Common sense says you are the moron. Good luck.

Let’s say someone knows that a deck of cards is marked, specifically asks the dealer to use that deck in a poker game, and then uses that marking information to beat other players.

I would definitely consider that cheating, even if the player was not directly responsible for marking the cards, and didn’t use any special equipment to read the markings. It’s hard for me to believe anyone would disagree.

Even if you didn’t ask the dealer to use a particular deck, but later notice a card is marked and instead of alerting the dealer, you use that information, I would think that is cheating in poker.

I think that generally, people don’t think that using any legal advantage against a casino is cheating in a house game. But an entirely different set of ethics governs poker.

As any sane person should do- just like they should ridicule the Tooth Fairy if a grown person claimed it existed- but that doesn't mean an atheist would go after someone just because they had primitive beliefs.

would read again

What are you taling about, Ivey never cheated anyone in the game of poker, no other player as far as we know. He used card sorting skills of another human against a casino while not breaking any casino rules, an honourable thing to do, stfu pls

Not the place for this ignorant blather. Take it to the religion sub-forum.

He used a card defect dummies to read the whole cards. Again if he did this to you in a poker game would it be cheating? SAME ****.

How you know he's never cheated.

Yes he did break casino rules. There is a rule that basically says this is unfair advantage for the player.

What is wrong with U? Why you think he's not getting paid and his accounts are being frozen. If he won fair and square he would have the money.
STFU PLS

Hi Sheldon.

Why you have to protect casinos , who cares how he won against casinos who are taking your money "legally" while making their own rules . He didn't cheat another player, there is a difference which you cant see and its just crazy. You are right i dont know if he ever cheated at the poker table, so lets just assume that about everyone , guilty until proven innocent lol great argument..,,pls you should just stfu now and stop embarrassing yourself.

This thread will not be allowed to turn into another endless back-and-forth on Ivey's edge-sorting. Many people fervently believe that Ivey did nothing wrong and is entitled to the money. Other people fervently believe that the edge-sorting scheme was "dishonest" and he is not entitled to the money.

Whatever your view you are entitled to your opinion. But voicing that opinion in this thread in strident terms and insulting those who hold the opposite view will not be allowed. Should that continue posts may be deleted and the thread may be closed.

If you think Ivey didn't have a much larger side bet on him pulling it off, and also a backroom deal with the owner of the borgata to full-on investigate their security, then you are simply not much of a fanboy.

I liked where she told how Danny talked a cardroom into letting players chop pots if both agreed. And the players loved that Danny got this new rule instituted. But Terry King knew enough about Danny to know that it would cost the other players dearly because Danny was a master at getting players to chop when he held nothing.

Someone that knew Danny told me that one of his lines was "Chop it or take it" to which many a player gave up half the pot.

It's neither ignorant, nor blather. I would also argue it was relevant given the context. Please refrain from posting ignorant comments in this thread; stick to the religious forum where all your other ignorant posts reside. Please don't derail this thread. Thank you.

If you didn't want the subject discussed, maybe you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

i heard he had a side bet with a macau whale that he could get sued by a casino

Yeah his point about going after him because he was christian was especially (not up to the standards of intelligent discussion on the internet).

Does this mean I have to believe Russ G now?

Is this a fact that Sklansky is doing this because Reese was a born again Christian? If so, it seems like a really bad idea for multiple reasons.

I assume Sklansky wouldn't make the claim if it weren't true, but as pointed out it seems unfair to do this to someone who is not around to reply. Also, as implied by other posters Reese was legitimately one of the best nosebleed stakes mixed games players without cheating.

I guess you haven't read the thread? It's nothing more than OP's strange speculation.

Hopefully he'll see your post and realize that sometimes all it takes is one guy saying "Sklansky is a known Christian hater, so I'm guessing he took that opportunity to slander the man.", and before you know it, people are thinking it might be a fact.

If trampling on a man's grave who has been dead for 12 years with tales of decades old cheating accusations is the highlight carve out of this new book, well then I'm guessing the rest of this book must suck ass.

Same thing happens when someone makes a Libelous claim in a book. Especially when you profiting off the sales of such claims, and know that your profits are secure because the target cannot defend himself.

Indeed. And I guess that same thing could be said about claims of libelous claims, if they weren't true (I wouldn't know if they are or not), and so on.

Not sure what that has to do with my post, or me. I have no idea if the author's claim is true or not.

Generally if you can’t tell if defamatory information is true or not you can identify it as libelous. It pertains to your post in that your moralizing to defend the character of Slansky with whom you are financially connected through 2+2 by lecturing not to engage in the selfsame behavior that Sklansky participated in.

#1. You deliberately didnt quote my clarification on that statement

#2. Sklansky admitted in the book that it bothered him when people would speak highly of Reese, at least in terms of his poker skills.

My great uncle played in the high stakes games in the 70's and said Doyle, Slim and the likes were cheats. I just figured it was sour milk from getting cleaned. This was also coming from a guy who mysteriously became a millionaire a short time after doing his veterinary residency at a race track.

I can not see Sklansky throwing shade on dead persons name without 100% certainty.

That judge was so desperate to avoid calling Ivey a cheat or find in his favour that he gave a bizarre ruling which I am surprised hasn't been appealed. The UK judges had no such qualms:

A lot of the posters do not realize that Chip himself owned up to major cheating in those early days. The two paragraphs in the book speculated that his confession may not have included his overseeing the cheating at the Dunes cardroom. Since my book is partially a history book it needed to include that the 1980 Dunes cardroom was very dishonest. Dozens of living people besides me know that for a fact. And it is well known that Chip was in charge. I had some extra corroborating information but we are talking about common knowledge here.

As to his becoming "born again" as his main reason to give up dishonesty, I have no reason to doubt that. I do admit that that particular Christian sect annoys me since they think that good people, including my father, are burning in hell while bad believers are in heaven. But if I was intent on besmirching such people why would I bring up a story where someone finding religion made them into a better person?

Also I never said it bothered me when Chips poker skill was praised. I merely said that his designation as the world's best all around player was an exaggeration. Especially after holdem skill became a large part of that evaluation.