I don't understand the story in Sklansky's book about Reese running a crooked card room. Why would a top player manage a card room? Usually, only players who can't win would get involved in that. For example, I saw something about TJ Cloutier running an unofficial poker room. At one point, Annette was employed as a greeter in a poker room. Why would Reese get involved in a card room that was already crooked?

I don't doubt Sklansky's story, but it just seems like a bad idea to put something like that in a book.

Doyle ran the cardroom at the Thunderbird.

Chip ran the cardroom at the Dunes.

Puggy ran the cardroom at the Aladdin.

Johnny Moss ran another cardroom, the one where he was known to fire dealers that gave him bad beats.

Johnny Chan was a "floorman" at the Stardust.

Sailor Roberts - who is known as the inventor of "poker GTO" ran the cardroom at Binion's Horseshoe.

Poker clearly has a secret history that aren't written about in books. Maybe someday we'll know.

Discussion about poker "legends"! They were not legends when I was playing 7 Stud with them. Poker writers have made Chip, Puggie and his brother, Doyle, Mason M, David S, Alma M., Jack M, Stu U. Eric D, Johnnie C, Jack K. Oklahoma J, Slim, Tom M. etc. so-called "legends". Tom, who wore a cowboy hat, wasn't even a real Cowboy, he was from Michigan. This thread is funny to me. About normal dudes, who probably ALL took advantage of tourists at some point. Alma "cheated" me and laughed about it. Rest her soul. Ancient history.

It is probably true, but why mention Chip as cheating and no one else? Then he says Chip wasn't the greatest all around player, which is probably also true. It gives the impression that Sklansky didn't like him.

I would take out all the sections of Sklansky's ideas about probability or whatever. They don't have that much to do with the autobiography / memoirs. It is a really interesting story, but could use some editing. It is not the same as writing a poker book.

Out of curiosity, are there other two-card games in poker? (And before anyone says Greek hold 'em, remember that's still a form of hold 'em.)

LOL, both you and the Nation don't know how to read an income statement or a balance sheet. In 2008 Berkshire Hathaway made a $5 Billion profit, and had a net value of $109 Billion, including $25B in cash and $30B in secure fixed maturity securities.

https://berkshirehathaway.com/2008ar/2008ar.pdf

During the 2007-2008 market crash, Buffett and the Berkshire Hathaway balance sheet were so solid that nearly every Wall Street firm who ran into trouble went to Buffett asking for assistance.

The Nation's other nit is that Buffett believes a good business requires a moat, an enduring competitive advantage. Coca Cola has a monopoly on Coke, that's their moat. Coke drinkers prefer Coke, and Pepsi drinkers prefer Pepsi and those taste choices lead to great businesses for both companies, though that competitive advantage that has endured for over 100 years is now losing strength with different taste choices of millennials.

Every good business has a moat of some size, otherwise you are just making a commodity and competing on price, destined to be brutalized in the end. Very few companies are actual monopolies, including Moody's which has strong competitors. If Buffett's sin is that he recognizes good businesses, then the Nation's sin is that they don't recognize good investing.

And Ray Dallo? Ray would give his left nut to have a track record as good as Warren Buffett's. Ray charges Bridgewater investors billions in fees annually, Buffett charges zero to Berkshire Hathaway investors (other than his $398,000 in annual salary/benefits).

If Warren Buffett had charged Hedge fund fees at Berkshire he'd be worth well over $200B. In 2017 alone just a standard 2/20 would have netted him $15B, just imagine how much he would have made if he charged the even higher fee percentages Ray Dallo charges his clients.

I have a few decades in investment research kid, so go back to your Nation articles and YouTube conspiracy "documentaries".

Oh, will the Nation's weak grasp of facts ever change?

The fourth time I met Chip Reese was at Doyle Brunson's house ... back then he was known as skittlin pete, and man if he didn't have the nicest set of horses in town ... we were playing pictionary, or as it was known at the time, Pencils Ahoy ... there weren't any scarves in the room, as per Doyle's instructions ... "thou shalt let the neck breathe" said Doyle ... "I don't think that's in the ..." ... no one interrupted me ... they were all dead ... "hey a lot of these ppl seem dead," i said ... "hmmm" said Doyle, who looked more pale and had apparently been filing his dentures pretty sharp these days ... "you've got some blood on your face" I offered ... Doyle often could not see the mirror from his chair height because they're always up a little taller in bathrooms ... i often suggested a double decker chair but he said nope all he wanted to do was play cards with his buddies ... Doyle sure was a legend ... "there is about to be more blood on my face!" said Doyle, and dove towards me from his chair ... i was frozen ... this was my end ... eaten by a vampire who vaguely resembled Doyle Brunson whose house i had snuck into on mescaline after hallucinating I was at the World Series of Poker ... just then two stakes appeared went flying by my head, turning the vampire to smoke or whatever vampires turn into idk you tell me, buffy ... i was saved ... I turned around slowly ... there stood ... Doyle and Chip ... "looks like you just got-" said Chip "Born again" finished Doyle, and winked ... it didn't really make sense

After reading the table of contents I scooted right over to amazon and bought the book. Who wouldn't want to read all that juicy stuff, typos be damned.

I have no knowledge either way. . .

A question: When did the things you cite happen? David is talking about something I suspect happened in the late 80s and maybe early 90s. And Chip allegedly participated so he could play in the big games and not be cheated himself--according to Chip. David thinks there's more to it, but Chip admitted it to a certain degree.

Another question: If Chip was as successful as a gambler in the late 80s as he apparently was in the 90s and later, why did he take a job as a manager of a poker room? Seems like the sort of thing you do to guarantee an income because your gambling income isn't sufficient or guaranteed. Running a poker room takes up time that could be used more productively elsewhere. Although I suspect he could have both played poker and run the room at the same time in many instances.

If you don't believe Chip cheated, then you believe that David is a liar? Are you comfortable making that claim?

A number of years ago there were claims regarding a number of well known poker players cheating in the 80s. At least one strongly denied it. But, there's a poker player who posted in this thread who publicly admitted cheating on at least one occasion. I'm not sure of the circumstances. I'll let him address it if he chooses.

If you don't believe that Chip cheated, then you believe CHIP was a liar. Plus Danny Robinson, Terri King, Barry Greenstein and others (as other posts in this thread show.) I merely said he left out some stuff which I knew about first hand. But upon further reflection, I'm thinking he may have done that not to downplay those things, but rather because the statute of limitations had not run out on what, in Nevada, technically could result in a long jail sentence for him and others.

Also the designation of Chip as the world's best all around poker player was first hung on him in an article in Gambling Times magazine that rated poker players in various categories. It was written by ME. (It was also in that article that I kiddingly said that Eric Drache's only real leak was that even though I believe I rated him eighth in 7 stud, he only played against the top seven.) I slightly downgraded my opinion of Chip's ability partially because I found out about his willingness to cheat in his early days, and partially because of the immense knowledge and intelligence of a few of the younger players who are almost certainly better than he was.

The man can't defend himself and thats really all you can say about it

First, I'd like to point out that based on multiple things I've read about him, Chip Reese was admired by many and there are numerous anecdotes to support the claim that he was a giant among men in the poker community and had many qualities that I and others admire. But he was also a human being and probably wasn't a saint. I'm sure he did things in his life he later regretted, just like every other human being that ever lived. And some might hold it as a mark against him that he, on some occasions, talked tourists and other lower skilled players into playing in games they didn't belong for the purpose of fleecing them. Sort of like law enforcement engaging in entrapment, which many think is improper, but some think it's okay--as everybody is responsible for their own actions and can't complain if talked into something they wouldn't ordinarily do.

I state the above because what I'm about to state about your statement has nothing specifically to do with Chip Reese and is a general statement.

So what that someone isn't around to defend themselves? All subject to rumors aren't around to defend themselves. All notorious people from the past aren't around to defend themselves. All dead criminals who committed crimes aren't around to defend themselves. So we can't talk about them? Bull Spit! Victims sometimes come forward with their experiences many years after their incidents when the victimizer is dead or many facts that could prove their innocence are no longer available. They are entitled to do so whether you or I like it or not (And the accused may benefit because they were denied the opportunity defend themselves in a timely manner. Such is the risk the victim accepts with their long silence.). There is no societal rule prohibiting talking ill of the dead. Nor should there be. If you prefer to not be spoken ill of when you're dead, then don't do anything worth speaking about. And if you do something you shouldn't and have escaped public scrutiny by keeping it a secret or by intimidating others who know the truth into silence, that success doesn't carry over after you're dead--you're fair game.

Now back to Chip Reese. If he admitted he cheated there is nothing to defend, even if you disagree with my opinion expressed in the previous paragraph. And if David Sklansky states he knows for a fact that Chip cheated, having been privy to conversations between Chip and another where it was discussed, I believe him. It's hard for me to envision him fabricating such a thing. I suppose there's the possibility he misunderstood what was said on one occasion. But multiple occasions? Given David withheld the names of many others in his book, if there was any doubt about the facts, he probably would have withheld Chip's name too.

Or he made up an unsubstantiated claim that flies in the face of his reputation among his peers and public knowledge to sell books.

LOL.

Actually, it was a trader named Jeff Yass - in an interview in a book called The New Market Wizards (published in 1991) - that invented a joke about the 7th best player in the world being broke because he constantly kept playing with the top 6. Everyone's been saying the same joke ever since. But these comedians keep changing the name of this 7th best player. They'll still be making this joke a hundred years from now.

No. He used my joke from ten years earlier. Ask him.

FYP

LOL, exactly.

People who post controversial things in a book simply in order to help sell it would follow that up by making sure those things got publicity, otherwise the exercise would be pointless.

i have a confession ya'll ... Chip Reese never cheated me

It would be great to see Doyle give a tell all interview, facts, stories, insider knowledge and rumors, suspicions, etc. before he's thru. There are no saints anywhere, let alone in poker.

Can I play this news, views and gossip game too?

Sklansky is a cheat, and I know this for a fact.

Sklansky told me he was a cheat.

Seems like you've started a new game, because I don't know anyone who's playing yours...for good reason.

OK, what I was thinking is the problem with Sklansky's claim is it is so vague and general an allegation that someone is a "cheat" that it is a pointless allegation to make, as no one knows what he is really alleging.

If there were some specifics - did Reece use marked cards? Did he collude with other players? etc, then the allegation should be treated seriously, until then it is meaningless and silly.

Bobo Fett is a cheat and I know this for a fact.

See, easily said, but stupid to say without being clear what one is saying, or offering any proof.