In S/S Doyle writes about the days when he, Amarillo Slim & Sailor Roberts would travel from town to town playing in local high stakes poker games. They would play together at the same table, but they insisted that it wasn't collusion because they never soft played each other.

But the thing is, they all played from a common bank roll.

It doesn't matter if they soft played each other or not. At the end of the night all the winnings went into the same roll. If they ended up head's up after the flop, they could raise & re-raise each other and it wouldn't matter. All the money in the pot and both stacks were going into the same cloth sack under the spare tire in the trunk.

Also, three other good things happend by playing this way (good for THEM, not the people they played with):

1) It helped seed games. If they could find even just two rich locals who were willing to play, the locals plus the roadies made a five handed game.

2) It helped reduce variance if one of them went on a long card dead streak.

3) It helped make sure that nearly every hand at least one of them could isolate a weak player and play the pot head's up from position.

I'm not saying that Doyle and the boys would go so far as to use singals or play partners or any outright cheating. I'm just saying that by playing together at the same table from a common bank roll, they didn't have to cheat.

On that note, I believe there is a passage in SS where Doyle talks about playing three handed with Moss and another guy. Doyle describes how Moss made a big bet with a busted straight draw into the sucker who folds his top top because Doyle is yet to act behind him.
I'd say you are on the right track.

Is that the hand where Doyle called down w/ JT high?....it all makes sense now

I don't think Doyle ever played with Johnny Moss out of a common bank roll.

1) Assuming they're not cheating, this is good for whoever has the honest skill advantage — local or roadie.

2) This is largely the point of sharing a bankroll. Again, not a problem if the play is honest.

3) is problematic.

Not saying they're not necessarily cheating. Just saying I don't see how (1) and (2) are inherently unfair to the locals.

roflmao

Well let me say it for you then.

OF COURSE THEY CHEATED !!!!!!

POKER IS ALL ABOUT CHEATING !!!!

POKER ATTRACTS DEGENERATES AND CON MEN SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME

Gotta love these young new players that think this is yachting or some other gentlemanly sport.

Poker is not all about cheating. The only person who would think that is someone who can not win any other way. Poker is about edges. Sometimes conmen exploit edges and sometimes degn's win. But poker is not about cheating.

+EV

Worm was good enough to win playing straight but too greedy and cheated anyway.

Andy Beal insisted on playing head-up limit poker. Easy to understand why.

Yeah. In hindsight, it's strange that the pros even agreed to play him. With all the steps he took to make sure nobody was cheating, they must've come up with some pretty crazy way to beat him!

It's no different than online play today- if you are playing 6 handed and aren't on the phone with at least two other players then you are the sucker.

Phil Ivey ldo.

is it weird that i consider cheating at poker these days really scummy, but back in pre-casino poker days part of the game ?

Cheating and poker go together like peas and carrots.

not gonna say poker is about cheating..........but i know A LOT of old time players who HAVE played w/ doyle, reese, etc.....and ive been told plenty of times that they BOTH had dealers on their payroll. plzzzzz dont shoot the messenger

LOL...well said, cast off Lovey.

Whenever you lose in poker it's because the other guy paid off the dealer. Don't shoot the messenger, my post is just as factual as yours. How else could Doyle and Reese beat those great old timers who never read a poker book?

Phil Ivey must be the biggest cheat of all time, I mean look at his results. It's crystal clear. He's probably on brain steroids he got from Barry Bonds too...

I think the newest generation thinks it's more a video game than yachting, and judging from behavior, not so much a gentlemanly sport. But I do agree that they are naive, as most any newbie would be, to the hazards and shadiness in the game's history (and sometimes) its present.

Where there is competition and money there is cheating.

When a good game was tough to come by, the pros knew there was no point beating on each other up when they can focus their energy on the fish. Even if it isn't an open agreement to collude, it's certainly implied.

I found the Gabe Thaler interview very interesting. That dude really gets it!

paraphrased from Cash Plays-
Bart: "5 pros and 2 fish, how do you play against the pros"
Gabe: "Why the **** would I/you want to play in that game?"

Bart: What do you think about thin value bets against a good player"
Gabe: "That's just being ****ing greedy. You do that to me and I'm gonna crush you!"

The poker boom obviously brought so much $$$ into the poker economy that games could be played straight for huge profit. No need to cheat.

When the games get tough again, they will again go back to seeking a bigger edge.

If I know that guys who are good players are at the same table, playing a common bankroll, I'm not sitting in, are you?

Like running a 4X100 relay team against a 400 m runner.

i hate peas.
i like carrots.
hmmmm......

i'm pretty sure its the other way around. the sucker bet after Moss checked. Doyle put the sucker on what he thought was a busted draw and DB had him high carded with a higher busted draw. he knew Moss had a weak top pair and couldn't overcall. JM folded and DB won with J-T high.

Wrong, iirc that is, cause in the book Doyle talks about how making this call kind of put him on the map. I mean he called down a post-oak bluff from Johnny Moss with jack high. If that doesn't get you respect nothing will.

So are you saying that you cheat?

Heres how it went down. Moss bet the river, and Doyle knew the fish had top pair NO kicker, not top kick. That's why he called, knowing the fish couldn't over call with top nothing, and he also said the bet felt like a busted straight draw, and doyle was drawing to the nut straight so his J hi was good if he was right.