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

Johnny,

You wrote in the latest Sklansky-Brandi thread, "As for me, I respect the cons more ... [than the honest suckers]"

Why ? Because cons found someone who acted on trust and then violated that trust ? What is "respectable", the ferreting out or luring of a victim or the act of thievery ?

(An honest outlaw is different than a con. An honest offshore sportsbook operator for example is an outlaw, but not a thief.....and yes, there are a lot of honest sportsbook operators, just like there are honest poker operators.)

Respect a con/thief ? Why ??? I agree that they have entertainment value in telling stories, but so does Bozo the Clown or Scooby-Doo.

Someone who decides to be an outlaw, fine. I have been around and dealt with all sorts all my life. However, it is silly to romanticise self-centered conduct. It is socially retarded. In contrast to a con/thief, an honest outlaw may provide a social service demanded by the market, but not allowed by the law.

In the context of poker, did liars and cheats bring poker to the millions of players who play online? No way. Skilled poker players can thank to online entrepeneurs, not Johnny Moss. (As karma would have it, I would guess that Dikshit made a LOT more from poker than Johnny Moss.)

(I have respect for Doyle, because he can PLAY and because he works an image well, NOT because he may have pulled a con or not. He is good for the game and the players generally.)

Johnny, you tell entertaining stories, but some thug who pulls a gun because he loses or decides to rob you is fearful, but deserves no respect. That someone pulls a cold deck out and robs you that way is no better and socially retarded.

Respectfully,

Milton

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

Over-under on rickroll bannings from this thread?

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

The pocket camera too...

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

[ QUOTE ]

Why ? Because cons found someone who acted on trust and then violated that trust ? What is "respectable", the ferreting out or luring of a victim or the act of thievery ?


[/ QUOTE ]

While I wouldn't go as far as Johnny, and suspect that it was the writer in him making an entertaining rhetorical point rather than a sincere belief he was expressing, I do understand what he's talking about.

Like the poker player, the good con artist lives by their wits and makes their fortune from the sucker's greed. Remember the saying, you can't cheat an honest man? Almost all great cons live and die by that motto, so they tend to view their victims as somebody who would get over on them if they could, but they just aren't smart enough. This is precisely the same basis on which poker players justify their winnings.

The reason for this is that the con man wants to avoid people who will go to the police to report the con, so they set up a situation in which the sucker either thinks they are conning the con artist (e.g. three card monte etc.) or in which con man and sucker are co-conspirators in a larger crime that ultimately turns bad (e.g. the nigerian 419 scams, etc)

In that sense, con artists represent the elite of the criminal fraternity because they live by their wits, the crimes they commit have a sense of both drama and style about them because of the amount of intellectual effort involved, and the fact that each crime evolves differently and can't simply be learned by rote but requires a high level of creativity to be successful.

So while it's obviously wrong and an antisocial act, if you *are* going to root for an outlaw, give me a con artist over some bean-counting off-shore bookie any day of the week.

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

the old time CONMAN and Gambler was 100% more a gentleman than the majority of internet players today.
I much rather read Mr. Hughes stuff than read/see what these internet guys are up to.

KEEP THEM COMING JOHNNY------

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

[ QUOTE ]
the old time CONMAN and Gambler was 100% more a gentleman than the majority of internet players today.
I much rather read Mr. Hughes stuff than read/see what these internet guys are up to.

KEEP THEM COMING JOHNNY------

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give Johnny one thing...he tells a pretty decent story. Sometimes you need a little "deciphering" to get the full effect but good story nonetheless.

With internet players you get:

lol bn plz ur stry sux hu 4 rolz u ol' gezer

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

In my thread "Should I steal this money?", Johnny Hughes calls me a whining whimp, tells me never to steal anything small, and says I give gamblers a bad name. It hurt a bit since I really like his posts, but heck he had a point. Here's something he wrote in that thread about stealing:

"It does not matter to me what a man does to get the money to play poker. I've never judged others. I used to play with a guy who stole copper, aluminum, etc. at night. He'd be around the poker joint all day. One time this Art Professor who worked in metal figures got in a discussion with this thief about melting down varied metals. They both knew their stuff. If you are going to be a thief, be a better one. Quit looking at stealing on the small and figure some better thieving.

When I was really broke, we'd steal food from the richie's garage freezers. You can go into a supermarket and graze. I still do that, being cheap is my hobby. I also breeze through the Holiday Inn for free coffee, free big cookies, free apples, the Wall Street Journal and the local newspaper, herbal tea bags that I take home. If you dress nice, you can go to Happy Hours and hit the buffet and move on. At any motel that provides free breakfast, I stroll in and serve myself. If I am ever caught, I'll say I am just checking in. Around any casino, you can find food, food comps. If you are going to be broke, learn how to be broke. If you are going to be a thief, learn how to steal properly."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

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

There's a difference between respecting somebody and being respectable. If you don't give a theif respect, you will underestimate them, and if you underestimate them you run the risk of being the sucker.

Some of the planning and organization that goes on behind some crimes is phenomenal. You don't have to approve of what they are doing, but you have to respect it.

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

[ QUOTE ]


KEEP THEM COMING JOHNNY------

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Don says, keep them coming. Its interesting to hear this POV and how it was back then (and maybe still is?). Stealing might be bad but Johnnys stories are great.

also ive always kind of respected a criminal who can steal/profit without ever using violence. I dont know maybe its b/c psychologically i put myself in the victims shoes and id sure as hell would rather get my wallet lifted without ever knowing it then have some thug beat me over the head with a baseball bat. i dont know.

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

"ive always kind of respected a criminal who can steal/profit without ever using violence"

This guy is a boss.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


KEEP THEM COMING JOHNNY------

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Don says, keep them coming. Its interesting to hear this POV and how it was back then (and maybe still is?). Stealing might be bad but Johnnys stories are great. QUOTE}



Johnny - be honest with these nice readers. Your stories are fictionalized to a large degree, and you were never a regular in the larger cash games, were you? You scuffled around and WATCHED a little,- but that's about it, right?



I don't have a problem with your stories, but you shouldn't represent yourself as though you were a big-time gambler, when you really were not..............right?

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

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

[ QUOTE ]
Stealing might be bad but Johnnys stories are great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, style over substance wins out. Everyone loves stories about outlaws scumbags, liars, cheaters and thieves when told in a folksy way and, oh BTW, when you are not one of their victims.

There have been parasites throughout history. Johhny can romanticize them all he wants but the crooks he loves to reminisce about are no different then the crooks today. Be a victim of one of these angle-shooting, thieving, ass-hats and you may look at this nostalgia in a different light.

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

To the aptly named Dogmeat. My stories are true, not fictionalized. When I was in my twenties, I played poker for a living with top players. Since that time, I have played cash games at a 2,5 blind No Limit range, usually the smallest cash game at the World Series. I never pretended to be a high roller these days. You are adding words to my stories that do not exist.

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

[ QUOTE ]
In my thread "Should I steal this money?", Johnny Hughes calls me a whining whimp, tells me never to steal anything small, and says I give gamblers a bad name. It hurt a bit since I really like his posts, but heck he had a point. Here's something he wrote in that thread about stealing:

"It does not matter to me what a man does to get the money to play poker. I've never judged others. I used to play with a guy who stole copper, aluminum, etc. at night. He'd be around the poker joint all day. One time this Art Professor who worked in metal figures got in a discussion with this thief about melting down varied metals. They both knew their stuff. If you are going to be a thief, be a better one. Quit looking at stealing on the small and figure some better thieving.

When I was really broke, we'd steal food from the richie's garage freezers. You can go into a supermarket and graze. I still do that, being cheap is my hobby. I also breeze through the Holiday Inn for free coffee, free big cookies, free apples, the Wall Street Journal and the local newspaper, herbal tea bags that I take home. If you dress nice, you can go to Happy Hours and hit the buffet and move on. At any motel that provides free breakfast, I stroll in and serve myself. If I am ever caught, I'll say I am just checking in. Around any casino, you can find food, food comps. If you are going to be broke, learn how to be broke. If you are going to be a thief, learn how to steal properly."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]
Never saw that thread, hope things are going better for yo now sire

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

If you think that a con is due respect, then, (assuming hypothetically he was a con,) what about Dutch Boyd and pokerspot.com ?

How many people would approve of a site shutting down and not paying players ? Would that earn respect from you ?

How about a guy who cheats you at poker ? That is the bottom line of the "colorful" cons Johnny talks about.

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

agree 100% with op.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that a con is due respect, then, (assuming hypothetically he was a con,) what about Dutch Boyd and pokerspot.com ?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a con, that one sucked. There's nothing to admire, because Dutch is either a [censored] businessman, or a [censored] conman, or both.

To a certain degree I understand where Johnny is coming from, but part of that is how our culture has romanticized the grifter to an extent. The scammed is always a bigger villain then the hero (see "The Sting" "Ocean's whatever" "Diggstown" and so on) or the scammee is at least complicit in their downfall (see "Color of Money" - 'I didn't deserve that.' 'Yes, you did.') What's the difference between a con artist and Enron, really? Skilling set up one of the great long cons in history, he just forgot to leave himself an out. But real people got hurt, VERY badly, through no fault of their own.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that a con is due respect, then, (assuming hypothetically he was a con,) what about Dutch Boyd and pokerspot.com ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! Mention that and a good percentage of the people on this board feel their blood start to boil. Read a whimsical tale of degenerate thiefs from the good ol' days and half the people here look to them as pioneering heroes. Pathetic.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that a con is due respect, then, (assuming hypothetically he was a con,) what about Dutch Boyd and pokerspot.com ?

How many people would approve of a site shutting down and not paying players ? Would that earn respect from you ?

How about a guy who cheats you at poker ? That is the bottom line of the "colorful" cons Johnny talks about.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your average loser on line would consider many people here of cheating if they knew what they were up against.Which they don't.Your average loser THINKS poker on line is like poker in the casino.Your average on line winner of course does not think he is cheating.
Johnny is saying pretty much what alot of you guys are saying.Screw the sucker.

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

It amuses me that JH was given a "*" at some point. I guess OOT doesn't appreciate his folksiness as NVG does.

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

"Johnny Hughes romanticises liars, cheats and scum, why ???"

Because he thinks we'll all be stealing big cookies and apples after fifty years of not beating 5/10NL.

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

Well I enjoy the stories Johnny, so don't let a few asshats keep you from posting them.

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

dude hes like 90...why even pay attention to him?

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

[ QUOTE ]
"ive always kind of respected a criminal who can steal/profit without ever using violence"

This guy is a boss.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's with the disrespect of violence? If we don't care about morals, we shouldn't care whether a criminal uses violence or not. To me it seems kind of arbitrary to draw the line of respect at violence. If a criminal uses violence to optimize his profits and continually gets aways with it, what's not to respect? I mean, the criminal takes from others and uses violence to get it AND still walks around in this society without getting punished. That's a much bigger accomplishment than some pussy criminal who doesn't dare to ruthlessly hurt or kill people to get what he wants.

If we only base our respect of people on how good they are in fulfilling their selfish needs, the successful violent criminal should be on top of our list.

Liars, cheats and scum never helped popularize poker, really.
 

Johnny, I do not doubt your stories are true. They are also entertaining and I enjoy reading them.

You respect "cons", I despise them as the lowest form of crime. They are dishonest and prey upon trust, not greed. (That movies may romanticise them as stealing from the undeserving greedy is a fiction.)

While your stories are fun to read, they describe the sort of sleaziness that plagued poker for years. The advent of online play actually brought the game out of the clutches of the shady players you discuss.

As poker grew, the market returns to be gained by HONEST operations quickly dwarfed the petty cons of back room games.

Sure, todays. games/tournaments are huge and widely popular. That is a good thing and is NO thanks to the "colorful characters" of the past, whether real like yours or ficitional like Damon Runyon's.

Doyle made a nice transition between these eras, anyone else ??

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

"This guy is a boss."

Do you mean that in a Marxist/IWW sense ?

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

"You can get more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word".

I do not remember if that was a quote from The Untouchables or from the Republican Party platform in 2004.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think that a con is due respect, then, (assuming hypothetically he was a con,) what about Dutch Boyd and pokerspot.com ?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a con, that one sucked. There's nothing to admire, because Dutch is either a [censored] businessman, or a [censored] conman, or both.

To a certain degree I understand where Johnny is coming from, but part of that is how our culture has romanticized the grifter to an extent. The scammed is always a bigger villain then the hero (see "The Sting" "Ocean's whatever" "Diggstown" and so on) or the scammee is at least complicit in their downfall (see "Color of Money" - 'I didn't deserve that.' 'Yes, you did.')

What's the difference between a con artist and Enron, really? Skilling set up one of the great long cons in history, he just forgot to leave himself an out. But real people got hurt, VERY badly, through no fault of their own.

[/ 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.

Everyone else who bought actual common shares could have sold at any time. They knowingly took the risk of buying a single stock, perhaps the riskiest public investment you can make, and then got greedy as the price went from $10 to $90 to $40 and 30 and 20 and 10 and finally zero. They got greedy and suffered the consequences.

Let's not forget -- the price NEVER should have been that high in the first place, so you can't claim you really 'suffered' the drop from 90 to 30 as it never would have gone to $100bn market cap without the fraud.

From BW: 'During the fat years, Enron's books were known for being as complex as a Thomas Pynchon novel. Even those who actually read them had trouble understanding...'

No individual shareholder who bought the stock understood the financials, they have themselves to blame primarily for losing money. There is a nonzero amount of fraud in the public markets, if you knowingly subject yourself to that risk, it's gonna happen to you now and again - Parmalat, Worldcom, ACLN, ZZZZBest, Crazy Eddie's are all very famous examples and more going back decades.

There was all the time in the world to figure out the problems, insider selling is public information and they sold hundreds of millions overall, everyone knew Skilling up and quit -- years after several top talented employees did like Kinder, Pai, Mark, et al.

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/7...01502bbqp0.gif

Enron was still killing the Nasdaq for several months after the market started melting down. The company was shedding tens of $billions of market cap before the fraud was revealed. People got greedy and got reminded there's no free money. No one held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to hold throughout the entire decline - only the Portland General employees were frozen as they went from having PortGen stock to Enron stock with no chance to sell.

People bought ENE without understanding it - there's simply no excusing that kind of stupidity. They should have bought lotto tickets since they didn't understand their risk, and the 'fraud' [even if infintesimal] risk exists at every company, period.

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

[ QUOTE ]

What's with the disrespect of violence? If we don't care about morals, we shouldn't care whether a criminal uses violence or not. To me it seems kind of arbitrary to draw the line of respect at violence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Surely this is an aesthetic decision rather than a moral one. Some people will place more emphasis on the ability to maximize returns, others will put emphasis on the degree of intelligence and elegance involved in devising a scheme, and yet others will value the use of force and machismo in achieving the desired outcome.

[ QUOTE ]

If we only base our respect of people on how good they are in fulfilling their selfish needs, the successful violent criminal should be on top of our list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes no sense. If we only respected people based on that criterion, then the person who is most successful at fulfilling those needs would be top of the list. You've given no reasons to believe that people who use violence are most successful at that. And a quick glance at history shows that they're most likely to die as a result of violence, or spend long periods in prison, making them far less likely to succeed at their long term goals.

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

[ QUOTE ]
"Johnny Hughes romanticises liars, cheats and scum, why ???"

Because he thinks we'll all be stealing big cookies and apples after fifty years of not beating 5/10NL.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

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

[ QUOTE ]
agree 100% with op.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]
(As karma would have it, I would guess that Dikshit made a LOT more from poker than Johnny Moss.)


[/ QUOTE ]

good guess.

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

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 gun quote is from Al Capone, noted American gangster. He said, "You can get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

I haven't posted one of my stories in a very long time and now you know why.

Morality? I am a poker player. Society and the law consider me an outlaw here in the Lone Star State. I have been arrested several times at poker games and once at a dice game. They used to put KG by our name for Known Gambler. Nearly every poker game I played in was very honest. I never cheated. I'd bet my left nut they were more honest than the Internet. I was too lazy to work and too nervous to steal so I became a gambler. It is going to come as a huge shock to some of you, most especially the original poster, but I sometimes write humor that you do not understand. That is a big part of the point.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If we only base our respect of people on how good they are in fulfilling their selfish needs, the successful violent criminal should be on top of our list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes no sense. If we only respected people based on that criterion, then the person who is most successful at fulfilling those needs would be top of the list. You've given no reasons to believe that people who use violence are most successful at that. And a quick glance at history shows that they're most likely to die as a result of violence, or spend long periods in prison, making them far less likely to succeed at their long term goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said it, it doesn't make much sense, true. I should have said that if one criminal is more successful than another, but he uses violence, then that shouldn't be a consideration if we ditched the moral side of the story. Some people have this stupid respect for those people who are simply selfish leeches of society, so if someone is very successful with violent crime, they ought to respect those people too.

I raised this point because I feel like choosing to not respect criminals because they use violence is a feeble attempt to make your position about condoning crime more respectable. A criminal who doesn't use physical violence can inflict pain on his victims (trauma's etc.) so there's nothing more respectable about those people.

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

[ QUOTE ]
In my thread "Should I steal this money?", Johnny Hughes calls me a whining whimp, tells me never to steal anything small, and says I give gamblers a bad name. It hurt a bit since I really like his posts, but heck he had a point. Here's something he wrote in that thread about stealing:

"It does not matter to me what a man does to get the money to play poker. I've never judged others. I used to play with a guy who stole copper, aluminum, etc. at night. He'd be around the poker joint all day. One time this Art Professor who worked in metal figures got in a discussion with this thief about melting down varied metals. They both knew their stuff. If you are going to be a thief, be a better one. Quit looking at stealing on the small and figure some better thieving.

When I was really broke, we'd steal food from the richie's garage freezers. You can go into a supermarket and graze. I still do that, being cheap is my hobby. I also breeze through the Holiday Inn for free coffee, free big cookies, free apples, the Wall Street Journal and the local newspaper, herbal tea bags that I take home. If you dress nice, you can go to Happy Hours and hit the buffet and move on. At any motel that provides free breakfast, I stroll in and serve myself. If I am ever caught, I'll say I am just checking in. Around any casino, you can find food, food comps. If you are going to be broke, learn how to be broke. If you are going to be a thief, learn how to steal properly."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of Dave Chapelles comedy routine where he talks about how a wiser and older woman (than Lewinsky) would have sucked us (America) into Utopia.

See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBH20L7Pnwo

About 6:25 minutes into the video (NOT a rickroll, I PROMISE)

Funny as hell

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

[ QUOTE ]

I raised this point because I feel like choosing to not respect criminals because they use violence is a feeble attempt to make your position about condoning crime more respectable. A criminal who doesn't use physical violence can inflict pain on his victims (trauma's etc.) so there's nothing more respectable about those people.

[/ QUOTE ]

And while I agree with your fundamental point, nobody has addressed my point in which I argue that, in order to minimize risk, the classic con will invariably target other criminals -- or at least, those who have a tendency to larceny.

In these cases, the person that the con man is gaming is actually another criminal, or somebody who is seeking to enrich themselves by illegal or underhanded means. I tend to see these people as much more akin to poker players because they're seeking to use their wits to get over on somebody who is trying to do the same thing.

Of course, the game here is completely unequal, and the mark doesn't stand a chance, but that's no different to me sitting down opposite sbrugby or patrik antonius. Will that stop them from taking my money? I don't think so. To be honest, I don't see an awful lot of difference between 'don't tap on the fishtank' and 'always leave the mark a dollar for gas'.

Also, the division between gamblers and con man has long been much narrower than many posters would have you believe. If you look at many of the classic prop bets that have made their way into the literature, these are little more than out and out scams, disguised as fair wagers. As with a con, the person who wins these bets has generally used careful prior preparation, a gaffed item of some sort or is relying on unequal knowledge to gain an unfair advantage.

So, perhaps part of the respect that people have for a good con is derived from seeing some of the victims of these cons as less deserving of protection and more as equal contestants in a battle of wits?

All that said, I think this actually represents a mythical conman who probably doesn't exist any more, possibly never did, and the vast majority are just scum who would happily use force to steal from their innocent victims. But it's this mythical conman that gets the respect and admiration, not the guy who scams some old lady out of her purse by telling her that he's come to read her gas meter.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my thread "Should I steal this money?", Johnny Hughes calls me a whining whimp, tells me never to steal anything small, and says I give gamblers a bad name. It hurt a bit since I really like his posts, but heck he had a point. Here's something he wrote in that thread about stealing:

"It does not matter to me what a man does to get the money to play poker. I've never judged others. I used to play with a guy who stole copper, aluminum, etc. at night. He'd be around the poker joint all day. One time this Art Professor who worked in metal figures got in a discussion with this thief about melting down varied metals. They both knew their stuff. If you are going to be a thief, be a better one. Quit looking at stealing on the small and figure some better thieving.

When I was really broke, we'd steal food from the richie's garage freezers. You can go into a supermarket and graze. I still do that, being cheap is my hobby. I also breeze through the Holiday Inn for free coffee, free big cookies, free apples, the Wall Street Journal and the local newspaper, herbal tea bags that I take home. If you dress nice, you can go to Happy Hours and hit the buffet and move on. At any motel that provides free breakfast, I stroll in and serve myself. If I am ever caught, I'll say I am just checking in. Around any casino, you can find food, food comps. If you are going to be broke, learn how to be broke. If you are going to be a thief, learn how to steal properly."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of Dave Chapelles comedy routine where he talks about how a wiser and older woman (than Lewinsky) would have sucked us (America) into Utopia.



[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Liars, cheats and scum never helped popularize poker, really.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The advent of online play actually brought the game out of the clutches of the shady players you discuss.



[/ QUOTE ]
There are still plenty of shady players in poker. If anything, it has opened it up to a greater number of cons, especially those who are computer savy.

Re: Liars, cheats and scum never helped popularize poker, really.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The advent of online play actually brought the game out of the clutches of the shady players you discuss.



[/ QUOTE ]
There are still plenty of shady players in poker. If anything, it has opened it up to a greater number of cons, especially those who are computer savy.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey, multi-accounting MTTs is perfectly legit.

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

[ 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 ]

There's also the Californians paying inflated energy prices and so on, but your point is valid. (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 or semi-willing participants, played in downplaying those risks.)

And regardless, are your really suggesting that there was no con played there?