wtf, RU mad, .... this is 2+2, he is David "f**king" Sklansky. You are lecturing him on the appropriateness of his announcing a change of his view on 2+2, a forum he (and Mason) founded and built from nothing and to which he gave over his first-born son, Matt ? ?

He was one of the collaborators on Doyle's Super System, (along with Chip Reese).

Have you no sense of history ?

May you never hit another river in your life, blasphemer.

Personally, I don't care a whit about what he posted, but I do think he clearly has the right to post a View and plug a new book in a forum called NVG

The next time I'm in Las Vegas, I'll go buy a copy of his book, ask him to autograph it and then donate it to first dealer who deals me a 7 - 2 offsuit that wins a pot.

no you wont

I'm pretty sure I was the person (or one of them) that posted issues w/ that comment from the book.

Thanks for posting the retraction, and clarification.

If memory serves (which it sometimes doesn't) it was an e-book only and not published by 2+2 (It's a fun read, why haven't you read it?). So good luck on getting it signed (explaining PointlessWords post).

As for the comment by wazz, you'll have to have patience, he's visiting from the UK and has no sense of US or 2+2.com history. Plus he probably calls soccer "football" and thinks fish and chips should be eaten with malt vinegar, lol.

Admittedly the thought of why this needs to be in NVG also crossed my mind, but hey, the forum is dead enough as it is. Another questionable DS thread won't make it any worse, prolly

And there always will be. Gambling is inherently a predatory and parasitic activity. Naturally, that's going to attract unsavoury personalities.

Once again, you can't really have a relatively recent history of having a questionable relationship with an emotionally vulnerable woman about a third your age while also being a "dogwhistler".


Sometimes, you do things in life that result in you kinda needing to sit things out on the "Who is moral" conversation, bud.

The mob controlled the Stardust and the Dunes in the 60's and 70's and Binions was beating up gamblers in back rooms. What's Chip Reese supposed to do, tell the mobsters hey you guys you really need to clean up your act and run an honest game.

I think you really have to consider the era when talking about alleged cheating.

Your comment suggests you have a problem discussing what happened in the past. I don't remember where Sklansky was passing judgement on the various incidents he was relating. He just told the stories as he remembered them.

Would you agree that revealing the details of the past is a good thing? Or should we sugarcoat the past? Just keep it to ourselves?

I don't have a problem with authors talking about the past. I'm just pointing out other variables, for example the fact that Chip Reese got a job as poker room manager at the mob controlled Dunes. Sklansky pointed out in the book that the poker room was crooked years before Reese got there. We don't know what the mob controlled casino told Reese when they hired him. They could have said we like things the way they are, so don't change too much. If that was the case then you don't want to go against the system when your dealing with the boys. Also since it probably was crooked for years, there was probably a lot of regulars who liked things like marked cards and collusion and would complain or quit playing there if things changed.

So we just don't know the whole story and since Chip is not here to respond to negative allegations then we will probably never know the whole story. And once again, that time period of the 60's and 70's was a completely different era from Vegas' current corporate structure. Go see the movie "Casino" if you want to know more about that era of car bombs at restaurants and heads in vices.

"Other variables" you state are in comparison to what? You asked, "What's Reese supposed to do . . ?" You're defending Reese against criticism that wasn't made here (not yet, anyway), nor in the book.

As for the Dunes, I doubt they were making much off the poker room. They probably didn't care if Reese cleaned it up or not, so long as it wasn't causing them problems, unless some individual there was getting a kick-back from some of the players who were cheating (which is certainly possible, and probably done behind the back of the owners). The mob made most of its illegal money in casinos from skimming, that is, stealing from the government and other owners. They had to at least have the appearance of running a legit place to the public. The incidents like the ones you cited were mobsters vs mobsters or cheaters, for the most part. When it spilled into the general population it resulted in the law coming down on them. They didn't want that; It was bad for business.

So when the OP says he went into some detail about Chips pre-religion cheating in his book (in the second sentence of the OP) you don't feel that is being critical?

No. It's a statement of fact, or alleged fact. Did he take it further, perhaps pointing out other options he had? Not that I recall. It's a neutral statement, even if he has an opinion about it.

If I tell you Harry S Truman authorized the use of the atomic bomb on two occasions, is that being critical? No, it's a statement of fact. Make of it what you will, but there's no reason to become defensive of it unless you object to me stating that fact for some reason, such as you believed it was a hoax. But if I condemned it, then others might take a defensive tone if they were of the opinion it was necessary.

I'm sure there are those who didn't like that Sklansky wrote that book. Especially if they were mentioned in it, or they were friends or family of those mentioned. But I have no problem with it, so long as it is true to the best of his knowledge. Correcting a mistake, which is the point of his post, demonstrates his desire to be accurate.

Well I have to disagree; publicly saying a well known person is a cheater is being critical--that is if you are a person who believes cheating is wrong. In my opinion that is just common sense.

And you mentioned an "alleged fact". Sklansky mentions he was "privy" to a couple of conversations between some guy named Mark and Reese about the cheating. When he says privy I assume that to mean he actually didn't hear the conversations between Reese and Mark but was later told about them. If that was the case then that would be hearsay and not admissible in court as evidence.

Chip could have made an excellent living playing honest games up to 50-100 rather than take that job. Many did.

The idea that cheating cardrooms in the 60's was occurring "in a different time" when it was somewhat accepted is ridiculous. Marked cards, cold decks, mechanic dealers, etc were all major felonies. The only major difference is more cops were on the take back then.

I agree that most people find cheating distasteful or worse. Nonetheless, it's a statement of fact. Sometimes facts are unflattering. So be it. I don't know all the sources of Sklansky's information. Privy can mean a lot of things, so don't assume too much without more information. We are not in a court of law, so the rules of evidence don't apply. We are in the court of public opinion, where all rules are unwritten and frequently ignored.

Sklansky responded, offering an opinion on Reese's options. Now you can debate him if you like. He disagrees with your "excuse" of it being a different time. Good luck with that.

I'm infinitely more interested in Sklansky's opinion on whether Chip Reese was a scumbag cheat or not than I am in your opinion on Sklansky. However, let me give you a tip. Internet forums have this remarkable quality. Threads have a subject title and an author listed. If the subject isn't of any interest to you, you aren't forced to read it -- you can just skip right on by and move on to a subject that you are interested in.

Given that, there's something really narcissistic about entering a thread you profess to have no interest in, solely to tell the poster that you're not interested in what they've posted.

I've made that same point a number of times over the years. Probably not as well as you just did.