I hope members will not flame me for writing in reply to
a posting that Mickey Crimm made. I thought about
sending him a private message (how?) but then thought
others might enjoy the thread, too.
I'm a big boy. I can take care of myself. Besides, If I'm wrong
about something I want to be the first to know. I would rather be
quickly corrected than to continue to be wrong about something.
Mickey is one of the posters I enjoy reading and I thought
I would return the favor.
Thanx for the complement
The following is the input of a
friend of mine who is in charge of the poker room at one of
the very best Vegas hotels:
Here's a quote from Oklahoma Johnny Hale, a well respected poker
player of several decades and columnist at Pokerplayernewspaper.com,
who just wrote two columns, August 6, and August 13, entitled "The
Red Games of Poker: Cheating at Poker. Quot "Where the carpet is
deepest, you run the most risk of being cheated." He goes on to say
that though he has been cheated at poker, he has been cheated far
more in his life by lawyers, bankers, politicians and other
such "professionals." He also tells the story of a tournament
specialist friend of his who has "bad habits" and goes broke alot but
is a great tournament player. Johnny staked him into a tournament
and the man finished out of the money. Later the man came to him
with a big wad of cash and told him he was "in." He was part of a 10
player red team who agreed to split the money and help each other out
as much as possible. Johnny replied that he himself was "out" and
took the money and donated it to his favorite charity.
As for his advice, as with most things, it is correct in some
instances.
It was Slick's advice, not mine. And it was totally correct. Since
I received his advice, I have had the pleasure of playing with and
talking with many players of his day. There is no debate among them
about whether cheating was going on back in the day; it's a forgone
conclusion. The only debate is over how rampant it was. Some say it
was rampant, others say it was epidemic.
"Best Hand" has been around for several years. The math is
simple. In a
real game you would be paid off (in his example) three times when
your hand
won. By folding the inferior hands and playing only the best hand
against
your hand, the team suffers only one loss when you win--not three.
This technique is virtually undetectable in live game play. It IS
the
preferred method of cheating in big games and is not unheard of in
smaller
limit games.
Steve Forte to investigator: "Sir, I was not cheating!! All that
high tech gadgetry you confiscated from me was used merely to
document a scam."
Old time crossroader to investigator: "I don't know what you're
talking about, pal."
The technique is detectable in on-line games because the folded
hands are
still recorded by the on-line operator and are subject to review.
I know of
people who have had their accounts frozen and confiscated when this
cheating
was discovered. On-line sites routinely keep a file of who is
playing at
all the tables in which you play. If they see a pattern of the
same names
showing up, time and again, they will monitor your play for any
unusual play
or activity. If they find it, they will freeze your account and if
further
investigation shows a pattern of collusive play, they will
confiscate the
funds in your account.
No comment
So, this guy does know the technique. As for the prevalence, not
so much. In the smaller $1-$2, $1-$3, $2-$5 blind no-limit games,
you won't see it in the larger rooms. The writer makes it sound as
if every game is infested with these vermin.
The problem with this statement is it is in the present tense. Slick
is not an "is", he is a "was". Remember the year was 1995 and he was
a retired, mobbed up, pit boss of 30 years. His career went back at
least to the mid sixties. It is well known that his friend Tony
Spilotro was working the poker games at the Stardust. By the way, if
you were a top poker pro of the day and Tony the Ant came to you and
said "Hey, I need your help taking off the poker games at the
Stardust." What would you tell him? No?
There is not one sentence in my "Slick" post that states, suggests,
aludes to, insinutates, or in any other way refers to the low-limit
no-limit holdem (LLNLH) cash games of present day Las Vegas as being
rife with cheating. As a matter of fact they were not mentioned at
all. These games are their own phenomenon and have absolutely no
relationship to the big bet games of the past. They did not grow out
of the games of the past. There werem't any everyday no-limit games
in LV for many, many, years. There are many reasons for their
demise, not the least of which was reputation. Remember what Lincoln
said: You can fool all of the people some of the time....
The LLNLH games of present day didn't start showing up until after
the Moneymaker WSOP. It wasn't long after that that we started
getting people in the limit games that wanted to know "when can I
move all in. LLNLH has taken over LV poker and is THE BEST
OPPORTUNITY IN GAMBLING TODAY.
>
There is so much traffic that it would be virtually
impossible for several guys to maneuver to the same game. They
would be
able to do it once or twice, but, our floor people are (supposed to
be) on
the lookout for people always trying to group up and play
together. If they
saw it too often, they would simply refuse to seat the players at
the same
game. IF you do see something like this, it would be two, maybe
three, guys
pulling a shot. . .and then only on rare occasions.
Take one of Steve Forte's pin cameras up to the deep-carpet joints
and secretly snap a picture of every high stakes game. Do it every
day for a month. Then compare pictures. Then report back the
results.
The bottom line, the technique is accurate, and in use. But not to
the
degree of prevalence the writer would have us believe.
I'll state it again. Slick is a "was", not an "is."
P.S. to the group: I spent two weeks in Las Vegas playing LLNLH and
assessing the situation. I'll make a post on it when I get the
time. Good luck.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "George Lee" <glee4ever@...> wrote: