Yeah, well . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NazdXnXGNRs

Starting at about 26:30, she addresses this somewhat and states that she asked Chip whether he cheated after becoming born again and Chip stated that they (Doyle and he) haven't (cheated after becoming born again). That leaves open the question of whether they cheated before that. Also, she quotes Johnny Moss saying, "Yeah, they did cheated everybody out of all their money, now they want them all to get religion so they can keep their money." She also stated that the Stardust and Dunes were notorious for cheating and it was "Cheat or be cheated." So, if you believe her, Johnny Moss was under the impression Chip and Doyle cheated at some time. Of course, that doesn't mean he was right.

And why should we believe Terri King would tell you anything? Even if you actually asked her, why would she admit anything to you? Also, your posts in this thread and other threads are very trollish and you hide behind a pseudonym. But we should take the word of a nameless troll over a real person with a real reputation? Care to provide us with your real name?

You stated previously that you do not believe Doyle has ever cheated to your knowledge. Yet you post the above to implicate Chip. If it is evidence of one it is evidence of the other. The difference is that one is alive and would fight back. The other is dead so you can slander away with no substantiation as you have done in this case.

Terry send me a message. I still have it. Again why is Terri's name used to substantiate a claim she directly refutes and is otherwise unsubstanciated?

When I wrote the book I had know idea that Terri had made recorded public comments about Chip. I listened to part of it and what I heard appeared to indicate that she was essentially saying similar stuff. But possibly she had stopped short of that, either because, she didn't actually know what I know, or for other reasons.

I only mentioned her and Barry Greenstein in this thread because they are quoted in it. Neither one has anything at all to do with my knowledge of what happened in the 70s. Barry's words were not ambiguous but perhaps Terri's were and I mischaracterized them.

"Backs off" implies that I previously said otherwise. I never did. Doyle's friendship with Chip occurred afterward. It did not involve the "same scene". As for defending themselves, Larry Flynt, Steve Wynn, Bobby Baldwin, and others about whom I wrote anecdotes that won't sit well with them are not defending themselves, nor are the children of Jackie Gaughn or Bob Stupak or others.

The stuff I wrote in the book is 100% true (unless I myself expressed uncertainty) so I never considered the issue of someone being silly enough to "defend" themselves.

What about Blackie Blackburn?

I know you were playing at the Golden Nugget around the time he was playing there. What do you know about him?

I have no knowledge either way about Chip or Doyle. I never met them or played poker with them. My first time in Vegas was the 90s, so I have no personal knowledge of what transpired in the 80s in Las Vegas. What I stated was I'm inclined to believe Mason and David regarding Doyle. I certainly don't believe Russ G.

I didn't make that post to implicate Chip. The post doesn't implicate Chip. The post demonstrates Terri King made a public statement that Chip claimed he never cheated after becoming born again, and that Johnny Moss implied they were cheaters beforehand (and Moss could have been joking or talking out of his butt, for all I know). And that is different from what you claim. You claim she made a separate denial to you about Chip admitting cheating ever, first claiming she spoke to you, and now claiming she emailed you (understand the difference?). And it's entirely possible Chip never admitted cheating to her in any form. And it's also possible you fabricated ever communicating with her.

And while I have no problem with people talking ill of the dead so long as it's truthful (see post #138 above), I haven't slandered or accused anyone. But you are quick to claim I have. You also claimed David admitted cheating to you. Really? What does that say about your character? You're certainly quick to attack other people's character anonymously. Why don't you come out from behind your pseudonym and show some character? And post the email instead of talking about it.

In any event, David has cleared up his statement regarding Ms. King, hopefully taking the wind out of you sails.

Well hell, it worked, I'm in. Just bought the kindle edition.

Two different scenarios.

You are seated at a full ring game. You notice that the player on your right exposed his cards. Sometimes you see both cards clearly, and sometimes you can only tell the color. You have an advantage. However you are still playing against 7 other players. Your edge doesn't mean that you will win this night. Next scenario.
On the way to the card room, you notice a regular ahead of you. You've played with this person a lot. You know how he plays, chases flushes, straights, etc. You make sure to sit at the same table as he. No one else knows him and how he plays. You now have an edge, but again you are playing against 7 other players. Your edge does not guarantee you a win for this session.
Which scenario is cheating?

Kind of off-topic for this thread, so possibly to be deleted anyway, but...

The first one is unethical and considered cheating by some (not by all because the player is not protecting his cards). I don't see how the second one is even in the conversation of possibly being considered cheating.

Why would you even ask? I get that you posed two scenarios where you have access to information that the others don't have, but the first scenario is information you are not expected to have while the second one is information that is expected that people may have and is considered part of the game.

SOP in the first scenario is to inform the player he's exposing his cards. And a second time if he persists. After that it's fair game. But it's not really cheating if you don't. Your action is passive. If you crane your neck to see his cards then you've taken an action that most would consider cheating, but not on the scale of marking cards or colluding.

Bingo. I give two fair warnings in these scenarios, then it's on.

Michael Jordan got banned from the NBA for cheating for two years according to inebriated Jerry Buss. He said he not only bet on basketball, he point shaved while betting on the Bulls. So GTFO with that logic.

Provide one shred of evidence of that being true.

Any chance of you being specific about what the cheating is that you know Chip Reece did?

Luckily, you can see for yourself. Here's a video of Bill Dunkenfield cheating in what look to me to possibly be the old Dunes Poker Room. You can see a very familiar face step in to protect him when he's caught (could that be a young Chip?).

Check out the false shuffle and cut, and use of misdirection by a master.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK_d-Vg495c

Nonsense is correct at times...many just gossiped about these major players cheating. In those days (like the 1980s and 1990s) Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Bobby Baldwin, were known as the "Big Boys" who each played for the largest stakes against anyone. Many other great players like Berry Johnston or Puggy Peason never played those same limits with these men.

I also know with certainty these great players at opportune times did cheat in any way they believed possible that would not be detected. I have personally known poker friends, and I myself have been propositioned to take part in some of those types of cheating. I was a known blackjack player as well as a known poker player - those who play those two games where one beats the casinos are known to be more approachable. I dont judge any of them! Poker cheaters are normally not that good at poker. But when those who cheat are also fabulous players, the cheating is extremely difficult to detect if possible at all, and impossible to overcome.

For those who are disbelievers, who think cheating is so rare as to not exist in Las Vegas because of rules and regulations, or who wrongly believe these great players are too good and "dont need to cheat" there are a number of things I know with certainty. For example: I have personally previously been approached by WSOP floor persons who always work the WSOP to give me extra tourney chips as needed that I can add during table changes, have known and seen marked decks put in and cut in tourney and big cash games, have known of signals between great players in the same game who do big things or such small things as "top hand" others so no inferior hand of theirs competes (folding QQ when the other has KK, or AQs to AK, etc). I can name a number of other cheating methods I know with certainty in both tournaments and live cash games that previously existed; the collusion still exists in nearly any size game or tournament.

I can not speak since the expansion of 2005 as I was not in Las Vegas during that time and played online. I only know of much cheating online by some. I did not cheat online, and figured "when they quit sending me my fine cashouts, I will start thinking they are good enough at cheating to hurt me".

The current better surveillance cameras and constant filming MIGHT deter cheating, but I know now that it does exist in cash games and collusion exists in tournaments. I dont know if it is as common as it was, nor if the "greats" still cheat as the prior players above did on occasions it presented itself...but it is likely more common and more advanced. Mike postle showed it - he was just too foolish and not good enough and was caught.

The above "cheating" was certainly not in every game, not nearly. But it was there when it was able to be done. Those great winners also had great losses, which is likely the reason there was cheating by those same players. There is way too much gossip from those who dont know. But as with most stories, this gossip is exaggerated, but far from completely unfounded.

I can understand why you don't post under your real name. But are you credible?

Perhaps, to show that you're credible, you could give some specifics as to exactly how the signaling work.

Mason

At the least, you need to publicize the WSOP floors who offered you additional chips, how often they offered, and when the most recent incident was.

That is, if this is all to be believed.

Yeah you're going to need more specifics - otherwise you're just a 14 year old kid posting from his bedroom

I vouch for Omnivor. I, uhh, can't really say more. He is an authentic OG of the gambling world. Hope this helps!

Chip, of course, being short for Chipopotamus

…Slansky- LOL

If you truly think this, then you likely do not really understand what Buffett is saying. I suspect you are getting your information from bad sources that are taking advantage of you.

LOL

Tell me you use terrible sources of information that take advantage of your ignorance without directly telling me.

Buffett didn't get bailed out in 2008 and he would have been just fine. The only way Buffett goes busto in 2008 is if the whole system crashes and literally everyone goes busto.