| |
Main
Date: 05 Dec 16:35:38
From: CHarrison100
Subject: Doyle Article
|
This is more for Russ but did anyone read the article in the Jan/Feb 07 FHM? The
tag line is "Death of a Swindle" Poker legend Doyle Brunson details the history
of cheating - and how he helped clean up Vegas.
It is on Page 38.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:52:22
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
CHarrison100 wrote:
> This is more for Russ but did anyone read the article in the Jan/Feb 07 FHM? The
> tag line is "Death of a Swindle" Poker legend Doyle Brunson details the history
> of cheating - and how he helped clean up Vegas.
>
> It is on Page 38.
I haven't read this, but it's IMPOSSSIBLE to clean up cheating, as
collusion is virtually undetectable. Plus, if Doyle helped clean up
cleating, he'd have to know some of the cheats? If he knows the cheats,
why can't he name them? For if he names them, they can't sue, for the
truth is it's own defense.
All of this is contradictory to what Doyle posted on RGP about 5 years
ago, when he stated "if he ratted out the cheats, they'd never tell him
anything again."
Doyle, Chip Reese and many others, along with the same management foe
close to 25 years, have been responsible for the majority of the 'big
time cheating' in Vegas and elsewhere for decades.
If he had one person barred, without proof, he'd have more lawsuits
than you could shake a stick at. The article is just another bunch of
BS, that Doyle has promoted to cover up his dealing, along with his
pack since he began playing poker in Vegas in the 60's.
Russ Georgiev
www.pokermafia.com
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 10:34:51
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
Here's a post long before I ever had a computer. However, the person
who posted it was not as tenatious as I am.
1 From: JDOLLAR10 - view profile
Date: Sat, Oct 7 2000 12:00 am
Email: jdolla...@aol.com (JDOLLAR10)
Groups: rec.gambling.poker
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 16:57:57
From: CHarrison100
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 5 2006 11:52 AM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> CHarrison100 wrote:
> > This is more for Russ but did anyone read the article in the Jan/Feb 07 FHM?
> > The
> > tag line is "Death of a Swindle" Poker legend Doyle Brunson details the
> > history
> > of cheating - and how he helped clean up Vegas.
> >
> > It is on Page 38.
>
>
> I haven't read this, but it's IMPOSSSIBLE to clean up cheating, as
> collusion is virtually undetectable. Plus, if Doyle helped clean up
> cleating, he'd have to know some of the cheats? If he knows the cheats,
> why can't he name them? For if he names them, they can't sue, for the
> truth is it's own defense.
>
> All of this is contradictory to what Doyle posted on RGP about 5 years
> ago, when he stated "if he ratted out the cheats, they'd never tell him
> anything again."
>
> Doyle, Chip Reese and many others, along with the same management foe
> close to 25 years, have been responsible for the majority of the 'big
> time cheating' in Vegas and elsewhere for decades.
>
> If he had one person barred, without proof, he'd have more lawsuits
> than you could shake a stick at. The article is just another bunch of
> BS, that Doyle has promoted to cover up his dealing, along with his
> pack since he began playing poker in Vegas in the 60's.
>
> Russ Georgiev
>
> http://www.pokermafia.com/
>
>
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Your Online Poker Community - /
Thanks Russ.
I did a little more looking and it seems that he is now FHM's Columnist
http://www.fhmus.com/articles-2425.asp so this was more likely a way to hype it
up.
Too bad i can't find the article to post.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:22:39
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
Read it Sunday.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec
From: jd00123
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 5 2006 3:22 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> Read it Sunday.
I like this part:
"There s a guy who plays $100/$200 no limit hold em, and he s better than
anybody in the world. Bullshit. If he s so good, then why hasn t he come up
where he can win millions instead of thousands? The cream rises to the top in
the poker world more than anywhere else. "
Whatever happened to game selection?
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 5 2006 11:16 PM, jd00123 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 5 2006 3:22 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
> > Read it Sunday.
>
> I like this part:
> "There s a guy who plays $100/$200 no limit hold em, and he s better than
> anybody in the world. Bullshit. If he s so good, then why hasn t he come up
> where he can win millions instead of thousands? The cream rises to the top in
> the poker world more than anywhere else. "
>
> Whatever happened to game selection?
The idea that the "cream rises to the top" is the kind of bullshit thinking
Doyle learned in the Church School he graduated from.
There is just no evidence that it's true.
Those who rise to the top are called cream. But nobody calls them that until
they've risen to the top.
When people who havn't risen to the top yet are called cream the label is almost
always proved to be false by subsequent events.
Those that rise to the top are in fact cream. But only in some Bible la-la land
like where Doyle lives is that considered the same as cream rising to the top.
Doyle is a good poker player. We know that because he rose to the top. But
before he rose to the top we didn't know he was a good poker player. We have no
way to know that he rose to the top becuase he was the best. We just know that
we call him the best because he rose to the top.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 23:53:34
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 5 2006 10:31 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> The idea that the "cream rises to the top" is the kind of bullshit thinking
> Doyle learned in the Church School he graduated from.
>
> There is just no evidence that it's true.
>
> Those who rise to the top are called cream. But nobody calls them that until
> they've risen to the top.
>
> When people who havn't risen to the top yet are called cream the label is
> almost
> always proved to be false by subsequent events.
>
> Those that rise to the top are in fact cream. But only in some Bible la-la
> land
> like where Doyle lives is that considered the same as cream rising to the top.
>
> Doyle is a good poker player. We know that because he rose to the top. But
> before he rose to the top we didn't know he was a good poker player. We have
> no
> way to know that he rose to the top becuase he was the best. We just know
> that
> we call him the best because he rose to the top.
>
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com/
This is some odd logic. If someone rises to the top of their profession, you
can logically conclude that they weren't "the best" at what they were doing? I
think logic that leads to a conclusion of these people not being "the best"
simply by evidence of their dominating stature in the field relies on the false
premise that only the single skill which we're discussing matters at all.
In order to be efficient and "rise" people must have complimentary skills that
will allow them to excel in any field. Some would argue that this is what our
discussion is about, but that's not true. For example, I saw a video not long
ago of an autistic man who couldn't even function to feed himself and associate
with others taken on a helicopter trip of Rome for the first time in his life,
then asked the draw the whole of the city on a mural. He drew it with
remarkable accuracy.
But we wouldn't call a person like this the best artist in the world unless
others were to selflessly commit themselves to bridge the gap in skills that he
lacks, like social skills and marketing. That's the essence of a corporation,
various people honed to fill the gaps for one another to make one entity that is
"the best" at a particular thing.
So I think it is *because* someone is on top of the heap that they are "the
best" not because they are better on any given day, but because they're able to
effectively use those skills to some meaningful end. THAT is what it means to
be "the best" not claiming a title with skant evidence to back the claim. It's
a measure of success, which is why "the best" can't be selected until they've
risen, otherwise it's just a bunk prediction that might or might not pan out.
Follow :)
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Dec
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 6 2006 5:53 PM, Follow wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 5 2006 10:31 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> > The idea that the "cream rises to the top" is the kind of bullshit thinking
> > Doyle learned in the Church School he graduated from.
> >
> > There is just no evidence that it's true.
> >
> > Those who rise to the top are called cream. But nobody calls them that
> > until
> > they've risen to the top.
> >
> > When people who havn't risen to the top yet are called cream the label is
> > almost
> > always proved to be false by subsequent events.
> >
> > Those that rise to the top are in fact cream. But only in some Bible la-la
> > land
> > like where Doyle lives is that considered the same as cream rising to the
> > top.
> >
> > Doyle is a good poker player. We know that because he rose to the top. But
> > before he rose to the top we didn't know he was a good poker player. We
> > have
> > no
> > way to know that he rose to the top becuase he was the best. We just know
> > that
> > we call him the best because he rose to the top.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
>
> This is some odd logic. If someone rises to the top of their profession, you
> can logically conclude that they weren't "the best" at what they were doing?
> I
> think logic that leads to a conclusion of these people not being "the best"
> simply by evidence of their dominating stature in the field relies on the
> false
> premise that only the single skill which we're discussing matters at all.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Doyle never said that. I never said
that. I just don't know what you're talking about and don't even know who
you're misquoting.
>
> In order to be efficient and "rise" people must have complimentary skills that
> will allow them to excel in any field. Some would argue that this is what our
> discussion is about, but that's not true. For example, I saw a video not long
> ago of an autistic man who couldn't even function to feed himself and
> associate
> with others taken on a helicopter trip of Rome for the first time in his life,
> then asked the draw the whole of the city on a mural. He drew it with
> remarkable accuracy.
I saw a video not long ago that included a scene of a bunch of cowboys sitting
around a campfire, eating beans and farting.
So what?
I still don't know what you're talking about.
>
> But we wouldn't call a person like this the best artist in the world unless
> others were to selflessly commit themselves to bridge the gap in skills that
> he
> lacks, like social skills and marketing. That's the essence of a corporation,
> various people honed to fill the gaps for one another to make one entity that
> is
> "the best" at a particular thing.
Are you aware that I've often pointed out that there is no such thing as "the
best" in poker?
>
> So I think it is *because* someone is on top of the heap that they are "the
> best" not because they are better on any given day, but because they're able
> to
> effectively use those skills to some meaningful end.
Okay, so you think that.
But it's not true. Someone on the top of the heap are called "the best" because
that's what we do -- we call those people the best.
> THAT is what it means to
> be "the best" not claiming a title with skant evidence to back the claim.
> It's
> a measure of success, which is why "the best" can't be selected until they've
> risen, otherwise it's just a bunk prediction that might or might not pan out.
The term "cream rises to the top" isn't the same as the term "those that rise to
the top are cream".
It's really still not clear what you're talking about. I'll stick my neck out
and assert you aren't one of our best writers, although your grammer is pretty
good.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Dec
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 6 2006 6:31 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> > This is some odd logic. If someone rises to the top of their profession,
> > you
> > can logically conclude that they weren't "the best" at what they were
> > doing?
> > I
> > think logic that leads to a conclusion of these people not being "the best"
> > simply by evidence of their dominating stature in the field relies on the
> > false
> > premise that only the single skill which we're discussing matters at all.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. Doyle never said that. I never
> said
> that. I just don't know what you're talking about and don't even know who
> you're misquoting.
>
> >
> > In order to be efficient and "rise" people must have complimentary skills
> > that
> > will allow them to excel in any field. Some would argue that this is what
> > our
> > discussion is about, but that's not true. For example, I saw a video not
> > long
> > ago of an autistic man who couldn't even function to feed himself and
> > associate
> > with others taken on a helicopter trip of Rome for the first time in his
> > life,
> > then asked the draw the whole of the city on a mural. He drew it with
> > remarkable accuracy.
>
> I saw a video not long ago that included a scene of a bunch of cowboys sitting
> around a campfire, eating beans and farting.
>
> So what?
>
> I still don't know what you're talking about.
>
> >
> > But we wouldn't call a person like this the best artist in the world unless
> > others were to selflessly commit themselves to bridge the gap in skills that
> > he
> > lacks, like social skills and marketing. That's the essence of a
> > corporation,
> > various people honed to fill the gaps for one another to make one entity
> > that
> > is
> > "the best" at a particular thing.
>
> Are you aware that I've often pointed out that there is no such thing as "the
> best" in poker?
>
>
> >
> > So I think it is *because* someone is on top of the heap that they are "the
> > best" not because they are better on any given day, but because they're able
> > to
> > effectively use those skills to some meaningful end.
>
> Okay, so you think that.
>
> But it's not true. Someone on the top of the heap are called "the best"
> because
> that's what we do -- we call those people the best.
>
> > THAT is what it means to
> > be "the best" not claiming a title with skant evidence to back the claim.
> > It's
> > a measure of success, which is why "the best" can't be selected until
> > they've
> > risen, otherwise it's just a bunk prediction that might or might not pan
> > out.
>
>
> The term "cream rises to the top" isn't the same as the term "those that rise
> to
> the top are cream".
>
> It's really still not clear what you're talking about. I'll stick my neck out
> and assert you aren't one of our best writers, although your grammer is pretty
> good.
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com/
Maybe I wasn't clear, I'm generally multitasking while writing most of these
posts piecemeal. Some of them come out with less clarity than I intend. I've
never been accused of being a "bad writer," not by someone who didn't have a
predisposition against me anyway. I'm not saying I'm pulitzer material or
anything, but I've written published articles using the same
multitasking/distracted method I use in these posts. Though I usually have an
editor for those, and I hardly even bother proofreading when I'm just putting
something on a newsgroup.
The point I'm trying to make is that people who rise to the top are the cream by
virtue of rising in the first place. That it requires whichever qualities you
would assign to the "cream" in order to rise and that those qualities are
indiscernable from the rest while they're in the heap. By definition, it is the
qualities of the best that will get them to rise, and while you might have a
preference for the qualities of another, your opinion proves invalid with the
rational test of reality which proves who is on top and who is not.
Therefore the terms "the cream will always rise" and "those who rise are the
cream" are connected and interchangeable at will.
And to be clear, I tend to agree with you that there is no "best" in poker, it
was used only as an example, so was Doyle.
Follow :)
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Dec
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 6 2006 8:18 PM, Follow wrote:
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that people who rise to the top are the cream
> by
> virtue of rising in the first place. That it requires whichever qualities you
> would assign to the "cream" in order to rise and that those qualities are
> indiscernable from the rest while they're in the heap. By definition, it is
> the
> qualities of the best that will get them to rise, and while you might have a
> preference for the qualities of another, your opinion proves invalid with the
> rational test of reality which proves who is on top and who is not.
>
> Therefore the terms "the cream will always rise" and "those who rise are the
> cream" are connected and interchangeable at will.
That's nonsense.
>
> And to be clear, I tend to agree with you that there is no "best" in poker, it
> was used only as an example, so was Doyle.
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 6 2006 8:17 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> That's nonsense.
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
Well, I can't possibly argue with that kind of airtight logic. ;)
Follow :)
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:25:10
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 5 2006 10:16 PM, jd00123 wrote:
> On Dec 5 2006 3:22 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
> > Read it Sunday.
>
> I like this part:
> "There s a guy who plays $100/$200 no limit hold em, and he s better than
> anybody in the world. Bullshit. If he s so good, then why hasn t he come up
> where he can win millions instead of thousands? The cream rises to the top in
> the poker world more than anywhere else. "
>
> Whatever happened to game selection?
100/200 NL Holdem is a pretty fucking big game. You could certainly win
millions in a year at it if you were world class.
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 16:42:27
From: arlo payne
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 6 2006 9:25 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> On Dec 5 2006 10:16 PM, jd00123 wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5 2006 3:22 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> >
> > > Read it Sunday.
> >
> > I like this part:
> > "There s a guy who plays $100/$200 no limit hold em, and he s better than
> > anybody in the world. Bullshit. If he s so good, then why hasn t he come up
> > where he can win millions instead of thousands? The cream rises to the top
> > in
> > the poker world more than anywhere else. "
> >
> > Whatever happened to game selection?
>
> 100/200 NL Holdem is a pretty fucking big game. You could certainly win
> millions in a year at it if you were world class.
>
> Fell
Yes indeed it is HUGE!
Plus there are VERYVERYVERY few games that big
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 08:42:59
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
"jd00123" <43070303@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165382197$917014@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Dec 5 2006 3:22 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
>> Read it Sunday.
>
> I like this part:
> "There s a guy who plays $100/$200 no limit hold em, and he s better than
> anybody in the world. Bullshit. If he s so good, then why hasn t he come
> up
> where he can win millions instead of thousands? The cream rises to the top
> in
> the poker world more than anywhere else. "
>
I always remember a Tom Lehrer line (not from a song, I don't think, but
from some of his connecting monologue): "Scum rises to the top."
You have to use judgement about which is which.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 19:58:54
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Doyle Article
|
On Dec 5 2006 10:35 AM, CHarrison100 wrote:
>
> This is more for Russ but did anyone read the article in the Jan/Feb 07 FHM?
> The
> tag line is "Death of a Swindle" Poker legend Doyle Brunson details the
> history
> of cheating - and how he helped clean up Vegas.
>
> It is on Page 38.
Yep. He single handedly ran the mob right out of Nevada. (probably Caro has
helping him out behind the scenes. Helping him with his spelling and stuff).
(Oh, and God, he got help from God too)
He used techniques that had been revealed on the Maverick TV show. Did the
article explain about the Bret Maverick character having been based on ole Texas
Dolly?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
|
