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

[MiltonFriedman]

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