to him:
"Hey Bozo, you're in the neighbor's garden-- ours is over here."
Lee Munzer
"Robert Ladd" ...
> I wonder if anyone out there sees the point I'm defending here. <snip>
It's about the attack that Russ receives from outside sources when during an
exchange between Russ and Daniel, Russ makes an exaggeration to make his
point. Suddenly, Wayno comes out of the woodwork ready to prove that Russ is
lying.
Of course. WaynO, Mike O., Badger, Doyle, Dennis S., Daniel, Howard L.,
Erik S., myself, and many others are simply trying to keep Russ on the
straight and narrow ... just the facts. If Daniel started firing out
unsubstantiated accusations or self-accolades, we'd be on his case (gently
at first). WaynO obviously has better staying power (just in this one area
I would wager) than most.
But, just as assuredly as one of 15 or 20 people we could name will question
Russ' innuendoes, unsubstantiated boasts, and/or accusations, one of three
folks will arrive to question the motives of that person, in essence
defending Russ' right to exaggerate or lie in some cases. When Russ gets
tangled up with Daniel, you are as predictable on which side you will take
as I am. I don't think that's a bad thing, just a predictable thing.
I should provide examples:
- In response to WaynO, you said: "Since you're the "Russ lie" police, and
you're (sic) greater glory comes from catching and proving Russ lied about
some point so it can be entered into his "lie" record, you've again done a
marvelous job." To me, this statement assumes dual viewpoints. From your
vantage point I infer you believe there shouldn't be "Russ lie" police.
But, to my way of thinking there shouldn't be *a need for* "Russ lie"
police. There's no need for "Lee lie police" or "O'Malley lie police" or R.
Ladd lie police".
- You stated, "As you can see below, Daniel and Russ were sparring over a
particular tournament play. Daniel threw a wild punch by questioning how
Russ could speak from experience by questioning whether Russ had ever won a
tournament." From my perspective, Daniel, who lives T poker in
non-prehistoric times, and is a proven T winner, simply got tired of Russ
taking pot shots at his analysis. As an aside, if Daniel had said to fold,
I believe Russ would have made a case that weak-tight players might fold,
but a creative player would have manipulated this healthy pot his way.
Back to Daniel's question. I thought it was a fair, albeit asked
sarcastically, question.
I had a similar thought today when Russ challenged me to pick horses on
Breeder's Cup day. Then I reconsidered. I was gonna ask him if he knew the
difference between a horse's coffin bone (third phalanx) from a horses' ass,
but I realized he has some familiarity in the latter area. Okay, I won't
keep you in suspense ... the coffin bone is the major bone within the hoof.
It's actually shaped similar to a miniature foot.
If WaynO went on vacation I believe someone else or a combination of folks
who despise prevarication would go "first over" to prevent Russ from
"getting away" with deceit (albeit from minor hyperbole to unsubstantiated
accusation).
Lee
RazzO
razzo
RazzO
BTW, "deem this!"
Hee.
razzo
Robert Ladd wrote:
--
RazzO
>Ladd lie police".
Lee,
Let's not make the ol "RazzO lie police" feel like mince meat, sir.
razzo
Lee Munzer wrote:
--
Danielnegreanu
>What this bozo did has nothing to do with using real poker skill to win a
>tournament, comparing himself to people who do is the height of deluded
>narcissism.
This is an excellent point, and gets us back to where this whole thing
started from another thread. In that thread, Ryss suggested option C which was
clearly the worst option of the 3.
I then said, "and this comes from your countless hours of tournament
experience? Have you even won a tournament?"
So bascially, what he did when he played tournaments, wasn't even tournament
poker. he was just scammin' and cheating. His results are tainted, as is his
logic. Russ himself stated, that he has likely never won a tournament without
cheating. Some player you must be Russ.
Bottom line Russ, is what I said holds true. The idea that you think Option
C was the best option, shows me just how little you know about tournament
poker.
You've never won one in the traditional sense, and your logic concerning
tournament play is extremely flawed.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Danielnegreanu
>Russ very untactful tells Daniel
>that his concept is stupid, naturally Daniel gets pissed and questions Russ'
>tournament experience
I'm not sure I was pissed exactly? Clearly though, the fact that Russ would
choose option C, FORCED me to question his tournament experience. Option C,
was so far the worst play it wasn't even close.
>Now, being realistic, if some 20 something kid is telling YOU that you have
>no right to question him because he's won a lot of tournaments, and you'd
>had more experience than that kid could possibly have had, because you were
>playing before he was even born, then you might just blow up and defend you
>experience with an exaggeration.
First of all, I never stated he had no right to question me, nor did I boast
of the many tournaments I'd won. Secondly, I have so much more experience
playing tournament poker than Russ does. Russ has stated, that he has likely
never played a tournament honestly. None of the advice he shares on tournament
has any merit. he starts tournaments with 5000 in chips to others 1000, and
wins them. That'll happen.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>If WaynO went on vacation--
In fact, I am going on vacation tomorrow. A one-dayer vacation.
I am "Official Race Coordinator" for a 1K marathon race. (1K is
about two blocks). This race attracts runners from all over the
nation-- the runners line-up at exactly 1:06 pm CST (don't ask), a
giant flueglehorn is blown to start the race, then they run one block
through the middle of town, then they deviate off into a tavern, in a
big group, chug a quart of Bock Beer, then run out the back of the
tavern to the finish line a block away. I take no small amount of
pride in saying that this whole thing was my idea. We are now in our
20th year. My manifold duties include crowd control, hoodwinking the
police into being somewhere else on a wild goose chase while this is
going on, and drinking along with the contestants to make them feel
"at home". I will be indisposed and out of the loop while this is
going on.
Wayno
Bill Vanek
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 "Michael O'Malley" wrote:
>
>>Ok Wayno, stop it (please:)...you win by a land slide. Robert Ladd and Russ
>>have to give up now, you made em look like fools (again). Next thread...
>
> I just hope that sometime when I do something incredibly stupid--
>always a distinct possibility--
You mean like repeatedly posting on a subject of which you have zero
knowledge?
Danielnegreanu
>Every
>word that they type isn't scrutinized looking for it's lying quotient.
Russ has brought this on himself. It's no surprise, that after all the
damagingly false rumours he's spread about innocent people, that everything he
says will be scutinized.
This world will be a better place when he is a dead and gone. That will be a
great day of celebration for the poker world. He is a bad man, and I'm looking
forward to the day he dies, or goes to jail-. whichever comes first.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Bill Vanek
>I only step in and defend when it's apparent that your lack of objectivity
>causes you to jump into threads for no other reason than to twist the
>situation so that you can tally another lie in the Russ ledger. I'm here to
>help you be a better person Wayno. Some day you'll thank me for it.
No, he really won't. I've been trying to help him avoid embarrassment
for months. Not one word of thanks yet.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Get lost.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
About a hundred people I respect-- both for their poker play and
their honor and their character-- are on one side of this issue, and
Bill Vanek is on the other side. Tells me everything I need to know.
Robert Ladd
I've defended Russ because I felt he needed a voice of reason to get his
message out. During that time I've come up a couple of times on what would
seem like the opposite side from you because I wanted to see the truth. If
Russ, and by extension me, were proven wrong then so be it. You, as a
person, had my respect either way.
But after this statement, you have lost any respect I had for you. If you
think this way, then you Daniel are the bad person.
Robert Ladd
"Danielnegreanu" <danieln...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020920221351...@mb-mh.aol.com...
Danielnegreanu
>But after this statement, you have lost any respect I had for you. If you
>think this way, then you Daniel are the bad person.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I honestly feel like the world would be a
better place without Russ in it. He is a bad man, that has tormented innocent
people, cheated innocent people, and created lies about innocent people.
He has no redeeming qualites that would make me feel like he could make a
positive contribution to this world. He belongs in jail, awaiting his ultimate
sentence in hell.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Daniel,
>I've defended Russ because I felt he needed a voice of reason to get his
>message out. During that time I've come up a couple of times on what would
>seem like the opposite side from you because I wanted to see the truth. If
>Russ, and by extension me, were proven wrong then so be it. You, as a
>person, had my respect either way.
>
>But after this statement, you have lost any respect I had for you. If you
>think this way, then you Daniel are the bad person.
And you'll be the judge of whether he's a bad person.
>Robert Ladd
It's a free country. It's his opinion. He's got his opinion
just like you've got yours. Probably Daniel's got a lot of friends
whose reputations have been smeared by this guy over the last year and
a half, gratuitously, absurdly, unncessarily, and for no particular
reason other than Russ's goofy little revenge fantasy. If Russ
suddenly fell off a cliff or ended up in the pokey this absurdity
would come to a close. Daniel's is refusing to be a hypocrite by
pretending he'd miss him. He wouldn't. And he said he wouldn't. And
he has the balls to say he wouldn't. And he's free to have this
opinion or any other opinion. That's the way it works around here.
Newgca
>
Bugs was always out scamming Daffy and would of been considered hare game, I
mean fair game.
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
>better place without Russ in it.
As you are a good one, by telling stories you have ZERO knowledge about,
besides the lies you keep spewing out. You are the JUDAS of poker these days.
>He is a bad man, that has tormented innocent
>people, cheated innocent people, and created lies about innocent people.
All true except for created lies about innocent people. You are in that
category now.
>He has no redeeming qualites that would make me feel like he could make a
>positive contribution to this world.
I am trying to pave the way for the next generation of players to know what
they will be facing. While you are leading them down to the slaughter house
JUDAS.
>He belongs in jail, awaiting his ultimate
>sentence in hell.
>
When you get to hell, I promise to makes things quite "hot" for you. I will
cheat.
We'll be singing the latest Xmas carol "Daniel roasting on an open fire", a
HELL of a song.
Russ Georgiev
Bjgkaraoke
>think this way, then you Daniel are the bad person.
>
>Robert Ladd
I have to agree with Robert. When I read Daniel's post, I was appalled. I
could hardly believe my eyes. I thought he had more class than that. Barbara
Gallamore
Newgca
>This thread began with Russ (who has never won a major tournament)
>belittling Daniel N. (who has won many major tournaments). That's what I was
>responding to.
Who cares about tournaments, certainlly not me. I care about the money they
provided. As far as being a better player, I would annihilate Daniel. He had an
opportunity and quit, lucky for him.
>I, and many others here on RGP have addressed all the other issues you
>raised many, many times over the last year and a half.
>
So you shoot your mouth off. Nothing gets done since you don't have a voice.
>I'm sorry, I simply don't have the time or inclination today to go any
>farther with this.
>
Today? You seem to be another Wayno with me and you don't have any time today
fighting a well written argumentative post? What is the matter, Corona's dull
your brain also?
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
>
YES
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
Your welcome in advance.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>I have to agree with Robert. When I read Daniel's post, I was appalled.
Russ knifed people in the back for 35 years, Barbara-- cheated and
stole their money. If you're going to get appalled, that's the thing
to get appalled about-- not words in a newsgroup.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>>Uh huh-- I understand. Can you cite one instance?
>>
>
>YES
I'd be willing to bet that you don't even know what this refers
to.
>>>> Thanks in advance.
Just in case somebody explains it to you, go ahead and cite one
instance of what we were talking about.
>
>Your welcome in advance.
Newgca
>started from another thread. In that thread, Ryss suggested option C which
>was
>clearly the worst option of the 3.
Let's say I give you the point on being correct on the option. If you are
correct it would boil down to an EV so small it couldn't make much difference
at all. One way in the tournament you would be out, while the other way you
would have one bet left. I wonder what % of players come back from one bet in a
tournament when down to the final couple of tables? I wonder what this breaks
down to in $$$
You have your opinion and I have mine. In fact, you didn't even state C was an
option,I did. You are now debating it isn't a good one. This fact alone states
C was an option, whether good or bad.
>I then said, "and this comes from your countless hours of tournament
>experience? Have you even won a tournament?"
>
And I answered after a year and a half of not mentioning tournaments. It was
way up on my priority list as you see.
>So bascially, what he did when he played tournaments, wasn't even tournament
>poker. he was just scammin' and cheating. His results are tainted, as is
>his
>logic.
The results are this, I always won plenty of money when I played tournaments. I
didn't care if I won. lost or didn't play, as long as I got the money. I leave
you the glory,which is and will soon fade on you miniature star.
>Russ himself stated, that he has likely never won a tournament without
>cheating. Some player you must be Russ.
Good enough to have you not play me. Didn't you quit me?. If you didn't get a
phone call, you may have been in my trap. Some player you must be, won't even
play me, let alone know if you are being cheated. Makes your opinion seem
somewhat worthless as you wouldn't know whether you were cheated or not.
Besides, how do casinos allow a person of my character play?
I have been cheated and won and lost, through luck some times and skill others,
but I realized almost instantly. Many times I played marked cards to my
adavantage that others were playing against me.Many times cold decks were put
in on me, only to have me get up at the instant the first card reached me.
Obviously I have been cold decked many times in my life, but none that I can
even guess about in well over 20 years. In my teens many hit the mark. As I
entered my 20's I was the one putting the cold decks in.
>Bottom line Russ, is what I said holds true. The idea that you think Option
>C was the best option, shows me just how little you know about tournament
>poker
Bottom line is I PUT OPTION C in this equation. You didn't even consider it,
and now you are debating it's merits. This fact alone states it was an option
again and you didn't even put it in. Shows how much you know.
>You've never won one in the traditional sense, and your logic concerning
>tournament play is extremely flawed.
>
But the money I received was not FLAWED, as I spent it wisely, on women, wine,
women, drugs, women and fun and women.
Russ Georgiev
Danielnegreanu
>Date: 9/20/02 9:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>One way in the tournament you would be out, while the other way you
>would have one bet left.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? In one instance you'd be left
with 4000 (call and lose), or 4 small bets, 6000 fold, or 6 small bets, over
20000 (call and win). Only in option C would you be left with one big bet...
that was your choice.
> In fact, you didn't even state C was an
>option,I did. You are now debating it isn't a good one. This fact alone
>states
>C was an option, whether good or bad.
I didn't include, because I didn't think anybody with 1/2 a brain would
consider it an option. It's completely moronic.
I'm debating it, to point out to one simpleton on the NG, that there were
only two realistic options.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Jodder
> Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit I see.
>
My comprehension is just fine, and I knew exactly what he was try to
say. However, his statement, "British Columbia,Alberta and perhaps
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada did also." is so badly butchered.
How can you defend such use of the english language?
Robert Ladd
I first started looking at his posts, he still makes a lot of mistakes.
True, what you cite below isn't a complete sentence. But it was the
completion of a thought that he made in his previous sentence. If we take
everyone to task that makes a grammar error on this forum, no one would ever
get anything said. Take a look at your sentence below. "....and I knew
exactly what he was try to say." I know I probably make more mistakes than
anyone, but I probably post a lot more than most. I'm always leaving off
the "s" at the end of words that needs one or the "ing" like you did.
Besides, your original comment made it sound like you weren't commenting on
his poor grammar, but his poor geography skills instead.
Robert Ladd
"Jodder" <Jod...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7147d7d.02092...@posting.google.com...
eleaticus
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:DZPi9.49518$S32.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
> I had a similar thought today when Russ challenged me to pick horses on
> Breeder's Cup day. Then I reconsidered. I was gonna ask him if he knew
the
> difference between a horse's coffin bone (third phalanx) from a horses'
ass,
> but I realized he has some familiarity in the latter area. Okay, I won't
> keep you in suspense ... the coffin bone is the major bone within the
hoof.
> It's actually shaped similar to a miniature foot.
That's the 'one' that breaks so often?
Eleaticus
Bjgkaraoke
>stole their money. If you're going to get appalled, that's the thing
>to get appalled about-- not words in a newsgroup.
I don't approve of anything Russ did. Just like I didn't approve of the other
cheats I've encountered over the years. The reason I accept what Russ has to
say is I witnessed many of the activities he describes. Frankly, I'm glad
he's shedding light on the subject of cheating.
Yes, I know you're appalled at the accusations he's leveled at well-known poker
personalities. I don't agree with this, but I think he's done a service with
his exposure of cheating methods.
I think wishing someone dead is over the top . Barbara Gallamore
Bill Vanek
wrote:
>>From: "Robert Ladd" rl...@cox.net
>
>>But after this statement, you have lost any respect I had for you. If you
>>think this way, then you Daniel are the bad person.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way, but I honestly feel like the world would be a
>better place without Russ in it. He is a bad man, that has tormented innocent
>people, cheated innocent people, and created lies about innocent people.
So do you also wish Men would die? Or have you decided that he never
really cheated?
Bill Vanek
Is that a Russ hundred, or a literal hundred? And how many of those
people are LV or LA high-stakes insiders who are close enough friends
to actually confide in you? Could you name a few of them?
Bill Vanek
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 (Bill Vanek) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:16:33 GMT, Larr...@charter.net (Larry W.
>>(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 "Michael O'Malley" wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok Wayno, stop it (please:)...you win by a land slide. Robert Ladd and Russ
>>>>have to give up now, you made em look like fools (again). Next thread...
>>>
>>> I just hope that sometime when I do something incredibly stupid--
>>>always a distinct possibility--
>>
>>You mean like repeatedly posting on a subject of which you have zero
>>knowledge?
>
> Get lost.
More of that vaunted "Wayno" wit. If I could be half as clever...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Typical Vanek. Enters the picture about 12 days late, completely
uninformed, asks everybody "what's going on?", wonders aloud "what
it's all about", has no clue whatsoever about anything that has
transpired, and starts drawing expert conclusions from there.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
> Huh? What in the world are you talking about? In one instance you'd be left
>with 4000 (call and lose), or 4 small bets, 6000 fold, or 6 small bets, over
>20000 (call and win). Only in option C would you be left with one big bet...
>that was your choice.
>
>> In fact, you didn't even state C was an
>>option,I did. You are now debating it isn't a good one. This fact alone
>>states
>>C was an option, whether good or bad.
>
> I didn't include, because I didn't think anybody with 1/2 a brain would
>consider it an option. It's completely moronic.
It's funny how, every time Russ is shown to be a fool like this,
uninformed dunces like Bill Vanek who idolize this guy suddenly
disappear, or happen to be looking the other way, or are otherwise
engaged.
jgm
> uninformed dunces like Bill Vanek who idolize this guy suddenly
> disappear, or happen to be looking the other way, or are otherwise
> engaged.
He's shown to be a fool because Daniel Negreanu says so? Who idolizes who
here?
jgm
> damagingly false rumours he's spread about innocent people, that
everything he
> says will be scutinized.
You mean like Men the master being a tournament cheat?
> This world will be a better place when he is a dead and gone. That will
be a
> great day of celebration for the poker world.
Yep. Then the poker world can go back to sweeping everything under the
carpet again. I'm sure the poker world can't wait.
jgm
be a
> better place without Russ in it.
What about the cheats that keep quiet?
If all the people that Russ has mentioned are innocent, then who are the
cheaters?
jgm
> reason other than Russ's goofy little revenge fantasy. If Russ
> suddenly fell off a cliff or ended up in the pokey this absurdity
> would come to a close.
You mean the cheating will stop?
jgm
> >stole their money. If you're going to get appalled, that's the thing
> >to get appalled about-- not words in a newsgroup.
>
> I don't approve of anything Russ did. Just like I didn't approve of the
other
> cheats I've encountered over the years. The reason I accept what Russ has
to
> say is I witnessed many of the activities he describes. Frankly, I'm
glad
> he's shedding light on the subject of cheating.
But Barbara. Didn't you know? Russ is lying. They're all innocent, apart
from Russ of course.
jgm
> their honor and their character-- are on one side of this issue
Self interest maybe? Possibly? Nah.
jgm
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3d8bf772...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On 21 Sep 2002 (Newgca) wrote:
> Just in case somebody explains it to you, go ahead and cite one
> instance of what we were talking about.
It's amazng how you've changed since you went to Vegas during the WSOP. Why
is that?
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
I'll take Daniel's word over the other guy's. Daniel actually
plays tournaments.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>It's amazng how you've changed since you went to Vegas during the WSOP. Why
>is that?
I got tired of dishonorable people like Russ being honored, and
honorable, ethical people being libeled. Either that or it was the
long drive, and the stop-overs in Wyoming.
Matu
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
susan
can't quote exact dates. You can take anyone's word you want. I know what
I saw. (I am a So. California player/poker dealer.)
Susan Johnson
Anonymous troll
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3d8c78fe....@news.cis.dfn.de...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>I've played MANY tournaments against Russ, and saw him win MANY.
No one claimed that Russ didn't win "many". I've won many.
Practically everyone I know has won many. Hell, even O'Malley has won
many.
>No, I can't quote exact dates. You can take anyone's word you want.
Thanks. I'll take Daniel's.
Peg Smith
>I've played MANY tournaments against Russ, and saw him win MANY...
Were the chip counts correct after the conclusions of these events? Are you
sure he won them, or did he scam them?
Peg
Bill Vanek
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:09:39 GMT, "susan" wrote:
>
>>I've played MANY tournaments against Russ, and saw him win MANY.
>
> No one claimed that Russ didn't win "many".
Then why did you repeatedly challenge him to name one - just one.
People who understand English might take that to mean you don't
believe he won any. Have you lapsed into that backtracking thing you
complain so much about in certain other posters?
GrannyMae
Either that or it was the
> long drive, and the stop-overs in Wyoming.
rofl
susan
Jerry's Place where I played with him that there was never an accurate count
of chips at any time. He played in some tournaments that I ran however,
and while I can vouch the chip count was the same starting and finishing the
tourney, I can't positively say that none were passed back and forth. I
also won some some tournaments that he was playing in, and I KNOW I didn't
cheat.
Susan Johnson
Anonymous Troll
"Peg Smith" <pegsm...@aol.comnocrap> wrote in message
news:20020921113000...@mb-mw.aol.com...
Gary Carson
>phone call, you may have been in my trap. Some player you must be,
won't even
>play me,
Hell, Russ, he challanged me to a duel then backed out and wouldn't
even play me. And, I can't play for shit.
Gary Carson
http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Gary Carson
>
> Thanks. I'll take Daniel's.
You'll take Daniel's word on what? That he knows Doyle is a big fat
cheat? He did say that, didn't he?
Steve Badger
> I've played MANY tournaments against Russ, and saw him win MANY. No, I
> can't quote exact dates. You can take anyone's word you want. I know
what
> I saw. (I am a So. California player/poker dealer.)
I hope this is meant as a joke.
I have played hundreds of tournaments in southern California since
1992, at all buyin levels. I never once saw Russ play a tournament.
Never.
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com
susan
have only seen you once - when we were introduced by Steve K. at Crystal
Park about 5 years ago at an Omaha hi-lo tourney.
Susan Johnson
Anonymous troll
"Steve Badger" <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:au7j9.2804$Fz6....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steve Badger
> Then why did you repeatedly challenge him to name one - just one.
> People who understand English might take that to mean you don't
> believe he won any. Have you lapsed into that backtracking thing you
> complain so much about in certain other posters?
We are still waiting for one Bill. After that, I'd like to hear ten. The
chances of Russ having won a tournament in Oceanside at some point are
probably pretty good, but the fact that he can't even name one should make
you step back and realize that this man has been lying and exaggerating for
over a year and you have been sucker enough to not understand that he's a
blowhard.
Bill Vanek
Still waiting? This was posted by Russ in this very same thread (and
please don't bring up the fact that he cheated in at least some of
them - that is what he does, after all, and we already knew that):
"Easy to do Wayno and in a casino many would know and which is still
operating.
If I am not mistaken I won two out of three the last time I played in
their
three day schedule. The place, Lake Elsinore. Time winter of 94.
Previously in
that year I had split 1st place in Jerry's Place at least 20 times in
a row. I
didn't want to be a hog, because it was so blatant if you watched.
Many times I
would not play a hand or win a pot and every time I went to another
table, I
would have more and more chips. On an ocasion or two, I never won a
pot until
the final table. Strength in this tournament came in the fact it was
limit
until the final table, when it went to No Limit. My cohorts continued
winning
the tournaments until the place closed down. I was in Oceanside for
heart
surgury in 1994 at Tri Cities Medical Center. Remember, this was a
very bad
year for me as I nearly died [worse year for others that I lived].
During a period I was in Canada in the 80's, I won many tournaments in
a row at
the Athens Club. I even dumped to a buddy as we were able to get 1st
and 2nd,
besides all the side bets. Obviously the person who came in 3rd
sqauked as it
was rather BLATANT. I had both other parties down to nary a chip and
let my
pard have the blind and took out the opposition on the next hand. He
was all in
and it would only of cost me 1 tournament chip, but several thousand
Canadian
dollars. They [card room] called Canadian immigration on me and I was
asked to
leave the Canada, at least go back to the border and re-enter. I thus
drove the
20 odd miles to the border and turned around and was back within an
hour.
Vancouver is a GREAT CITY, one of the most fun places I have ever
been, but
Canadians were always a few years behind in poker in those days.
Besides in
those days, I NEVER LOST as most games I played in were Pot-Limit.
In my 30+ year career playing poker, I went from 20 years ahead of my
time, to
10 years behind times. Not in poker however, as I missed the computer
age.
Where the hell did these computers come from anyway?
I won tournaments in every card room I played, while on the road and
home.
Billings, Montana [Royal Flush and another place]. Great Falls,
Montana in Joe
Goots place back in the 70's. There were so many card rooms up the
western
coast it is impossible to remember. Tournaments were just another way
to
extract the money in places that had smaller action. I used to charter
planes
to fly into remote places just to play poker for the weekend."
Russ Georgiev
Steve Badger
> hmmm, well I have played hundreds of tournaments in Southern California
and
> have only seen you once - when we were introduced by Steve K. at Crystal
> Park about 5 years ago at an Omaha hi-lo tourney.
Ah-hah. Was there another woman there? I sort of remember two. Bonnie?
Southern California is a big place, and as I said I can easily believe that
Russ played some tournaments in Oceanside, and he's a fine player so it
isn't hard to imagine that he won one or more. Which of course is
illustrative of the whole thing about Russ. His meglomania turns a few into
hundreds. It turns $10 and $30 tournaments into major tournaments. It
turns a few hundreds of bucks into a "billion dollar business."
He exaggerates. He's a little man who has failed in life and tries to be
more important than he is. He lashes out at people who have succeeded where
he has failed. He makes up grand conspiracies, with himself at the center,
when reality is a just another loser crying change the deck.
Steve Badger
> >We are still waiting for one Bill. After that, I'd like to hear ten.
The
> >chances of Russ having won a tournament in Oceanside at some point are
> >probably pretty good, but the fact that he can't even name one should
make
> >you step back and realize that this man has been lying and exaggerating
for
> >over a year and you have been sucker enough to not understand that he's a
> >blowhard.
>
> Still waiting? This was posted by Russ in this very same thread (and
> please don't bring up the fact that he cheated in at least some of
> them - that is what he does, after all, and we already knew that):
Of course still waiting. Russ couldn't post a single date, let alone
twenty. Apparently the man kept no records ever, of these hundreds (or now
backpeddling to 20) tournaments he won. Please. One date. That would be a
start. Then ten dates. That would be something.
Then the dates of the hundreds.
What is not to get here? The man exaggerates as he breathes. We've been
telling you that for a year, but you just keep buying his nonsense.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:25:21 GMT, Larr...@charter.net (Larry W.
>(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>>>No, I can't quote exact dates. You can take anyone's word you want.
>
>>
>> Thanks. I'll take Daniel's.
>
>You'll take Daniel's word on what?
Probably on the subject referred to in this thread.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:25:21 GMT, Larr...@charter.net (Larry W.
>(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:09:39 GMT, "susan" wrote:
>>
>>>I've played MANY tournaments against Russ, and saw him win MANY.
>>
>> No one claimed that Russ didn't win "many".
>
>Then why did you repeatedly challenge him to name one - just one.
>People who understand English might take that to mean you don't
>believe he won any. Have you lapsed into that backtracking thing you
>complain so much about in certain other posters?
Only Vanek would be so dumb that he'd think these two things are
mutually exclusive. I can name 50 people who have won "many"
tournaments. I assume Russ has won "many" tournaments. I would like
to have Russ name ONE tournament. Out of the hundreds he claimed. If
this is still too complicated for you, reread again real slow.