09-18-2002, 03:29 AM
Reading Glen's posts about Fossilman and the responses that follow reminds me of a few smoldering thoughts I've long wanted to express and will now take the opportunity to do so.
First, it's funny how compelling the urge is for poker players to convince everyone how good they are. Glen's second post about backing Fossilman is just plain silly. It basically says "nevermind Greg for a minute, let me tell you all about how I've been a winning poker player my whole life..." I guess he only deals because it's such an enjoyable way to pass time.
Second, it's funny how quickly poker players will attack a winning player if given any opportunity. "Yeah, Men the Master has been Cardplayer of the Year twice in 5 years, but it's only because he plays every event and probably cheats, too!" or "Maybe Hellmuth used to be great, but now he sucks just like those NFL coaches who win the Superbowl and then never succeed again."
Third, it's funny how everybody will argue that losing your bankroll is the most horrible thing in the world, when everyone who's ever played cards has lost their bankroll several times. As an aside to this point, it's also funny that people always say that Sklansky has never been broke. Either that's not true, or he's a weenie. As another aside, it's funny how nobody can ever talk about Stu Unger without saying "yeah, but he was broke when he died.." as if a million in cash would have helped Stuey at that time. With all due respect (as Sklansky is the most influencial individual in my personal poker history), Sklansky has never had a million dollars in his pocket, whereas Brunson, Unger, Reese, and a few others have on several occassions. They've also all been broke (except Sklansky). So what? Why is the general tone in the poker community one of contempt towards those who've won and lost millions? Of course, we all know the answer to that question.
Fourth and finally, here's the deal: even if you're a winning player, poker is still gambling. Plenty of casinos have gone broke even though they had the best of it. Each of our poker careers can never be the equivalent of Caesar's Palace, we're each just a back-alley dice game. When the dice roll our way, we pay for the drinks, and when they don't, we solicit backers. Just like so many people on this forum, I've read every 2+2 book in print plus most of the crap out there... if I see a book with a playing card on the cover, I'm buying it. Still, if I think someone is offering me the best of it, I'll sell my car if they'll give me the action. It's called gambling, folks, and if you're going to do it, you might as well embrace it's spirit. Gamble well, yes... but gamble for crying out loud! Put all your money in and let us know how it turns out. We can always figure out who the sucker was after the pot is pushed.
Fossilman took 30K to the WSOP and blew it all. Then he told us about it, and he's going to see if he can do it again next year. F'in A, baby. Let's play some cards.
Craig H.
First, it's funny how compelling the urge is for poker players to convince everyone how good they are. Glen's second post about backing Fossilman is just plain silly. It basically says "nevermind Greg for a minute, let me tell you all about how I've been a winning poker player my whole life..." I guess he only deals because it's such an enjoyable way to pass time.
Second, it's funny how quickly poker players will attack a winning player if given any opportunity. "Yeah, Men the Master has been Cardplayer of the Year twice in 5 years, but it's only because he plays every event and probably cheats, too!" or "Maybe Hellmuth used to be great, but now he sucks just like those NFL coaches who win the Superbowl and then never succeed again."
Third, it's funny how everybody will argue that losing your bankroll is the most horrible thing in the world, when everyone who's ever played cards has lost their bankroll several times. As an aside to this point, it's also funny that people always say that Sklansky has never been broke. Either that's not true, or he's a weenie. As another aside, it's funny how nobody can ever talk about Stu Unger without saying "yeah, but he was broke when he died.." as if a million in cash would have helped Stuey at that time. With all due respect (as Sklansky is the most influencial individual in my personal poker history), Sklansky has never had a million dollars in his pocket, whereas Brunson, Unger, Reese, and a few others have on several occassions. They've also all been broke (except Sklansky). So what? Why is the general tone in the poker community one of contempt towards those who've won and lost millions? Of course, we all know the answer to that question.
Fourth and finally, here's the deal: even if you're a winning player, poker is still gambling. Plenty of casinos have gone broke even though they had the best of it. Each of our poker careers can never be the equivalent of Caesar's Palace, we're each just a back-alley dice game. When the dice roll our way, we pay for the drinks, and when they don't, we solicit backers. Just like so many people on this forum, I've read every 2+2 book in print plus most of the crap out there... if I see a book with a playing card on the cover, I'm buying it. Still, if I think someone is offering me the best of it, I'll sell my car if they'll give me the action. It's called gambling, folks, and if you're going to do it, you might as well embrace it's spirit. Gamble well, yes... but gamble for crying out loud! Put all your money in and let us know how it turns out. We can always figure out who the sucker was after the pot is pushed.
Fossilman took 30K to the WSOP and blew it all. Then he told us about it, and he's going to see if he can do it again next year. F'in A, baby. Let's play some cards.
Craig H.