Daniel N. rats out Men the master!!!!!!!! FACT!
Poker Truth
table sattelite was about to start when Men and Daniel go into a war
of words. Daniel says Men you are a bad man, and you are a cheater.
Men yells and screams at him, denying all of it. Daniel says I don't
respect you and I know about the shit you do. They were both about to
play the sattelite, until Men gave up his seat!!!!
In the sattelite where Erik S, John J, Allen C, Andy B, Tony Ma, and a
few others who all saw it! Nobosy else spoke. The satellite
continued and Erik Seidel won the seat.
Daniel was drinking Corona, and appeared to be drunk again. He was
being aggresive with Men, and Men was backing off of him. What will
come of this turmoil?????? Only time will tell?????
GCA, you have any more recent info that that!!
POKERTRUTH I'M EVERYWHERE!!
Pokerbase
poker...@hotmail.com (Poker Truth) wrote in message news:<a114f6e9.01121...@posting.google.com>...
GCA
tournament master cheater" cheats. It is about time, the "honest
players stood up". Daniel has told me the same thing.
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
poker...@hotmail.com (Poker Truth) wrote in message news:<a114f6e9.01121...@posting.google.com>...
Daniel Negreanu
right now. The incident described, did occur but it wasn't exactly a
'war of words'. I simply stated my opinion of Men's character to him,
and let him know that I will no longer 'pretend' to like him. I
don't. I feel he is a shady individual, and I told him so. I just
wanted him to know that I no longer respected him, nor did I care to
speak to him.
I won't go into the reasons why I believe him to be shady, this is
hardly the place for comments like that. I was happy to feel the
support of many players who will remain nameless, that supported my
stand against Men. As much as I'd like to see corporate sponsership
enter the poker arena, I don't feel it's 'right around the corner'.
Eventually it may be, but not in it's current state.
As I've gotten older, and more involved in the poker world, I've
made a decision to try and improve the game I love. I don't feel
comfortable, nor do I feel it is in poker's best interest to cover up
the 'problems' we have in the tournament world right now. I will
however, make a concerted effort to clean up the game as much as I
possibly can.
For some time now, I've heard, "Something must be done". Well, I'm
only one man/boy, but I will no longer sit and watch as others tarnish
this great game's reputation.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
poker...@hotmail.com (Poker Truth) wrote in message news:<a114f6e9.01121...@posting.google.com>...
R.Ward
> I have a pretty good idea who posted this, but that's not important
> right now. The incident described, did occur but it wasn't exactly a
> 'war of words'. I simply stated my opinion of Men's character to him,
> and let him know that I will no longer 'pretend' to like him. I
> don't. I feel he is a shady individual, and I told him so. I just
> wanted him to know that I no longer respected him, nor did I care to
> speak to him.
> I won't go into the reasons why I believe him to be shady, this is
> hardly the place for comments like that. I was happy to feel the
> support of many players who will remain nameless, that supported my
> stand against Men. As much as I'd like to see corporate sponsership
> enter the poker arena, I don't feel it's 'right around the corner'.
> Eventually it may be, but not in it's current state.
> As I've gotten older, and more involved in the poker world, I've
> made a decision to try and improve the game I love. I don't feel
> comfortable, nor do I feel it is in poker's best interest to cover up
> the 'problems' we have in the tournament world right now. I will
> however, make a concerted effort to clean up the game as much as I
> possibly can.
> For some time now, I've heard, "Something must be done". Well, I'm
> only one man/boy, but I will no longer sit and watch as others tarnish
> this great game's reputation.
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> kidp...@hotmail.com
>
Nice post Daniel and to the point. Good luck with you stated goals.
Diane from Green Bay
> made a decision to try and improve the game I love. I don't feel
> comfortable, nor do I feel it is in poker's best interest to cover up
> the 'problems' we have in the tournament world right now. I will
> however, make a concerted effort to clean up the game as much as I
> possibly can.
> For some time now, I've heard, "Something must be done". Well, I'm
> only one man/boy, but I will no longer sit and watch as others tarnish
> this great game's reputation.
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> kidp...@hotmail.com
Daniel -
Thank you
For taking a public position on being committed to improving the
reputation and public image of the poker world.
I certainly don't have the public attention, success record, or
connections that you do, but I share your passion for upgrading poker
in the mainstream world. It may never get the social acceptance of
say a "bridge" game - but I will keep trying.
We ALL need to take the small steps when we have a chance to improve
the image of poker and clean out the players who are "hurting" poker.
The crybabies, the people who abuse other players, the slow rollers,
the ones who abuse dealers, the angle shooters, and those moochers
that always walk into a poker room with their hand out looking for
something for nothing.
So few casinos care about poker players - we all need to actively work
to show them we are valued customers who bring respectable profitable
business into their establishment.
When I am at a table with someone who is "hurting" the game, I speak
up. I caution them about throwing cards, profanity, and beating up
the dealers. I go to the floor discretely and let them know quietly
about a problem with a player or dealer. I go to the people who can
do something about it. If I have a suggestion for improving the poker
room, I tell the manager in a calm and businesslike manner in a
private conversation. I don't sit at table and whine - too non
productive. I don't have enough time left in my life to sit there and
not do something. Complaining without actively trying to resolve it is
worthless....save your breath unless you are willing to help.
The only reason I participated in the Discovery/Travel Channel
documentary a few years ago was to help improve the public image of
poker. I didn't want or seek the attention. I just love playing
poker. But once approached by the producers, I felt that the show just
might help other women feel more comfortable about trying poker - and
that if MY story as a poker playing, tournament enthusiast,
businesswoman, mother of 3, married, conservative midwesterner, got
shown, it might spruce up the image most have of poker. I did receive
a lot of positive comments-from people who said they didn't realize
what poker was like. They had a totally different image. Most people
outside of poker that I talk to have the backroom, sleazy characters
image burned into their brains.
We need to keep working at changing that. I hope the rest of you who
feel the same way, will speak up one by one when you are in a game
that is "bad" for poker. Don't sit there and let it deteriorate - do
something however small to make poker better.
Enough of my soapbox ramblings on a Sunday evening....
Diane from Green Bay
GCA
GCA has been shouting about this for months.
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
hrd...@aol.com (Diane from Green Bay) wrote in message news:<112260ba.01121...@posting.google.com>...
dave keiser
Dan,i love your columns in Cardplayer. They show you to be a down to
earth person that made it to the top on desire and talent going from
hometown champ to WORLD CHAMPION. You worked hard to make that leap
and i hope all the best for you in the future. You'll stay at the top
if you put that corona down when gambling. You seem like a nice guy.
But i think you're out of line in this post about Men"the master".
He has been bad mouthed over and over since Russ g. told his fairy
tale about chips falling on the floor in the bathroom. An allegation
with no proof. And now you,a respected member of the poker community,
do the same thing in a drunken vent. You have not said what he has
done wrong or provided proof so we have no idea what you're talking
about. So explain futher or do the right thing and accept
responsibility for dumping on a champion. I personally don't like it
when people pile on a defenseless person.
Did i say defenseless, you gave this champ the motivation to win a
quarter million a couple days later. The proff is in the pudding and i
hope you learned something. He's king kong in a tournament. Accept it.
codesavvy
> Gosh. a new concept in poker. Could it be Men "the tournament cheat".
> GCA has been shouting about this for months.
>
> Russ G new...@aol.com John M
>
>
Daniel N. didn't explicitly call him a cheat but that's the message I
got which lends credence to at least some of what you've written
about. I don't think it takes much to infer "cheat" from "shady."
Daniel Negreanu
> Did i say defenseless, you gave this champ the motivation to win a
> quarter million a couple days later. The proff is in the pudding and i
> hope you learned something. He's king kong in a tournament. Accept it.
>
Well Dave,
You are actually the first person who thought my comments were out
of line, but that's ok. None of what I know about Men's 'shadiness'
comes from GCA posts. Many past situations where Men has broken the
code of poker ethics, I got from respectable people in the poker world
who will remain nameless. They told me these things in confidence,
and I will never betray that trust. That also includes people in his
camp who have admitted to me what they were forced to do if they
wanted to play for Men.
If you are looking for first hand knowledge, that I feel comfortable
sharing, this is an absolutely first hand fact. I'm curious as to how
you feel about the following hand, and comments that followed:
In 98', after I won a bracelet and had some money, both Men and I
put Nhut Tran into a limit hold'em event, each putting up half the
money. Down to three tables, Men had a moster stack, while Nhut only
had 4 small bets left. Men raised in 1st position, and everyone
folded to Nhut. Who then re-raised it to three bets. When the bet
came back to Men, he had to call one small bet, as well as one more
small bet to get Nhut all-in...he FOLDED! That alone is a cardinal
sin by any competent player, that should have been punished, but
wasn't.
That's not all. Men then takes me aside to the corner and says, "I
had to throw the hand away to keep Nhut alive! We have big percent,
so I have to give him chip." So in other words, Men dumped chips to
one of his horses to keep him alive in the tournament, which is
absolute collusion. It was certainly in Men's best interest
financially to have Nhut still alive in the tournament.
There are a million similar stories to this one, but this is the
only one where Men actually admitted to me that he was doing wrong. I
do not feel it is right to share what I've heard, rather what I KNOW.
If others are interested in putting a stop to Men's antics, I hope
they will eventually come forward with what they have seen first hand.
I honestly feel sorry for some of his horses(who will remain
nameless), who are forced to soft-play Men, if they would like to
continue to recieve financial backing or support from him. Some, not
all of his horses are given the following instruction:
1. Never call him.
2. Don't raise his blind.
3. In no limit, when he re-raises you, fold.
4. In no limit, you are not allowed to move in on him.
Unfortunately, I will not reveal the source who gave me this
information. So, I can understand your skepticism about the validity
of it. I can tell you that I got this same information from more than
one person. Personally, considering Men's character, I believe it.
You can choose to believe what you wish, but I am comfortable with my
decision to come forward with this information.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
Lurker from TS
Is Daniel the only one with balls out there? This young man has the
courage to come forward alone. Let's not leave him out there by
himself!!
Mike Stuto from Turning Stone
dave keiser
> dmk1...@aol.com (dave keiser) wrote in message newswhen people pile on a defenseless person.
> > Did i say defenseless, you gave this champ the motivation to win a
> > quarter million a couple days later. The proff is in the pudding and i
> > hope you learned something. He's king kong in a tournament. Accept it.
Thanks for the clarifacation Dan, that's what i wanted to hear,first
hand facts. A lot of posters say take my word or i was told,evan
worse, in confidence. But coming from a honest and well respected
person like you makes all the difference. Many of top tournament
players have been in this business for ages and know all the crap Russ
has been spouting, but the code has been "dummy up' or "if you're
going to be a sucker be a quiet one". Good for you,let's hope the
other young guns do what's honest and right. Being quiet while people
steal is not only bad for you but the poker industry. Mabey you'll be
the catalyst for change. If only the poker rags help out(they won't)
or Linda Johnson and Mike Caro come on board to help clean up the bad
elements,we can have the game played the way it should. GOOD MAN
As for you Men, what have you to say for yourself. And the people
that stuck up for him let's hear what they have to say now. A man has
made first hand allegations. That's good enough for me, now what's the
industry going to do.
NOTHING,THAT'S WHAT
Daniel Negreanu
anybody. I just think that if everyone is weary of what someone is
capable of, it'll make it that much more difficult for that person to
continue doing it.
I don't expect to banish these people from the poker world, I just
don't want to make it easy on them to cheat. I want all the 'cheater
friendly rules' changed, and all the easily exploitable procedures
changed.
With all due respect to the Taj, as it wasn't their fault, the
gaming commision of NJ had some rules in place that were down right
terrible. The key one being the chip off.
Example: If you have two $100 chips left when they race them off,
you simply lose them! You get zero value for them, you just have to
give them up?? Now, what incentive would you have to give those chips
to the floorman? Other than your concious, there is no reason why you
wouldn't save those chips and bring them back the next day. OR, say
you and a buddy have two chips each. You give one to a friend, and
he'll get a $500 chip. The other chip, you can just bring back the
next day. I'm all but certain that happened, but unfortunately I have
zero first hand knowledge as to whether it did.
The Commerce has a very successful $300 buyin tournament often with
a big $250,000 guarantee. This is a huge overlay for any good player,
even though it becomes a crapshoot late. Each player is allowed to do
a double add-on at the end. Well, how hard would it be for me to have
a friend do an EXTRA double add-on if he wasn't doing one for himself?
I think it's important for the poker community to be able to spot
cheating when it happens. When a player leaves a table at the break
with 1700, then comes back with 3700, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to say
something to the floor.
Call it the 'Poker Community Watch' if you will. Stricter penalties
on offenders, and a concerted effort by the players can only further
discourage cheating in the tournaments. And that will benefit all of
us, except of course the players shooting an angle.
Regarding the first hand information I shared with you, I dare Men
to deny it in public. There were two other players there that day
that also witnessed it. One of them being Nhut himself.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
dmk1...@aol.com (dave keiser) wrote in message news:<98f7b687.0112...@posting.google.com>...
Double Play
I'm a relatively new poker player having only played for about 9
months. I really enjoy participating in tournaments, especially since
I make it to the final table about 25% of the time from a field of
70-80 players. As far as tournament play goes, I'm winning money!
However, It has always amazed me that during the first 10 minute break
and the "color change", all the chips are simply left lying there on
the table! I never could understand why this was the case. What would
prevent someone from taking chips with them and handing them to
another player outside during the break or pocketing them for play on
another day? And what would prevent them from walking by another
player's stack and pocketing a few chips when nobody was looking? I
always count my chips before and after I get back from the break, but
I would think there should be some better system, I just don't know
what the system would be. Should the dealer count everyone's chips as
they leave? Should the chips be covered with a clear plastic case? Or
are people pocketing chips well before the break?
I would be naive to think that there is no cheating in tournament
poker even if I haven't seen it. A couple of times I have noticed
someone "soft-play" a friend, but it was always picked up by someone
else as well and verbally commented on before I could say anything.
I'm sure tournament cheating would be a difficult subject for a
magazine article. But it would be nice to see an article on changes
that could be made to better tournament play. If people had an idea of
what to look out for, they might be able to protect themselves.
Shawn Evans
San Francisco, CA
kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) wrote in message news:<7220404a.01121...@posting.google.com>...
Deel Meein
> kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) wrote in message news:<7220404a.01121...@posting.google.com>...
> > dmk1...@aol.com (dave keiser) wrote in message newswhen people pile on a defenseless person.
> > > Did i say defenseless, you gave this champ the motivation to win a
> > > quarter million a couple days later. The proff is in the pudding and i
> > > hope you learned something. He's king kong in a tournament. Accept it.
>
>
> Thanks for the clarifacation Dan, that's what i wanted to hear,first
> hand facts. A lot of posters say take my word or i was told,evan
> worse, in confidence. But coming from a honest and well respected
> person like you makes all the difference. Many of top tournament
> players have been in this business for ages and know all the crap Russ
> has been spouting, but the code has been "dummy up' or "if you're
> going to be a sucker be a quiet one". Good for you,let's hope the
> other young guns do what's honest and right. Being quiet while people
> steal is not only bad for you but the poker industry. Mabey you'll be
> the catalyst for change. If only the poker rags help out(they won't)
> or Linda Johnson and Mike Caro come on board to help clean up the bad
> elements,we can have the game played the way it should. GOOD MAN
> As for you Men, what have you to say for yourself. And the people
> that stuck up for him let's hear what they have to say now. A man has
> made first hand allegations. That's good enough for me, now what's the
> industry going to do.
> NOTHING,THAT'S WHAT
>
>
him. Warren stuck up for him before and he even wrote the letter to
Card Player for Men. Please Warren, come to Men The Masters defence
and tell Dave Kiser what you have to say now. Men is SUPER DUPER.
Men The Master Nguyen
defense.
First let me say that I totally deny Daniel's accusations. They are a
blatant outright lie.
Daniel, jealousy seems to be your only motive here. You made a bet
with me $5000.00 that you would finish higher in the point standings
in CP. You didn't and you couldn't pay. You told me that you didn't
have the $5000.00 and that you would pay me in Tunica.
I was a good sport about it.
Daniel at the final table, John asked you if he should let me go to
the bathroom. You told him not to. He didn't. After I went to the
bathroom anyway you to told your listeners (on the Fancast show)that
now John would have to play with a man who didn't wash his hands.
Disgusting jealousy.
Where is the sportsmanship in this? I let the clock get put on me and
went.
I was a good sport about this.
When I won despite our differences, I put my hand out to shake John's.
As you said on your broadcast, he wouldn't and he didn't. Where's the
sportsmanship in this?
I was a good sport about this.
As to your allegations, I never took chips off the table and returned
them the next day or used them to aid me in a race off. I however find
it suspicious that your calculating mind would find this to be a
player's advantage. Nice plan Daniel, did you try it yourself?
As to the Commerce and your rebuy theory, also very cunning (How many
friends that you know play in those events)but I've never even placed
in one of those events. I never took chips from any other player and I
didn't design the Commerce's add on policy. Most importantly I never
abused it.
Now as far as Nuht Tran is concerned. I stopped doing business with
him in 1997. If he was a loyal, chip passing horse as you say, why is
he no longer with me? In reference to your allegation in 1998 (after I
dropped him)not only did I not put him in with you, but I never soft
played him.
Let me ask this, If I did and you saw me soft play him and you were
there at the table, why didn't you say something then. It's three
years later.
If I came up to you and said it wasn't in my best interest to knock
him out? Why didn't you say something then? It's three years later.
If you knew I soft played and kept him in the tournament and you were
a third owner of him, by you not saying anything does that make you an
accomplice.
Doesn't that make you someone who condoned the action, does this make
you a cheater too.
It never happened Daniel.
This is the worst case of outright jealousy I've ever seen. If I
hadn't won the events I won and then the final beating your good buddy
John, none of this would be said. If you didn't lose the bet because I
caught your friend John in the standings none of this would be said.
You say I have rules for my horses when they play. Let me see one come
forward with this accusation. You'll say they wont because their
afraid I wont put them in anymore. There are plenty out there who used
to play for me but now don't play for me, get them to accuse me. They
cant.
Your stories are uncorroborated and can only be sworn to by you.
You bring up things that can only be proven by your word without
substantiation.
This comes from a boy who now owes your buddy John What? Maybe
100,000? And as far as soft playing, playing on the same bankroll,
signals and collusion? Well let's just say that I wouldn't play in a
White chip game where you and John are together.
You may say that I have no proof and that it's not true. It's as true
as your stories Daniel. I at least admit that without proof these are
empty words.
Thank you to those that support me, I value this. I am a Buddhist and
believe that if I do wrong it will come back to me 10 fold. I assure
you I am not worried about these accusations, they are not true!!
I have asked someone who is better in English to help me with this
writing, but these are my words.
Daniel Negreanu
Menthe...@aol.com (Men The Master Nguyen) wrote in message news:<54973d8e.0112...@posting.google.com>...
> This is my first post on RGP and I'm sorry that it has to be in my
> defense.
>
> First let me say that I totally deny Daniel's accusations. They are a
> blatant outright lie.
>
> Daniel, jealousy seems to be your only motive here. You made a bet
> with me $5000.00 that you would finish higher in the point standings
> in CP. You didn't and you couldn't pay. You told me that you didn't
> have the $5000.00 and that you would pay me in Tunica.
> I was a good sport about it.
The $5000 you won, is money that I already beat you out of at the
L.A.P.C. We had a bet on the point standings there, which I won and
you paid. Jealousy had nothing to do with my reasons for coming
forward. It was the recent Taj incident that I was informed about
that irked me to do something.
>
> Daniel at the final table, John asked you if he should let me go to
> the bathroom. You told him not to. He didn't. After I went to the
> bathroom anyway you to told your listeners (on the Fancast show)that
> now John would have to play with a man who didn't wash his hands.
> Disgusting jealousy.
> Where is the sportsmanship in this? I let the clock get put on me and
> went.
> I was a good sport about this.
There was a break scheduled in 15 minutes. John was pounding you,
and you taking a break would allow you to cool off. Of course it
wasn't in John's best interest to allow that. It wasn't his fault
that you were drinking so much corona your bladder couldn't hold it.
The same thing occured in 96' at the Taj, and Ken Flaton refused to
allow Phil Hellmuth to take a bathroom break. They both had every
right.
> When I won despite our differences, I put my hand out to shake John's.
> As you said on your broadcast, he wouldn't and he didn't. Where's the
> sportsmanship in this?
> I was a good sport about this.
He did shake your hand, I wouldn't. I know what you did with Minh
the previous week at the final table. I kow all about Minh sending
the old man over. I was hoping that you wouldn't stoop quite that
low. The rail was cleared by a security guard the following day
BECAUSE of the incident that occured with you there. Do you deny this
one too? There was only about 40 witnesses there that saw that
chaotic incident.
>
> As to your allegations, I never took chips off the table and returned
> them the next day or used them to aid me in a race off. I however find
> it suspicious that your calculating mind would find this to be a
> player's advantage. Nice plan Daniel, did you try it yourself?
>
I respect the game of poker, and would never consider doing anything
unethical like that. I can't prove you did this, but I believe you
have. Where there is smoke, there is fire. I've heard too many chip
passing stories from people I trust to dismiss them as hearsay.
> As to the Commerce and your rebuy theory, also very cunning (How many
> friends that you know play in those events)but I've never even placed
> in one of those events. I never took chips from any other player and I
> didn't design the Commerce's add on policy. Most importantly I never
> abused it.
>
Again, I never mentioned your name specificly when I made those
comments. I simply stated that this occurs, I have no first hand
knowledge of this happening with you. Only what people have told me
they've seen you and others doing. Whether or not you placed is
irrelevant. Extra chips doesn't ensure a final table, it only aids in
the matter.
> Now as far as Nuht Tran is concerned. I stopped doing business with
> him in 1997. If he was a loyal, chip passing horse as you say, why is
> he no longer with me? In reference to your allegation in 1998 (after I
> dropped him)not only did I not put him in with you, but I never soft
> played him.
>
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE LIE. You called me at the Budget Suites where I
was staying and asked if I would put up with you to put Nhut in the
$5000 limit hold'em. I agreed to do so. The EXACT situation I
described did happen. I'd be willing to take a polygraph to prove
that. As I said, I wasn't at the table, you took me aside and told me
what you were doing. Shame on you to deny this happened. At least
give us the typical bogus speech like, "I didn't know he was almost
all-in" or something! There was someone else at those last three
tables that also remembers the incident.
> Let me ask this, If I did and you saw me soft play him and you were
> there at the table, why didn't you say something then. It's three
> years later.
> If I came up to you and said it wasn't in my best interest to knock
> him out? Why didn't you say something then? It's three years later.
Good point. At the time I was very new to the scene, and wasn't
sure what to make of it. I felt it was wrong, but since you were
supposed to be a respected player in the community, I wasn't sure. I
am now.
>
> If you knew I soft played and kept him in the tournament and you were
> a third owner of him, by you not saying anything does that make you an
> accomplice.
> Doesn't that make you someone who condoned the action, does this make
> you a cheater too.
I didn't condone it. I was simply too young and afraid to upset you
or make an enemy of you. I am no longer afraid.
>
> It never happened Daniel.
> This is the worst case of outright jealousy I've ever seen. If I
> hadn't won the events I won and then the final beating your good buddy
> John, none of this would be said. If you didn't lose the bet because I
> caught your friend John in the standings none of this would be said.
Really? Then why did I confront you well before the event even
started? I told you I don't respect you, well before you won that
final event. I told you I know you do bad things, days before you
won. I came forward, because people approached me with the news of
the recent incident concerning Minh, looking at your opponent's
holecards and sending him over. Ring a bell?
> You say I have rules for my horses when they play. Let me see one come
> forward with this accusation. You'll say they wont because their
> afraid I wont put them in anymore. There are plenty out there who used
> to play for me but now don't play for me, get them to accuse me. They
> cant.
Unfortunately, I can't force someone to rock the boat. They have to
choose to do so on their own. I've chosen to no longer be quiet,
while I and the other fellow tournament players are being raped and
cheated.
>
> Your stories are uncorroborated and can only be sworn to by you.
> You bring up things that can only be proven by your word without
> substantiation.
>
Well how would you like to join me for a polygraph on the 98'
incident? As I said, I've only heard things from others in the poker
community about most of the incidents. The one thing I know first
hand that happened, was the 98' incident. As I said, there are two
other people that could corroborate that incident.
> This comes from a boy who now owes your buddy John What? Maybe
> 100,000? And as far as soft playing, playing on the same bankroll,
> signals and collusion? Well let's just say that I wouldn't play in a
> White chip game where you and John are together.
>
That's fine. I can sleep at night. I KNOW I've never done anything
that even remotely resembles cheating at a poker table. I KNOW you
can't say the same thing.
What I want, is to stop you from continuing your dishonest ways.
You are certainly a capable player without bending the rules. I
believe you would succeed at poker without cheating, and I hope you
finally put an end to it once and for all. I don't think you are a
terrible person, I just think that sometimes you can't help yourself.
Bad habits are hard to quit.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
>
GCA
didn't you dispute the claims I have been making? Do you think they
are going away. We know each other very well. Were you afraid for me
to leak more information out?
Men, you have been a "tournament cheater" for close to 10 years now.
You know I have been around and participated. Daniel maybe the
"newbie" here, but my accusations are the one that pack the "bite".
You know I have the others to back up what I state on your tournament
cheating.
You can't and have never been able to beat the ring games. They won't
even let you cheat in the "ring game cheating packs". Dany Dang can go
from one area to another. He plays a lot better than you. Thus he can
cheat in both.
Men you are a LIAR!!!! Men you are a CHEATER!!!!! Many people are now
accusing you. I being the forerunner. I was here when you came into
the game. You have "cheated" for close to 10 years now. You don't miss
an oppoutunity.
The orders to your "stake horses" were right on the money. [Daniel
stated them].This is why many are not cheating with you anymore.
Remember you have "cheated" with many people "Men", and some know all
your moves [well most any way].
That was why it was so easy for people to "play both sides" against
you. I had one cheat in one of your "cheating packs", they received
more money from me. You and I both know you have cheated in every
tournament you could possibly cheat in.
Why did you not dispute my accusations? Did you think Daniels were
more important? Now you state, "Daniel is fabricating everything".
Common "cheating maneuver", complete "denial" when put into a position
where you have to defend yourself. How could a young, strong Daniel be
jealous of an older[perhaps 20 years] smaller, fatter you? He is also
smarter.
This is the same defense that was just used against me when I have
attacked Doyle Brunson and others. They stated, "I was jealous of
Doyle". How can anyone be jealous of a person who is 20 years older
and 200 pounds overweight? Just another "typical denial".
Jealousy!!!!!! BULL-SHIT is more like it. Some people can just take
so much. Men, your "cheating days" are coming to an end.
This is not personal. I am at war with "cheating", and you are at the
lower end. Regardless of what these magazines state, you know where
you stand on the pecking order. I even like you. We have had many a
beer together, but I have "big fish" to catch. So you had to be
exposed.
I still wonder why you didn't bother to refute my claims since this
was your first time on a computer. Also, who was your writer? Surely
you didn't compose that message yourself.
Many have now accused you. GCA, Daniel N., Casey Kastle and others not
as high.
I know for a fact you have conducted your "tournament cheating"
strategies in your house. One of "mine" [person who cheated on my
pack] was also on your "cheating pack" in those years.He was in your
house. He slept there. You know the orders you gave your guys, just as
I do. This was why it was easy for some of them to "betray you". You
were too cheap with them.
I have at least one person who would give "testimony or a court
deposition" that he has been in Men's house and on Men's "cheating
packs". He was also on mine. Tell them how easy it is to get
"tournament chips" for the Bicycle Club Men.
You can procure "tournament chips" for the BIG TOURNAMENTS at the
Bicycle Club by simply playing in some of the smaller events. Up until
the time I stopped playing at the Bicycle Club, they used the "same
tournament chips" in the smaller events. Thus you could take out a
"few thousand in chips" for mere pennies.
You then saved them to use in the "Big Events", like the Legends of
Poker. The Bicycle conducted their smaller tourneys like the "Winnin
of the Green" with the same chips. Other events also used the same
chips. The buy ins on some of these events was as low as $50 dollars.
Many $100 events. Easy to load up on AMMUNITION for the Legends of
Poker. Here the buy ins were ten times larger.
But, since you already had loaded up in the smaller tourneys before
the Legends of Poker, you were always prepared. And this came at a
miniscule price. Bet you didn't know that the BICYCLE TOURNAMENTS were
conducted in this manner.
Men, you have been a cheater for many years now. You lead your
"cheating pack". I have stated fellow associates in another post. You
guys dominate the TOP 20 in Overall Player Standing. You all use
everything available, including collusion and "passing chips in the
rest rooms".
Russ G new...@aol.com John M "whistle-blowers"
Menthe...@aol.com (Men The Master Nguyen) wrote in message news:<54973d8e.0112...@posting.google.com>...
John Juanda
say something (because i knew something), but decided not to, because
I was worried that the people who dont know me well might think I say
something here out of jelousy (because I finished 2nd to Men Nguyen at
the final event at the Taj). But after I read the post by Men Nguyen,
I decided I shouldnt keep my silence anymore.
Menthe...@aol.com wrote (among other things):
> When I won despite our differences, I put my hand out to shake John's.
> As you said on your broadcast, he wouldn't and he didn't. Where's the
> sportsmanship in this?
> I was a good sport about this.
Men Nguyen seems to have very short memory because I did shake his
hand, not once but twice. Jeff Shulman, Barry Shulman, and Andy
Glazer were among the many people who saw it. Many of my friends,
Daniel Negreanu included, didnt think I should've congratulated Men
because of what he did the night before. He was TAUNTING us, the
players on his table, especially when he beat us out of a pot. For
example, at one point, he beat Tony Ma out of a really big pot, and
then asked to see Tony's hand, which I think was rude (Apparently, the
crowds agreed with me because they booed him for that). Also, many of
the final table viewers agreed that he slow-rolled me on one of the
key hands when we were playing headsup. Despite that, the little voice
inside my heart told me to shake his hand and congratulate him after
he'd won, and that was what i DID.
> First let me say that I totally deny Daniel's accusations. They are a
> blatant outright lie.
>
I've known both Men and Daniel for 5 years now. When I first met
Daniel, he was already a well known player (even though nowhere as
famous as he is now), yet he came to me (an unknown player at the
time) and introduced himself. During the 5 years that i've known him,
I have seen him done nothing but try to promote poker (writing for
cardplayer, doing internet broadcasts, etc.) and protect the integrity
of the game. Men, on the other hand, the first time I played with him
was at the Legend of Poker (about 5 years ago), I remember beating him
out of a pot, and he ended up throwing his cards at me. Do you still
remember that, Men?
Men, I dont think anything that Daniel said here is because he is
jealous of you or because he dislike you. He simply dislike WHAT YOU
DID to poker. I dislike what you did to poker too. Daniel wrote in
one of his posts, regarding the '98 Nhut Tran 'dumping-chips'
incident, that there were 2 other players who saw it happened. For
the record, I, John Juanda, was one of the players who saw it
happened.
> This is the worst case of outright jealousy I've ever seen. If I
> hadn't won the events I won and then the final beating your good buddy
> John, none of this would be said. If you didn't lose the bet because I
> caught your friend John in the standings none of this would be said.
I have no reason to be jealous of you. I dont think you have anything
that i really want and dont already have. Daniel and I have simply
choosen to come forward and spoken up to protect the integrity of the
game that we both love so much.
John Juanda
Menthe...@aol.com (Men The Master Nguyen) wrote in message news:<54973d8e.0112...@posting.google.com>...
Eric
If we could just get these 3 (Men, Daniel, John) to post on the
Tournament Strategy post we might learn something we can use.
Adam Fall
would attempt to brush the dirt under the rug.
Hope some others will do the same.
BTW - Can I borrow $100?
kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) wrote in message news:<7220404a.0112...@posting.google.com>...
DaVoice
> He did shake your hand, I wouldn't
I was standing right there when Men and John met after the final hand.
Men offered a hug to John, which he declined, but John DID shake his
hand. I was very close to this action, because I was talking with JJ
on the air at that very moment.
I would like to take this opportunity to praise Daniel for the
FANTASTIC job he did as the color commentator on the broadcast. I was
not aware of the "incident" that started this whole thread, and I can
tell you that the listeners weren't either. Daniel was extremely
professional in his commentary, and was frankly the best poker "color
guy" I've ever worked with (and that is saying something, because I've
worked with others that I thought were phenomenal).
Just my thoughts,
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
Rayg76
Danny spit it out
Ray Garber
James L. Hankins
news:db9c75c8.01121...@posting.google.com...
> kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) wrote in message
news:<7220404a.01121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Is Daniel the only one with balls out there?
YES
newgca
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
Lurker from TS <mj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:db9c75c8.01121...@posting.google.com...
MH
sensitive to personal attacks!
But this is serious.
I think what Daniel has started to do here is important to all of us
in tournament poker.
It takes a lot of courage to be the first one to speak up. He
confronted Men in person.
We all knew it had happened but he was the one who spoke up.
I am sharing this w/you because I believe that if we the players don't
make an attempt to
Clean up our own industry we have little chance of poker reaching its
full potential.
More importantly though is if we don't do something then we are
allowing something to be done to us.
We are saying we know you're cheating us, but that's ok we are too
afraid to say anything because its bad for poker, so go ahead steal
our money.
Imagine this- a group of cheaters get together to train new recruits.
After all the rules have been discussed, one of the recruits says,"Ok,
so I cant raise your
Blind, and if you re-raise I have to give the hand up either then or
on the flop, and I can't bluff you."But. What if one of the players
catches on?"
Then the man with the master plan says "oh don't worry they won't do
anything they
Think it isn't good for poker."
I was made aware of cheating going on during the Taj. Tournament.
Men (the Master?) had one of his horses Signal to him the hole cards
of one of the players at the final table of the $500 limit hold-em
event.
My source is one of the most upstanding, knowledgeable players in our
community. He has no axe to grind w/anyone, and he is a winning
player. That he was even present for this is a fluke.
Anyway, I heard it, as this -Minh was behind the man so close that he
could clearly see his whole cards.
Minh would then signal Men as to what he had. He continued to do this
until someone in the crowd started saying "he's cheating, he's
cheating."
He then said "he's (pointing to Minh) looking at his cards and
signaling Men." this went on for a bit, at first no one was paying
attention because he wasn't saying it loudly enough for everyone to
hear. He continued getting louder until everyone listened. Then
everyone started looking around.
In the meantime Minh who was aware that the guy was pointing to him
disappeared into the crowd.
When I found out about it I kept my eye open for Minh.
When I didn't see him the next day I knew he had been sent away.
Within about 24 hrs. Minh left not only the Taj. But the country,
saying, he had to get to Vietnam to bring his sister money. His sister
needed to get to a doctor because she was going to die in 2weeks.
Minh and Men were careful to make sure many people heard the reason
why he was leaving. One player (who told me this part of the story,
and knew the real reason he was leaving,) suggested to Minh he send
her the money so she could get to the doctors faster.
He said Minh was confused for a second as how to answer, and then just
said, "no, I have to go."
In Tunica last year one of Men's horses asked me to put him in a
satellite. I said no, and wasn't sure if he was serious or not.
Because he had asked me to put him I watched him for the next few
days, and it did indeed seem he was struggling. Later we were sitting
next to ea. Other in a limit hold-em event
I asked him if he was playing for Men? He said no, he was sick of his
rules. I acted like I knew what he meant (which, at that time I had
only heard rumors) he then he told me he couldn’t raise Men's
big blind, he couldn't bluff him, and he couldn't re-raise him. He
said "I don't want to play that way, I want to win."
In Feb. the commerce will hold two 1 million-dollar events.
Lets do everything now to take the cheating out of poker and put the
pressure on the cheaters.
Lets also put pressure on the tournament directors to keep close watch
on the chips and,
To change the way add-ons are done.
At the commerce you take your buy-in receipt to the cashier, give the
cashier your money, and then are handed your add-on chips to take back
to the table. Since this is during the break,
It is very easy to pass them to someone else.
In fact last year during one over the commerce events I did my add-on,
And went out side to talk to my friends during the break.
I took my hand out of my pocket, and said "look guys," and opened my
hand showing the chips.
I then went back inside and told Sherry. She gave me a scowl, I told
her
I was just trying to show how bad the add-on system is.
It seems to me that having the floor people go to ea. Table to do the
add-ons is a better solution.
Tournament poker is wonderful. The players think that they don't have
any power.
I think that isn't so. Look at smoking. We achieved the impossible.
We got casinos To provide us with non-smoking tournaments when we
were told we would Never get the policy changed.
So guys I guess its time to make some policy changes.
Only this time its Cheating.
Best,
Melissa Hayden
Profe
allegations. If cheating is to be stopped, it is to start from the
people who are affected the most. Namely, the non-cheating poker
players who love good, solid tournament poker. I have played with you
on numerous occasions and have always found you to be on target when it
comes to analysis. (You're also a great chip handler... I have problems
amassing chips and you helped me twice in PL games on separate occasions
when I booked big wins at the table :)
Melissa, don't be a stranger to RGP! Please post more; your thoughts and
analyses would be invaluable to this group. We need good players to
post here. By the way, I thought you wrote quite well. If you've read
many people's posts here, you'd realize that incomprehensible input is
the norm, not the exception!
Larry Lubiner
aka Profe
"La vida es sueño y los sueños son..." (That's for you, Keith :P)
AL
>From: Profe larry....@verizon.net
> incomprehensible input is the norm,
this is true... we all decompress and comprehense it in our own way.
MSA1213
>Thank you for your reply, Melissa. Very informative post about serious
>allegations. If cheating is to be stopped, it is to start from the
>people who are affected the most. Namely, the non-cheating poker
>players who love good, solid tournament poker.
And how about some help/leadership from the tournament-playing owners of a
certain poker magazine?
At the time that a certain WCPP was removed from a recent Foxwoods tourney, I
recall the defense on rgp including PR material published in that magazine.
Does the magazine want a publicized award ceremony for its Player of the Year
with the recipient being someone who does not play honestly?
The owners of that magazine, who also are becoming significant tournament
players and post here, seem to be staying silent now. They have a
responsibility. Hopefully they won't remain hidden!
marc (msa)
James L. Hankins
limit players are not outraged over this and have let it go on so long. The
cheating costs them money and it's like they don't even care. If I played
in a tournament with buy-in of $5k or more I'd be seriously pissed.
And I do play in $500 buy-in events. This incident at the Taj, with
Men's guy signaling to him the other player's hole cards? That could have
been me. It could have been anyone on this news group getting cheated like
that. How do you know it hasn't happened to you?
Russ has been preaching it and I now think there has been sufficient
corroborration to convince me that Men is a cheat. He should be barred from
tournament play. Period.
And thanks Melissa, for sharing what you know. You have balls, too.
(well, figuratively speaking, of course).
"MH" <wire...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:454be35a.01122...@posting.google.com...
Jonathan Kaplan
>
> I am glad to see this. I simply do not understand why the honest high
>limit players are not outraged over this and have let it go on so long. The
>cheating costs them money and it's like they don't even care. If I played
>
yeah, i dont understand this either. have all of these people been that unaware?
do they think it is not really happening to "them"?
or, do they not know what to do about it?
Daniel N. says we all have to be more aware. this has got to be part of the
solution. but it isnt enough. it is just a start.
Melissa H. makes a suggestion how to improve the procedures with add-ons at an
upcoming tournament. this type of action is also a part of the solution. but
also, it is not enough.
i think that the eventual solution is that poker (especially, tournament poker)
needs a governing body. a group of concerned players/industry leaders willing to
work to effect change. a group of people willing to serve as a conduit for all
the various concerns, and willing to bring pressure on the casinos/TDs/etc to
make those concerns known and resolved. a group of concerned individuals willing
to do some work to make things happen. a power bloc.
this group would have to be supported by the silent majority of poker players
who are honest, and who care about the future of poker. i think, once the group
has been formed, and support starts forming for the group, that everything else
might snowball (in a good way), and the group will then have the power it needs
to be effectual. if the group is made up of tourney pros and industry insiders,
and also, outsiders with relevant experience and high credibility, if the group
has a charter and is an organized effort, then maybe the casinos and TDs that
run tournaments will see the wisdom of being a part of that effort, and will
fall in line with the push to eliminate cheating in poker.
of course, this approach is problematic. poker is an individual effort, after
all. further, it prides itself on being "darwinian" in nature, not merely
individualistic. so, it will be difficult to get poker players to form a
"group", at the start of the effort.
further, many (most?) of the industry leaders are involved so closely with the
industry, such that their participation in this effort might be looked on with
less than high regard?
and just getting the ball rolling will be a very time-intensive project, fraught
with alot of difficulty.
there are other problems also, i am sure.
but all of these things are solvable, if enough of the good people speak up, and
support each other in the effort. it just requires some number of individuals to
speak up and get the ball rolling? (okay, it requires more than that. but still,
solvable i think. i hope. and we have to start somewhere?)
i am pretty sure that golf had a governing body before it was sponsored (or even
taken seriously) by outside entities. we can do the same thing here.
as a matter of fact, i think we HAVE TO do the same thing here.
so, all you honest players, be aware, be alert, speak up when you see criminal
activity (or even, if a procedure in a tournament makes that activity possible),
speak up about it. get your friends to speak up also. talk with each other,
share information, help/support those players/industry leaders that make the
effort to help the process.
this is possible.
just, not easy.
damn difficult, actually.
but still, doable.
World Poker Association.
for the good of poker.
>
> And thanks Melissa, for sharing what you know. You have balls, too.
>(well, figuratively speaking, of course).
>
agreed.
kudos to Dan N. and John J. and Melissa H.
(i hope that list gets so long that the individuals will be far too many to be
named individually...)
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Gutsy posts by Daniel, Melissa and others, on a disturbing
subject. Their comments seem to have the "ring of truth" too (as
truth often does)- and seem cross-verified by different eye-witness
reports, etc.
I believe Daniel when he says we're not out to "destroy" anyone.
What it sounds like they want, Men-- it seems like-- is for you guys
to knock it off. They're saying it isn't acceptable anymore. (And
others too- not just you.) They're saying they think there's enough
stuff to "navigate" around to win one of these things without having
to work around this sort of thing too.
The history of the Vietnamese in America is one of the great
stories-- great tenacity, resourcefulness and a struggle to survive in
the face of long odds. But at some point new parameters have to kick
in. At some point the desperate struggle to survive at "whatever"
cost has to be set aside, and other, more civil rules adopted. It's a
tough transition to make, sure, but a lot of others have made it, and
some fine stories and great champions have emerged from this.
Well, as long as it's "beat up on Men week", I'll add in my 2
cents on that, too. Men, like everybody else, has his good points.
Loyalty, humor, etc. He can be extremely witty, and funny. However,
during the more somber and disgruntled times-- as those can attest who
have been around some final tables-- a darker, more boorish Men
sometimes emerges, in which the "Corona does the talking". As poker
players, most of this stuff bounces right off of us, of course.
However, there is a "line". Let's put it charitably and just say
that, odd as it may seem, many people have little idea what the least
attractive parts of their personality are. Many of them couldn't even
begin to guess. And sometimes those darker sides pop up and become
real evident.
In summary, if I may speak bluntly, it sounds like these other
players (who posted on this subject) are getting tired of this stuff,
Men. They can't think of any reason why they should go on putting up
with it, and therefore, probably a lot of eyes are going to be
watching, from now on, in the future. Public opinion is a powerful
thing. It should never be dismissed, will nilly, out of hand. A
"word to the wise" is sort of what these posts sound like to me.
Just my 2 cents,
Wayno
Bill Vanek
wrote:
>In article <u244irj...@corp.supernews.com>, James L. Hankins says...
>>
>> I am glad to see this. I simply do not understand why the honest high
>>limit players are not outraged over this and have let it go on so long. The
>>cheating costs them money and it's like they don't even care. If I played
>>in a tournament with buy-in of $5k or more I'd be seriously pissed...
>>
>
>yeah, i dont understand this either. have all of these people been that unaware?
>do they think it is not really happening to "them"?
>or, do they not know what to do about it?
Oh, I'm sure they're all still waiting for corroboration of Russ's
claims. You know, because he's a liar and all that, and nothing he
says can be believed...
Bill Vanek
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>
> Gutsy posts by Daniel, Melissa and others, on a disturbing
>subject. Their comments seem to have the "ring of truth" too (as
>truth often does)- and seem cross-verified by different eye-witness
>reports, etc.
>
> I believe Daniel when he says we're not out to "destroy" anyone.
>What it sounds like they want, Men-- it seems like-- is for you guys
>to knock it off. They're saying it isn't acceptable anymore.
But cheating *was* acceptable? Is there any right and wrong in your
world?
> (And
>others too- not just you.) They're saying they think there's enough
>stuff to "navigate" around to win one of these things without having
>to work around this sort of thing too.
>
> The history of the Vietnamese in America is one of the great
>stories-- great tenacity, resourcefulness and a struggle to survive in
>the face of long odds. But at some point new parameters have to kick
>in.
Ah, in other words, before this "point", it was perfectly
understandable to cheat? Because he's Vietnamese? Am I missing
something?
>At some point the desperate struggle to survive at "whatever"
>cost has to be set aside, and other, more civil rules adopted.
So cheating in poker tournaments, of all things, can be justified by
some struggle to survive? At least up to some point? I've heard of
people who go out and get jobs in response to that struggle. BTW, can
you give us some details on Men's personal struggles that plainly
justify his cheating?
> It's a
>tough transition to make, sure, but a lot of others have made it, and
>some fine stories and great champions have emerged from this.
>
> Well, as long as it's "beat up on Men week", I'll add in my 2
>cents on that, too. Men, like everybody else, has his good points.
>Loyalty, humor, etc. He can be extremely witty, and funny. However,
>during the more somber and disgruntled times-- as those can attest who
>have been around some final tables-- a darker, more boorish Men
>sometimes emerges, in which the "Corona does the talking". As poker
>players, most of this stuff bounces right off of us, of course.
>However, there is a "line". Let's put it charitably and just say
>that, odd as it may seem, many people have little idea what the least
>attractive parts of their personality are. Many of them couldn't even
>begin to guess. And sometimes those darker sides pop up and become
>real evident.
>
> In summary, if I may speak bluntly, it sounds like these other
>players (who posted on this subject) are getting tired of this stuff,
>Men. They can't think of any reason why they should go on putting up
>with it, and therefore, probably a lot of eyes are going to be
>watching, from now on, in the future. Public opinion is a powerful
>thing.
And morals have nothing to do with this, of course, just public
opinion. The Bill Clinton way of life.
IbeaSearcher
in the same tournament 95%of all cheating would disappear. Unfortunately many
who want the cheating to disappear would be hurt because they are being backed
by players that also play in the tournaments. In their cases and many others
nothing shady is done but in no other endeavor would this conflict of interest
be allow to go on. I have heard it for years "We play tough against each
other" Sorry folks, you must take as much trust as you can out of the
equation.
You might also say if all backings were disallowed they would just do it in
secret. Well, maybe some would but many I guess would not and human nature
being what it is, I think the word would get out and eventually it would cut
out a large part of backor-backee relationships.
minus200
a poker magazine was addressing the group as the featured speaker said, and it
may not be an exact quote: **** ****** magazine is not going to publish anything
bad about the poker industry. My job is to promote poker.
If I am wrong about this, I hope someone will correct me
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>> I believe Daniel when he says we're not out to "destroy" anyone.
>>What it sounds like they want, Men-- it seems like-- is for you guys
>>to knock it off. They're saying it isn't acceptable anymore.
>
>But cheating *was* acceptable? Is there any right and wrong in your
>world?
Is there any right or wrong in my world, Bill? No, there's no
right or wrong in my world.
A very peculiar post, I must say. If you'll scroll back through
Daniel and Melissa's posts, you'll see references to the idea that
when they were "starting out" as players they were reluctant to say
anything-- they felt like they were newbies and Men was much more well
known-- so they hesitated to bring it up, or "make waves". In this
sense, it was "acceptable" to them. My post is written from "their"
point of view, all right? Let me just jot that down again, one more
time, just in case: it was written from their point of view. The way
it would have seemed to them. How you got from there to, "there's no
right or wrong in my world" is a mystery of very-- and oddly-- deep
proportions.
>> (And
>>others too- not just you.) They're saying they think there's enough
>>stuff to "navigate" around to win one of these things without having
>>to work around this sort of thing too.
>>
>> The history of the Vietnamese in America is one of the great
>>stories-- great tenacity, resourcefulness and a struggle to survive in
>>the face of long odds. But at some point new parameters have to kick
>>in.
>
>Ah, in other words, before this "point", it was perfectly
>understandable to cheat? Because he's Vietnamese?
> Am I missing something?
Yeah- you're missing quite a bit.
Immigrants who are penniless-- this is true throughout all
countries and all times-- have a tendency to do virtually
anything to feed their families. They might struggle.
They might steal bread off a counter. They might rummage
through garbage cans. They might feed their family dog food--
whatever it takes. (And this might be true of ANY ethnicity).
Such an attitude as this, if continued later-- when they in fact
have become more successfull-- could lead-- could--
to taking liberties in the realm of poker (or any other
realm for that matter). Now: to go back in time, in this
sequence, and pick some arbitrary point, and say, "Oh, yeah,
well then before that I suppose that makes it okay" is
just off-the-chart dumb as an arguing point.
The above was an explanation, Bill, not a position I'm taking
or advocating.
Think about the possible difference between those two things.
It's also written from "their" point view, not mine.
>>At some point the desperate struggle to survive at "whatever"
>>cost has to be set aside, and other, more civil rules adopted.
>
>So cheating in poker tournaments, of all things, can be justified by
>some struggle to survive?
Yeah, that's what I meant, Bill. Cheating in poker tournaments
can be justified by a struggle to surive. Yeah, that's what
I meant. That's what I was trying to say. What do you
think?
>At least up to some point? I've heard of
>people who go out and get jobs in response to that struggle. BTW,
>can you give us some details on Men's personal struggles that plainly
>justify his cheating?
This sentence has nothing to do with anything.
>> It's a
>>tough transition to make, sure, but a lot of others have made it, and
>>some fine stories and great champions have emerged from this.
>>
>> Well, as long as it's "beat up on Men week", I'll add in my 2
>>cents on that, too. Men, like everybody else, has his good points.
>>Loyalty, humor, etc. He can be extremely witty, and funny. However,
>>during the more somber and disgruntled times-- as those can attest who
>>have been around some final tables-- a darker, more boorish Men
>>sometimes emerges, in which the "Corona does the talking". As poker
>>players, most of this stuff bounces right off of us, of course.
>>However, there is a "line". Let's put it charitably and just say
>>that, odd as it may seem, many people have little idea what the least
>>attractive parts of their personality are. Many of them couldn't even
>>begin to guess. And sometimes those darker sides pop up and become
>>real evident.
>>
>> In summary, if I may speak bluntly, it sounds like these other
>>players (who posted on this subject) are getting tired of this stuff,
>>Men. They can't think of any reason why they should go on putting up
>>with it, and therefore, probably a lot of eyes are going to be
>>watching, from now on, in the future. Public opinion is a powerful
>>thing.
>
>And morals have nothing to do with this, of course, just public
>opinion. The Bill Clinton way of life.
Yeah. That's right, Bill. "Morals have nothing to do with it".
The only thing that matters is public opinion.
That's the argument I was making.
What do you think, Bill? Do you think morals have
anything to do with it or not? Do you think they do or
not? What's your opinion on this subject? Do you think morals
have anything to do with it?
Thanks for your thoughts-- next caller, please.
Mike Sexton
"If you did not allow anyone to have more than a 5% interest in any other
player
in the same tournament 95% of all cheating would disappear."
Whether or not this might/might not be true, this would not solve the problem.
Players who are going to cheat, soft-play each other, or pass chips back and
forth, are certainly not going to acknowledge publicly that they have
"x" percent of anyone.
In addition, not allowing players to take "pieces" of other players would
certainly deter tournament fields considerably. (How many players do you
think would enter the main event of the WSOP if they had to pay for 95%
of themself? I would guess that over 90% of the entrants piece out more than
5% of themself in that event.)
The mission is to get ALL poker players to "respect the game" like the PGA
golfers do. But, when it comes to respecting the game vs. money,
it's not the same choice for some. Right now, peer pressure might be the
strongest weapon to deter unethical activity in poker tournaments.
It seems like that is the step that is being taken.
Mike Sexton
--
Posted from [209.58.124.135]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
codesavvy
> johnj...@aol.com (John Juanda) wrote in message news:<6b7cc751.01121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> If we could just get these 3 (Men, Daniel, John) to post on the
> Tournament Strategy post we might learn something we can use.
Get yourself on the right "team."
Bill Vanek
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 (Bill Vanek) wrote:
>
>
>>> I believe Daniel when he says we're not out to "destroy" anyone.
>>>What it sounds like they want, Men-- it seems like-- is for you guys
>>>to knock it off. They're saying it isn't acceptable anymore.
>>
>>But cheating *was* acceptable? Is there any right and wrong in your
>>world?
>
> Is there any right or wrong in my world, Bill? No, there's no
>right or wrong in my world.
> A very peculiar post, I must say. If you'll scroll back through
>Daniel and Melissa's posts, you'll see references to the idea that
>when they were "starting out" as players they were reluctant to say
>anything-- they felt like they were newbies and Men was much more well
>known-- so they hesitated to bring it up, or "make waves". In this
>sense, it was "acceptable" to them. My post is written from "their"
>point of view, all right?
I would think that Daniel and Melissa are in a better position than
you to write from "their point of view", alright? And in case you've
forgotten, they did exactly that. And no, I don't agree that in any
sense were they saying it was "acceptable" to them. Why would you say
that? The fact that someone is afraid to take action against a
problem, or does not know how to approach the problem, does not in
turn make that problem "acceptable".
>Let me just jot that down again, one more
>time, just in case: it was written from their point of view. The way
>it would have seemed to them. How you got from there to, "there's no
>right or wrong in my world" is a mystery of very-- and oddly-- deep
>proportions.
I got there easily: your only criticism of Men's actions seems to be
based on those actions having recently become unacceptable to Daniel
and Melissa, without any consideration that his actions might actually
be inherently just plain wrong. In my world, cheating is wrong, with
no qualifications. How about in yours?
>>> (And
>>>others too- not just you.) They're saying they think there's enough
>>>stuff to "navigate" around to win one of these things without having
>>>to work around this sort of thing too.
>>>
>>> The history of the Vietnamese in America is one of the great
>>>stories-- great tenacity, resourcefulness and a struggle to survive in
>>>the face of long odds. But at some point new parameters have to kick
>>>in.
>>
>>Ah, in other words, before this "point", it was perfectly
>>understandable to cheat? Because he's Vietnamese?
>
>> Am I missing something?
>
> Yeah- you're missing quite a bit.
>
> Immigrants who are penniless-- this is true throughout all
> countries and all times-- have a tendency to do virtually
> anything to feed their families. They might struggle.
> They might steal bread off a counter. They might rummage
> through garbage cans. They might feed their family dog food--
> whatever it takes. (And this might be true of ANY ethnicity).
> Such an attitude as this, if continued later-- when they in fact
> have become more successfull-- could lead-- could--
> to taking liberties in the realm of poker (or any other
> realm for that matter).
So cheating is "taking liberties"? Great euphemism.
>Now: to go back in time, in this
> sequence, and pick some arbitrary point, and say, "Oh, yeah,
> well then before that I suppose that makes it okay" is
> just off-the-chart dumb as an arguing point.
>
> The above was an explanation, Bill, not a position I'm taking
> or advocating.
> Think about the possible difference between those two things.
> It's also written from "their" point view, not mine.
Have Daniel and Melissa asked you to speak for them? Forgive me for
assuming they haven't, and try to understand why I would think you
were writing your own opinions.
>>>At some point the desperate struggle to survive at "whatever"
>>>cost has to be set aside, and other, more civil rules adopted.
>>
>>So cheating in poker tournaments, of all things, can be justified by
>>some struggle to survive?
>
> Yeah, that's what I meant, Bill. Cheating in poker tournaments
> can be justified by a struggle to surive. Yeah, that's what
> I meant. That's what I was trying to say. What do you
> think?
Ah, so anyone who is struggling to survive, but who also just happens
to have the cash bankroll to repeatedly enter tournaments, in spite
of the fact that they are, of course, struggling to survive, is
justified in cheating those tournaments, in the hope of maybe coming
in the money every now and then. Instead of going out and finding a
job, for instance. I apologize for the sarcasm, but I think if I were
going to make the choice to do something that society considers wrong,
but something necessary for my survival, it would be more along the
lines of stealing food. I think society would be a little more
understanding of that decision.
>>can you give us some details on Men's personal struggles that plainly
>>justify his cheating?
>
> This sentence has nothing to do with anything.
Weren't you trying to justify his behavior with this line of
reasoning? I think I can finally understand your unrelenting, cutesy
responses ridiculing every post GCA made: It wasn't that you didn't
believe him, you just didn't see why cheating is such a big deal.
After all, people who are struggling to survive naturally gravitate to
card rooms with their bankrolls, and are probably the dominant class
there.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Frankly, I don't think you understood a word I wrote, Bill--
in fact, I'm pretty sure of it-- but thanks for the reply.
As an arguing technique, your post reminds me
of the following:
"Some of the children in Afghanistan never had
any coats or mittens."
"Oh, so I suppose that makes it all right for them
to blow up the World Trade Center."
As an arguing technique, it goes immediately
to the FAR end of the spectrum and conveniently skips
over 27,512 gray-scale points in between.
As an arguing technique, it is so common,
so dumb, and --above ALL ELSE-- so easy to employ,
that it really oughta have a name. A name like "Fosterberry",
maybe, or "Kelvo" or a "Schmecklin"-- some name like
that.
Therefore, a person might say:
"Hey, how did your argument turn out?"
"Well, it was going along pretty good, but then he
pulled a 'Fosterberry' on me, so I just gave him a
WTF look and walked away..."
So I think that's what I'm going to do here-- I'll just wish
you a Merry Fosterberry and a Happy Schmecklin,
and move on.
Wayno
Steve Badger
> >yeah, i dont understand this either. have all of these people been that
unaware?
> >do they think it is not really happening to "them"?
> >or, do they not know what to do about it?
>
> Oh, I'm sure they're all still waiting for corroboration of Russ's
> claims. You know, because he's a liar and all that, and nothing he
> says can be believed...
Yet another post that is precisely the problem. Many honest poker players
have for years spent a lot of time and a lot of effort and (potentially)
risked a lot by fighting real cheating -- not the fantasies of a drug
addict. People like Bill and James Hankins do more to damage honest poker
than a thousand Russes or Mens could ever hope to accomplish. Look at
Bill's ridiculous last line "nothing he says can be believed." Why post
that? It is total garbage. No one claims that. No one. Stop spouting
this foolishness. All it does is distract from the real issues.
Russ continues to do what he has always done, take advantage of gullible
people. He waves his arms and says there is cheating in poker. Anyone who
isn't a complete fool knows that.
The real issues are: how much cheating; what KIND of cheating; what can we
do to limit it.
Just like cheating does exist, it always will exist. As long as chips (that
can be palmed or shorted into a pot) and cards (that can be marked or dealt
dishonestly) exist there will be cheating. So, what honest players need to
do is combat it, but not in fantasy and not by hiding, but openly in public.
Russ' posts of lies and inaccuracies are done to serve his own purposes ----
Extortion didn't work, so he tried consulting, when that didn't work he
tried the media, when that didn't work he tried his expert witness (lol)
shtick, and now he's finally banking on a book. In every one of these
things he has hurt honest players by creating white elephants and
distractions from the serious issues at hand.
In the tournament arena the principal problem is softplaying. Beyond that a
few casino policies must be changed. For instance, rebuys must be sold
individually to players at the table. The Commerce Casino policy of handing
them out away from the table is awful. Players have complained for years
about this. There isn't some mysterious "silence" going on. In this one
specific case the casino has not listened. Perhaps they will before
February, perhaps they won't. But again, if gullible rubes would not cloud
the water with comments about Russ' blathering we could actually
*accomplish* something. Contact the Commerce Casino. Phone Tim Gustin and
Sheri Dokken. Speak to them privately. Demand action, but demand action on
something that is an actual problem. Please leave the fantasies out of it.
Another casino policy that needs to be changed is the whole re-buy system.
It's probably sanest to advocate that rebuy tournaments just be done away
with, but since the casinos love them the next thing to demand is rebuys at
the table; chip counts at every break; and *staff* moving chips from table
to table when tables break. This would require more staff, but if casinos
want these things they need to police them much better than they do. A
solution though is there, and has been advocated by honest players for quite
some time.
As for Men the Master, it would be nice if people could actually focus on
reality. Idiotic rumors and lies have been posted about Men and Foxwoods in
the past. Other people make sweeping allegations that relate to nothing in
reality. And again, Russ comes in with his 25% truth and 75% lies. The
issue regarding Men (not including this Minh-looking-at-the-cards
aberration) is softplaying. Not dumping, not whipsawing, not chip passing.
Men (like others of other races/creeds/friendships) engages in softplaying.
This is incredibly hard to deal with as it seldom is blatant (like the
example of folding to a reraise) and is *often* fairly inconsequential --
and most important, almost everybody has friends who they play at least
*minusculely* different than others.
People who play with Men need to watch him with others who he might softplay
or get softplayed by. This is true also of married couples and many, many
others. If someone sees anything fishy, they need to speak up. If they
don't, THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. (We get that here on RGP a lot...
somebody comes crying to the group about bad behavior in a game after doing
*nothing* about it when they could have.)
With only a few peers, there is no one in the poker world more generous,
charitable and philanthropic than Men the Master. He also happens to be a
prick when he drinks (not surprisingly, so is Daniel.) He is what people
who have played against him have known for a long time -- an incredible
poker player when he tries to be, who is involved with the cheating that
goes with softplaying. He's not a cocaine fueled fantasy. He's right there
for everybody to see month after month. Honest players need to be vigilant,
they need to put pressure on Men to not softplay, and they need to put
pressure on casinos to more vigorously police tournament games (the true
challenge is the latter).
And honest players need to continue to speak up, not hide or repeat
Geobbels-like rantings.
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Look at Bill's ridiculous last line "nothing he says can be believed."
>Why post that? It is total garbage. No one claims that. No one.
>Stop spouting this foolishness. All it does is distract from the real
>issues.
Yeah- let's mention that one more time-- see if it sinks in.
Nobody said that everything Russ says is a lie. No one.
Obviously a lot of stuff he says is true. When he talks
about cheating, he KNOWS whereof he speaks.
But there's a problem. Russ's other motive is revenge.
(By his own admission, this is). So if he decides to
toss somebody's name in that he doesn't LIKE, on the
cheating list-- Ted Forrest, let's say, just to pick a name
out of a hat-- now he's off in Fantasy-Land. Russ has
been "caught" in a couple of these. Where the story
"didn't quite add up". One of 'em was the "$5 Million
Dollar Bellagio Lawsuit". Another was the Ted Forrest
Earpiece Debacle, where first Ted was wearing an earpiece,
and later he wasn't, and then he was again, and finally--
this is the best part-- GCA had to take a VOTE between
themselves to see whether he was wearing it or not, and
Russ got more votes than Martino because he was "higher
up" in the two-man organization. (Uh huh). Most people
are familiar with the concept that if something is "true"
you don't have to take a "vote" to figure out whether it
was or not.
And Russ is out there "naming names". Can anyone
understand why some people being named would have a
problem with Russ's credibility-- seeing as how he got caught
making some stuff up? And now they see their name
on a cheating list? Duh.
But let's wrap this thing up just where we started-- just
to make sure everybody's squared away about it... Nobody
ever said that "everything Russ says is a lie".
This is what I think of as a "Fosterberry"-- a term I'm
getting kind of fond of. It stops/derails an entire discussion
but alas, has no connection whatever with reality or the
discussion at hand.
Wayno
Patti Beadles
IbeaSearcher <ibease...@aol.com> wrote:
>If you did not allow anyone to have more than a 5% interest in any other player
>in the same tournament 95%of all cheating would disappear.
Hello, Pollyanna, and thank you for joining the conversation.
What you suggest would keep the honest cheaters from cheating anymore,
but the number of honest cheaters in poker is approximately zero.
Besides, such a rule would be totally unenforcable, which makes it a
very bad rule IMHO.
-P
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@gammon.com | I have come to think that
http://www.gammon.com/ | maybe you are not usual.
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | That is likely a good thing!
James L. Hankins
Give it up. Your original post was poorly written and subject to the
interpretation that Bill gave to it.
This post is just...bizarre.
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3c226a8c....@news.cis.dfn.de...
Patti Beadles
Steve Badger <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote:
>and *staff* moving chips from table
>to table when tables break. This would require more staff
There's another strategy available that will take a bit more time on
table breaks, but not require additional staff. When you leave a
table, you take your chips, your seat number, and a card given to you
by the floorman or dealer at the table you're leaving, with your chip
count on it. When you get to the new table, the dealer there verifies
your chip count.
-Patti
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
<jhan...@cableone.net> wrote:
>Dude,
>
> Give it up. Your original post was poorly written and subject to the
>interpretation that Bill gave to it.
Really.
I would be willing to bet
that you have no idea what the difference is
between well written and poorly written.
Bill Vanek
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>
> Frankly, I don't think you understood a word I wrote, Bill--
> in fact, I'm pretty sure of it-- but thanks for the reply.
>
> As an arguing technique, your post reminds me
> of the following:
>
> "Some of the children in Afghanistan never had
> any coats or mittens."
> "Oh, so I suppose that makes it all right for them
> to blow up the World Trade Center."
>
> As an arguing technique, it goes immediately
> to the FAR end of the spectrum and conveniently skips
> over 27,512 gray-scale points in between.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable response, if the the first
sentence was a response to, "terrorists just flew planes into the
WTC". Isn't that essentially what happened in some circles - in the
real world?
I really don't know what this has to do with my response to you, but
you probably didn't want to understand a word I wrote. BTW, whose
point of view were you writing from this time?
>
> As an arguing technique, it is so common,
> so dumb, and --above ALL ELSE-- so easy to employ,
> that it really oughta have a name. A name like "Fosterberry",
> maybe, or "Kelvo" or a "Schmecklin"-- some name like
> that.
>
> Therefore, a person might say:
>
> "Hey, how did your argument turn out?"
> "Well, it was going along pretty good, but then he
> pulled a 'Fosterberry' on me, so I just gave him a
> WTF look and walked away..."
>
> So I think that's what I'm going to do here-- I'll just wish
> you a Merry Fosterberry and a Happy Schmecklin,
> and move on.
No need to reply. People think you're funny, that's enough. No direct
answers necessary.
Bill Vanek
easy way.
We agree that cheating is bad, and that cleaning up the game is good,
but you feel the problems should be kept quiet, while efforts are made
in the background. I feel that keeping the problems quiet is sleazy,
and preferring that approach derives only from the self-interest of
winning tournament players.
We disagree about Russ. You say maybe 25% of what he says is true, but
even if that's so, that 25% is 100% more than anyone else has told us
before he came along. I also believe that most of what he has stated
is true.
You also said:
>With only a few peers, there is no one in the poker world more generous,
>charitable and philanthropic than Men the Master.
You can find plenty of people who will say that about John Gotti, and
Tony Accardo, and others of their ilk. (But not about Tony Spilotro,
who, unlike the others, was more involved with poker. Not much for the
image thing.) That philanthropy stuff doesn't make them good people.
Bill Vanek
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 "Steve Badger" wrote:
>
>>Look at Bill's ridiculous last line "nothing he says can be believed."
>>Why post that? It is total garbage. No one claims that. No one.
>>Stop spouting this foolishness. All it does is distract from the real
>>issues.
>
> Yeah- let's mention that one more time-- see if it sinks in.
> Nobody said that everything Russ says is a lie. No one.
Did I exaggerate? Yes. How about you, do you ever exaggerate, or maybe
reword things to make a point? How about later in this post -
something about an earpiece, and a vote?
Peg Smith
(IbeaSearcher) writes:
>...You might also say if all backings were disallowed they would just do it in
>secret. Well, maybe some would but many I guess would not and human nature
>being what it is, I think the word would get out and eventually it would cut
>out a large part of backor-backee relationships.
Of course they'd do it in secret. The very definition of "secret" means that
the rule against backings would be unenforceable.
Peg
James L. Hankins
message news:T_uU7.4912$Cw3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Bill Vanek" <bilv...@softcom.net> wrote...
> > >yeah, i dont understand this either. have all of these people been that
> unaware?
> > >do they think it is not really happening to "them"?
> > >or, do they not know what to do about it?
> >
> > Oh, I'm sure they're all still waiting for corroboration of Russ's
> > claims. You know, because he's a liar and all that, and nothing he
> > says can be believed...
>
> Yet another post that is precisely the problem. Many honest poker players
> have for years spent a lot of time and a lot of effort and (potentially)
> risked a lot by fighting real cheating -- not the fantasies of a drug
> addict. People like Bill and James Hankins do more to damage honest poker
> than a thousand Russes or Mens could ever hope to accomplish. Look at
> Bill's ridiculous last line "nothing he says can be believed." Why post
> that? It is total garbage. No one claims that. No one.
Well, well, well, Badger finally dusted the cobwebs off of his keyboard
and decided to contribute something to this whole cheating business. A
pitiful contribution, but a contribution nonetheless.
Badger, you have misspoken here and you need to be corrected. Since you
have called me out by name I'll be the one to do it.
You are an amazing hypocrite. You state that "no one" has claimed that
Russ's allegations are lies, yet IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, barely four
sentences prior to this statement, you refer to his allegations as the
"fantasies of a drug addict." I guess the fantasies of a drug addict now
are starting to be believed.
The fact is, most of the responses to Russ's posts have been aimed to
malign him personally, attack his credibility, and minimize what he claims.
Have you not known since the start that at least some of what he claims is
true? Yet, you did not speak out.
You claim that "many honest poker players have for years spent a lot of
time and a lot of effort and (potentially) risked a lot by fighting real
cheating."
Really? I call bullshit. I try to keep myself informed of poker
goings-on and until Russ starting raising the roof, I had no clue of how
things apparently work in the real poker world. I'm a recreational player.
I don't have access to insider gossip and rumors. I don't hear things about
cheating and collusion at tournaments. But apparently the tournament
regulars talk about these things. They are common knowledge.
I have probably been going to these tournaments when I got a chance and
have been getting my head knocked off without even knowing it. I expected
the tournament staff to notice and prevent cheating. I actually thought
that they were vigilant and guarded against this type of thing.
But poker insiders apparently know different. Russ has told the rest of
us what you and the other poker insiders (Sklansky, et al) have known for
years and I am grateful to him for it.
What did he get for it? At first, he got a lot of indignant flames like
yours, that he was a hallucinating cocaine addict. People in this forum
have their poker heros and simply could not believe what Russ said. I
initially felt the same way. And Russ started off badly, no question about
that.
BUT WHERE WERE YOU ALL THESE YEARS? You think I do more to damage
honest poker than Russ? I resent that, Jack. YOU are the problem. Without
Russ, this discussion would not be happening. You think I'm bad for poker?
What have you done about it?
You are a WSOP bracelet holder. A world champion. Are you going to
tell me that you never had a clue that Men cheated? Or any of the others
that Russ has named? Yet you said nothing.
I hope something will be done now by the people in authority--the
tournament directors, the poker playing Shulmans, the poker room managers.
Some accountability and some oversight. IF that happens, it's going to be
attributable to Russ, Daniel Negranue, and Melissa Hayden, for having the
balls to speak up. Something you never did. These three people, the
cocaine addict/cheater included, have more character in their stools than
you will ever have.
Cheating is the evil that happens when good men do nothing. And that is
what you are.
So, go back to your blather about the intricacies of Omaha high/low
split or whatever it is that you blather about, and leave the men's work to
men and courageous women.
James L. Hankins
ELD077
>(Wayno) Phillips) wrote
Larry,Larry,Larry. Haven't you heard the one about getting in a pissing contest
with a skunk?
eldo
James L. Hankins
How much?
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>> > Give it up. Your original post was poorly written and subject to the
>> >interpretation that Bill gave to it.
>>
>> Really.
>> I would be willing to bet
>> that you have no idea what the difference is
>> between well written and poorly written.
>>
>
> How much?
Based on your demonstrated analysis of the above,
a very large amount.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>
>Larry,Larry,Larry. Haven't you heard the one about getting in a pissing contest
>with a skunk?
>
>eldo
Yes ELD, you are correct, sir--
thank you for reminding me.
Gary Carson
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:32:14 GMT, Larr...@charter.net (Larry W.
>(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>
>>
>> Gutsy posts by Daniel, Melissa and others, on a disturbing
>>subject. Their comments seem to have the "ring of truth" too (as
>>truth often does)- and seem cross-verified by different eye-witness
>>reports, etc.
>>
>> I believe Daniel when he says we're not out to "destroy"
anyone.
>>What it sounds like they want, Men-- it seems like-- is for you guys
>>to knock it off. They're saying it isn't acceptable anymore.
>
>But cheating *was* acceptable? Is there any right and wrong in your
>world?
Cheating has always been accepted in poker, at least by poker pros.
Just the fact that Danny is being praised for having the courage to
call a worthless fucking cheat an unethical player should tell you
something about how deep and pervasive the acceptance of cheating
actually is.
About 3 years ago I floated a query to a handful of men's magazines to
see if any had any interest in a story on poker and cheating in
tournament poker. No interest. I'm sure that was partly becuase it
wasn't a good pitch. But, it was also partly because they didn't
think cheating in poker was news.
Gary Carson
http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Did I exaggerate? Yes. How about you, do you ever exaggerate, or maybe
>reword things to make a point? How about later in this post -
>something about an earpiece, and a vote?
Yes, that would seem to be an exaggeration, wouldn't it?
An earpiece and a vote.
Something so bizarre that it couldn't possibly be true, right?
Check it out on Google and then get back to us.
Wayno
Dsklansky
>Gary Carson
>http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Basically true although "accepted" isn't the best word. More like
automatically factored into their overall pro gambling strategy. Remember that
the main goal of most professional players is to avoid work. It is hard for
them to look too askance at those who share that philosophy but aren't good
enough to do that by playing on the square, especially if they themselves are
not the main victims. Ethically they consider double crossing or taking
advantage of magnonymity much worse than finding creative illegal ways to beat
rich tourists or even obnoxious pros. For instance if I was to egotistically
challenge Gary Carson to a $100,000 SAT contest, they would have little problem
with him obtaining a copy of the test in advance. If, however, Gary asked me to
borrow $500 knowing he wouldn't pay it back, that would be another story. This
attitude might seem wrong to an outsider but to non cheating pro poker players
(or options traders) who avoid constructive work through a facility with games,
any strong taking of umbrage seems hypocritical.
Peg Smith
Vanek) writes:
>...How about you, do you ever exaggerate, or maybe
>reword things to make a point? How about later in this post -
>something about an earpiece, and a vote?
It's not an exaggeration, it's true.
Peg
Gary Carson
>>Cheating has always been accepted in poker, at least by poker pros
>
>
>
>>Gary Carson
>>http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
>
> Basically true although "accepted" isn't the best word. More like
yes, tolerated would probably be a better word.
>rich tourists or even obnoxious pros. For instance if I was to
egotistically
>challenge Gary Carson to a $100,000 SAT contest, they would have
little problem
>with him obtaining a copy of the test in advance. If, however, Gary
asked me to
>borrow $500 knowing he wouldn't pay it back, that would be another
story. This
That's probably right.
And you'd probably go ahead and do the SAT contest even if you knew I
had a copy in advance.
Andrew Bloch
> In article <T_uU7.4912$Cw3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Steve Badger <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >and *staff* moving chips from table
> >to table when tables break. This would require more staff
>
> There's another strategy available that will take a bit more time on
> table breaks, but not require additional staff. When you leave a
> table, you take your chips, your seat number, and a card given to you
> by the floorman or dealer at the table you're leaving, with your chip
> count on it. When you get to the new table, the dealer there verifies
> your chip count.
I talked about some procedures poker tournaments should follow in the
"USPC Final Table Chips, Seats and Prize money" thread. I also
suggested using "smart" casino chips such as "SmartChips" as a better
way of tracking chips in poker tournaments. I've already begun
researching this with someone at Mikohn. If anyone else has some
knowledge in this area, that would be appreciated.
Here's a summary of what I've uncovered so far, and some of my ideas:
1. Each SafeChip costs around $2.
2. Each chip is programmed with a unique, read-only serial number.
3. Each chip can also be programmed with a small amount of other
read-only or read-write data. (Not really necessary - except as an
additional precaution against conterfeiting - if you can store this
data in an off-chip database keyed to the serial number.)
4. Chip trays/detectors exist that automatically read, total, and
verify the chips, as fast as 100 chips in 8 seconds. There are
portable chip detectors and chip detectors which can be integrated in
a poker table.
5. By my estimates, about 25,000 chips would be needed for a
tournament the size of the WSoP championship event. Most other
tournaments could manage with half that amount or less.
6. If the chips and detectors are too expensive for a single
tournament or casino, they could be shared or leased by several
casinos, and used for other casino tournaments, such as blackjack and
craps. (For example, as the final table of the USPC was taking place,
the Taj was preparing for a craps tournament in part of the poker
room, reusing what looked from a distance like the poker tournament
chips.)
7. Smart chips could have a great side effect for spectators, as
there could be an accurate real-time display of chip counts and bets.
It could be even better if coupled with a card reader.
I will post more as I get more information.
Andy
RazzO
about time...
razzo
Andrew Bloch wrote:
--
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of any
employer or client, their subsidiaries, or affiliates.
---------------------------------------------
2002 World Series of Poker Schedule
http://www.pokerworld.com/2002wsopschedule
==================================
POKERWORLD.COM by RazzO
http://www.pokerworld.com
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
I have just a few comments I'd like to make about this posting.
> Well, well, well, Badger finally dusted the cobwebs off of his keyboard
>and decided to contribute something to this whole cheating business. A
>pitiful contribution--
It was in fact, very well written. Anytime you'd like to make
that wager Hankins-- the one we were talking about-- about
whether you're capable of telling good writing from bad-- let
me know. Go ahead and name the amount.
> Badger, you have misspoken here and you need to be corrected.
Oh. He needs to be corrected.
What are you- the headmistress?
>Since you
>have called me out by name I'll be the one to do it.
"Called me out"-- what is this, 17th century France?
More good writing-- by an expert on the written word.
> You are an amazing hypocrite. You state that "no one" has claimed that
>Russ's allegations are lies,
That's not even remotely what he said.
He said that nobody claimed that everything Russ said
was a lie. An entirely different thing. And then,
to make sure everybody got it, he said it clearly
in his post; and then I said it TWICE in my post underneath his.
As an expert on the written word, you should have
been able to pick up on that. I knew I should have put it in
three times-- my mistake-- I had a feeling twice wasn't going to
be enough. Incidentally, the word hypocrite is used wrong
here-- it wouldn't apply in any case.
>yet IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, barely four
>sentences prior to this statement, you refer to his allegations as the
>"fantasies of a drug addict."
Russ himself has admitted he was a drug addict.
Russ himself has admitted he made some stuff up. Putting these
two things together is probably where Badger got this from.
> The fact is, most of the responses to Russ's posts have been aimed to
>malign him personally, attack his credibility, and minimize what he claims.
>Have you not known since the start that at least some of what he claims is
>true? Yet, you did not speak out.
He spoke out all along-- based on his own experiences.
He said that cheating exists. He said anybody surprised by
that fact is a fool. He was right.
> You claim that "many honest poker players have for years spent a lot of
>time and a lot of effort and (potentially) risked a lot by fighting real
>cheating."
>
> Really? I call bullshit.
You call bullshit. More stellar writing. Right out of
the 1980's. Or is this coming from pyscho-babble.
Ah, thought so.
BTW, the content of what he said is true-- it might
be in different ways than you'd understand-- but
the real issue is, just because you don't understand it,
and are uninformed about it, how is that his problem?
> I try to keep myself informed of poker goings-on
Yes- don't we all. That is admirable. We should
all try to keep ourselves informed about poker goings-on.
Now "un-informed'"- that would be a bad thing.
>and until Russ starting raising the roof, I had no clue of how
>things apparently work in the real poker world.
You had no clue how things work in the real poker world.
Uh-huh, go on.
>I'm a recreational player.
Please continue.
>I don't have access to insider gossip and rumors.
Uh-huh.
> I don't hear things about
>cheating and collusion at tournaments. But apparently the tournament
>regulars talk about these things. They are common knowledge.
There's about 20,000 posts in Google on the subject of cheating.
There's books available on cheating. If you need a book
to tell you that cheating might be going on, then
no book you ever read is going to help you.
> I have probably been going to these tournaments when I got a chance and
>have been getting my head knocked off without even knowing it.
Then you're naeve.
>I expected
>the tournament staff to notice and prevent cheating.
Then you're even more naeve. If you're in a card-game
of any kind you oughta have your eyes open.
If some guy's rubbernecking your cards, or doing
something else fishy, tournament officials might be busy
with the tournament and not have adequate time to come
by and hold your hand.
>I actually thought
>that they were vigilant and guarded against this type of thing.
You're getting more naeve by the moment. Any minute
now you're going to be in the cradle... Were you even
aware that there was a word called "cheating"?
> But poker insiders apparently know different.
Those insiders... they're different than you and me.
They don't even live in the same world-- those insiders.
Boy, I wish I knew some of 'em. Rolls Royces and
Caviar for those boys. I've heard they put both pant
legs on at the same time-- they jump into 'em,
right off the top of the King Size Beautyrest.
>Russ has told the rest of
>us what you and the other poker insiders (Sklansky, et al) have known for
>years and I am grateful to him for it.
Yeah, me too. Boy, I could use some of that insider caviar right
about now.
> What did he get for it?
He got pats on the back and compliments whenever
he provided solid information. He got laughed at, flamed,
and ridiculed whenever he said something goofy--
sort of like what happens to you.
>At first, he got a lot of indignant flames like
>yours, that he was a hallucinating cocaine addict. People in this forum
>...simply could not believe what Russ said.
Yeah-- especially when he provided no proof, and
admitted that he was doing it for revenge. By the way,
this is about the 60th time the revenge thing has been mentioned--
sorry you missed it all the other times.
Can you think of any reason why somebody who has revenge as
a motive would be less credible than other people when making
accusations? Consider that for a moment.
>I initially felt the same way. And Russ started off badly, no question about
>that.
Russ did? I don't recall that...
> BUT WHERE WERE YOU ALL THESE YEARS? You think I do more to damage
>honest poker than Russ? I resent that, Jack.
Take a writing course. Nobody talks like this, not
even an expert on the written word like yourself.
Say, BTW, do you recall referring to Badger's post (above)
as a "pitiful contribution"? Do you see anywhere in his
post a phrase as dumb as "I resent that, Jack"?
Look it over-- tell us if you see anything in his post
that dumb.
>You think I'm bad for poker?
I don't know if you're bad for poker, but you've set
writing back about 25 years.
> You are a WSOP bracelet holder. A world champion. Are you going to
>tell me that you never had a clue that Men cheated? Or any of the others
>that Russ has named? Yet you said nothing.
Do you know any good gossip about any of your friends?
Heck, why not go public with it? Some stuff you've heard,
right, but you're not 100% about...? Is that the reason?
Is that what's holding you back?
Or are there other reasons you're not putting it out there?
The whole thing sounds a little hypocritical on your part--
at least to me. You really oughta come out with it.
Who cares if you don't quite have all the proof?
Hell- it's something you've heard, right? That's good enough.
Maybe there's some grey areas here you haven't thought about.
Maybe there's some things in life that are not always as
black and white as when you post about them.
> I hope something will be done now by the people in authority--the
>tournament directors, the poker playing Shulmans, the poker room managers.
>Some accountability and some oversight. IF that happens, it's going to be
>attributable to Russ, Daniel Negranue, and Melissa Hayden, for having the
>balls to speak up. Something you never did.
He addressed the subject about 800 times in about
27 different ways. But you weren't around then. So I guess
that makes it "his" problem.
>These three people, the
>cocaine addict/cheater included, have more character in their stools than
>you will ever have.
Here's another brilliant sentence from a veteran wordsmith.
I happen to agree with Daniel and Melissa myself. But there's
a couple other threads with an entirely different viewpoint on
this issue. Try reading these other viewpoints before posting
gibberish such as you've exhibited in the sentence above.
> Cheating is the evil that happens when good men do nothing.
>And that is what you are.
At least this is borrowed gibberish. It doesn't apply, but
whoever you stole it from had some sense of the English
language.
> So, go back to your blather about the intricacies of Omaha high/low
>split or whatever it is that you blather about--
This is a poker newsgroup. If you're surprised by postings
about Omaha occurring here, then that's the mark of a fool.
Say, are you sure you want to bet me that you know good writing
from bad? Here you're accusing a poker player of making
poker postings to a poker newsgroup. I sense a dearth of
analytical ability on your part.
>and leave the men's work to
>men and courageous women.
Leave the "men's work"... huh?
That would be you, I guess. When was the last time you took
any kind of stand in a poker game? Yeah- never, right?
I've seen Badger take a lot of stands on this newsgroup--
some of which had to put some money on the line for him.
lol Okay, sure, we'll leave the "men's work" for you.
> James L. Hankins
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Yeah- unbelievable, but true.
Wayno
xxoo
Steve Badger
> Your post is way too long to go over point by point, so I'll do it the
> easy way.
>
> We agree that cheating is bad, and that cleaning up the game is good,
> but you feel the problems should be kept quiet, while efforts are made
> in the background.
Nonsense. Please stop this. Cheating has to be exposed. It has be done
directly and publicly. But clown acts and arm waving about drivel that
doesn't happen and that nobody need to be concerned about are the best thing
that cheaters could ask for!
YOU are the one doing things to keep cheating quiet. You don't talk about
it. You don't deal with the hard, difficult, but specific issues at hand.
Russ' ravings would be clouding the water much less if a few people like you
didn't continually talk in general platitudes about "cheating" rather than
speak clearly in public and to the casinos about what we-the-players want to
see done.
> I feel that keeping the problems quiet is sleazy,
> and preferring that approach derives only from the self-interest of
> winning tournament players.
Sorry, that is completely insane. Winning tournament players have the best
incentive to root out cheating, just like winning honest ring game players
do in that arena.
> We disagree about Russ. You say maybe 25% of what he says is true, but
> even if that's so, that 25% is 100% more than anyone else has told us
> before he came along.
WHAT???? Did you live in cave? Cheating has always been with us.
Colluders are in larger ring games every day, every minute. Individual
cheats are in ring games of every size. Where have you been?
My niece could get 25% of it right if she talked about cheating and she's
nine and not a drug addict.
> I also believe that most of what he has stated is true.
I really don't give a crap about Russ because he doesn't matter at all. He
lives in a fantasy world where he takes a few trivial bits and builds it
into something that makes his pathetic, failure of a life look important.
He doesn't matter. What does matter is that cheating discussions on RGP and
in casinos address real cheating, not the stufff of some silly book Russ is
writing because he failed as an extortionist.
> You also said:
>
> >With only a few peers, there is no one in the poker world more generous,
> >charitable and philanthropic than Men the Master.
>
> You can find plenty of people who will say that about John Gotti, and
> Tony Accardo, and others of their ilk. (But not about Tony Spilotro,
> who, unlike the others, was more involved with poker. Not much for the
> image thing.) That philanthropy stuff doesn't make them good people.
I agree. In Men's case there is conflicting evidence on "goodness". (In
Russ' case he's been a slime in everything he's done.) Arm-waving about his
philanthropy doesn't make him a non-cheat, and arm-waving about him being an
asshole or even softplaying doesn't make him part of a "pack" or a chip
dumper or any other of several things.
Again, not counting this isolated incident that may have happened at the
Taj, there is more than a little reason to suspect Men of forcing
softplaying onto the horses he stakes. There is no evidence -- although
there has been ten years or so for it to appear -- that Men is a part of
some grandiose pack (that includes people who don't even like each other!)
or other arm-waving mysterious cheating. So let's stay on planet Earth and
deal with the real, not the fantasies.
Steve Badger
> Well, well, well, Badger finally dusted the cobwebs off of his
keyboard
> and decided to contribute something to this whole cheating business. A
> pitiful contribution, but a contribution nonetheless.
LOL, when you contribute something let me known. I spent a lot of time
addressing cheating in casinos and online. You've helped make create an
atmosphere where cheating becomes all smoke, rather than a concrete problem.
> Badger, you have misspoken here and you need to be corrected. Since
you
> have called me out by name I'll be the one to do it.
>
> You are an amazing hypocrite. You state that "no one" has claimed
that
> Russ's allegations are lies, yet IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, barely four
> sentences prior to this statement, you refer to his allegations as the
> "fantasies of a drug addict." I guess the fantasies of a drug addict now
> are starting to be believed.
Wow. Wow. Wow. You must be a cheater. Only that explains this complete
lack of truth. Nobody has said *EVERYTHING* Russ said is untrue. For
example, he said a good thing about "The Cincinnati Kid." I've said I would
think about 25% (maybe 50%) of what he says is true, because if you bather
on enough, you will eventually hit some nails on the head. Russ says
cheating exists. Wow, revelation. That is "true", but in specificm the
majority of what he has written after 1985 has been shown to be untrue by
anyone with knowledge of the facts.
> The fact is, most of the responses to Russ's posts have been aimed to
> malign him personally, attack his credibility, and minimize what he
claims.
> Have you not known since the start that at least some of what he claims is
> true? Yet, you did not speak out.
Please try and LEARN something about what you are talking about. You are
embarrassing yourself. I've "spoke out" for years before Russ oozed his way
onto RGP. He's like a double agent. He gets gullible people like you to
make cheating in poker easier. Sad.
> But poker insiders apparently know different. Russ has told the rest
of
> us what you and the other poker insiders (Sklansky, et al) have known for
> years and I am grateful to him for it.
Russ has been preying on people like you for years and that's sad. But you
only have yourself to blame because you don't educate yourself.
> What did he get for it? At first, he got a lot of indignant flames
like
> yours, that he was a hallucinating cocaine addict. People in this forum
> have their poker heros and simply could not believe what Russ said. I
> initially felt the same way. And Russ started off badly, no question
about
> that.
Yeah, he's in his 50s, and he's never done an honest, non-selfish thing in
his life... has he? Not even here, where he is motivated by revenge (and
money).
> BUT WHERE WERE YOU ALL THESE YEARS? You think I do more to damage
> honest poker than Russ? I resent that, Jack. YOU are the problem.
Without
> Russ, this discussion would not be happening.
My God, WHAT discussion? WHAT? What are you talking about? Wave your arms
some more.
I address cheating every single time I see it, sometimes annoyingly (like
atiny incident Patti Beadles mentioned a few months ago). Cheaters threaten
my livelihood and I don't stand for it. Right now you are on their side,
the more you blow smoke and swallow the hooks of that guy.
> You are a WSOP bracelet holder. A world champion. Are you going to
> tell me that you never had a clue that Men cheated? Or any of the others
> that Russ has named? Yet you said nothing.
I feel sorry for you. You actually don't get it. When Russ says Men cheats
with Tony Ma, and they don't even like each other, don't you see how
destructive and useless and utterly stupid these comments are?
Men involved in softplaying with his horses happens on rare instances, and
NEVER if I were to be sitting there to see it. Softplaying is a small,
specific, widespread problem that takes place largely because people who are
friends or business partners often play poker together. It is a very
difficult issue to deal with because there is a fine line between
softplaying and just playing bad (or correctly).
I've spent a significant chunk of my life trying to make poker more honest
and fair. Right now the greatest threat to that are gullible hysterics who
PT Barnum knew about.
> Cheating is the evil that happens when good men do nothing. And that
is
> what you are.
LOL, you must be awful self-centered. Please stop making cheating easier
for the cheats. Please.
Jd00123
it off.I'm sure THAT will stop him.
Steve Badger
> He addressed the subject about 800 times in about
> 27 different ways. But you weren't around then. So I guess
> that makes it "his" problem.
When people tell me about "wasting" my time on RGP, I always tell them that
I think RGP is and can be a powerful resource for good, and for bad. I
think of the 8000 ways and 270 times and then look at the damage someone
like James is doing... in this case now by thrusting Daniel and Melissa into
the same sentence as Russ. I'd like to think my own and the efforts of
thousands of good people isn't all a waste, but the sad fact is a lot of
gullible, self-centered people will choose play poker, and a few bad people
will take advantage of them. The rest of us can try but we can't stop these
folks from essentially mugging themselves.
RazzO
There were many earlier revelations about cheating pre-GCA.
For example;
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2080656549d&hl=en&selm=6r9vtg%24aem%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com
Here is the site with the responses to Ms. Williams post;
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=1998081805155000.BAA03412%40ladder01.news.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dkathi%2Bwilliams%26hl%3Den%26group%3Drec.gambling.poker%26rnum%3D1%26selm%3D1998081805155000.BAA03412%2540ladder01.news.aol.com
razzo
Nice post, BTW, James.
Andrew Bloch
> I talked about some procedures poker tournaments should follow in the
> "USPC Final Table Chips, Seats and Prize money" thread. I also
> suggested using "smart" casino chips such as "SmartChips" as a better
> way of tracking chips in poker tournaments.
Whoops, this should have been "SafeChips".
Andy
Bill Vanek
Okay, I checked it out on Google. This is what I found:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 "newgca" wrote:
> Though GCA recanted the part about Ted Forrest wearing the earpiece at the
>Bellagio, Russ G didn't. Ted Forrest did wear the earpiece. At that time we
>were a group of three. Now we are a group of two. I still state that Ted
>Forrest was wearing a earpiece. Russ G new...@aol.com
Let me see if I've got this straight:
The original group of three voted that Ted Forrest
was wearing an earpiece, then later (during a "re-vote")
the group recanted and decided he wasn't wearing an ear-piece,
but once the group got down to two, another vote was taken
and it was decided that he was wearing an earpiece again.
What-- was Nirdlinger the 'deciding vote' or something?
It's like he was the 'tie-breaker' and as soon as he was out
of the picture, then Forrest got the ear-piece back again.
The real question here is: How did Martino vote? His vote
seems to be of the "wavering" type. When Nirdlinger is around.
he's for the recant; as soon as Nirdlinger leaves, Russ nixes
the recant and Martino seems to fall in line. Call me crazy,
but this is the way it appears. The only other possible
explanation is that Russ's vote counts for more than Martino's.
That's your reply just above. As, uh, well written as it was, it looks
to me like *you* are the one who first used the word "vote". Would you
agree? You're not pulling a Fosterberry in this thread, now are you?
AL
>From: bilv...@softcom.net (Bill Vanek)
> The original group of three voted that Ted Forrest
> was wearing an earpiece, then later (during a "re-vote")
> the group recanted and decided he wasn't wearing an ear-piece,
they realized it might have been a fungus
> but once the group got down to two, another vote was taken
> and it was decided that he was wearing an earpiece again.
> What-- was Nirdlinger the 'deciding vote' or something?
Yes, it was Nirdlinger who had the fungus theory
>as soon as he was out
> of the picture, then Forrest got the ear-piece back again.
Yes, Russ & Martino liked the earpiece theory better.... logic just got in the
way.
>You're not pulling a Fosterberry
Hey!! What's wrong with pullin the ol fosterberry?
Bill Vanek
GCA
anything about anything in what goes on in "cheating in hi level poker
or tournaments". A Heckler for the casinos.
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
"Steve Badger" <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<YXBU7.5903$Cw3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Profe
This thread makes me laugh. I sift through the RGP muck and come up
with the occasional gem about poker content. If I had to analyze every
lousy word that came through my newsreader, my head would implode.
Now, my two cents:
James, Wayno writes very well. He wrote a book, in fact. Read it.
Your posts rife with "bullshit, dude, etc." are not well-written. In
fact, they're also laden with inaccurate information and hearsay. Would
you say that is a sign of good writing?
I would like to challenge you both to a write-off. A 1000 word essay on
any topic having to do with poker. You have two days. I will judge you
both on:
1) content
2) grammar
3) spelling
I will create a rubric to grade your essays on the aforementioned
criteria.
Or not.
-Larry Lubiner
(who is still digging into his bunker, but not in Tora Bora...)
NWBurbsCouple
BADGER WROTE...
>Nonsense. Please stop this. Cheating has to be exposed. It has be done
>directly and publicly. But clown acts and arm waving about drivel that
>doesn't happen and that nobody need to be concerned about are the best thing
>that cheaters could ask for!
>
>YOU are the one doing things to keep cheating quiet. You don't talk about
So what's your view on mags like Card Player, whose sole contribution to
discussion about cheating over the years has been to publish lines like "Poker
players are the most honest people I know" and, more recently, Men's letter
denying cheating?
Shouldn't the magazines take the lead in reporting on cheating, and abandon
their stance that any non-puff peices are bad for the game?
Steve Badger
> BADGER WROTE...
>
> >Nonsense. Please stop this. Cheating has to be exposed. It has be done
> >directly and publicly. But clown acts and arm waving about drivel that
> >doesn't happen and that nobody need to be concerned about are the best
thing
> >that cheaters could ask for!
> >YOU are the one doing things to keep cheating quiet. You don't talk
about
>
> So what's your view on mags like Card Player, whose sole contribution to
> discussion about cheating over the years has been to publish lines like
"Poker
> players are the most honest people I know" and, more recently, Men's
letter
> denying cheating?
Fist of all, publishing Men's letter was excellent and only the extremist in
pure denial would object to that since the specific rumor he was responding
to has been shown to be untrue by all parties involved.
As for "poker players are the most honest people I know", I think poker
players as a group are mostly just like the rest of the world -- some good,
some bad. Some people might disagree one way or the other, big deal.
> Shouldn't the magazines take the lead in reporting on cheating, and
abandon
> their stance that any non-puff peices are bad for the game?
I do think they should publish articles on cheating, especially stories on
what the casinos do to combat cheating. I do not think they should "lead"
because the players should lead first, the casinos should lead second, and
only third should come the magazines.
Green Dog
> Dude,
>
> Give it up. Your original post was poorly written and subject to the
> interpretation that Bill gave to it.
>
Thanks James and Bill for stating the
obvious. This thread is very odd. If
he really believes his original post was
well articulated or that his arguing
technique is anything but retarded he
must be on drugs.
Cheers,
Derriza Niall.
> "Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:3c226a8c....@news.cis.dfn.de...
> >
> > Frankly, I don't think you understood a word I wrote, Bill--
> > in fact, I'm pretty sure of it-- but thanks for the reply.
> >
> > As an arguing technique, your post reminds me
> > of the following:
> >
> > "Some of the children in Afghanistan never had
> > any coats or mittens."
> > "Oh, so I suppose that makes it all right for them
> > to blow up the World Trade Center."
> >
> > As an arguing technique, it goes immediately
> > to the FAR end of the spectrum and conveniently skips
> > over 27,512 gray-scale points in between.
> >
> > As an arguing technique, it is so common,
> > so dumb, and --above ALL ELSE-- so easy to employ,
> > that it really oughta have a name. A name like "Fosterberry",
> > maybe, or "Kelvo" or a "Schmecklin"-- some name like
> > that.
> >
> > Therefore, a person might say:
> >
> > "Hey, how did your argument turn out?"
> > "Well, it was going along pretty good, but then he
> > pulled a 'Fosterberry' on me, so I just gave him a
> > WTF look and walked away..."
> >
> > So I think that's what I'm going to do here-- I'll just wish
> > you a Merry Fosterberry and a Happy Schmecklin,
> > and move on.
> >
> > Wayno
> >
> >
> >
Gary Carson
wrote:
>So what's your view on mags like Card Player, whose sole contribution
to
>discussion about cheating over the years has been to publish lines
like "Poker
>players are the most honest people I know" and, more recently, Men's
letter
>denying cheating?
The first article I ever wrote on poker was in Card Player in about
1992 -- it was on cheating. If you think I wrote a softplay article
then you havn't paid attention.
Linda did require I remove specific mention of the Stardust from the
article (they were an advertisor). She didn't mind specific mention
of Artichoke Joe's (at the time not an advertisor).
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Nobody has said *EVERYTHING* Russ said is untrue.
Could you please post this sentence again
in a future post?
And can you somehow make it clearer?
Because there are two guys who can't figure out
what it means. It's so vague and confusing
they are unable to understand it.
Thanks in advance,
Wayno
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>or that his arguing
>technique is anything but retarded--
lol his arguing technique...
James L. Hankins
> >On Thu, 20 Dec 2001"James L. Hankins" wrote:
>
> I have just a few comments I'd like to make about this posting.
>
>
>
> > Then you're even more naeve. >
> You're getting more naeve by the moment.
Okay, Wayno, you win. You're definitely a better writer than me, even
though you apparently never graduated from high school.
James L. Hankins
I'll accept criticism from you, but you have to explain yourself. Tell
me about the "damage" I am causing to poker. I don't want to damage poker
and I don't thing that I am. I am truly perplexed by your statements.
Explain them please.
"Steve Badger" <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:YXBU7.5903$Cw3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>I would like to challenge you both to a write-off. A 1000 word essay--
Thanks, Lube, but I am NOT going to have a
1000 word "write-off" with this bone-head.
I've got stuff I'm SPOSED to be writing
that I'm not because I piss away all my time, basically.
Happy Holidays
lol
Wayno
Jonathan Kaplan
>
>>Cheating has always been accepted in poker, at least by poker pros
>
>
>
>the main goal of most professional players is to avoid work. It is hard for
>them to look too askance at those who share that philosophy but aren't good
>enough to do that by playing on the square, especially if they themselves are
>not the main victims. Ethically they consider double crossing or taking
>advantage of magnonymity much worse than finding creative illegal ways to beat
>rich tourists or even obnoxious pros. For instance if I was to egotistically
>challenge Gary Carson to a $100,000 SAT contest, they would have little problem
>with him obtaining a copy of the test in advance. If, however, Gary asked me to
>borrow $500 knowing he wouldn't pay it back, that would be another story. This
>(or options traders) who avoid constructive work through a facility with games,
>any strong taking of umbrage seems hypocritical.
i agree with much of this, and disagree with some.
there are many similarities between pokerplayers and option traders, as David S.
says. in general, options traders have a facility for games. also, to many,
option traders "avoid constructive work". this is true on some levels, but not
true on others. (and very much not true for the way i do my work, as an
obligated liquidity provider.) (i'll explain that, if need be.)
but there are a few huge differences between the two worlds, also.
one difference is, options trading is much more subject to regulation and
oversight than is poker, (apparently). option "cheaters" are caught, all the
time. they are fined, they are suspended, they are barred, more often than
occurs in the poker world (i think, by appearances).
but, the one point i feel strong enough to argue about is the "...any strong
taking of umbrage seems hypocritical." comment. this is not true for honest
option traders, and not true for honest poker players. there are honest people
in both worlds, there are cheaters in both worlds. why shouldnt the honest
people take umbrage? i dont get that. i DO take umbrage with cheating, in both
worlds. i am injured by the cheaters, in both worlds. i resent the fact they
cheat. i play honestly, looking for a fair test of skill. i am hurt that the
cheaters dont do that as well.
i guess you were just trolling, cause otherwise your "umbrage" comment makes
little sense?
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are...
AJohn808
Badger, Bill V, ( Mike C and many others). All of you express your thoughts
well, you have great vocabularies, and each has his own entertaining writing
style. Also, you are all on the same side of the issue. You all would like to
see that cheating in poker is brought as close as possible to an end. You are
all wearing the white hats-none of you are part of the problem-you are all part
of the solution by having this discussion.
The real difference is your views of Russ and the roll he has played in
this. While Badger was a little quick to write GCA off at the beginning (and
understandably so due to the incoherance of GCAs initial posts), Mr Hawkins
has merely taken the position of "Hey, lets listen carefully to what this guy
has to say and then decide".
Finally, I am one of those who pays a lot of attention to the poker world
but also had no idea that such extensive cheating occured - especially in the
high profile events. I have found GCAs posts to very entertaining and
educational. Whether you like Russ personally or not, the fact remains that he
has indeed substantially increased the dialog on the subject and i'll bet the
results are immediate with most everyone in future tournaments being more
aware and on their toes and the criminal element much less likely to attempt
their shenanigans.
Deel Meein
> >From: Profe larry....@verizon.net
>
> >Thank you for your reply, Melissa. Very informative post about serious
> >allegations. If cheating is to be stopped, it is to start from the
> >people who are affected the most. Namely, the non-cheating poker
> >players who love good, solid tournament poker.
>
> And how about some help/leadership from the tournament-playing owners of a
> certain poker magazine?
> At the time that a certain WCPP was removed from a recent Foxwoods tourney, I
> recall the defense on rgp including PR material published in that magazine.
> Does the magazine want a publicized award ceremony for its Player of the Year
> with the recipient being someone who does not play honestly?
> The owners of that magazine, who also are becoming significant tournament
> players and post here, seem to be staying silent now. They have a
> responsibility. Hopefully they won't remain hidden!
>
> marc (msa
Card player is in a tough spot give them a break.
They have Daniel saying he's a cheater, Warren playing on his team,
Barry writing pr articles about his innocence and greatness and Badger
giving his spin. Forget anybody? You'd better start looking elsewhere
for any kind of real information. Men Is Super Duper!
Bad Bob
Well now after reading 49+ new replies to this thread I'm more confused than before. Lets see if I
can follow the "Cheating" subject correctly:
1. GCA and NewGCA have made many many statements and allegations of cheating by many named
individuals, then recanted on some of what they said as a group. Then they decided they didn't like
or agree with each other so much so they went their separate ways.
2. Russ is the most ate up with the revenge thing so he just keeps spewing all his nonsense
without ever producing any proof or corroboration if his allegations. He is a drug addict and a
cheat so we shouldn't believe what he says.
3. Mike Caro has been fighting cheating for years but has gotten absolutely no where in
attempting to do something about it. And when he introduces us to GCA to show us that what he has
been saying for years is true. Mike gets ostracized because of GCA's lack of credibility. So he
backs off and washes his hands of the whole mess in utter distaste.
4. Steve Badger claims that he too has been fighting cheating but hasn't seen any or was that
Razzo who had the eye problem...I told ya I was confused.
5. Gary Carson of course knew all of this a long time ago and told everybody so, is not
surprised by any of it and will tell you nothing about it either because he doesn't know or he would
rather crack wise and just look kool.
6. Dave Sklansky who is like a shop keeper just trying to deal with the "shoplifting" problem
in his chosen profession by adding 15% - 25% to account for cheating losses.
7. Then there are all the mortals on RGP who lean one way or the other depending basically on
who they are sympathetic with or hate the most. A lot of them who will readily admit they have not
been around very long, nor read very many of the last 15 years worth of arguments on the subject of
cheating on RGP that are easily searched via "Google Groups". And a lot of these folks haven't even
gotten quite a few of the news group posts made in the last week or two.
8. Next up we got the RGP old timers/semi-pros who are out there in the trenches everyday just
tryin' like hell to make a livin' playing poker or tryin' to get somewhere on the tournament
circuit. They want to know if they are being cheated, most know they are going to be cheated if they
don't keep sharp and be aware of poker reality.
9. Nobody in the whole wide world wants cheating to exist, no body in the whole wide world has
actually seen cheating going on except GCA, Danny N. and Melissa. Everybody in the whole wide world
thinks we need to do something about cheating. And everyone in the whole wide world thinks we need
protection from the bad bad cheaters.
10. Last but not least we have certain interests that want to see poker move on up into the
NASCAR, PGA, WWF sort of atmosphere and get legit. A couple of people I'm thinkin' of even own
magazines and web sites that would be good starting places to start a campaign to clean up
Tournament Poker. We have numerous Poker writers who either won't, can't, haven't written much about
the subject of cheating in poker. They seem to think that a good housecleaning would be bad for
business (as usual) and drive sponsors and the public away from Poker as a sport or contest, which
ever you prefer to call it.
Now old Bob is just a country boy who grew up watching the Maverick brothers promote poker for
several years on TV. They weren't afraid to call a spade a spade and slap leather to take care of
any cheats they ran into. Any damn fool who ever read a cowboy book by Zane Grey or Louis LaMore or
has seen movies about poker, or otherwise isn't completely brain dead or impaired should know that
people cheat in poker. That should be a given.
So I guess the whole argument comes down to, just how much cheatin' goes on in poker and who are the
cheats. Like Badger said...I won't be cheated....but I think the solution is a lot more than just
"selecting your game", or "gettin' up and movin' to another game". I think the only way to cut down
on cheating is for everyone in the poker world who is not a cheat to stand up and draw their
shootin' iron and plug the mangey bastards where they sit......oh wait a minute.....gettin' wound up
now. Well at least call the bastards out in public about their cheating. Just like Daniel Negraneau
just did. And they need backing up just like Melissa just did.
The best suggestion I have seen lately is some sort of a governing body to create sanctioned rules
for poker tournaments as well as Card room rules and guidelines. These guide lines would be entirely
on a voluntary basis for tourney and casinos to adopt or not as they wish. If enough of the Poker
world heavy weights would get behind this idea and promote it without squabbling over who's going to
get the credit for it or make the most profit off of it, the damn thing might just fly.
It wouldn't have to be international in scope but probably should be, doesn't need to actually hold
tournaments, just sanction them and hire professional auditors to police all the major tourneys,
track the chips, take complaints about players, casinos etc. and keep a database of these complaints
as well as investigate disputes.
You people really want to do something about cleaning up poker and getting sponsors interested in
hosting tournaments then get off your lazy asses and yer big bankrolls and get the ball rolling on
this organization. Other wise yer just pissin' in the wind and blowin' smoke up everybody's ass.
I'll take the chance of getting my ass in a sling and list just the few people I know of that I am
talking about. Sorry if I offend anyone but I just listed a few off top of my head. If you are
listed it doesn't mean yer not lazy, or that you are a cheat, or that you do or do not have a big
bankroll. It just means you are someone who all us small fry (note the fish analogy) look up to and
see as the only ones in the world who will ever be able to get the ball rollin'. Sure as hell ain't
gonna be me on my $12,000 dollar a year income, I can barely afford to play poker at all but I would
like to know I ain't throwin' what little I have to some cheatin' bastard. (I can & will help de-nut
any cheaters caught in my presence though). If you are not listed it only means my feeble mind has
limits.
JMHO
Steve Badger,
Doyle Brunson,
Mike & Phyllis Caro,
T. J. Cloutier,
Annie Duke,
Phil Hellmuth,
Susie Isaacs,
Linda Johnson,
Lee Jones,
Daniel Kimberg,
Lou Kreiger,
Mason Malmuth,
Mark & Tina Napolitano,
Barry Schulman,
Mike Sexton,
David Sklansky,
Bad Bob the Albino
[Cook him till he's blue and smother him in onions!]
Bill Vanek
below, they were quotes.
Henry Estes
<hIBU7.5889$Cw3.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Steve Badger wrote..."
<snip>
>When Russ says Men cheats
>with Tony Ma, and they don't even like each other, don't you see how
>destructive and useless and utterly stupid these comments are?
>
Steve, I have no idea whether Men cheats with Tony Ma, but their not liking each
other would not, in my mind, make it unbelievable. I have often contracted with
individuals I don't like when I felt they could best provide what I needed to
serve my customers.
I'm starting to believe there has come a falling out among thieves.
Henry Estes
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>> Though GCA recanted the part about Ted Forrest wearing the earpiece at the
>>Bellagio, Russ G didn't. Ted Forrest did wear the earpiece. At that time we
>>were a group of three. Now we are a group of two. I still state that Ted
>>Forrest was wearing a earpiece. Russ G new...@aol.com
Stop and think for a moment about the above sentences.
"GCA recanted the part about Ted Forrest wearing an earpiece".
Now what does this mean? It means that at one point they accused
Ted Forrest of wearing an earpiece, and later they recanted it--
took it back. Who did? GCA did. But not Russ. He never
recanted it. Well who the hell is GCA then? Isn't GCA Russ?
Nope, because back then there were 3 of them. So the official
GCA position was the Recant, OK? Ted Forrest WASN'T wearing
an earpiece. Follow so far? Now all of a sudden they become a
group of two. Well, their official position changes again once
it gets down to two people. Now the recant is out the window
and Ted Forrest is back wearing the earpiece again. Does this
sound like a "vote" to you? In fact somewhere-- I'm too bored
to look it up-- Russ admits that his vote counts more than
Martino's (once the 'organization' gets down to two people).
Well, Okay, I was fine with that-- I didn't really
care if Russ got 4 votes to Martino's 1. What I had a problem
with was this Moe, Larry and Curly method of arriving at the
truth. (And as I recall, Ted Forrest and his friends also had a
problem with this as a method of arriving at the truth). Some
of us felt this sort of thing damaged Russ's credibility. I
know-- pretty farfetched that something like this would effect
someone's credibility. Some of us pointed out at the time that
the truth is not something you take a vote on, nor is it
something something that keeps changing, day to day. But
people are going to believe what they're going to believe.
For instance, you're not going to be swayed by this.
Something like this isn't going to have any effect whatsoever
on your view of the credibility of the accusing party. It's
almost pointless to post it.
Cheran
new...@aol.com (GCA) wrote in message
> This is the same defense that was just used against me when I have
> attacked Doyle Brunson and others. They stated, "I was jealous of
> Doyle". How can anyone be jealous of a person who is 20 years older
> and 200 pounds overweight? Just another "typical denial".
> Jealousy!!!!!! BULL-SHIT is more like it
James L. Hankins
I think they are informative and help underscore the profound
disagreement that I apparently have with Badger.
Who is Kathi Williams? I don't know. From her posts, she seems to be
an honest person who made some observations about some cheating that she
saw. What did it accomplish in '98 when she posted it?
Dick.
Russ has taken the dialogue several steps beyond this. He claims to be
an insider, a cheater himself, for many years, and at the highest levels,
and he names names and gives details, many of which he claims to know first
hand.
And he's not going away. If it was as easy to dismiss him as Badger
suggests, then why hasn't it been done? Russ isn't Doug Grant. People are
listening. NOT necessarily believing everything he says (I don't), but you
just know, intuitively, that at least some of what he says is true.
Badger and Wayno take me task for being naive (or naeve, as Wayno calls
me), and say, "Cheating has always gone on, how could you be so dumb as to
not know that? Russ isn't saying anything new." Well, maybe I have been
naive. Because Russ is saying things that are new to me.
But having knowledge that cheating happens in poker, in a generic sense
(and always to the other guy, how could I personally have been cheated?
they wouldn't do that to me would they?) is a quantum shift from what Russ
has been posting.
He explains how it is done, who is doing it (at least who he claims to
be doing it), and makes it real to me. He has dragged this problem kicking
and screaming out into the open, caught unmerciful shit for it over a period
of months, and only now, when a trio of top flight, high limit players
(Negranu, Hayden, and Juanda) had the guts to speak out, has the debate been
truly joined.
For Badger to say that I am setting back poker 25 years, I take that
personally. I love this game and want it to move forward. But the true
irony is, Russ, a cheat and confessed drug user, and Daniel N., a young
upstart player, have done more to get the ball rolling to combat cheating
than Badger and the other honest bracelet winners ever have. And for them
to condemn me for posting on this I think is an outrage.
The next tournament you play, I bet there will be an amazing number of
players taking note of chip counts and looking for chip exchanges away from
the tables and slow playing, etc. Honest players who don't want to be
cheated. Russ did that. Not Badger or Shulman, or anyone else.
And on a personal note, I would like to apologize publicly to Badger for
making the comment diminishing his character. I got a little too wound up
when he named me as someone who is destroying the game.
I think Badger is an honest player who tries to do what is best for the
game. I don't have any reason to believe that he is not honorable or
lacking in character as a person. But he and I have seriously and
profoundly divergent views on this topic.
James L. Hankins
"RazzO" <ra...@pokerworld.com> wrote in message
news:3C22EFB4...@pokerworld.com...
James L. Hankins
buy a copy. Maybe he would just send a courtesy copy to me! :)
And yes, I would not mind having a write off with him. But I don't know if
clogging up RGP with such stuff is a good idea.
Let's hear what he thinks.
"Profe" <larry....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3C231D5F...@verizon.net...
Profe
"James L. Hankins" wrote:
>
> "Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:3c22c346...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > >On Thu, 20 Dec 2001"James L. Hankins" wrote:
> >
> > I have just a few comments I'd like to make about this posting.
> >
> >
> > Then you're naeve.
> >
> > > Then you're even more naeve. >
>
> > You're getting more naeve by the moment.
>
> Okay, Wayno, you win. You're definitely a better <<<<writer than me>>>>>, even
> though you apparently never graduated from high school.
LOL
How about "a better writer than I"? :)
-LL
James L. Hankins
Bill Vanek
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:
>
>>> Though GCA recanted the part about Ted Forrest wearing the earpiece at the
>>>Bellagio, Russ G didn't. Ted Forrest did wear the earpiece. At that time we
>>>were a group of three. Now we are a group of two. I still state that Ted
>>>Forrest was wearing a earpiece. Russ G new...@aol.com
>
>
> Stop and think for a moment about the above sentences.
> "GCA recanted the part about Ted Forrest wearing an earpiece".
> Now what does this mean? It means that at one point they accused
> Ted Forrest of wearing an earpiece, and later they recanted it--
> took it back. Who did? GCA did. But not Russ. He never
> recanted it. Well who the hell is GCA then? Isn't GCA Russ?
> Nope, because back then there were 3 of them. So the official
> GCA position was the Recant, OK? Ted Forrest WASN'T wearing
> an earpiece. Follow so far? Now all of a sudden they become a
> group of two. Well, their official position changes again once
> it gets down to two people. Now the recant is out the window
> and Ted Forrest is back wearing the earpiece again. Does this
> sound like a "vote" to you?
Let me remind you how this started. I wrote:
"Did I exaggerate? Yes. How about you, do you ever exaggerate, or
maybe reword things to make a point? How about later in this post -
something about an earpiece, and a vote?"
Notice how I asked if you ever reworded anything to make a point?
Isn't that exactly what you did here? Considering how many (well
written, of course) words you had to use to explain, you didn't
exactly give a straightforward, no-intent-to-mislead account of their
statements originally, did you? These are your words:
> GCA had to take a VOTE between
> themselves to see whether he was wearing it or not, and
> Russ got more votes than Martino because he was "higher
> up" in the two-man organization. (Uh huh). Most people
> are familiar with the concept that if something is "true"
> you don't have to take a "vote" to figure out whether it
> was or not.
Where exactly did Russ first say they had to "vote on what was the
truth"?
> In fact somewhere-- I'm too bored
> to look it up-- Russ admits that his vote counts more than
> Martino's (once the 'organization' gets down to two people).
> Well, Okay, I was fine with that-- I didn't really
> care if Russ got 4 votes to Martino's 1.
In a subsequent post, Russ did use the word vote, but only playing
along with your wording. They were originally posting as a group of 3
under one name. If they had conflicting information, it seems
reasonable that they had to come to an agreement on what would be
posted, but not "take a vote on what was the truth". Anyone can argue
that they should have simply admitted they had conflicting
information, but they didn't.
Remember, you are the one who made a mission of replyling to *every
one* of Russ's posts, intending only to ridicule and trivialize every
thing he said. And of course to hear your fans go on about how cute
and clever you are. You questioned his intentions and credibility, and
mine, and now I'm questioning why you wrote this:
> GCA had to take a VOTE between
> themselves to see whether he was wearing it or not
James L. Hankins
LOL! Okay, okay, I thought that the "me" had become acceptable in
modern, informal usage. Am I incorrect, Prof.?
lvdlrs
AL wrote:
> Hey!! What's wrong with pullin the ol fosterberry?
What is that? Not a relative of the dingleberry I hope.
Is it some reference to the guy who broke the world
record for the high jump? So those who fosterberry have high
goals in life? No those are basketball players. I repeat, what
exactly is pullin the ol fosterberry?
Gary (...) Philips