GCA"Russ Hamilton"
Newgca
guys in poker as far as I am concerned. I talked to him the other day and he
says all that he stated in his post has been done. I have NO reason to doubt
this.
I received many reports about UB. Russ says all is fixed and everyone payed. I
believe this.
I believe Robert Ladd was put into a situation he didn't want to be in. Why did
Daniel Negreanu e mail Robert Ladd? The reason is obvious, for Robert Ladd was
to e mail me what Daniel wrote. Daniel Negreanu doesn't have the balls to say
what he wants to state, so he wanted it put out from me.
Bad/ger was e mailed by Daniel about the situation. Bad/ger was also an ass,
"ass" usual.
Summation
I believe everything went off like it was stated by Russ H, though problems may
have occured during. Russ H is one of the better guys in poker as far as I am
concerned.
Russ Georgiev
dave keiser
class act like Russ H. will talk to a lowlife scumbag cheat/rat/addict
that is accusing all his friends of being cheaters. Now here's a chance to
show for once that you're not a lying sack of shit. Call Russ back and
have him post here that he talked to you. Here we go again with your lack
of credibility,all we have is your word that you talked to him and you're
a serial pathological lier.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Newgca
Again?
>That'll be the day that a
>class act like Russ H. will talk to a lowlife scumbag cheat/rat/addict
>that is accusing all his friends of being cheaters.
It will?
>Now here's a chance to
>show for once that you're not a lying sack of shit.
So if I show I talked to Russ H, I am not a liar?
>Call Russ back and
>have him post here that he talked to you. Here we go again with your lack
>of credibility,all we have is your word that you talked to him and you're
>a serial pathological lier.
>
Why don't we just bet on it, then I'm sure it will be done. You are the fool.
Russ Georgiev
arlo payne
I seem to remember Russ H. talking about the tapes at the WSOP.
_________________________________________________________________
Bill Vanek
<anon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Pretty sure Russ H. talks to Russ G.
>I seem to remember Russ H. talking about the tapes at the WSOP.
Russ is Russ. It's so obvious.
Lee Munzer
"dave keiser" ...
> You're a lying fuck and you got caught again. That'll be the day that a
> class act like Russ H. will talk to a lowlife scumbag cheat/rat/addict
> that is accusing all his friends of being cheaters. Now here's a chance to
> show for once that you're not a lying sack of shit. Call Russ back and
> have him post here that he talked to you. Here we go again with your lack
> of credibility,all we have is your word that you talked to him and you're
> a serial pathological lier.
I'm surprised you would doubt they spoke. I'm pretty sure they did.
Russ H. *is* a class act and for that reason would have answered his ringing
telephone and not hung up after Russ G. identified himself. The other
obvious ring of truth comes from the ease at which, if untrue, it could be
proved. Despite Russ H. saying he doesn't intend for this to turn into a
100 response question and answer session, he would probably have come back
to RGP and advised us he did not have a conversation with Russ G. (if that
were the case).
If nothing else (and that's a possibility:-), Russ G. is very shrewd and
would never put himself in such a vulnerable position. He can accuse you of
being a cheat and there's no way anyone can prove him wrong, but when it
comes to being vulnerable to detection, he is more careful. For what it's
worth, Dave, just reading your posts for the last year, I'd bet big money
you are an honest player.
Lee
Russ Hamilton
I contacted him to find out some info on 2 people who I suspected of
cheating me in a HOME poker game. I was very gullible and lost around
$180,000.00 I received some valuable info from Russ on these two and quit
playing the game. It probably saved me a lot of money. I wont mention the
names of these two here in a public forum, but feel free to ask me anytime
you see me in public and I would be more than happy to tell you the story
and let you be the judge. I don't want anyone to take this as me saying that
Russ has been correct in his online raps on people. I have NO idea.
Thank You
Russ Hamilton ( I will be at Bellagio this coming week )
"Newgca" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021128190819...@mb-cg.aol.com...
RMITCHCOLL
>playing the game. It probably saved me a lot of money. I wont mention the
>names of these two here in a public forum, but feel free to ask me anytime
>you see me in public and I would be more than happy to tell you the story
>and let you be the judge.
just curious, but have you ever seen these 2 people playing in a casino?
Randy Collack
Bill Vanek
<sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>Arlo is correct---I do know Russ G. I first met him about 2 years ago when
>I contacted him to find out some info on 2 people who I suspected of
>cheating me in a HOME poker game. I was very gullible and lost around
>$180,000.00 I received some valuable info from Russ on these two and quit
>playing the game. It probably saved me a lot of money. I wont mention the
>names of these two here in a public forum, but feel free to ask me anytime
>you see me in public and I would be more than happy to tell you the story
>and let you be the judge. I don't want anyone to take this as me saying that
>Russ has been correct in his online raps on people. I have NO idea.
This post says nothing about Russ G.'s credibility, but it
speaks volumes about how intelligent, knowledgeable poker
players should think.
When Russ G. first came on the group, Ed Hill kept stressing
that his posts were a freeroll - just listen, and use the
information anyway you like. He, like Russ H., never came on
and presumed to know exactly what was the 100% truth, or
claimed that anything specific was, or wasn't true. They
just have the intelligence to shut up and listen sometimes.
Lee Munzer made a comment in another post that the reason
Abdul, Tom Weideman, and one other person don't jump into
Russ's threads might be that they feel it's just too easy.
Do you think, Lee, that it might also be that they too know
when to shut up and listen?
That's really all Russ G.'s "supporters", myself included,
keep saying - it's free information, just take it, and do
whatever you want with it. None of us are trying to convince
anyone that everything Russ says is true.
Russ H. and Ed Hill are both high profile, long-time pros,
and they have the sense to listen. On the other hand, we
have people posting here, hammering away at every post of
Russ G.s, and those people know nothing, absolutely NOTHING,
about the LV and LA games that Russ has talked about. So
everyone here has a choice: take the example of successful
pro players, or listen to the rants of a drunken author who
"knows" Russ is lying, a resident of England who also has
that special knowledge (neither of whom play in LV or LA),
or some folks with obvious interests in the clean reputation
of poker in general. Take your pick.
Newgca
>telephone and not hung up after Russ G. identified himself.
It could of been the other way around, as you can now see..
>The other
>obvious ring of truth comes from the ease at which, if untrue, it could be
>proved.
Sherlock Munzer?
>Despite Russ H. saying he doesn't intend for this to turn into a
>100 response question and answer session, he would probably have come back
>to RGP and advised us he did not have a conversation with Russ G. (if that
>were the case).
Or that he did, as you can see.
>If nothing else (and that's a possibility:-), Russ G. is very shrewd and
>would never put himself in such a vulnerable position.
Oh Lee, my heads big enough a;ready.
>For what it's
>worth, Dave, just reading your posts for the last year, I'd bet big money
>you are an honest player.
At least was. BUt what about Ray Z, Lee, or didn't you see Dave keiser accuse
Ray Z of being a cheat.
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
one of them, the one who was going to be my partner cheating the Casino Caribe.
Russ Georgiev
Lee Munzer
"Bill Vanek" wrote:
> Lee Munzer made a comment in another post that the reason
> Abdul, Tom Weideman, and one other person don't jump into
> Russ's threads might be that they feel it's just too easy.
Awful. Inaccurate and misleading. From memory, you have added a name,
deleted a name and, much more importantly, your implication of "it's" in
"it's just too easy" conveys the wrong meaning. The way your question is
written mischaracterizes what I said. So, before I answer, please explain
"it's".
I'll elaborate. I believe I recall what I said and the context. I was
referring to my ability, honed by playing poker, to read Russ' RGP moves and
strategies. If I can read him, obviously a great player like Abdul would
find reading Russ to be almost no challenge. While Tom is highly
intelligent and articulate, I never mentioned him in the thread in question
(I say that with 99% certainty).
In the future, please either quote me (in context) or characterize what I
say correctly because that would be the fair thing to do.
> Do you think, Lee, that it might also be that they too know
> when to shut up and listen?
If everyone just shut up and listened to Russ G. many would be misled. I
have attempted to do what I think is right. Everyone, including you, can
voice opinions on this forum.
> That's really all Russ G.'s "supporters", myself included,
> keep saying - it's free information, just take it, and do
> whatever you want with it. None of us are trying to convince
> anyone that everything Russ says is true.
What you choose to do with it is your business.
> Russ H. and Ed Hill are both high profile, long-time pros,
> and they have the sense to listen. On the other hand, we
> have people posting here, hammering away at every post of
> Russ G.s, and those people know nothing, absolutely NOTHING,
> about the LV and LA games that Russ has talked about.
This is a real softball, since, in your attempt to provide emphasis, what
you state is inaccurate. In addition, you lead yourself into knowledge of
Las Vegas big games where Russ shouldn't have gone.
> So
> everyone here has a choice: take the example of successful
> pro players, or listen to the rants of a drunken author who
> "knows" Russ is lying, a resident of England who also has
> that special knowledge (neither of whom play in LV or LA),
> or some folks with obvious interests in the clean reputation
> of poker in general. Take your pick.
Successful pro players have also spoken up on RGP. Do you agree or disagree
with the preceding sentence? If you agree, why not take their example? As
for a choice, each who enters RGP knows he/she can read and post or just
read.
As for WaynO knowing Russ is lying, I don't want to take the chance he'll
miss your post, so I'll say again you severely mischaracterize what he knows
by using the wrong tense.
BTW, he seemed quite sober the few times I have been with him and I know he
jokes about drinking.
Quote something Rob has stated which explicitly or even implicitly refers to
his special knowledge, please.
Lee
Newgca
>find reading Russ to be almost no challenge.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Abdul stated he thought I was in most
probability a superior player. I would wager a superior player will beat a
great one any day. Lee, you could state you could read me any time you want,
but you would be lying to yourself and everyone else.
I am clearly a superior player in all poker games. Believe what you like, but
in the under belly of poker, my ability is well known, especially my playing
ability at all short handed games, honestly.
At this time I am giving lessons to people who play professionally in mid
limits of $20-$40 and above.
Lee, your knowledge of poker is suspect at best. Your opinion of poker isn't
worth the paper it's printed on. You are not a professional and are not a
qualified judge.
The only people that dare attack my poker ability are ones that know nothing
about high stakes, or the ones I am attacking, which have an obvious motive for
discrediting me.
I have played most of the best poker players in the world, but I would not play
in Vegas for the obvious reasons I have stated for years. In Los Angeles, not a
professional has ever gotten the best of me, and I took on all comers for
years. This is the frightening part of Russ G, for to attack my ability by a
known player is for them to show they are a thief or a liar to all the other
honest ones that know better.
Keep trying to discredit me Lee, for you will be the loser in the end. All of
this will come out to the main stream sooner or later. It has already conquered
the inner circle, or people wouldn't keep trying to discredit me.
>If everyone just shut up and listened to Russ G. many would be misled.
Is this fact Lee, or an opinion? Can you prove what you say?
>I
>have attempted to do what I think is right. Everyone, including you, can
>voice opinions on this forum.
That is your opinion, you are allowed to state and believe yours, as others are
also. To say your opinion is an expert opinion is ludicrous. For regardless of
what you say, I have made my living from high stakes poker for 35+ years. Deny
this if you care, but the people know this is the truth, at least the people in
the know. Others opinions are just that, not expert and just opinions.
I have tried giving beginners lessons, but I have a little difficulty as I
don't feel they can get their moneys worth. I can improve professsionals games
far easier than beginners, for the same reason I don't play small limit poker.
It's not worth my time as I care about the money.
Professionals attacking my playing ability only show their stand to the inner
circle of poker. Though the main stream may not be aware of me, the high stakes
professionals are. Like it matters if Wayno, Razzo or Robo state anything about
me. This NG is read because it is not controlled. More information comes from
this NG than any other poker forum. At this time, it turns out I am the center
of attention on other groups also. Makes you wonder how a person with NO
CREDIBILITY can have such power.
I have received several e mails recently stating I am one of the most
influenial people in poker at this time. If you knew who the e mails were from
it may astound you. Keep discrediting me Lee, but it isn't doing any good. It
is hard to fight the truth, logic just gets in the way.
Russ Georgiev
Bill Vanek
<luck...@lvcm.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Vanek" wrote:
>
>> Lee Munzer made a comment in another post that the reason
>> Abdul, Tom Weideman, and one other person don't jump into
>> Russ's threads might be that they feel it's just too easy.
>
>Awful. Inaccurate and misleading. From memory, you have added a name,
>deleted a name and, much more importantly, your implication of "it's" in
>"it's just too easy" conveys the wrong meaning. The way your question is
>written mischaracterizes what I said. So, before I answer, please explain
>"it's".
This is what you wrote:
"You would have had you accepted. I can't trust you with
words or integrity based on past performance, but I can read
you, based on your objectives and the ramifications
involved. Not that it's a bad thing as I am rather
predictable, but you are quite easy to read. I believe many
really sharp posters (Badger and Abdul for example) don't
mess with these threads because you're "too" easy. Abdul
actually should care because he plays in games that you can
influence (assuming an honest player is scared away from
playing 80/160 after reading your posts)."
By "it's", I understand you to mean attacking Russ's posts
in general. Nothing else makes any sense. But you are right
about the names.
>I'll elaborate. I believe I recall what I said and the context. I was
>referring to my ability, honed by playing poker, to read Russ' RGP moves and
>strategies. If I can read him, obviously a great player like Abdul would
>find reading Russ to be almost no challenge.
That has nothing to do with involving himself in Russ's
threads. Russ is not playing poker here, he is accusing
people of cheating.
>While Tom is highly
>intelligent and articulate, I never mentioned him in the thread in question
>(I say that with 99% certainty).
And you are correct.
>> Do you think, Lee, that it might also be that they too know
>> when to shut up and listen?
>
>If everyone just shut up and listened to Russ G. many would be misled. I
>have attempted to do what I think is right. Everyone, including you, can
>voice opinions on this forum.
And my opinion is that there are too many people here with
no knowledge of the subject trying to tell everyone else
what to think.
>> Russ H. and Ed Hill are both high profile, long-time pros,
>> and they have the sense to listen. On the other hand, we
>> have people posting here, hammering away at every post of
>> Russ G.s, and those people know nothing, absolutely NOTHING,
>> about the LV and LA games that Russ has talked about.
>
>This is a real softball, since, in your attempt to provide emphasis, what
>you state is inaccurate.
What is inaccurate?
>> everyone here has a choice: take the example of successful
>> pro players, or listen to the rants of a drunken author who
>> "knows" Russ is lying, a resident of England who also has
>> that special knowledge (neither of whom play in LV or LA),
>> or some folks with obvious interests in the clean reputation
>> of poker in general. Take your pick.
>
>Successful pro players have also spoken up on RGP. Do you agree or disagree
>with the preceding sentence?
I agree completely. Several players, who are actual involved
parties, and have real knowledge of what Russ is talking
about, have posted here, and contradicted Russ. When they
posted, I again shut up and listened, because they really
did have something to say. I don't need any know-nothings
telling me which side to believe. Do you?
>As for WaynO knowing Russ is lying, I don't want to take the chance he'll
>miss your post, so I'll say again you severely mischaracterize what he knows
>by using the wrong tense.
I don't know what you mean.
>BTW, he seemed quite sober the few times I have been with him and I know he
>jokes about drinking.
Overindulgence is the only reasonable excuse for some of the
stuff he's posted.
>Quote something Rob has stated which explicitly or even implicitly refers to
>his special knowledge, please.
Rob has repeatedly ridiculed Russ, in spite of his total
ignorance of the subject. He has even questioned whether the
Dunes and Stardust rooms were corrupt (or at least one of
them). I don't have to prove the above statements, because
he won't deny them.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>This post says nothing about--
<snip usual garbage>
For about 2 seconds I entertained the notion of explaining this
again, for your benefit, but then I figured, why? You wouldn't
understand it anyway, so why bother? It's been explained hundreds of
times before, easily. Every part and nuance has been explained. You
haven't been able to understand any part of it, no matter how worded
in the simplest words and phrases. Check Google for more on this, if
you're still confused.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>"Bill Vanek" wrote:
>
>> Lee Munzer made a comment in another post that the reason
>> Abdul, Tom Weideman, and one other person don't jump into
>> Russ's threads might be that they feel it's just too easy.
>
>Awful. Inaccurate and misleading. From memory, you have added a name,
>deleted a name and, much more importantly, your implication of "it's" in
>"it's just too easy" conveys the wrong meaning. The way your question is
>written mischaracterizes what I said.
Welcome to Vanek-Land, where cluelessness is not some minor
incident that occurs, it's like a dome over the whole city.
>So, before I answer, please explain "it's".
>
>I'll elaborate. I believe I recall what I said and the context. I was
>referring to my ability, honed by playing poker, to read Russ' RGP moves and
>strategies. If I can read him, obviously a great player like Abdul would
>find reading Russ to be almost no challenge. While Tom is highly
>intelligent and articulate, I never mentioned him in the thread in question
>(I say that with 99% certainty).
>
>In the future, please either quote me (in context) or characterize what I
>say correctly because that would be the fair thing to do.
Welcome to Vanek-Land.
>> Do you think, Lee, that it might also be that they too know
>> when to shut up and listen?
>
>If everyone just shut up and listened to Russ G. many would be misled. I
>have attempted to do what I think is right. Everyone, including you, can
>voice opinions on this forum.
>
>
>> That's really all Russ G.'s "supporters", myself included,
>> keep saying - it's free information, just take it, and do
>> whatever you want with it. None of us are trying to convince
>> anyone that everything Russ says is true.
The concept of a person repeatedly being caught lying having
some bearing on his credibility when making subsequent statements is a
deep and mysterious concept. It would be natural that a concept this
deep and complex wouldn't be understood by everyone.
>What you choose to do with it is your business.
Joe McCarthy had numerous followers who believed that if he made
99 false statements and got two or three things right, everything was
just fine/swell. In response to this, a group of other, normal people
who were born with brains banded together and rejected this approach
and shit-canned this guy.
>> Russ H. and Ed Hill are both high profile, long-time pros,
>> and they have the sense to listen. On the other hand, we
>> have people posting here, hammering away at every post of
>> Russ G.s, and those people know nothing, absolutely NOTHING,
>> about the LV and LA games that Russ has talked about.
>
>This is a real softball, since, in your attempt to provide emphasis, what
>you state is inaccurate. In addition, you lead yourself into knowledge of
>Las Vegas big games where Russ shouldn't have gone.
Here is a comment Daniel Negreanu made on this subject (June 5,
2002):
"Russ knows absolutely nothing about the current state of affairs
at the Bellagio, Commerce, or Bicycle club. He couldn't possibly.
Virtually every piece of information that Russ has shared concerning
today's game, is 100% fiction."
More absolute cluelessness from Vanek.
>> So everyone here has a choice: take the example of successful
>> pro players, or listen to the rants of a drunken author who
>> "knows" Russ is lying, a resident of England who also has
>> that special knowledge (neither of whom play in LV or LA),
>> or some folks with obvious interests in the clean reputation
>> of poker in general. Take your pick.
>
>Successful pro players have also spoken up on RGP. Do you agree or disagree
>with the preceding sentence?
He disagrees with that sentence because he's uninformed, as
usual. To make everything fit in his stunted little world, he needs
to pretend this is the naive imaginings of two people-- Rob Oldfield
and myself-- just a couple of innocent guys who know nothing and have
never been anywhere. At the bottom of this post I've included the
quotes and comments of a few other similar "naive" people who agree
with us.
>If you agree, why not take their example? As
>for a choice, each who enters RGP knows he/she can read and post or just
>read.
>
>As for WaynO knowing Russ is lying, I don't want to take the chance he'll
>miss your post, so I'll say again you severely mischaracterize what he knows
>by using the wrong tense.
>BTW, he seemed quite sober the few times I have been with him and I know he
>jokes about drinking.
Drunken author? On this subject, I'll just say this:
If the day ever comes when I can't sit somewhere with my feet up,
pounding down a bunch of Daiquiri's and not think circles around Bill
Vanek, I'll personally have myself put to sleep.
>Quote something Rob has stated which explicitly or even implicitly refers to
>his special knowledge, please.
>
>Lee
>
>
______________________________________________________
Here's that list of a few other "naive" people who seem to share
simiilar views as Rob Oldfield and myself.
On May 31, 2002, Steve Badger wrote:
Russ is nobody. He's a former prop. There are hundreds of those
kicking around. Most people in the poker world do know there is some
sleazebag blowing smoke on the Internet about cheat, but very few know
who Russ is. He's a complete non-entity for non-LA players.
On 21 Sep 2002 Daniel Negreanu wrote:
He (Russ) is a bad man, that has tormented innocent people,
cheated innocent people, and created lies about innocent people.
On Tuesday, Aug 20, 2002, Gary Carson wrote:
"Russ doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about-
he just makes this shit up as he goes along.
On Tuesday Aug 20, 2002 Jim Pepper wrote:
Russ, Why should anyone believe or respond to anything you write?
Can you repost anything you ever said that was true?
On Aug 26, 2002 adam schramm wrote:
Yes, Russ will always have his believers but so will flat-earthers and
Scientologists. The more you guys respond to him the more twisted and
soap-opera-like the stories get and the more it all bogs down to match
Russ's twisted logic.
On August 25, 2002, Bad Bob wrote:
Everything I have read from and about both Daniel and Russ on RGP I
would take Daniel's word over Russ' any day of the week.
On Monday, Aug 26, 2002 "Chet" wrote:
Daniel, as far as I am concerned, you don't need to apologize to this
forum any more than Doyle does, at least not as far as any of this
CRAP from Russ G. Your win or loss amounts, whether you made a deal
or didn't is YOUR business. If we ignore this idiot Russ, maybe he
will just shrivel up and go away.
On Friday, Sept 20, 2002, Steve Badger wrote:
(Russ) is 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.
On August 26, 2002, wg bradley wrote:
Russ you are so full of it. Try alt.gullible.....they are much more
receptive to tall tales there.
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 "Irish Mike" wrote:
The above post from Russ G. is an example of what is wrong with RGP.
A poker pro posts his financial results on RGP and what response does
the guy get? An insulting attack from the resident nitwit.
On 26 Aug 2002 Lucas Ford wrote:
Russ proved himself an idiot many, many posts ago.
Not only is he full of shit but he's a chicken shit welcher. Easy to
be a welcher behind his little keyboard. The guy folds like a house
of cards anytime someone calls one of his bluffs. WCP my ass. World
Class Douche Bag-
On 26 Aug 2002 (Dan M.) wrote:
Hmmmmmm, TJ is in the elite club of maybe 5 players with the most
money won and most final table finishes on the tourney circuit, a
multi gold bracelet winner who has taken down millions...
..and then we have an old broken down, envious, wanna be but "Never
was", no credibility, schizo, fantasy tale teller named Russ, who
virtually NO ONE ever heard of before he started barraging RGP with
his tall (and now disproven) tales.
On Sept 23, 2002 Milo Bloom wrote:
Unbelievable... Russ, you can't find REAL humans to agree with you,
so you've got to invent personas to [attempt] to stir up the pot?
This just in: Russ needs to dial down the dosage on his meds.
On January 6, 2002, Steve Badger wrote:
Get it through your sphincter kissing head, Russ is an ex-prop from LA
who has played casino poker for thirty years and now makes a nuisance
of himself spamming this newsgroup. Lots of people vaguely know he
exists.
On Sunday, Sept 22 2002, Irish Mike wrote: Russ is inarticulate, lacks
credibility and possesses the writing skills of a cocker spaniel. In
addition, most of his stories are 20 years old and never backed with
verifiable facts.
On 2 Oct 2002 Vince Lepore) wrote:
RUSS WROTE: Maybe you don't know who is known and who isn't. Keep
reading the magazines and sooner or later you will run into most of
these "unknowns".
VINCE LEPORE WROTE:I never claimed to know a lot of poker players. The
only thing I'm sure of is that I have NEVER seen your name, the
Greatest cheat of All Time, as a winner of any major tournament? Now
how could that be?
On 22 October 2002, Mike Caro wrote:
I don't know why this confessed cheater (Russ) takes such glee in
disparaging the play of others and attempting to promote himself as a
expert poker analyst. He is primarily a cheater and lowlife, by his
own admission, and certainly should not be given respect for having
significant poker expertise unless he can demonstrate why he should be
taken seriously. Others of us have had to do that so logical people
could determine whom to trust. I believe a cheater should be held to
at least those same minimal standards.
On Sunday, Sept 22 2002, Irish Mike wrote: I blocked/deleted Russ'
posts because he repeatedly made statements that did not appear
factual and he continuously attacked individuals but never provided
details when challenged. In addition, his rants were so poorly
written that it was difficult to understand what he was trying to
say-- Bottom line: all he did was recycle the same cheating
accusations - most of which took place 20 years ago
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 "Michael O'Malley" wrote:
All Russ had to do was go look for himself to see what really
happened. Regardless, it just goes to show that Russ will use whatever
he can to further his never-ending worthless cause, which is to try to
dig up dirt on anyone he can, turn it into something that it isn't,
then come on here with his friends and try to make you believe what he
says is true and that he is some kind of superhero wearing underoos.
On Saturday, Aug 24, 2002, Daniel Negreanu wrote:
Let this whole ordeal be a lesson to those who given any credence to
anything Russ posts about others. His information comes from lies,
hearsay, word of mouth, and little else. He creates fabulous fairy
tales about Doyle and many others, based on info he gets from low life
liars like himself.
On March 28, 2002, David Sklansky wrote (addressing) Russ G:
As far as my "negotiations" in these emails, they are pretty self
explanatory. In the days before everyone realized you (Russ) were a
lunatic, there were many in the poker community who wanted to help you
succeed in exposing what needs to be cleaned up poker-
On June 5, 2002, Daniel Negreanu wrote:
I didn't present Russ as a better player than Men, Russ would win
because he is a cheat. I wouldn't, or won't play Russ, because he is
a low life scumbag cheat-- Russ knows absolutely nothing about the
current state of affairs at the Bellagio, Commerce, or Bicycle club.
He couldn't possibly. Virtually every piece of information that Russ
has shared concerning today's game, is 100% fiction.
He is not welcome in the poker world for good reason.
I'm terribly sorry to hear that Russ has convinced you that poker is
corrupt- nothing could be further than the truth.
On August 1, 2002, Doyle Brunson wrote to Russ:
Respond to the post below. I say you are a liar and a coward.
On July 30, 2002, Doyle Brunson wrote:
I'd like to think that after 45 years of promoting poker and trying to
do the right things, my word means more than the word of a self
confessed cheater, scammer, rat, and liar.
On 14 Nov 2002 Doyle Brunson wrote:
I'll never understand why it is so important to you that I know or
knew you (Russ). If ever saw or heard of you, may lightning strike me
dead. Everybody I know in Ca. that knows you tell me you are just a
decent player in pot limit games, and a complete dunce at limit games.
Nobody in Vegas has ever heard of you. Yet, it is important to you to
be known as a top player. I don't believe you are even average. I read
part of your "poker theory" posts and it was so ridiculous, I stopped
because I was laughing so hard I was hurting. Those "rule of seven" or
whatever you called it was the most absurb thing I've ever read. No
wonder you had to be a prop player.
Doyle Brunson
On Friday, Sept 20, 2002 Daniel Negreanu wrote:
--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.
On July 27, 2002, Doyle Brunson wrote:
Russ, a year ago you guaranteed the Bellagio card room wouldn't be
open in six months. You did say that, didn't you? Is it still open? Is
it doing better and better each month? How do you explain that?
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 Mike Caro wrote:
When I first started interviewing Russ about cheating, months before
recording his comments, he was very respectful and didn't claim to be
the world's best player. Mostly, he claimed to be a cheater. Russ is
mainly a "seat of your pants" player, having -- by his own admission
-- not read about (or, probably, technically analyzed) poker in depth.
As such, concepts he's related to me in conversation and even
"explained" on this forum are often contrary to what those who have
done valid research or analysis know to be true. Confessing that you
cheated people out of money makes you a thief and a lowlife. When Russ
approached me, wanting to come forward with his revelations,few people
I talked to in big-time poker had ever heard of him. He wasn't a big
shit. He was a little shit.
On 2002 - 02 - 82 DaVoice wrote to one of Russ's fans:
Actually, let me clear it up for you. There is much animosity toward
Russ (GCA) because he is a SCUMBAG CHEATING LIAR! He attempted to
extort well known players and industry insiders. The reason he is
still here spouting off his bullshit is that people like you come on
here and encourage him.
On 03 Nov 2002 WillPenny2) wrote:
>Rama(shiva) said, "I have the utmost respect for Russ."
Why? Do you respect a thief? Do you respect someone who runs to
agencies to inform on people, even his friends? Do you respect a liar?
Do you respect an egomaniac? Do you respect someone out to destroy
poker? Do you respect someone with no sense of decency? Do you
respect someone who is a coward? Do you respect someone who has
attempted to extort Doyle, Eric, and others? Do you respect an
admitted drug addict? Do you respect someone who admits to cheating
all his life? Do you respect someone who has lost every argument when
he has been challenged? Do you respect someone who is the most
disliked person on rgp? There is more, but that is enough for now. You
are a smart, educated man. Why do you have anything outside of disgust
and contempt for a total scumbag like Russ?
On Sept 20 2002 Daniel Negreanu wrote:
(Russ) has no redeeming qualities 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.
On August 21, 2002, David Sklansky wrote to Russ:
Daniel would have done nothing wrong if he made the deal you
suggested. Furthermore if he claimed he did not make a deal, he could
easily shown to be a liar, not just from IRS forms but by witnesses.
So pure logic (aside from Daniel's honesty) practically proves that he
didn't make a deal. Therefore this thread shows me for the first time
that you are an idiot
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 Dennis Shuflin wrote:
Russ is a compulsive liar and an admitted cheater whose stated goal is
revenge. I don't care that some of what he says is true. He has told
us nothing new that can't be learned in many other places, and he has
hurt many innocent people during his crusade of revenge. Since he
can't tell a story without forever changing it when people point out
the prepetual lies and inconsistancies, his credibility is zero.
On 27 Aug 2002 (Dan M.) wrote:
Gee Russ,
Everytime Doyle or Daniel, ..or any other "D" name for that matter,
actually calls your bluff and confronts you with a provable
proposition bet, you always fold like the little ball less girl "Never
was" poker non player, we all know you are.
Phony, deballed, bastahd.
Do you simply have no shame?
Do you think anyone here still gives you any shred of credibility?
Blackmail failed. Your stories all failed. Your scam of Caro failed.
Your bluffs all failed. Seems you are simply a failure. One of the
most pathetic failures ever seen.
"Here lies Russ, the most discredited, disrespected, disproven,
dimwitted, doltish, dipshit of RGP".
On 22 Sep 2002 "GrannyMae" wrote:
russ's story is a collection of incorrect facts that can not be backed
up with truth.
NOTE: many more examples are available, if anyone is as
simple-minded as Bill Vanek and believes this Russ thing is a delusion
concocted by just two people.
Wayno
Robert Ladd
them, otherwise they are wrong. You don't leave any room for objectivity in
your anything you read here on RGP.
You're vaunted, cited, list of what people said has no bearing on what is
real. I can cite posts by many of those same people that have something
positive to say about Russ. I could also cite as many additional posters
that would agree with what Russ is saying. It would be a exercise in
uselessness as was your list.
You think that Russ is the poker antichrist and so you block out all that is
logical in favor of what you want to believe. That's sad. It's also
potentially dangerous.
Robert Ladd
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3de8d437...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Lee Munzer
"Bill Vanek" wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Vanek" wrote:
> >
> >> Lee Munzer made a comment in another post that the reason
> >> Abdul, Tom Weideman, and one other person don't jump into
> >> Russ's threads might be that they feel it's just too easy.
> >
> >Awful. Inaccurate and misleading. From memory, you have added a name,
> >deleted a name and, much more importantly, your implication of "it's" in
> >"it's just too easy" conveys the wrong meaning. The way your question is
> >written mischaracterizes what I said. So, before I answer, please
explain
> >"it's".
>
> This is what you wrote:
>
> "You would have had you accepted. I can't trust you with
> words or integrity based on past performance, but I can read
> you, based on your objectives and the ramifications
> involved. Not that it's a bad thing as I am rather
> predictable, but you are quite easy to read. I believe many
> really sharp posters (Badger and Abdul for example) don't
> mess with these threads because you're "too" easy. Abdul
> actually should care because he plays in games that you can
> influence (assuming an honest player is scared away from
> playing 80/160 after reading your posts)."
Good, that clarifies my intent.
> By "it's", I understand you to mean attacking Russ's posts
> in general. Nothing else makes any sense. But you are right
> about the names.
Hmm, I guess my intent is still unclear. You would be incorrect. You
should have posted the passage and asked for an explanation. Maybe it would
be unfair to assume you would have focused on "based on your objectives and
the ramifications", but I wrote the words for a reason.
> >I'll elaborate. I believe I recall what I said and the context. I was
> >referring to my ability, honed by playing poker, to read Russ' RGP moves
and
> >strategies. If I can read him, obviously a great player like Abdul would
> >find reading Russ to be almost no challenge.
> That has nothing to do with involving himself in Russ's
> threads. Russ is not playing poker here, he is accusing
> people of cheating.
Please reread what I wrote. You may have an opinion on whether I am correct
and that's fine, but my intent comes from me. While Russ is is not playing,
he's strategizing which posts to make, which to respond to, and how he
should respond. Do you not get it now? If the answer is, "I still don't
get it", I'll move on. If you get it, good.
> >While Tom is highly
> >intelligent and articulate, I never mentioned him in the thread in
question
> >(I say that with 99% certainty).
> And you are correct.
I agree.
> >> Russ H. and Ed Hill are both high profile, long-time pros,
> >> and they have the sense to listen. On the other hand, we
> >> have people posting here, hammering away at every post of
> >> Russ G.s, and those people know nothing, absolutely NOTHING,
> >> about the LV and LA games that Russ has talked about.
> >
> >This is a real softball, since, in your attempt to provide emphasis, what
> >you state is inaccurate.
>
> What is inaccurate?
Huh? "Every post" (that should have been obvious when I said "to provide
emphasis").
Plus, you assume WaynO and Doyle never discussed high limit poker when they
spent time together. Even if they didn't, he spent a week talking to other
players in May. I don't know what they talked about and what he learned
from RazzO who dealt high limit at Mirage and Bellagio. How would you be
able to make that definitive statement "...nothing, absolutely NOTHING"? If
I had to bet, I'd say he learned something.
> >> everyone here has a choice: take the example of successful
> >> pro players, or listen to the rants of a drunken author who
> >> "knows" Russ is lying, a resident of England who also has
> >> that special knowledge (neither of whom play in LV or LA),
> >> or some folks with obvious interests in the clean reputation
> >> of poker in general. Take your pick.
> >Successful pro players have also spoken up on RGP. Do you agree or
disagree
> >with the preceding sentence?
> I agree completely. Several players, who are actual involved
> parties, and have real knowledge of what Russ is talking
> about, have posted here, and contradicted Russ. When they
> posted, I again shut up and listened, because they really
> did have something to say. I don't need any know-nothings
> telling me which side to believe. Do you?
Since we are a discussion forum, I respect all well-formed opinions and
pertinent questions. Hell, I even answer the sloppily researched and poorly
understood responses to my posts:-).
> >As for WaynO knowing Russ is lying, I don't want to take the chance he'll
> >miss your post, so I'll say again you severely mischaracterize what he
knows
> >by using the wrong tense.
> I don't know what you mean.
Russ *has lied* and even his most ardent supporters must realize/admit that.
Russ "is lying" is mischaracterizing how he is perceived by anyone, since he
is truthful at times.
> >BTW, he seemed quite sober the few times I have been with him and I know
he
> >jokes about drinking.
> Overindulgence is the only reasonable excuse for some of the
> stuff he's posted.
I don't share your definitive opinion. People think differently than you
and have different "drivers".
> >Quote something Rob has stated which explicitly or even implicitly refers
to
> >his special knowledge, please.
> Rob has repeatedly ridiculed Russ, in spite of his total
> ignorance of the subject. He has even questioned whether the
> Dunes and Stardust rooms were corrupt (or at least one of
> them). I don't have to prove the above statements, because
> he won't deny them.
But, you have not done what I asked which, in fairness, should have been
done initially to avoid an unsubstantiated accusation concerning Rob that
you made. If the substantiation is available, bring it now.
The basic disagreement here seems to be my strong belief in respecting
freedom of speech, but preferring truthful speech. FWIW, I also believe in
freedom of the press; the right of people to assemble peaceably, and the
right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Lee
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>If someone post on RGP that says what you want to hear then you believe
>them, otherwise they are wrong. You don't leave any room for objectivity in
>your anything you read here on RGP.
The content of the posts wasn't the question and wasn't the
point. Your little buddy-- that dunce Vanek-- has several times tried
to spin this delusion that this whole Russ thing is nothing more than
a situation a small handful of people have concocted. It thought I'd
take 5 minutes out of my day and shut him up for once-- not that he'll
have any clue, of course, or be able to understand what it's all
about, but other people reading it will.
>You're vaunted, cited, list of what people said has no bearing on what is
>real.
What you need to do is go back and re-read your posts about the
Aruba UB "scam"-- as you repeatedly called it-- from the last two
months. And then you need to re-read Russ Hamilton's post about what
actually happened there and how it came out. And then you need to go
buy a spatula and start chipping the egg off your face. When you're
done with that, get back to us.
Bill Vanek
(Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
> The concept of a person repeatedly being caught lying having
>some bearing on his credibility when making subsequent statements is a
>deep and mysterious concept. It would be natural that a concept this
>deep and complex wouldn't be understood by everyone.
You declaring something to be a lie doesn't make it so.
> Here is a comment Daniel Negreanu made on this subject (June 5,
>2002):
> "Russ knows absolutely nothing about the current state of affairs
>at the Bellagio, Commerce, or Bicycle club. He couldn't possibly.
>Virtually every piece of information that Russ has shared concerning
>today's game, is 100% fiction."
Would you like me to repost Daniel's e-mail to Russ
concerning Doyle? The one where he states that he knows
Doyle is a cheat?
And while we're quoting people on this matter, here's one
from David Sklansky, directed at none other than you:
"Here is where you get illogical. Russ didn't manufacture a
source. There was one. A source who was either lying or
mistaken. But clearly there was one. Russ didn't claim to be
there. Russ shows stupidity by believing his source. But it
is just as stupid to think he would make this up out of
whole cloth. You are the wrong person to be leading the
debate against Russ because unlike many others, you have no
way of knowing which of his accusations should be
considered probably true, maybe true, or probably false."
Any of that sound familiar? Can you think of anyone else
who's been trying to tell you that you don't know what
you're talking about?
>>Successful pro players have also spoken up on RGP. Do you agree or disagree
>>with the preceding sentence?
>
>He disagrees with that sentence because he's uninformed, as
>usual.
What an asshole. Robert Ladd is right - you're not above
lying about what someone said. Here are my exact words,
which I'm sure you didn't inadvertently edit out:
"I agree completely. Several players, who are actual
involved
parties, and have real knowledge of what Russ is talking
about, have posted here, and contradicted Russ. When they
posted, I again shut up and listened, because they really
did have something to say. I don't need any know-nothings
telling me which side to believe. Do you?"
Do you see the first sentence, liar? It says, "I agree
completely". Yet you wrote, "He disagrees with that sentence
because he's uninformed, as usual." Can you explain to
everyone why you would do that? And you call Russ a liar?
>To make everything fit in his stunted little world, he needs
>to pretend this is the naive imaginings of two people-- Rob Oldfield
>and myself-- just a couple of innocent guys who know nothing and have
>never been anywhere. At the bottom of this post I've included the
>quotes and comments of a few other similar "naive" people who agree
>with us.
Those other posters have expressed their opinions of Russ. I
was criticizing posters who are obsessed with replying to
every last one of Russ's posts, shouting down Russ, and
telling the rest of us what to think, in spite of complete
ignorance of the subject. And frankly, it's always been your
ignorance (and Rob's) that bothers me far more than your
cutesy, repetitive replies.
> Drunken author? On this subject, I'll just say this:
> If the day ever comes when I can't sit somewhere with my feet up,
>pounding down a bunch of Daiquiri's and not think circles around Bill
>Vanek, I'll personally have myself put to sleep.
I'm not concerned with your ability to think, just your
inability to admit that there are things you know nothing
about.
Robert Ladd
then I'll keep an open mind and consider that maybe, just maybe what Daniel
said was true. You on the other hand with your tiny little closed mind have
concluded that it is the way you wanted it to be. When you get some
objectivity then I'll start attaching any worth to your posts. I see little
chance for that.
Robert Ladd
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
I refer you to my earlier post, which stated that all
of this has been explained hundreds of times before, easily. Every
part and nuance has been explained. It's all been gone over. The
nonsense about Ted Forrest and the earpiece and the Bellagio, the Doug
Dalton being taken out in handcuffs lies, the "Daniel made a Deal"
fantasy, starring the multiple the "Paul Lees", the ongoing Cant-
Cant-&-Recant-Recant comedy, Russ's revelation that I am on the
payroll of the casinos, that I work for some unnamed poker magazine,
the recently concluded Aruba Egg-On-Face-Athon, and on and on and on
(everyone can make their own list). The fact that intelligent people
notice discrepancies like this, and outright lies, while you are flat
on your back in a coma with a bag over your head under a rock at the
times when these things are revealed, is not a problem the rest of us
can solve for you. You haven't been able to understand any part of
this as the time occurred, nor as it was explained to you later, no
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>
>"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:3de8ed1e...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:47:56 GMT, "Robert Ladd" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> What you need to do is go back and re-read your posts about the
>> Aruba UB "scam"-- as you repeatedly called it-- from the last two
>> months. And then you need to re-read Russ Hamilton's post about what
>> actually happened there and how it came out. And then you need to go
>> buy a spatula and start chipping the egg off your face. When you're
>> done with that, get back to us.
>>
>I'll do that when you prove that what Russ Hamilton said is true.
Oh, now the jury is out again. Gee whiz-- it keeps going in and
out. Suddenly, we're back to the Bob Ladd who knows nothing... who's
just an urchin wandering in the forest... No matter what statements
are put in front of him, everything is all blurry and fuzzy and
indistinct.... BTW, how much do we really know about Russ Hamilton
anyway? Is there any way to PROVE he isn't running guns to the
Sandanistas? I haven't seen any proof that says he isn't. Have you?
Until such time as I see some physical proof of this, well I'm just
going to keep an "open mind" about this subject. And also, as long as
we're on the subject, has anyone in this forum shown any proof that he
isn't working for the Coumbia drug cartel? I haven't seen any proof
of it, and I read this forum every day. Here again, until I see some
proof, well, I'm just going to have to keep an "open mind". I'm not
like other people who just jump to conclusions...
When you get the egg off your face from all the Aruba statements
you made, get back to us.
>Until then I'll keep an open mind--
Lee Munzer
"Newgca"
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Abdul stated he thought I was in
most
> probability a superior player. I would wager a superior player will beat a
> great one any day. Lee, you could state you could read me any time you
want,
> but you would be lying to yourself and everyone else.
Read what I wrote. It has nothing to do with you playing poker. I really
have no way of knowing how well you play.
> I am clearly a superior player in all poker games. Believe what you like,
but
> in the under belly of poker, my ability is well known, especially my
playing
> ability at all short handed games, honestly.
I do know your ego seems large enough to believe you play better than Abdul.
> Lee, your knowledge of poker is suspect at best. Your opinion of poker
isn't
> worth the paper it's printed on. You are not a professional and are not a
> qualified judge.
That's specious reasoning without proof (an unsupported opinion that
includes a subjective measurement, as is your wont).
That said, I participate in strategy threads to offer what I know and learn
what I don't. I have never stated I am an expert, just a winning player who
enjoys low limit recreationally, although I'm sure I could beat $15-$30 or
$30-$60 at the Bellagio if I needed the money. In addition, I reiterate
that Bill Vanek reference to the statement I made missed the target of
reading your RGP strategy, not your poker hands, nothing to do with you
playing poker, and nothing to do with the reasons a refrigerator makes
things cold.
No need to apologize for misunderstanding my intent because Bill didn't
quote me and from what he wrote you could have believed he was being
accurate.
But, since you insist on braying, are you more advanced than Abdul in the
mathematical part of the game?
While math is not the most important part (even O/8), don't bother trying to
eliminate the importance of math in high limit poker because Howard (if he
cares to) will stuff you as easily as Shaq would at the Forum. Many
decisions come down to probability.
>>, not a
> professional has ever gotten the best of me...
This type of statement is why Dave believes you are on cocaine. While I
don't care what drugs you take, it is difficult to reason with someone who's
high and I won't waste my time trying since that may be the case here.
Lee
Robert Ladd
quite liberally). All your "smoke blowing" about Sandanistas and Colombian
drug cartels doesn't mean that Russ Hamilton's statement is any truer than
Daniel's. If that message finally sinks in (highly unlikely you'll allow
that to happen) your head will explode. I'm glad I won't be around, dust
affects my sinuses.
Robert Ladd
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3de8f560...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>The jury has only made a decision in your mind (and I use that term "mind"
>quite liberally).
Isn't the jury still out? Or is it back in again? Are you
back where you "know" things again, or are you back using the pose
where you don't know anything and the jury is always, perpetually out
and everything is fuzzy?
>All your "smoke blowing" about Sandanistas and Colombian
>drug cartels doesn't mean that Russ Hamilton's statement is any truer
It doesn't mean anything to you because you didn't understand
it. If there's no proof that Russ H isn't running guns to the
Sandanistas, then the jury must still be out, right? If you ever
catch a clue about the inverted logic that is in use here, please let
us know.
Robert Ladd
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:48:49 GMT, "Robert Ladd" wrote:
>
> >The jury has only made a decision in your mind (and I use that term
"mind"
> >quite liberally).
>
> Isn't the jury still out? Or is it back in again? Are you
> back where you "know" things again, or are you back using the pose
> where you don't know anything and the jury is always, perpetually out
> and everything is fuzzy?
>
> >All your "smoke blowing" about Sandanistas and Colombian
> >drug cartels doesn't mean that Russ Hamilton's statement is any truer
>
> It doesn't mean anything to you because you didn't understand
> it.
You have no hint as to what I know or understand. Don't assume that you do.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>> Isn't the jury still out? Or is it back in again? Are you
>> back where you "know" things again, or are you back using the pose
>> where you don't know anything and the jury is always, perpetually out
>> and everything is fuzzy?
>>
>More smoke, Zenboy.
Smoke which you were unable to understand, apparently.
Have a nice day--
--depending, of course, on the meaning of "day", and whether
technically it could be called "day" everywhere, and whether the jury
is still out on that question, because strictly speaking we don't have
all the facts yet.
Bill Vanek
(Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
> What you need to do is go back and re-read your posts about the
>Aruba UB "scam"-- as you repeatedly called it-- from the last two
>months. And then you need to re-read Russ Hamilton's post about what
>actually happened there and how it came out. And then you need to go
>buy a spatula and start chipping the egg off your face. When you're
>done with that, get back to us.
If you're calling Daniel a liar, and you clearly are, then
maybe you should stop quoting his posts as proof that Russ
is lying.
Bill Vanek
(Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
> Here's that list of a few other "naive" people who seem to share
>simiilar views as Rob Oldfield and myself.
I was curious about one other thing: below is a partial list
of the posters you quoted. Could you tell us what you know
about these folks, and how you know they are uniquely
qualified to judge the truthfulness of Russ's claims? You
did put "naive" in quotes, so you seem to be implying that
they're anything but. And, while you're at it, tell us which
ones are using their real names? And could you just assure
us that they really wrote those things you quoted - there
does seem to be some question lately concerning your
integrity in your claims about what people said, and didn't
say. Thanks in advance.
Jim Pepper
adam schramm
Bad Bob
Chet
wg bradley
Irish Mike
Lucas Ford
Dan M
Milo Bloom
WillPenny
Dennis Shuflin
GrannyMae
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:10:26 GMT, Larr...@charter.net
>(Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>
>> Here's that list of a few other "naive" people who seem to share
>>simiilar views as Rob Oldfield and myself.
>
>I was curious about one other thing: below is a partial list
>of the posters you quoted. Could you tell us what you know
>about these folks, and how you know they are uniquely
>qualified to judge the truthfulness of Russ's claims? You
>did put "naive" in quotes, so you seem to be implying that
>they're anything but. And, while you're at it, tell us which
>ones are using their real names? And could you just assure
>us that they really wrote those things you quoted - there
>does seem to be some question lately concerning your
>integrity in your claims about what people said, and didn't
>say. Thanks in advance.
You posted under the delusion that some sort of hypnotic trance
had come over Rob Oldfield and myself and no one else. I thought I'd
mention a few other names that this trance had come over. Some of the
names you conveniently edited out (below) were Brunson, Sklansky,
Caro, Negreanu, Badger, O'Malley. Guess who's views I'm going to
believe on this subject-- these people, or some anonymous newsgroup
troll named Vanek? Instead of spending your time playing with names,
maybe you should go back and actually read what some of these people
had to say about your hero, and think about what those sentences mean.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Funny-- I don't recall where Daniel himself posted anything on
this subject. I guess that means I'm calling you a liar. Feel free
to cite the posts Daniel made on this subject.
susan
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3de92231...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>he posted on "Ask Daniel" that he had indeed sent the email to Robert Ladd.
I was referring to posts made by Daniel on this subject in this
forum.
Robert Ladd
Daniel.
Robert Ladd
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3de92a05...@news.cis.dfn.de...
DaVoice
"Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote
> Yes, we don't know for sure whether that was Daniel that posted on Ask
> Daniel.
I can assure you that it WAS Daniel Negreanu that posted it. Daniel is the
only one who CAN post as Daniel Negreanu on the liveactionpoker.com forum
"Ask Daniel".
Here is an excerpt from the post he made on the subject:
"As for Robert Ladd, yes I have had e-mail correspondance with him in the
past concerning this topic [ub], among others."
For the complete thread you can simply go to
http://www.liveactionpoker.com and click on POKER CHAT FORUMS under the LAP
Menu header.
Rick "DaVoice" Charles
partner/show host/janitor
Voiceofpoker.com/liveactionpoker.com
susan
accident. I watched channel 3 news to get a confirmation, but they didn't
mention it. Nice to know that it isn't true and he is alive and well.
Susan
fan of channel 3 news
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3de92a05...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Bill Vanek
(Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
You really have no capacity for embarrassment, do you?
Peg Smith
(Wayno) Phillips) writes:
Wayno, if I were your mother I'd swat your butt and sit you down in the corner.
You're deliberately being obtuse, and you know it. As I've said before,
harassing and mocking Bob won't answer the question: Who the hell is lying?
Danny? Russ H.? I'd like to know.
Peg
Bill Vanek
(Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:17:38 -0800, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:10:26 GMT, Larr...@charter.net
>>(Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>>
>>> Here's that list of a few other "naive" people who seem to share
>>>simiilar views as Rob Oldfield and myself.
>>
>>I was curious about one other thing: below is a partial list
>>of the posters you quoted. Could you tell us what you know
>>about these folks, and how you know they are uniquely
>>qualified to judge the truthfulness of Russ's claims? You
>>did put "naive" in quotes, so you seem to be implying that
>>they're anything but. And, while you're at it, tell us which
>>ones are using their real names? And could you just assure
>>us that they really wrote those things you quoted - there
>>does seem to be some question lately concerning your
>>integrity in your claims about what people said, and didn't
>>say. Thanks in advance.
>
> You posted under the delusion that some sort of hypnotic trance
>had come over Rob Oldfield and myself and no one else. I thought I'd
>mention a few other names that this trance had come over. Some of the
>names you conveniently edited out (below) were Brunson, Sklansky,
>Caro, Negreanu, Badger, O'Malley.
And that would be why I said "partial list". Most readers
here are familiar with the above names. That's why I asked
you to explain to us who the others are, and why their views
should be assumed to be correct.
> Guess who's views I'm going to
>believe on this subject-- these people, or some anonymous newsgroup
>troll named Vanek?
Mine?
In other words you're certain that all of those people are
using their real names, right? Could you share with us how
you know that? BTW, do you know what a homophone is?
>Instead of spending your time playing with names,
>maybe you should go back and actually read what some of these people
>had to say about your hero, and think about what those sentences mean.
I already did. Thanks.
Bill Vanek
<luck...@lvcm.com> wrote:
>Hmm, I guess my intent is still unclear. You would be incorrect. You
>should have posted the passage and asked for an explanation. Maybe it would
>be unfair to assume you would have focused on "based on your objectives and
>the ramifications", but I wrote the words for a reason.
Okay, I'll be honest with you, I'm just not particularly
concerned with whether I "got" your precise point. I'm just
going to let my claim stand, that many posters stay out of
these threads because they are intelligent enough to just
listen. I know personally people who know far more about
past and present LV poker than most of the posters here.
Those people stay far, far, away from these threads. Maybe
they know Russ's claims are true, or maybe they just don't
know, in spite of all their knowledge, so they keep their
mouths shut. My complaint is that a near total lack of
knowledge doesn't stop certain other posters from sharing
their final rulings on the truthfulness of Russ's claims.
And, of course, anyone who dares to disagree with their
divined answers is simply a dunce. For them, ignorance isn't
bliss, it's simply their lifestyle.
>Since we are a discussion forum, I respect all well-formed opinions and
>pertinent questions. Hell, I even answer the sloppily researched and poorly
>understood responses to my posts:-).
I'm sure Wayno, if no one else, will identify that as wit.
>But, you have not done what I asked which, in fairness, should have been
>done initially to avoid an unsubstantiated accusation concerning Rob that
>you made. If the substantiation is available, bring it now.
It's not necessary, and not worth the bother.
>The basic disagreement here seems to be my strong belief in respecting
>freedom of speech, but preferring truthful speech.
There's no disagreement whatsoever on that point. The
disagreement concerns who gets to decide if the speech is
truthful. I prefer to do that on my own, thanks.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Peg-- I was referring to the exchange that occurred between me
and this dunce, Vanek (above). Of course it was Daniel who sent the
original email-- everyone agreed on that weeks ago. The Dunce said I
should stop quoting Daniel's posts as proof that Russ was lying and I
told him to show me what posts Daniel had made on this subject (in
this newsgoup), and I called him a liar, which he is. The posts were
all made by Robert Ladd. None were made by Daniel.
Wayno
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
> My complaint is that a near total lack of
>knowledge doesn't stop certain other posters from sharing
>their final rulings on the truthfulness of Russ's claims.
You need to go back and review that long list of people and
quotes I posted. You obviously didn't understand it or read it. If
those people have no knowledge, God knows where that puts you.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>And that would be why I said "partial list".
Your original delusion was that this whole thing was something
concocted by Rob Oldfield and myself. You can stop reading the list
of names anytime you begin to realize the stupidity of that statement.
If you need to see more names in order to understand this, let me know
and I'll find some more.
Peg Smith
(Wayno) Phillips) writes:
>The posts were
>all made by Robert Ladd. None were made by Daniel.
Sigh. The email was posted, and Daniel admitted it was his. What more do you
want?
Peg
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
This was not in question Peg. This was simply about a
statement the Dunce made (hereinafter referred to as TD), and nothing
more.
TD said: "If you're calling Daniel a liar... you should stop
quoting his posts..."
And I said Daniel hadn't made any posts on this subject.
As Badger pointed out over and over, the person calling UB a
"scam" over and over was Robert Ladd, not Daniel. The first time,
maybe he's quoting Daniel's words from an email. But the next 50-100
times it's Robert Ladd carrying the ball-- it's just "the UB scam",
signed Robert Ladd. Or it's "the UB mess", signed Robert Ladd. But
most often, it was "the UB scam", signed Robert Ladd. This is not
Daniel posting this stuff, this is RL.
Wayno
Steve Badger
> I'll do that when you prove that what Russ Hamilton said is true. Until
> then I'll keep an open mind and consider that maybe, just maybe what
Daniel
> said was true.
You are the most close-minded person on this newsgroup.
You label things a "scam" that at best "maybe, just maybe" are true?
That is sick beyond the scope of sick.
Mr. Cohn, open-minded is a person who does NOT make judgements on based on
no information.
Mr. Cohn, open-minded is a person who does NOT make judgements on based on
no information.
Mr. Cohn, open-minded is a person who does NOT make judgements on based on
no information.
Mr. Cohn, open-minded is a person who does NOT make judgements on based on
no information.
Repeated it a few times so we can just skip over your obtuse replies.
You can pretend that being open-minded means "declare the improbable as
true", but people now can more easily recognize that your agenda is just to
spread your hatred here.
> You on the other hand with your tiny little closed mind have
> concluded that it is the way you wanted it to be. When you get some
> objectivity then I'll start attaching any worth to your posts. I see
little
> chance for that.
LOL. Mr. Pink Elephant. No surprise that a man like you who doesn't even
know how to pick up the phone must not own a dictionary.
Newgca
>
Abdul is a great limit holdem player. He plays in the mid zones up to about
$80-$160, his upper zone. I start at this level and play higher. Abdul is a
limit holdem specialist, while I play all games, Pot and No limit being my
specialty. I am also an expert on split games.
As far as I am concerned, the games with the greatest amount of luck is limit
holdem. The proof I offer is there are so many games of this in poker today.
In the high limits, holdem is not a majority game, this proves something about
the game with this. If the game was as skillful as the others, it wouldn't be
played by so few at the higher limits. Notice the big games are seldom Limit
Holdem on a steady basis. Wonder why?
>That's specious reasoning without proof (an unsupported opinion that
>includes a subjective measurement, as is your wont).
>
Lee, you are not a professional poker player, few of you are. I am and have
been a high stakes poker player for 38 years. I don't want to hear these people
wouldn't play me because I was a cheat. If this was the case, why didn't they
catch and bar me? I had to make a tape for this to happen. And if I wanted to
come and play again, barring wouldn't stop me, because I would just go to
court. Lets see what would happen then. But, I know I would leave the court
room alive on one of those occasions. Thus I pass on this.
>That said, I participate in strategy threads to offer what I know and learn
>what I don't.
The problem is you can't learn from people that don't know, and most on this
group don't know. Sklansky has stated most of these writers are not capable of
discussing theory and I agree 100%. Sklansky is not a high stakes player either
and only made his living in smaller games for a while. Smoke and mirrors do
alot for deception.
> I have never stated I am an expert, just a winning player who
>enjoys low limit recreationally, although I'm sure I could beat $15-$30 or
>$30-$60 at the Bellagio if I needed the money.
Why would you think that? Have you ever done this?
>But, since you insist on braying, are you more advanced than Abdul in the
>mathematical part of the game?
>
Math plays only a small part in the game I play in. I am more than adequate in
math for the needs. I excel in the other vital parts of the game, betting,
reading people and controling the action. I again state I play in the higher
stakes games and in short handed games, which mostly play out to heads up or 3
way action.
I have NO doubt Abdul is superior in the math part of the game. I have NO doubt
I excel in the other parts and games. Abdul is almost strictly a limit holdem
player, while I rarely or never play ring game holdem because I consider it a
waste of time. Far easier to make far more in short handed games. I also doubt
if any of these people could last a round playing pot or no limit with me.
>While math is not the most important part (even O/8), don't bother trying to
>eliminate the importance of math in high limit poker because Howard (if he
>cares to) will stuff you as easily as Shaq would at the Forum.
So you believe Howard Lederer could beat me playing poker. That is your
opinion. If a real betting line was ever put up, you would be very surprised at
what it was. I don't claim to be a genius or close to one in math, but the math
abilities are more than sufficient for poker.
You fail to understand I play a roll in poker. I play the fool to trap those
willing to lose.
>Many
>decisions come down to probability.
>
While you can state this, I agree. But far more decisions come from the way you
played the hand from the beggining. I am the one that will keep putting you to
the test of whether to call or not. I will be the one controlling the betting.
The more you post Lee, the deeper you will find youself later on. The only
reason I have credibility is because of the player I am, nothing more. This was
enough to carry me through all trouble spots, because, about everyone who plays
professionally at high stakes has played with me at one time or the other. They
may not know the name, thet may not know the face, but most everyone knows one
of them. This is why after one and one half years, we are still here and I gain
more momentum every day.
Russ Georgiev
NWBurbsCouple
UB people have not be fully honest about what occured.
My conclusion is based on several factors. Here are the main three:
1. As posted here a while back, when the charges were first posted here by
others, I wrote UB support as a concerned customer. I stated that I didn't
necessarily believe the charges were true, but that Iw as sure that I and
others would appreciate some reassurance. Indeed, I wrote them at least twice,
and both times got a reply back that the question was being passed along to
someone able to answer it. They never got back to me.
Rightly or wrongly, this raised my suspicions. Had they sent a reply stating
basically what Russ Hamilton stated, I might well have believed it. But the
fact that they did not reply at all, and that Hamilton's reply was a couple of
months after the events in question, I began to doubt them.
2. What clinched it for me, though, was when Robert Ladd -- whom I do not
know -- has sent me copies of e-mails from a person formerly associated with UB
that makes it clear that this ex-insider felt a "scam" was involved. The
e-mails struck me as plausible.
3. Though several on here have vouched for Russ Hamilton's integrity, an
e-mail
from Russ G. convinced me that Russ H. could also tell untruths when it would
beenfit him. Russ G. says -- as do others-- that the the 100K freezout with
Hamilton, Hellmuth and Flack that was reported in Maxim magazine was a total
sham.
But whom are we kidding anyway? Scams, half-truths and cheats of all kinds have
been a part of poker since its inception. Let's not be surprised when scams
appear in new ways.
If you conclude differently, I respect that.
But thanks to those who post online and raise questions about some of these
promotions. It's up to each of us to separate what sounds plausible from what
sounds too far-fetched.
But scams in poker? Like the policeman in Casablanca, I'm "shocked, shocked."
Robert Ladd
"Steve Badger" <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:TUcG9.245$E_....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote
> > I'll do that when you prove that what Russ Hamilton said is true. Until
> > then I'll keep an open mind and consider that maybe, just maybe what
> Daniel
> > said was true.
>
> You are the most close-minded person on this newsgroup.
Right Stevarino.
> You label things a "scam" that at best "maybe, just maybe" are true?
> That is sick beyond the scope of sick.
>
>
> Mr. Cohn, open-minded is a person who does NOT make judgements on based on
> no information.
>
> Mr. Cohn, open-minded is a person who does NOT make judgements on based on
> no information.
>
> Mr. Cohn, open-minded is a person who does NOT make judgements on based on
> no information.
>
> Mr. Cohn, open-minded is a person who does NOT make judgements on based on
> no information.
>
> Repeated it a few times so we can just skip over your obtuse replies.
>
> You can pretend that being open-minded means "declare the improbable as
> true", but people now can more easily recognize that your agenda is just
to
> spread your hatred here.
>
What hatred would that be Steve? Because I want to find out what is really
the truth, then I'm accused of hatred? You are a strange person. I think
if there is any hatred, then maybe it is within you.
> > You on the other hand with your tiny little closed mind have
> > concluded that it is the way you wanted it to be. When you get some
> > objectivity then I'll start attaching any worth to your posts. I see
> little
> > chance for that.
>
> LOL. Mr. Pink Elephant. No surprise that a man like you who doesn't even
> know how to pick up the phone must not own a dictionary.
>
I picked up the phone and called Mr. Hamilton last Saturday. And I looked
in my dictionary under the word buffoon, and there was a picture of you next
to it.
>
>
>
Steve Badger
> > You are the most close-minded person on this newsgroup.
>
> Right Stevarino.
> What hatred would that be Steve?
The hatred you spread. Want to ask pointless questions now? Want to waste
time now?
> Because I want to find out what is really
> the truth, then I'm accused of hatred?
No, you don't. You have already DECIDED. You have told us that many, many
times. You. Why are you running from that now? Why makes such a silly
lie? You told us it was a scam. You. You have attacked and attacked and
attacked these people and don't give a damn about the truth.
> I picked up the phone and called Mr. Hamilton last Saturday. And I looked
> in my dictionary under the word buffoon, and there was a picture of you
next
> to it.
Don't give up your day job. Humor isn't your racket. What did the World
Poker Tour say when you called and accused them of involvement in a scam?
Oh, you didn't call. Why is that? Could it be you do not give a shit about
the truth? Could it be you prefer to spread accusations and attacks? Could
it be because your closed mind is rusted shut?
Simon White
(NWBurbsCouple) wrote:
>But scams in poker? Like the policeman in Casablanca, I'm "shocked, shocked."
"Your winnings, sir"
--
Simon White
Department of Electronics and Computer Science
Faculty of Engineering
University of Southampton
Octo the Genarian
Who cares?
"NWBurbsCouple" <nwburb...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021130202144...@mb-cg.aol.com...
RMITCHCOLL
>
>Who cares?
i do
Randy
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>You are the most close-minded person on this newsgroup.
>You label things a "scam" that at best "maybe, just maybe" are true?
>That is sick beyond the scope of sick.
>
>Mr. Cohn, open-minded is a person who does NOT make judgements based on
>no information.
This is only half the story. If information is presented (for
instance, if Doyle Brunson posts a message to Russ saying: "Nobody in
Vegas has ever heard of you... I read part of your 'poker theory'
posts and it was so ridiculous, I stopped because I was laughing so
hard I was hurting. Those 'rule of seven' or whatever you called it
was the most absurd thing I've ever read", now suddenly with Ladd it's
the opposite of the above. Now there ARE no judgements... now any
judgement is impossible, and the "jury is out" and Ladd just doesn't
know what to think and it's important that everyone keeps an open mind
and draw no conclusions. He uses information to prove that he is
unable to draw any conclusions, and he uses NO information to prove
that "something must be happening" (under the doctrine that if there
is no proof that it isn't, then that's a pretty damn good sign that it
must be.)
"Will Franz Kafka please report to valet parking..."
Peg Smith
(Wayno) Phillips) writes:
>...and he uses NO information to prove
>that "something must be happening"...
He's using the information that Daniel sent him (and me) in emails. What's
more, you're aware of them. The "something that is happening" is that either
Daniel or Russ H. is lying. Funny how that somehow never remains as the issue
with either you or Badger.
Peg
Peg Smith
<lar...@hotmail.com> writes:
>The real mystery behind all this UB stuff:
>
>Who cares?
The people who play on-line and want to know which sites they can trust?
Peg
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
I was referrig to Ladd's arguing style in general-- not this
particular case, which doesn't fit into any known category. When he
is confronted with information, the jury is suddenly out for him.
When he hears the merest whisper of a rumor from Russ, the jury is
suddenly back in again.
Peg, if I may further beat this issue to death with one more
example of how people think on the other side of this argument.
You send me an e-mail saying that LuckySpud.com online cardroom
has ripped you off (or even Lucky Spud B&M for that matter), and
telling me in this e-mail that in your view suspicious things are
afoot, and you know this, that, and the other about them, calling a
recent LuckySpud promotion chicanery and a scam, and based on this I
come on the newsgroup and make about 50-100 posts about what crooks &
slimeballs the LuckySpud people are-- here is the question: who is
making the accusations here? Is it Peg, who sent one email and hasn't
said a word since, or is it me, the guy who is suddenly making it his
life-work to slam Lucky Spud day after day? Who is the one making the
accusations? That is merely the view from the other side of this
issue, and is all we are saying.
In that earlier exchange that occurred-- to further complicate
the issue-- some dunce comes along (hereinafter referred to as SD) &
makes a reference to all "the posts Peg has made" about this. As
noted above, Peg hasn't made any, but SD, being congenitally
reading-challenged, is unable to figure this out. That was what that
was about. I never questioned that it was Daniel's email.
Best,
Wayno
Steve Badger
Funny how you just ignore post after post. I'm addressing Ladd.
Ladd is the one posting attacks here. I have addressed Daniel
privately in email when he contacted me. That exchange is private
and none of your damn business. I stated weeks ago that I didn't
care who sent Ladd emails. You ignore that. That is not all the
issue here and it is just plain weird to keep bringing it up. This is RGP.
Robert Ladd publicly and repeatedly has attacked Russ Hamilton,
Phil Gordon, Steve Lipscomb, Lyle Berman and about a dozen others,
plus two multi-million dollar businesses. Ladd has done this on a
newsgroup I contribute to and care about. I am not about to sit silently
by as this evil man makes his close-minded, know-nuthin-about-nuthin
attacks on these people. That is the issue here. Your little obsession
with Daniel is not my business. Let's see if you ignore this again.
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com
Shawn Nelsen
Shawn Nelsen
"Newgca" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021129215228...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> >Russ H. *is* a class act and for that reason would have answered his
ringing
> >telephone and not hung up after Russ G. identified himself.
>
> It could of been the other way around, as you can now see..
>
> >The other
> >obvious ring of truth comes from the ease at which, if untrue, it could
be
> >proved.
>
> Sherlock Munzer?
>
> >Despite Russ H. saying he doesn't intend for this to turn into a
> >100 response question and answer session, he would probably have come
back
> >to RGP and advised us he did not have a conversation with Russ G. (if
that
> >were the case).
>
> Or that he did, as you can see.
>
> >If nothing else (and that's a possibility:-), Russ G. is very shrewd and
> >would never put himself in such a vulnerable position.
>
> Oh Lee, my heads big enough a;ready.
>
>
>
> >For what it's
> >worth, Dave, just reading your posts for the last year, I'd bet big money
> >you are an honest player.
>
> At least was. BUt what about Ray Z, Lee, or didn't you see Dave keiser
accuse
> Ray Z of being a cheat.
>
> Russ Georgiev
Shawn Nelsen
scumbag rat Dave Keiser. Why don't you give it up small time? Your little
"act" has gotten old, very, very old.
Once again, it's shown that you know less than NOTHING!
Shawn Nelsen
"Russ Hamilton" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:PDRF9.26625$wS.16...@news1.west.cox.net...
> Arlo is correct---I do know Russ G. I first met him about 2 years ago
when
> I contacted him to find out some info on 2 people who I suspected of
> cheating me in a HOME poker game. I was very gullible and lost around
> $180,000.00 I received some valuable info from Russ on these two and quit
> playing the game. It probably saved me a lot of money. I wont mention the
> names of these two here in a public forum, but feel free to ask me anytime
> you see me in public and I would be more than happy to tell you the story
> and let you be the judge. I don't want anyone to take this as me saying
that
> Russ has been correct in his online raps on people. I have NO idea.
>
> Thank You
> Russ Hamilton ( I will be at Bellagio this coming week )
>
> "Newgca" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021128190819...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> > I happen to know Russ Hamilton. Isn't this strange? Russ H is one of the
> good
> > guys in poker as far as I am concerned. I talked to him the other day
and
> he
> > says all that he stated in his post has been done. I have NO reason to
> doubt
> > this.
> >
> > I received many reports about UB. Russ says all is fixed and everyone
> payed. I
> > believe this.
> >
> > I believe Robert Ladd was put into a situation he didn't want to be in.
> Why did
> > Daniel Negreanu e mail Robert Ladd? The reason is obvious, for Robert
Ladd
> was
> > to e mail me what Daniel wrote. Daniel Negreanu doesn't have the balls
to
> say
> > what he wants to state, so he wanted it put out from me.
> >
> > Bad/ger was e mailed by Daniel about the situation. Bad/ger was also an
> ass,
> > "ass" usual.
> >
> > Summation
> >
> > I believe everything went off like it was stated by Russ H, though
> problems may
> > have occured during. Russ H is one of the better guys in poker as far as
I
> am
> > concerned.
> >
> >
> > Russ Georgiev
>
>
Robert Ladd
> On 01 Dec 2002 (Peg Smith) wrote:
>
> >In article <3de971a6...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Larr...@charter.net
(Larry W.
> >(Wayno) Phillips) writes:
> >
> >>...and he uses NO information to prove
> >>that "something must be happening"...
> >
> >He's using the information that Daniel sent him (and me) in emails.
What's
> >more, you're aware of them. The "something that is happening" is that
either
> >Daniel or Russ H. is lying. Funny how that somehow never remains as the
issue
> >with either you or Badger.
> >
> >Peg
>
> I was referrig to Ladd's arguing style in general-- not this
> particular case, which doesn't fit into any known category.
Now you're catagorizing my arguing style?
I honestly cannot read through to the end of your posts anymore Wayno. They
start rambling off into stories and analogies that are ridiculous. It seems
your only point it to find something that will divert attention away from
attempting to find out what is going on to attacking me.
Robert Ladd
Shawn Nelsen
this situation any better than you just did.
Thank you,
Shawn Nelsen
"Bill Vanek" <bilv...@softcom.net> wrote in message
news:l58guugun2q2sbfo1...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:13:03 GMT, "Russ Hamilton"
> <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >Arlo is correct---I do know Russ G. I first met him about 2 years ago
when
> >I contacted him to find out some info on 2 people who I suspected of
> >cheating me in a HOME poker game. I was very gullible and lost around
> >$180,000.00 I received some valuable info from Russ on these two and
quit
> >playing the game. It probably saved me a lot of money. I wont mention the
> >names of these two here in a public forum, but feel free to ask me
anytime
> >you see me in public and I would be more than happy to tell you the story
> >and let you be the judge. I don't want anyone to take this as me saying
that
> >Russ has been correct in his online raps on people. I have NO idea.
>
> This post says nothing about Russ G.'s credibility, but it
> speaks volumes about how intelligent, knowledgeable poker
> players should think.
>
> When Russ G. first came on the group, Ed Hill kept stressing
> that his posts were a freeroll - just listen, and use the
> information anyway you like. He, like Russ H., never came on
> and presumed to know exactly what was the 100% truth, or
> claimed that anything specific was, or wasn't true. They
> just have the intelligence to shut up and listen sometimes.
>
> Lee Munzer made a comment in another post that the reason
> Abdul, Tom Weideman, and one other person don't jump into
> Russ's threads might be that they feel it's just too easy.
> Do you think, Lee, that it might also be that they too know
> when to shut up and listen?
>
> That's really all Russ G.'s "supporters", myself included,
> keep saying - it's free information, just take it, and do
> whatever you want with it. None of us are trying to convince
> anyone that everything Russ says is true.
>
> Russ H. and Ed Hill are both high profile, long-time pros,
> and they have the sense to listen. On the other hand, we
> have people posting here, hammering away at every post of
> Russ G.s, and those people know nothing, absolutely NOTHING,
> about the LV and LA games that Russ has talked about. So
> everyone here has a choice: take the example of successful
> pro players, or listen to the rants of a drunken author who
> "knows" Russ is lying, a resident of England who also has
> that special knowledge (neither of whom play in LV or LA),
> or some folks with obvious interests in the clean reputation
> of poker in general. Take your pick.
Peg Smith
(Wayno) Phillips) writes:
>...Peg, if I may further beat this issue to death...
Of course you can, you're Forum Czar!
Look, you know where I stand. I know where you stand. You're still my pal,
anyway, you big lug.
Peg
Peg Smith
Badger" <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> writes:
>...Your little obsession
>with Daniel is not my business. Let's see if you ignore this again.
My obsession is with wanting to know the truth. You're willing to take Russ
H.'s word at face value, and I don't have a problem with that. For all I know,
UB is run by the saintliest people on earth. If so, I'd like to know why Daniel
lied to me.
Peg
Peg Smith
<shawn....@verizon.net> writes:
>Very well put, Bill V. I couldn't have possibly stated how I feel about
>this situation any better than you just did.
I liked Bill's post, too. The problem, though, with "just listening" is: 'Burbs
posts that Russ G. told him in an email what a scumbag Russ H. is; but a day or
so before that revelation Russ G. posts on RGP that Russ H. is one of the good
guys in poker.
Russ G. makes it too hard for us to distinguish what he's truthful about and
what he isn't.
Peg
Lee Munzer
"Newgca" ...
> As far as I am concerned, the games with the greatest amount of luck is
limit
> holdem. The proof I offer is there are so many games of this in poker
today.
I happen to agree with this opinion instinctively... I'm not sure the many
HE games isn't the effect of a combination of factors, though. Without
giving it much thought the game is fast (lots of hands per hour for the
action player), I like it because I don't get a headache keeping track of
discards like I do when I play stud and stud/8, and, yes, the luck factor
appeals to action players and allows losers to win sometimes, especially if
they are aggressive.
> In the high limits, holdem is not a majority game, this proves something
about
> the game with this. If the game was as skillful as the others, it wouldn't
be
> played by so few at the higher limits. Notice the big games are seldom
Limit
> Holdem on a steady basis. Wonder why?
I have discussed the reasons for HOSE, HORSE, etc. with some high limit
players. Note the big games almost always not only avoid HE only, but avoid
any single game.
> >That's specious reasoning without proof (an unsupported opinion that
> >includes a subjective measurement, as is your wont).
> Lee, you are not a professional poker player, few of you are. I am and
have
> been a high stakes poker player for 38 years. I don't want to hear these
people
> wouldn't play me because I was a cheat. If this was the case, why didn't
they
> catch and bar me? I had to make a tape for this to happen. And if I wanted
to
> come and play again, barring wouldn't stop me, because I would just go to
> court. Lets see what would happen then. But, I know I would leave the
court
> room alive on one of those occasions. Thus I pass on this.
This is off thread topic and something I don't care to comment on because I
don't know the legal ramifications and simply just don't care (unless I get
barred from UNLV women's basketball games).
> >That said, I participate in strategy threads to offer what I know and
learn
> >what I don't.
> The problem is you can't learn from people that don't know, and most on
this
> group don't know. Sklansky has stated most of these writers are not
capable of
> discussing theory and I agree 100%. Sklansky is not a high stakes player
either
> and only made his living in smaller games for a while. Smoke and mirrors
do
> alot for deception.
That's where being a good listener comes into play. You name a poster and
I'll tell you if he's worth listening to when offering advice (I really
won't because that would be mean to R. Ladd:-). Some are better at some
subjects like math (B. Yoon) or O/8 (Buzz) just as you are better at
providing short-handed stud/8 information than limit hold'em strategy. When
Tom W., Jerrod, Abdul, Randy Hudson, or Iceman post something I always read
it very carefully as it probably contains very worthwhile information. I
could name another 10 posters in the 'elite' category. Of course, there are
posters who provide information that is incorrect. I try to question their
thought process if I spot an error, as most do. Sometimes an error in a
complex subject evokes discussion and many learn. "People who don't know"
are actually a good thing in a way (they ask questions, post problems, and
when they offer bad advice others straighten them out). I realize you look
at RGP more from a poker hierarchy perspective which leads you to different
opinions in this area.
> I have never stated I am an expert, just a winning player who
> >enjoys low limit recreationally, although I'm sure I could beat $15-$30
or
> >$30-$60 at the Bellagio if I needed the money.
>
> Why would you think that? Have you ever done this?
It's a very strong opinion, that's all. I'm sure GB will beat CHI this
weekend, also. The 30 or so times (too small a sampling to be meaningful of
course, but fuel for optimism and I'm optimistic by nature) I have played
$8/$16, $9/$18 (CA), $10/$20, $15/$30, and $30/$60 I have done very well
and, as you can judge competition, I have a pretty good idea where I rank in
these games. There are some very bad players in these games. Of course,
there are some excellent ones. For example, I was playing $15/$30 one night
to the right of Martine Ouiles (Spelling?) and she was holding over me and
reading me well, so I moved to a different game. Part of winning is game
selection and I'm not stubborn or egotistical which helps. My strengths are
adapting to styles, deceiving players, discipline, and reading intention
(I'm not good at physical tells, so I discount them). Fortunately, I am so
competitive by nature that I can play my "A" game for an annual win rate of
.0025% of net worth and be entertained, so my belief won't be put to the
test.
I didn't say that. Howard's very strong mathematically and realizes many
marginal decisions come down to probability which he can compute on the fly.
If forced to back a player, I'd take Howard because I know he wouldn't dump
and split my money with you:-).
I do believe Howard is a great player with a bullet whereas I believe your
best days may be behind you [yes, that's a subjective opinion based on RGP
being such a big priority for you and playing major Ts and $1,000/$2,000
ring games (and above) being Howard's emphasis].
> That is your
> opinion. If a real betting line was ever put up, you would be very
surprised at
> what it was. I don't claim to be a genius or close to one in math, but the
math
> abilities are more than sufficient for poker.
> You fail to understand I play a roll in poker. I play the fool to trap
those
> willing to lose.
Are you asking me to rate how well you can play a fool?
You fail to understand how little I care whether you are a fool, or a huge
bag of wind / busted ex-prop player, or the best who's ever lived, or
somewhere in between. If you were the world's best stock picker and put out
a weekly stock pick on RGP, I would care. But, since I'm #1, here's Ciena
Corp. (CIEN-NASDAQ) at $6.65.
I do care very much that you make unsubstantiated accusations (the fact that
it's difficult to obtain proof notwithstanding). I also find it ludicrous
and irresponsible that you would accuse WaynO of being on the take. Those
are the things I care about. I also care that you cheated honest players
out of there money and do not seem remorseful (a new topic, I believe).
> >Many
> >decisions come down to probability.
> While you can state this, I agree. But far more decisions come from the
way you
> played the hand from the beggining. I am the one that will keep putting
you to
> the test of whether to call or not. I will be the one controlling the
betting.
I have stated the part math plays generally, but hopefully accurately.
Naturally, non-math decisions are paramount.
> The more you post Lee, the deeper you will find youself later on.
Good Lord! You and I have probably posted 10,000+ times since you joined
RGP in mid-2001. What the hell do you mean by later on? How much time do
you need to get something accomplished? What are you trying to accomplish
anyway? Please accelerate your agenda for the good of mankind!
And, by "finding myself in deeper" are you implying they will take my house
and car away from me or come in white coats and a straight jacket to get me?
Anything else, for example, on February 26, 2117 reading WaynO state, "Well,
after 16 years and 112,873 posts it turns out Russ was not just simply a
delusional, pompous, arrogant, know-it-all, has-been liar" will be
acceptable and not a problem of depth for me.
Anyway, if I'm all wet or in deep I prefer being with the 1977:
http://www.spies.com/~islands/jb/bisfilmfrmset.html
> The only
> reason I have credibility is because of the player I am, nothing more.
I do not stipulate to this unless it means you have poker player credibility
only from those who have seen you play as opposed to other types of
credibility.
> This was
> enough to carry me through all trouble spots, because, about everyone who
plays
> professionally at high stakes has played with me at one time or the other.
They
> may not know the name, thet may not know the face, but most everyone knows
one
> of them. This is why after one and one half years, we are still here and I
gain
> more momentum every day.
That's an interesting observation and self-assessment based on the one and
one half years timeframe and accomplishments to date, but maybe you are
rating your accomplishments on a different scale than I use and you are
certainly entitled your opinion as I have stated I am entited mine on the
Packers and my ability to beat $15/$30 and $30/$60.
Lee
Octo the Genarian
generated hundreds of postings. I hoped I was speaking for a silent majority
of people who don't play on UB, don't read Maxim, and after reading a
significant number of posts on the subject still have no idea what the hell
everyone is talking about.
"Peg Smith" <pegsm...@aol.comnocrap> wrote in message
news:20021130215325...@mb-ct.aol.com...
Newgca
>'Burbs
>posts that Russ G. told him in an email what a scumbag Russ H. is
I never did anything of the kind. Russ and I get along fine and I never called
him a scumbag or anything else. Infact is the email I received and the reply I
sent back. If you can get anything out of this that remotely implies I have
called Russ H anything, please interpret it to me.
Do you know about Hamilton's/Hellmuth's/Flack's phony 100K freezeout for Maxim
magazine?
I know all about it. It was a publicity stunt, though most don't know. Know
from the horses mouth.
Russ
*********************************
Now where does this show I bad mouthed Russ H?
>Russ G. makes it too hard for us to distinguish what he's truthful about and
>what he isn't.
>
Now your are taking somebody's words for something I didn't say. Above is all I
stated. I have told you people from the beginning POKER is just ONE BIG SHOW. I
have stated this on my tape.
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
>Hamilton, Hellmuth and Flack that was reported in Maxim magazine was a total
>sham.
this is the email I received, and this is the reply I gave. Make what you want
out of it.
Do you know about Hamilton's/Hellmuth's/Flack's phony 100K freezeout for Maxim
magazine?
I know all about it. It was a publicity stunt, though most don't know. Know
from the horses mouth.
Russ
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I have stated before, POKER is a SHOW. Don't think for a second that Brian
Saltus, (a genuine person and honest player) didn't make a deal in the TOC.
Mike Sexton knows the deal was made, but won't talk as do many others. Because
they say NO DEAL was made, shows again this is show business. Just like Kathy
Liebert winning $1,000,000. That didn't happen either. The numbers get inflated
to entice people into the gimmick. POKER is show business now and there's so
much money involved.
Russ Georgiev
Steve Badger
Steve Badger writes:
> >...Your little obsession
> >with Daniel is not my business. Let's see if you ignore this again.
>
> My obsession is with wanting to know the truth. You're willing to take
Russ
> H.'s word at face value, and I don't have a problem with that.
I am? I've posted several times I have no idea what happened in Aruba,
whether it was nothing or white slaveing. The issue is Robert Ladd's
attacks on people and his avoidance of his responsibility for what he posts.
> For all I know, UB is run by the saintliest people on earth.
> If so, I'd like to know why Daniel lied to me.
Take that up with Daniel. I'm not him.
Robert Ladd
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:HogG9.41203$kz4.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> "Newgca" ...
>
> > The problem is you can't learn from people that don't know, and most on
> this
> > group don't know. Sklansky has stated most of these writers are not
> capable of
> > discussing theory and I agree 100%. Sklansky is not a high stakes player
> either
> > and only made his living in smaller games for a while. Smoke and mirrors
> do
> > alot for deception.
>
> That's where being a good listener comes into play. You name a poster and
> I'll tell you if he's worth listening to when offering advice (I really
> won't because that would be mean to R. Ladd:-).
>
best jokes have come at my own stupidity. At the risk of putting myself in
line for an even funnier laugh at me, I just don't get it. I'd appreciate
an explanation if you would Lee.
>snip 2<
> I didn't say that. Howard's very strong mathematically and realizes many
> marginal decisions come down to probability which he can compute on the
fly.
> If forced to back a player, I'd take Howard because I know he wouldn't
dump
> and split my money with you:-).
>
Maybe this is why I'm having trouble with your humor tonight. This was
either an attempt at humor, a putdown, or a litttle/lot of both.
But there's a logic problem with the statement.
You see, you don't make your choice of Russ or Howard based on which one you
think will win, you base it on which one you think would be honest and not
consider dumping to the other and splitting your money. The flaw in that
logic is if you assume Howard wouldn't accept a deal to dump to Russ and
split your money, then by what logic would you think that if you backed
Russ, that he could dump your money to Howard and induce him to split it?
If Howard is completely honest when you back him, wouldn't he also be
completely honest if you back Russ? Unless both of them are dishonest, then
the "dump and split my money" can't work no matter who you back. :-)
Robert Ladd
GrannyMae
"who cares" was not the way to put it.
"oh well, we can't do anything about this one, so time to move on."
peg, if you played at bellagio, and found out that the was some
underhanded, scuzzy deal going on between the management team and another
property, would you quit playing there?? **
**i am NOT claiming this in any way
no, you would make a mental note to keep ane eye out for further
riff-raff, but you would probably keep going there if it was profitable.
i don't like that there is unanswered questions, but it really seems like
a cat fight between people that have more money than i will ever see. i
don't see the players having been hurt directly from the "pro's deal".
so in that regards, who cares
Granny
http://www.pokerclub.be/forum/index.php
(the poker forum where i will be hiding for a few days, scared of peg)
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Robert Ladd
demonstrate that right by pointing things out to others that might care. If
they don't care, then they have that right also.
But thank you for voicing your opinion. Although, I don't care that you
don't care.
Robert Ladd
"Octo the Genarian" <lar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:asbrfi$8td$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Newgca
>logic is if you assume Howard wouldn't accept a deal to dump to Russ and
>split your money, then by what logic would you think that if you backed
>Russ, that he could dump your money to Howard and induce him to split it?
>If Howard is completely honest when you back him, wouldn't he also be
>completely honest if you back Russ? Unless both of them are dishonest, then
> the "dump and split my money" can't work no matter who you back. :-)
>
>Robert Ladd
>
better stated.
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
You mean you fell into another trap and got caught again.
>That'll be the day that a
>class act like Russ H. will talk to a lowlife scumbag cheat/rat/addict
>that is accusing all his friends of being cheaters.
Well, what can I say Dave, wrong again.
>Now here's a chance to
>show for once that you're not a lying sack of shit. Call Russ back and
>have him post here that he talked to you.
I did what you asked dave and Russ H posted. I guess that proves I am not a
liar by what you stated.
>Here we go again with your lack
>of credibility,all we have is your word that you talked to him and you're
>a serial pathological lier.
And you are a cereal moron.
Russ georgiev
Newgca
You, Wayno and Rob have that title locked up in a three way tie.
Russ Georgiev
Peg Smith
Badger" <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> writes:
>Take that up with Daniel. I'm not him.
You're not remotely interested in which one lied? Mr. "I-Want-What's-Good-For
Poker"? Mr. "I-Care-About-The-Integrity-Of-RGP"? You're a real piece of work,
Steve. Have a nice day.
Peg
Peg Smith
<anon...@aol.com> writes:
>...(the poker forum where i will be hiding for a few days, scared of peg)
Who are you kidding, you're not afraid of anyone or anything. You know good and
well you scare the crap out of me, and I'm fearless.
Would I worry about the Bellagio ripping off my money? No. But I don't hand
them my bankroll, either.
Peg
Steve Badger
> "Steve Badger" writes:
>
> >Take that up with Daniel. I'm not him.
>
> You're not remotely interested in which one lied? Mr.
"I-Want-What's-Good-For
> Poker"? Mr. "I-Care-About-The-Integrity-Of-RGP"? You're a real piece of
work,
> Steve. Have a nice day.
What in the hell are you talking about? "Which one" who? You don't make
any sense.
I've made my position very clear. If you have issues with somebody else,
you deal with your own issues. It's not my business who lied to you. I
care about what is posted on this newsgroup and address people who post
things here. Even ones who don't make any sense.
Bill Vanek
Smith) wrote:
But that's exactly the point I'm trying to address - it's
impossible to know, unless you're one of the involved
parties. And that's exactly why those posts from people who
are completely out of the loop are so irritating.
Anonomrs
already did a publicity stunt for Maxim magazine why would't he do it again
with the Aruba thing?
You call it a publicity stunt but did the people at WPT know it was a publicity
stunt or did they really think the UB players were playing for $250,000? No
way Daniel turned down a $250,000 freeroll and no way those UB pro's were
playing for that much. So what's up with this Maxim publicity stunf? How
different is that from what allegedly happened in Aruba? I think it's become
really easy to figure out who is lying it's the publicity stunt coordinators.
Mike Sexton
> As I have stated before, POKER is a SHOW. Don't think for a second that Brian
> Saltus, (a genuine person and honest player) didn't make a deal in the TOC.
> Mike Sexton knows the deal was made, but won't talk as do many others.
Because
> they say NO DEAL was made, shows again this is show business. Just like Kathy
> Liebert winning $1,000,000. That didn't happen either.
Russ,
I will tell you and anyone else that I've NEVER heard of any deal being
made at any TOC - and that includes when Brian Saltus won. I was only a
Host (and commentator) for the third TOC, but I can honestly say that
hearing this is news to me. I've always said, "That to my knowledge, no
deal has ever been made at the TOC." That is the truth. I know I've
never heard of any deals. I also know that players have always been paid
(and signed for tax purposes) according to the listed Payoff Structure.
As for Kathy Liebert, you're trying to indicate something unethical took
place at the PartyPoker Million. We told everyone long before they went
on the boat that players could make a deal at the final table if they
wanted to. We never hid the fact that they couldn't make a deal. In
fact, upon their request at the final table (and on more than one
occasion), we stopped play in front of the whole room and allowed the
players to go over to the side and talk. It was no secret they were
talking about a deal and nothing has ever been covered up about a deal
being made.
Certainly, the million dollar guarantee was for promotional purposes. We
guaranteed a $1,000,000 first prize - and paid out the million (and
$200,000 in cruise costs and $50,000 in cash to our online qualifiers).
The inaugural PartyPoker.com Million was the greatest value in the history
of poker - by far!
Mike Sexton
RazzO
couldn't >of been better stated
This might account for why nobody has ever come forward to substantiate
your claims about Doyle, the Dunes, the Horseshoe and any other claims
and slanderous remarks you've made, NO ONE. Barring 'Cant & Recant'.
Thanks for showing me the analogy. BTW, pardon the pun on the usage of
"barring".
Let me quote Walter Winchell;
"The way to become famous fast is to throw a brick at someone who is
famous." - Walter Winchell
This is you, the Russ I know. Who is more famous than Doyle? Not to
mistake your mark in history as being 'infamous'... from a family of
cheats. Heard of The Flying Wallendas? How about 'The Cheating
Georgiev's'. Did both families use 'wires'?
razz
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Now you're catagorizing my arguing style?
It's not that hard to categorize-- don't flatter yourself. If you
hear a whisper of a rumor from Russ, you immediately draw hard and
fast conclusions. If a lot of evidence is then presented to the
contrary, now its suddenly time to avoid drawing any conclusions of
any kind and keep an open mind. This is the exact opposite of how
most people think. There is also one other problem: someone using
this inverted, Alice-In-Wonderland form of reasoning is exactly the
wrong person to have in the middle of something complicated, because
they won't be able to conceptualize it clearly, won't be able to
characterize it or describe it to others clearly, and, as they
standing flapping and floundering in the middle of it, they will
likely be too dumb to withdraw from it.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>
>It's hard to fight the truth, logic just gets in the way.
I'm still waiting to hear whether any money changed hands
between you and Martino, Russ. Unless I'm imagining it, you seem to
be ducking that question. Is there some reason you can't just post
the following sentence:
"No. I gave no money to Martino."
Why is this sentence so hard for you to post?
Are truth and logic getting in the way?
>Russ Georgiev
Wayno
It's hard to fight logic-- truth keeps biting it in the butt.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>>Shawn Nelson... snipped...
> None of us are trying to convince anyone that everything Russ
>says is true.
The problem lies in this line, Shawn. We need either you, or
someone else, to step forward each time and tell us which are the lies
and which are the truths. When it gets to this point, all discourse
breaks down-- because one side says: "No, this is one of the times
he's lying!" and the other side says, "No, this is one of the times
he's telling the truth!" See the problem? The sentence above may
appear innocent-- it is not.
susan
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3dea2dfe....@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 "Shawn Nelsen" wrote:
>
We need either you, or
> someone else, to step forward each time and tell us which are the lies
> and which are the truths. >
at which point, depending on the answer, he will be on either your "good"
list or your "bad" list.
NWBurbsCouple
>to entice people into the gimmick.
Yes, and in this case of 100K freeze-out apparently the numbers got inflated
from $0 to $300K. But some would have us believe that since Hamilton, Flack
and Hellmuth aren't complaining, it's not a scam. But the readers of Maxim
were mislead.
But I agree with Russ G. that much of poker is a show and a gimmick. Thanks
for those whose posts have alerted us who might not be on the inside of
various gimmicks and shams.
AJohn808
Aruba.? looks very similar to me - questionable money changing hands and people
ducking the question. why is the normally very talkative Daniel N so silent
about Aruba? why are are the other pros who actually participated in Aruba so
silent?
as you say - "why are these sentences so hard to post?
are truth and logic getting in the way?"
I'm not going to join in with the long-winded bantering that you and Steve
Badger are so capable of but i do want to say this:
the issue IS Aruba/UB
NOT R Ladd or PegSmith.
(or me being anonymous)
No matter how many words you guys write trying to divert attention, the
bottom line still goes back to "what really happened in Aruba?".
and its a mystery as to why you and Steve dont want to know what happened in
Aruba. -because it would appear that something did happen. i dont know if
anything happened or not -but it does appear that way. but you guys just go on
and on with your personal vendetta against R Ladd, you should be spending that
energy on more important issues- like Aruba and Daniel N, etc.
>(Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips)
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Wayno- how is this any different than people wanting to know what happened in
>Aruba.?
Ajohn... Russ pompously signs off every remark with this truth &
logic BS. Anyone signing off like this ought to be able to answer any
question.
>looks very similar to me - questionable money changing hands and people
>ducking the question. why is the normally very talkative Daniel N so silent
>about Aruba? why are are the other pros who actually participated in Aruba so
>silent?
> as you say - "why are these sentences so hard to post?
> are truth and logic getting in the way?"
> I'm not going to join in with the long-winded bantering that you and Steve
>Badger are so capable of but i do want to say this:
> the issue IS Aruba/UB
> NOT R Ladd or PegSmith.
> (or me being anonymous)
> No matter how many words you guys write trying to divert attention, the
>bottom line still goes back to "what really happened in Aruba?".
>
>and its a mystery as to why you and Steve dont want to know what happened in
>Aruba. -because it would appear that something did happen. i dont know if
>anything happened or not -but it does appear that way. but you guys just go on
>and on with your personal vendetta against R Ladd,
R.Ladd was the guy making the accusations, as described in
numerous of my posts. This has been gone over infinitum.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
wrote:
at which point, he will be on everybodys "good" list or "bad" list,
depending on their point of view, and confusion will once again reign,
for reasons outlined in the section of my post you snipped
Lee Munzer
"Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:KuhG9.41448$kz4.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
Heh, that has to be a play on your well-known obtuseness... very funny.
Lee
Lee Munzer
"Robert Ladd"
> Maybe this is why I'm having trouble with your humor tonight. This was
> either an attempt at humor, a putdown, or a litttle/lot of both.
> But there's a logic problem with the statement.
There's a logical problem with joking about being leery of backing a
confessed cheater/scammer? Funny faces have a purpose.
I give up.
Lee
Robert Ladd
face, therefore I said it was either humor or a put down or both. I think
the both was the correct answer. But jokes and put downs usually have some
basis in logic to work. If it's not logical, then most of the time I just
scratch my head thinking "that's not funny".
Maybe all the arguing that I'm involved in has pushed my humor to the side.
Robert Ladd
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:5KrG9.43018$kz4.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
Robert Ladd
known obtuseness" but if you think so, then I can see how you and anyone
that believes I am obtuse would find it funny. Though, if you don't mind,
I'll sit here with a fake smile plastered on my face rather than yawn.
You still didn't answer the first question. And I still don't get the humor
in it. If Russ named a poster, how would you be mean to me by giving your
opinion about whether that person is worthwhile or not, to listen to? I
honestly don't have a clue on this one. Is this like the attempt that Wayno
tried to pull off when he claimed that Doyle was making a joke? The one
where he was taking odds that I wouldn't understand. The one I admitted not
getting, and asked for the answer. The one where Wayno never explained it
either, because it wasn't a joke but rather a statement. Or the one where
Wayno tried to get out of looking foolish when he replied to a person that
was obviously a fake Russ, and then tried to deflect his stupidity by trying
to get Vanek and I to wager on what he was thinking, as if what he was
actually thinking when he replied to the fake Russ was recorded in some
ledger so we could verify whether he really did know he was talking to a
fake Russ or not?
You're very often willing to help those that are poker challenged with
advice and explanation. How about those of us that are humor challenged?
Robert Ladd
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:GDrG9.43007$kz4.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
Lee Munzer
"Newgca" ...
Of all the stuff in your post and my response, this is what Ladd picks and
you play along... an obvious funny face statement? No wonder we can't move
forward.
In addition, why did you snip the first sentence in that paragraph? Here it
is:
R. Ladd wrote (to me):
"You see, you don't make your choice of Russ or Howard based on which one
you
think will win, you base it on which one you think would be honest and not
consider dumping to the other and splitting your money."
By snipping his first sentence you prevented me from saying,
"Robert, how do you know how I made my choice even if you ignore the funny
face and assume I was being serious? You have assumed I didn't incorporate
other factors. That's a very poor assumption based on the entire passage I
wrote and defies decision making common sense. You have only what I wrote
(not all I thought about) in an obviously insignificant hypothetical matchup
(they won't play and if they do, I won't be betting).
Obviously, the alternative -- Robert Ladd is just so obtuse as to think one
makes decisions based on a single factor -- exists. Instead of responding
as his protector, please read the next paragraph.
Russ, I say this seriously. You need a sharper gatekeeper or, preferably,
handle these threads yourself (as you are more astute at understanding
posts, more clever and definitely shrewder at wordsmithing than Robert). I
once joked (paraphrased), 'pull him off me before he kills you'. I now
offer that as sound strategic advice if you intend to make Poker Mafia
successful, sell your story, take in consultation fees, teach poker, and/or
enter the many arenas available to someone with your knowledge and
background. The best thing you can do is limit the Ladd/Munzer/
WaynO/Lynnda Clark type noise which takes away from the range of your
signal.
I'll help you. I'll avoid Mr. Ladd as much as possible after this post
(unless he distorts the meaning of what I write in posts).
Oh, before Mr. Ladd sidetracked us, I was responding to you (excerpted):
> >That said, I participate in strategy threads to offer what I know and
learn what I don't.
> The problem is you can't learn from people that don't know, and most on
this group don't know. Sklansky has stated most of these writers are not
capable of discussing theory and I agree 100%. Sklansky is not a high stakes
player either and only made his living in smaller games for a while. Smoke
and mirrors do a lot for deception.
That's where being a good listener comes into play. <snipped humor Mr. Ladd
didn't get) Some are better at some subjects like math (B. Yoon) or O/8
(Buzz) just as you are better at
providing short-handed stud/8 information than limit hold'em strategy. When
Tom W., Jerrod, Abdul, Randy Hudson, or Iceman post something I always read
it very carefully as it probably contains very worthwhile information. I
could name another 10 posters in the 'elite' category. Of course, there are
posters who provide information that is incorrect. I try to question their
thought process if I spot an error, as most do. Sometimes an error in a
complex subject evokes discussion and many learn. "People who don't know"
are actually a good thing in a way (they ask questions, post problems, and
when they offer bad advice others straighten them out). I realize you look
at RGP more from a poker hierarchy perspective which leads you to different
opinions in this area.
> > I have never stated I am an expert, just a winning player who enjoys
low limit recreationally, although I'm sure I could beat $15-$30 or $30-$60
at the Bellagio if I needed the money.
> Why would you think that? Have you ever done this?
It's a very strong opinion, that's all. I'm sure GB will beat CHI this
weekend, also. The 30 or so times (too small a sampling to be meaningful of
course, but fuel for optimism and I'm optimistic by nature) I have played
$8/$16, $9/$18 (CA), $10/$20, $15/$30, and $30/$60 I have done very well
and, as you can judge competition, I have a pretty good idea where I rank in
these games. There are some very bad players in these games. Of course,
there are some excellent ones. For example, I was playing $15/$30 one night
to the right of Martine Ouiles (Spelling?) and she was holding over me and
reading me well, so I moved to a different game. Part of winning is game
selection and I'm not stubborn or egotistical which helps. My strengths are
adapting to styles, deceiving players, discipline, and reading intention
(I'm not good at physical tells, so I discount them). Fortunately, I am so
competitive by nature that I can play my "A" game for an annual win rate of
.0025% of net worth and be entertained, so my belief won't be put to the
test.
> You fail to understand I play a roll in poker. I play the fool to trap
those willing to lose.
Are you asking me to rate how well you can play a fool?
I do care very much that you make unsubstantiated accusations (the fact that
it's difficult to obtain proof notwithstanding). I also find it ludicrous
and irresponsible that you would accuse WaynO of being on the take. Those
are the things I care about. I also care that you cheated honest players
out of there money and do not seem remorseful (a new topic, I believe).
> The more you post Lee, the deeper you will find youself later on.
Good Lord! You and I have probably posted 10,000+ times since you joined
RGP in mid-2001. What the hell do you mean by later on? How much time do
you need to get something accomplished? What are you trying to accomplish
anyway? Please accelerate your agenda for the good of mankind!
And, by "finding myself in deeper" are you implying they will take my house
and car away from me or come in white coats and a straight jacket to get me?
Anything else, for example, on February 26, 2117 reading WaynO state, "Well,
after 16 years and 112,873 posts it turns out Russ was not just simply a
delusional, pompous, arrogant, know-it-all, has-been liar" will be
acceptable and not a problem of depth for me.
Anyway, if I'm all wet or in deep I prefer being with the 1977:
http://www.spies.com/~islands/jb/bisfilmfrmset.html
> The only
> reason I have credibility is because of the player I am, nothing more.
I do not stipulate to this unless it means you have poker player credibility
only from those who have seen you play as opposed to other types of
credibility.
> This was enough to carry me through all trouble spots, because, about
everyone who plays professionally at high stakes has played with me at one
time or the other. They may not know the name, thet may not know the face,
but most everyone knows one of them. This is why after one and one half
years, we are still here and I gain more momentum every day.
That's an interesting observation and self-assessment based on the one and
one half years timeframe and accomplishments to date, but maybe you are
rating your accomplishments on a different scale than I use and you are
certainly entitled your opinion as I have stated I am entited mine on the
Packers and my ability to beat $15/$30 and $30/$60.
Lee
Bill Vanek
(Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 "Shawn Nelsen" wrote:
>
>>>Shawn Nelson... snipped...
>
>
>> None of us are trying to convince anyone that everything Russ
>>says is true.
>
> The problem lies in this line, Shawn. We need either you, or
>someone else, to step forward each time and tell us which are the lies
>and which are the truths.
Well why don't you do that for us? If anyone is trying to
lead us all to believe he can determine the truth by simply
reading posts, it's you.
Steve Badger
> and its a mystery as to why you and Steve dont want to know what happened
in
> Aruba. -because it would appear that something did happen. i dont know if
> anything happened or not -but it does appear that way. but you guys just
go on
> and on with your personal vendetta against R Ladd, you should be spending
that
> energy on more important issues- like Aruba and Daniel N, etc.
Please don't confuse the issue. Russ Hamilton posted an explanation of what
happened in Aruba, or if you prefer, what he contends happened in Aruba.
Now what?
Now you think more attacks and know-nothing insults is appropriate? Why is
that?
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
> Or the one where
>Wayno tried to get out of looking foolish when he replied to a person that
>was obviously a fake Russ, and then tried to deflect his stupidity by trying
>to get Vanek and I to wager on what he was thinking, as if what he was
>actually thinking when he replied to the fake Russ was recorded in some
>ledger so we could verify whether he really did know he was talking to a
>fake Russ or not?
Jesus Christ you are f**king dense, Ladd. I didn't say you had
to "read my mind", I said the burden of proof would be on ME to prove
it. Let the readers in the newsgroup decide. Furthermoe, it's not
written in some ledger I have here-- the proof was right before your
eyes the whole time but you were too stupid to see it. The bet's
still on if you want to take it. If you'd like to lose some money and
be made a fool of at the same time, let me know. Otherwise run away
from this just like you did last time.
Wayno