A bet no one would want to win
 

"Johnny Moss won three million from Nick the Greek alone in an honest heads up game in 1949. That would be like thirty million in today's money. At the first World Series, the players voted Johnny Moss the champion. He won it the next year."

The point being what ? No one doubts he beat a lot of players and won money.

My points are that a con man's trade is despicable, not admirable and that these colorful characters had nothing to do with the rise and development of poker as we know it.

The "Al Capone" quote was from a movie, which is why I did not attribute it to the actual guy.

" I'd bet my left nut they were more honest than the Internet."

You'd lose, but who wants to collect that prize ?

Re: Follow-up question for those who respect cons, how about Dutch ?
 

"Crazy Eddie, his prices are insane ....."

Sounds like something I'd buy, yup.

Re: A bet no one would want to win
 

This thread sucked and basically has ran it's course. I'm still not even sure what the OP's point was in making it. You don't like the way the guy romanticizes the people in his stories? Who the [censored] really cares? A lot of people on here, myself included, enjoy the stories. Now he doesn't post them very often b/c of nitpicking [censored] like yourself. I know one thing is a fact: He's contributed a lot more entertainment to this forum than you have.

Re: Johnny Hughes romanticises liars, cheats and scum, why ???
 

I enjoy your stories Johnny, keep them coming.

Re: A bet no one would want to win
 

"Now he doesn't post them very often b/c of nitpicking [censored] like yourself."

You think he is that thin-skinned ?

I wanted him to tell, from his avowed "old-time poker player perspective" why he respected cons. You think that is picking on him ???

I happen to read his well-worn tales, which are well and succintly presented. I didn't "pick on him", I asked him for his thoughts about something other than who carried what pistol where in some back room game and who was playing with stolen money.

Sorry if you need everyone to fawn over him. Again, I happen to like the posts he does.

Re: A bet no one would want to win
 

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry if you need everyone to fawn over him. Again, I happen to like the posts he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. What are you talking about? I've never "fawned" over anyone on this forum. I think this guy posts very entertaining stories about the early days of poker. The fact is that now he doesn't post them nearly as often b/c of posters like you (idiots) who like to accuse him of making them up or "romanticizing" bad people. They could have been made up for all I know but they were still good reads.

Are you disputing the fact that he posts less now b/c of criticism from posters like you?

Re: A bet no one would want to win
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never "fawned" over anyone on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fawn over Brandi....

Re: A bet no one would want to win
 

brandi is bunk sauce

Re: Follow-up question for those who respect cons, how about Dutch ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Enron remark is total BS. Only 0.01% of shareholders were frozen from selling their shares - those were the Portland General employees who were locked into holding while the 401k plans were merged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I think your narrative of people 'knowingly' taking on risks is a bit flawed by leaving out the role that accounting firms, either as dupes

[/ QUOTE ]

This only further serves to prove my point. If Acc'ts and leaky FASB rules and unethical mgmt can fool the accountants, you must know as an individual investor you are subject to that risk. Or are you saying only ethical firms hire accountants -- of course not, so that is irrelevant.

Speculate in stocks, prepare to receive gains and losses accordingly. End of story. Bitching about it after won't get your capital back.

Re: Johnny Hughes romanticises liars, cheats and scum, why ???
 

Milton...You keep asking stupid questions to draw attention to yourself.

As a long shot, I was guessing that you were the Assistant Principal at some Junior High? Am I right? Am I far off?

Do you read any books? What authors do you approve of?

What is your question? Do you want me to adopt your phony system of morals?

Have you been cheated or conned? You sound like a wounded mark. Frankly, you sound bitter.

I write about a lot of people. That does not mean that I am those people. I do not know which articles you are attacking or why. You do not make yourself clear.

Of the people that I can recall writing about, calling them liars is untrue.

I play poker on the square. The poker games I played in were honest, tough games. I do not make a lot of judgements about my opponents.

I taught in a University for twenty years. I do not find my poker friends any more dishonest that the faculty and the whole University system.

May I ask you a personal question? Do you play poker? How high? In the very original comment I made that set you off I said I respect the cons more than the marks. That does not mean I respect either one of them very much.

I tried to look up just how long it has been since I posted a long story. It has been a long time.

When I am joking, remember, you may not get it but that does not mean the smart people don't get it. It's great to have someone speak up for the suckers. Part of the history of real con artists is that they can count on the marks to dummy up because they are embarrassed. Did somebody put a beat on you, Milton? Please share. Some of the comments about con artists are great on this thread. It has given me a lot to talk about. I am kind of tooling around with the start of a new novel that will deal with con men in 1913, 1945, and nowadays. I have ordered several books and am just starting. Some of the great posts on this thread about cons, their criminal victims, violence, and the differences in morals have enlightened me. Really helpful.

Outlaws have their own moral codes. I do not steal or cheat because it is dumb, not because of morality. A gambler must have a clean reputation to get in games and keep from getting shot. I definately respect the line drawn by con artists where they get the money but would never use violence. A sucker and his money were playing lucky to get together in the first place.

Large numbers of people arriving at the Gold Rush or on riverboats or settlers moving west were cheated out of their life savings. I cannot change that by being quite about it as the censors like Milton would have me do.

The last thing I posted was part of my novel about working at the Golden Nugget. It was fiction but it was based on truth. I worked for the casino playing poker. We signaled. The casino cheated. That's the way things are. Is Jesus mad at me for that? I sure doubt it.