Who the [censored] is John Bond?

[BottlesOf]

And should I care? Because, I don't.

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
And should I care? Because, I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Johnny.

I'm John Bond. I have a few old friends and acquaintances here. I'm pretty much just another person interested in poker and posting away on 2+2. Same as you.

And I agree ---- there's no reason you or anybody else should care.

Nice to meetcha /images/graemlins/smile.gif

jb

[sthief09]

I don't know, but his name is on the cover of Cooke's book, and that's a damn good book.

[sublime]

I don't know, but his name is on the cover of Cooke's book, and that's a damn good book.

real poker II? loved that book. cooke bashes johns play a lot, they seem to be good friends.

other than that, he is just ...bond. john bond.

[Jeffage]

Really, I've never read it. Worth buying? What's the book like? I just bought Ciaffone's "Improve Your Poker" on a whim and I must say it's one of the best poker books I've EVER read and I've read alot of them.

Jeff

[BottlesOf]

Haha, nice to meet you too. I was just puzzled as it seemed some drama involving you consumed multiple threads on the NVG board. Glad everything seems to be sorted out.

[Lawrence Ng]

I like your posts. Please keep posting.

Thanks.

Lawrence

[afish]

Real Poker II is a collection of Cooke's Cardplayer strategy columns. I thought it was very worthwhile.

[sublime]

real poker II is a very good book, i highly recommend it.

[JohnBond]

Thx Sublime /images/graemlins/smile.gif

jb

[turnipmonster]

do you really play bad or does roy just give you a lot of [censored] becuase you're friends? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Beerfund]

Are you the guy from Florida? IIRC, you are/were a pretty crappy poker player. Atleast according to Cookes' articles in CP, 3,4,5 years ago (dont remember exactly).

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
do you really play bad or does roy just give you a lot of [censored] becuase you're friends? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to both questions is yes (and to Beer's question too.)

Mr. Cooke does have a tendency to expound upon my worst plays, not my best. And of course since I have some input on every column I see it before it goes, and it's all fine with me. It's not the only spot in life where I'm the anti-role model /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I've been playing in public cardrooms since about the mid-80s. I've been keeping detailed records since late 92.

From 10/1/92 - 12/31/04, I made $11 an hr playing $10-$20 through $40-$80, exclusive of tournaments. I'm stuck about $10k on tournament buy-ins for life, live and internet. My best year (including a three month great run in the $40-$80 at Hollywood Park) was +$60k. My worst (almost exclusively on Planet Poker shorthanded $20-$40)was - $45k. As I was assuredly stuck before I started keeping records, it's pretty likely I'm close to break-even for life. Fortunatley at several points in my life I've owned a piece of the rake -- and if you include that then I'm definitely front /images/graemlins/smile.gif

RC said if I'd gone to work at McDOnald's and maybe made assistant manager I'd have gotten a much better return on my time. He's a dickhead but he's right. As usual.

Considering I'm a pretty smart fella, I've got 20 years experience and am aided by one of the world's best coaches you'd think I'd do a little better. Still,I'm happy to be among the small percentage of winners, albeit very, very, very small winners!

But I can write!

There will be a new slightly modified edition of RPII: The Play of Hands out later this year from ConJelCo.

Best,

jb

PS I'm stuck $2365 in $215 sit n go's on Party today -- 11 consecutive 4ths I swear!

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, but his name is on the cover of Cooke's book, and that's a damn good book.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
real poker II is a very good book, i highly recommend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

See this post on the Books forum for more info on this book.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2306206&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

Best,

jb

[JTrout]

http://www3.niu.edu/athletics/graphics/pg_component/PGMARQUEE/2004_PG_MARQUEE_FB_BOND.jpg

[Seahorse]

This link doesn't lead to any post. Please check it or something. I'd like to know more about the book especially from one of the writers. That's pretty cool.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, but his name is on the cover of Cooke's book, and that's a damn good book.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
real poker II is a very good book, i highly recommend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

See this post on the Books forum for more info on this book.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2306206&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

Best,

jb

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Horse:

Our moderator deleted this post. It violated our rules on advertising in the posts.

Best wishes,
Mason

[JTrout]

....and one more interesting, informative, and entertaining contributor to this forum is out the door. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
This link doesn't lead to any post. Please check it or something. I'd like to know more about the book especially from one of the writers. That's pretty cool.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, but his name is on the cover of Cooke's book, and that's a damn good book.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
real poker II is a very good book, i highly recommend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

See this post on the Books forum for more info on this book.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2306206&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

Best,

jb

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Horse:

Our moderator deleted this post. It violated our rules on advertising in the posts.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

The post answered a question that had been posited numerous times on 2+2 about the difference between Roy's two books, because there is some overlap of content.

Roy's two OUT OF PRINT books, which you can only get second hand or get remainderd seconds from ConJelCo.

Pretty hard to advertise stuff you can't buy (although RPII will be re-released in a second edition in the fall.)

I have written before that Roy and Mason once had a falling out. Although I can't look into Mason's mind (and I wouldn't want to -- definitely the stuff of horror movies) I'd guess his dislike of RC probably had more to do with the removal than 2+2 policy.

But it is Mason's board and he is certainly free to remove whatever he wishes for whatever reasons he wishes. He doesnt' need to justify himself, and is probably better off if he doesn't try, beceause he makes some pretty tortured convultions of logic when he does.

You can find the post at www.rpgpoker.com. (http://www.rpgpoker.com.) Just do a search for Roy Cooke and it will come up in the past few days.

Decide for yourself if its content is advertising.

Best,

jb

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]

Our moderator deleted this post. It violated our rules on advertising in the posts.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, that was a poor decision by your moderator and I urge you/him/her to reconsider. I read the post before it was deleted and it simply explained the difference between RP I and RP II (a very common question, BTW) and noted that RC will be coming out with two more books in the near future. It was not a solicitation in any sense of the word. If the upcoming book announcement was considered "too commercial" for posting here, the wiser course of action would have been to delete that section only.

I'll give everyone the benefit the doubt and assume that the post was deleted in an overzealous attempt to protect us from SPAM (a goal I support) rather than as a result of a feud between 2+2 and RC.

Take a fresh look at John's post in the clear light of day. Re-posting it would make a positive statement about 2+2, don't you think?

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This link doesn't lead to any post. Please check it or something. I'd like to know more about the book especially from one of the writers. That's pretty cool.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, but his name is on the cover of Cooke's book, and that's a damn good book.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
real poker II is a very good book, i highly recommend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

See this post on the Books forum for more info on this book.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2306206&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

Best,

jb

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Horse:

Our moderator deleted this post. It violated our rules on advertising in the posts.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

The post answered a question that had been posited numerous times on 2+2 about the difference between Roy's two books, because there is some overlap of content.

Roy's two OUT OF PRINT books, which you can only get second hand or get remainderd seconds from ConJelCo.

Pretty hard to advertise stuff you can't buy (although RPII will be re-released in a second edition in the fall.)

I have written before that Roy and Mason once had a falling out. Although I can't look into Mason's mind (and I wouldn't want to -- definitely the stuff of horror movies) I'd guess his dislike of RC probably had more to do with the removal than 2+2 policy.

But it is Mason's board and he is certainly free to remove whatever he wishes for whatever reasons he wishes. He doesnt' need to justify himself, and is probably better off if he doesn't try, beceause he makes some pretty tortured convultions of logic when he does.

You can find the post at www.rpgpoker.com. (http://www.rpgpoker.com.) Just do a search for Roy Cooke and it will come up in the past few days.

Decide for yourself if its content is advertising.

Best,

jb

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry I gave a bad link for rpg. The correct one is: http://www.recpoker.com/groups.php

Best,

jb

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Our moderator deleted this post. It violated our rules on advertising in the posts.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, that was a poor decision by your moderator and I urge you/him/her to reconsider. I read the post before it was deleted and it simply explained the difference between RP I and RP II (a very common question, BTW) and noted that RC will be coming out with two more books in the near future. It was not a solicitation in any sense of the word. If the upcoming book announcement was considered "too commercial" for posting here, the wiser course of action would have been to delete that section only.

I'll give everyone the benefit the doubt and assume that the post was deleted in an overzealous attempt to protect us from SPAM (a goal I support) rather than as a result of a feud between 2+2 and RC.

Take a fresh look at John's post in the clear light of day. Re-posting it would make a positive statement about 2+2, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were a proposition bet kind of guy, I would find a way to make some action on the likelihood of this happening. Let's see, Hilary was 5-2 against on the Dem nomination and 11-1 against to win it all -- somewhere between those two numbers would probably be good /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Or maybe it's one of those quantum mechanics Infinity things (See RC's upcoming piece in ConJelCo's Intelligent Gambler for the inside joke on the reference.)

Best,

jb

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
....and one more interesting, informative, and entertaining contributor to this forum is out the door. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah Trout -- that would be way too easy on Mason. He can boot me like he did Abdul and others -- a bit more difficult since I make an effort to avoid the ad hominem ( though Mason DOES make it hard) -- But I'll be sure to drop in from time-to-time if for no other reason than Mason's somewhat predictable kneejerk responses amuse me /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dammit, was that ad hominem? Or merely true? LOL

But seriously, it's his board -- he can do what he wants. And of course will. And there's no reason for him not to -- although the sham of a place for the free and open expression of ideas and exchange of info ought to be dropped then.

This place is a commercial venture. The proprietors may do with it what they wish. The issue of censorship applies only to governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. Nobody has a right to post here or say what they want here, and the owners can intellectually manhandle whomever they choose to. That is clearly their preorgative.

Does that diminish both them and their forum? Perhaps. But are they entitled? Certainly.

Best,

jb

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

All moderation on these forums is done by our moderator Mat Sklansky. I have no authority in the moderation process.

Best wishes,
Mason

[JohnBond]

Mason, Mason, Mason

It takes a lawyer to parse what you say sometimes.

I'm sure your statement is true.

But can you also say honestly that you have no INPUT on the moderation process, never have, never will?

Have you never directed Mat's attention to something you find offensive? Or even which personally irked you?

Come, come, don't fib now. Certainly if you DID in fact sometimes direct Mat's attention it might be tempting to fib about it?

It's okay --- like all of us you're entitled to your feelings.

Just remember what my mama always used to say: Nobody MAKES you feel anyway. People do what they do and how you feel about it comes from inside you and you alone.

So when you feel rage, disgust, anger, pique or whatever --- that's not anybody else but you. We control our own emotional destiny, subject only to the vagaries of our biochemistry.

Best,

jb

[JohnBond]

Mason --

Let me say that I recognize the possibility -- however unlikely -- that I might be wrong. And if I am wrong I apologize,

The problem of course, as with so many things including those under discussion on the various threads, is proof. Your unsubstantiated word would not lessen my suspicion that you told Mat you thought this particular post was advertising and ought be taken down.

And even if Mat were to pipe up and say that you never spoke to him about such things generally or this case in particular I would continue to have doubts.

As with Russ's comments, it comes down to verbal statements and representations impossible to prove or disprove, and in such cases we poor, inadequate humans follow our guts.

I'm reasonably certain I'm right in my suspicions here, and nothing you say is likely to dissuade me -- but if I happen to be wrong I do apologize.

Best,

jb

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason --

Let me say that I recognize the possibility -- however unlikely -- that I might be wrong. And if I am wrong I apologize,

...[deletia]...

I'm reasonably certain I'm right in my suspicions here, and nothing you say is likely to dissuade me -- but if I happen to be wrong I do apologize.

Best,

jb

[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, that may be the lamest conditional apology I have ever read. In essence, your post says: "You did it. Nothing you say can convince me you didn't do it. But if you didn't do it (which I don't believe and cannot be convinced otherwise), then I'm sorry."

BTW, didn't you just criticize Mason's post with:

[ QUOTE ]

Mason, Mason, Mason

It takes a lawyer to parse what you say sometimes.


[/ QUOTE ]

If it takes a lawyer to parse Mason's post, it takes the whole firm to parse yours. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[JohnBond]

Yah Tipper you're basically right. Let me try to be clearer.

I'm really sure I'm right -- but if I'm wrong I apologize.

That's simple and direct, yes ?

Sometimes I think too much like a lawyer. Oh [censored], that's because I am /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks for calling me on it. Appreciate /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Best,

jb

[pastabatman]

I'm not sure how this reflects on this whole brouhaha, but in 2+2's latest book, Getting Started In Hold 'Em, Real Poker II is recommended for further reading on limit hold 'em:
[ QUOTE ]
If you like to learn through examples, this book is for you. It walks you through the thought process of a professional-level player with a unique style and intricacy. Read this book and see the principles of hold 'em in practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of this, it's a complete mystery to me why the post was deleted. Other authors (most recently King Yao) have been able to post about their books. Is it because permission wasn't requested in this case? Weird.

Pasta

[Seahorse]

I did what John Bond suggested and went to rpg to read the deleted post. Mason’s right it did hype the Cooke/Bond upcoming books a little, although I don’t think it went so far as being advertising. It was a pretty good post tho. What I did was delete all references to upcoming books or where you could buy the from the post, so there’s no advertising content. That way we all get the benefit of it without any violation of the Forum Rules. I’m ike tipperdog and consider this just a question of enforcing rules and not something personal Mason has about Cooke.

Anyway, here’s John Bond’s post about Cooke’s books as editted by me. I tried to err on the side of eliminating any possible reference to where to buy the books, or what books Cooke has coming, etc. ouf deference to Mason’s stated opinion that violates the Board’s anti-advertising rules. And as Bond says, Mason’s board, Mason’s rules.

Bond’s post:

In perusing some old posts I noticed a bit of confusion over the content in Roy
Cooke’s column collections Real Poker I: The Cooke Collection and Real Poker II
the Play of Hands. (When some other columnists reprint their columns they call
them essays, which is both accurate and has more cachet – but a tad misleading.
RC and I prefer calling a spade a spade.)

CardPlayer prints 25 issues per year, and RC hasn’t missed a column since he
started. There are a few old-timers who have been around longer but most of them
took breaks, or at least missed a few months. RC is the longest continuously
running poker columnist in the country. CardPlayer’s senior columnist. That is
one of the reasons he is always prominently featured at the front of the magazine, right behind the publishers Barry and Jeff Shulman.

RPI: The Cooke Collection is every column RC wrote in his first five years at
CardPlayer, or as we call it in the Introduction, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.
There are 123 total columns in that book. (It wasn’t quite 5 years). It was
released in 1998, covered columns from 92-97 and sold out pretty much right
away. It is out of print, and there are no plans at this time to reprint it.

Although we don’t think they are all necessarily the best of Roy, there’s no
doubt that his play of hands columns, where he analyzes the thought processes of
decision making at the poker table, are by far his most popular. In 2000 we
released Real Poker II: The Play of Hands. It included 38 play of hands columns
from Roy’s first five years, together with 40 more that appeared subsequently
for a total of 78 columns, play of hands only.

(Possible advertising paragraph deleted by Seahorse.)

Because there was some material from RPI in RPII, some people were unsure which
to buy. As RPI is no longer available and probably won’t ever be re-printed
that’s no longer an issue. Personally I think RPI is a better book because it is
more comprehensive and goes beyond the one subject. But RPII definitely gets
better player and reader commentary, albeit mostly from people who haven’t seen
RPI.

(Possible advertising paragraph deleted by Seahorse.)

(Possible advertising paragraph deleted by Seahorse.)

(Partial possible advertising paragraph deleted by Seahorse.) There will be no
more complete collections, or overlap within books. Some of the columns just
suck and don’t deserve to see the light of day again! No columnist bats 1.000.

(Possible advertising paragraph deleted by Seahorse.)

It’s worth noting that in the editing process at CP sometimes material we think
is important is removed. Sometimes it’s for space purposes, sometimes because
our use of metaphor and simile is beyond the bounds of “family magazine”
language, sometimes out of deference to others in the poker industry. In the
books you get the unadulterated versions. A small example is that we once did a
bit based on a routine by Garret Morrison of Saturday Night Live: “Bazeball bin
berry berry gude to me” which was removed because it might be deemed offensive.
That said, the last three years’ columns as they appeared in the magazine are
available at CardPlayer’s website.

I hope that cleared up any questions about RPI and II, as well as letting you
know what we’re up to. (Partial possible advertising paragraph deleted by Seahorse.)

Best,

jb


The stuff which I guess broke the forum rules and so I cut was mostly about Cooke and Bond’s upcoming publications and where to get their books. It was really pretty harmless, not spammy or hype. But it’s out now. Like Bond says you can read the original version on rpg where I found this. I hope this is a good compromise for everybody.

I’ll post this on both forums where this is a topic.

[Mat Sklansky]

This is becoming ridiculous. John Bond is clearly making a great effort to promote himself and Cooke. This username has the identical ip address as John's, so I assume it is him.

This username has been banned and John Bond may find himself banned shortly as well, not because I'm trying to censor him, but because him and this topic are becoming a pain in my ass.

Mat

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really sure I'm right -- but if I'm wrong I apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

"What we have here is failure to ..comunicate" What John Bond is saying for those of you having trouble interpreting his lawyereze is this:
"Mason, you are a liar!"

Vince

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
This is becoming ridiculous. John Bond is clearly making a great effort to promote himself and Cooke. This username has the identical ip address as John's, so I assume it is him.

This username has been banned and John Bond may find himself banned shortly as well, not because I'm trying to censor him, but because him and this topic are becoming a pain in my ass.

Mat

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure which topic is a pain inyour ass, Mat, there are so many to choose from. If it's the removal of the Cooke Book post you have nobody but Mason and yourself to blame for that, not me.

As to your other comment ... I'd be surprised if you actually have an IP match --- but even so, you are correct in your general proposition nonetheless.

Int. Day: Little kid caught with hand in cookie jar looks around the room innocently.

Sigh. I hate being a dummy.

I stopped in to visit 2+2 when I heard that Roy’s post from rpg had been posted over here and was getting some following. I knew that given Mason’s feelings towards RC that he would undoubtedly smack Roy around and further anything I said would get leaned on by Mason, perhaps or even probably unreasonably. (I might note that his posts of the past two weeks have borne me out on this initial fear.)

So I came with two strategies. First, I was committed to make every effort to treat Mason as courteously as I could manage no matter how unreasonable he might be. I hoped that would defuse things. And while hope is the most ennobling and uplifting human emotion, alas not all hopes come to fruition.

Secondly, I created another screen name, (Seahorse) one that could say things without the baggage of being associated with me and my friendship for Roy. One that could ask questions that might be weighed on their own merit, without regard for their source. A voice which in my mind would be reasonable and neutral, and not be affected in any way by past history or particularly bothered by comments which had their roots in past history.

I also considered coming on under a name other than my own altogether, but decided that would be a bigger deception, and that the second screen name would be the lesser of evils. Frankly I didn’t plan to use it as much as I did and I got carried away.

For what it’s worth, it was Seahorse’s questions that got Mason to admit that many of Russ’s accusations about the distant past are true, that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true, and to answer cogently and in depth about problems with tournament poker. I tend to disagree with Mason about cash games, but see his point. Mason has still failed to say anything meaningful about Internet cheating, (despite Seahorse’s prodding)except perhaps through Vince who posits that people who play Party are too stupid to care if they are cheated (as if that should make any difference even if it were true, which it clearly isn’t) and that the failure of sites or their sokesman to speak up about cheating on their sites more openly is somehow dispositive that no such cheating exists.

Also for what it’s worth, the post about Roy’s books, while having a bit of puffery was certainly not an ad (as noted you can’t even buy the damn books) and was far less egregious an act of self-promotion than other posts that could be considered advertising which have historically been allowed to stand. I’m as certain as I was that Mat did not take it down of his own accord, but was advised, directed, at least encouraged by Mason to do so.

I happen to really believe that the owners of boards can do what they want, and don’t need to justify their actions. They can delete what they don’t like, bar people for any reason or no reason. You don’t like it, put in the work and the money and start your own damn board.

But once a board’s proprietors take the position that they will adhere to certain standards regarding the free exchange of ideas, then they have an obligation to honor those standards. To pay those standards lip service but ignore them in practice is gigantically hypocritical and cynical (said by the guy who created the false ID – sheesh, that’s credible!) I think in the instant case the purported standards weren’t honored, and that breach was exacerbated by the deception that Mason had no part in the decision to violate the standards. (Pot, kettle, black)

Anyway, I tried to use Seahorse to underscore that point and in so doing I undermined his neutrality, defeated his purpose – and oh yeah, got myself caught with my hand in the cookie jar.

I was wrong. If I hadn’t been caught I’d still be doing it, and that would be wrong too. Eventually I’d have given it up, because it made me uncomfortable – but I hadn’t yet. I tried to keep Seahorse neutral of personality conflicts, but failed.

I recognize that one of the results of this is that many points of merit noted both under my real name and the false persona will be lost ---- A sad but I guess fit punishment and consequence.

None of which is meant to imply that anything “seahorse” or I said in posts wasn’t true or from the heart. I meant what I said and said what I meant, under BOTH names! There was no deception in the content, just the source. But doing the Seahorse part through an anonymous persona was wrong. It ain’t the dumbest thing I’ve ever done; just the dumbest thing I’ve done lately. Totally my bad, and I deserve the humiliation arising from it.

Two final points.
1. RC had no knowledge of or part in this – he doesn’t even read 2+2. I often play one or two tables and journalize, write, post on various boards, etc. while I play (RC points out this costs me edge) This was just an extension of that, of me being me.
2. And Mat, if being a pain in the ass is grounds for banning you may have to shut the board down. Notwithstanding that, above and beyond any general apology to the community for my deception, please accept my personal apology for aggravation caused you. I’m sure running this board is tough enough without some [censored] making it worse.


While this is an explanation, it also an apology to all without qualification. I was wrong. I apologize to the community as a whole, and to Mat particularly.

Said and done. Taking my beat, recognizing it happened because I played bad, learning from it, and moving on to the next hand.

Best,

jb

[Wally Weeks]

Okay, now this is truly lame. If the book is good, it will obviously be deemed so. No need to promote the book on this commercial and/or competitor website.

I couldn't finish the extra long response to your "hand in the cookie jar" as I have already wasted enough time reading this thread in the first place.

Regards,
Wally

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

I meant what I said and said what I meant, under BOTH names! There was no deception in the content, just the source.

[/ QUOTE ]


With how little I care about this topic, I can't believe I've kept up with it, but I must say that the above quote is lunacy, and I'll give you an extreme to point out the why. Let's say there is a topic where only three people care about it. They debate. 1 and 2 agree with each other while 3 has a fundamentally different viewpoint. 3 creates 97 screen names that all share his viewpoint, so now 98 people agree with side B whereas only 2 agree with side A. Same argument, same merits, but do you see the difference?

Personally I can't stand handles at all (amusing since many people think my name is a handle rather than my full name) and I think much of this type of nonsense would be eliminated if people would stand accountable for everything they say, as themselves, without having a bunch of names to say various things under all hiding behind their keyboard in order to sway public opinion.

Again: I don't think I could care less about this whole topic, but I do have a fundamental problem with people creating alter egos on boards in order to create phantom support for their questionable agendas.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
This is becoming ridiculous. John Bond is clearly making a great effort to promote himself and Cooke. This username has the identical ip address as John's, so I assume it is him.

This username has been banned and John Bond may find himself banned shortly as well, not because I'm trying to censor him, but because him and this topic are becoming a pain in my ass.

Mat

[/ QUOTE ]

http://solastyear.com/catglassown.jpg

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

John Bond wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
For what it’s worth, it was Seahorse’s questions that got Mason to admit that many of Russ’s accusations about the distant past are true, that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true,

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make this very clear. The Russ G accusations about the distant past were mostly things that I was told about well before I ever heard of Russ G.

The other statement "that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true" is something that I disagree with. Furthermore, I have never stated I agree with this.

With this being said, I think the topic of "Keeping Poker Honest" deserves attention.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

With this being said, I think the topic of "Keeping Poker Honest" deserves attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, do you think the topic of "Making Poker Honest" deserves any attention, as well?

(aka: I understand that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", but should any effort be put into curing?)

Sincerely,

Josh

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

John Bond wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
For what it’s worth, it was Seahorse’s questions that got Mason to admit that many of Russ’s accusations about the distant past are true, that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true,

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make this very clear. The Russ G accusations about the distant past were mostly things that I was told about well before I ever heard of Russ G.

The other statement "that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true" is something that I disagree with. Furthermore, I have never stated I agree with this.

With this being said, I think the topic of "Keeping Poker Honest" deserves attention.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2277626&page=2&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe all of the Russ allegations to be false?

[/ QUOTE ]

When he talks abou events that happened 25 years ago I believe that many of them are true. Most of these are common knowledge among Las Vegas regulars anyway.

When he accusses virtually every current person who has some name recognition I believe that most of this is false.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe any of them to be true?


[/ QUOTE ]

Just answered.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove any of the allegations are false? Or true?


[/ QUOTE ]

To do this I would need access to information that I don't have and much of which probably doesn't exist anyway.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

It says what it says --- most. (emphasis added) Not all, most. Or, by implication, some are true. No?

Best,

jb

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



http://solastyear.com/catglassown.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup /images/graemlins/smile.gif

ROFLMFAO

Best,

jb

[J_V]

For the record. I like John Bond.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Josh:

Here's the problem when you say "Making Poker Honest." You're implying that you have information that I don't think you have and that I certainly don't have.

However, just for argument sake, let's assume you are right and that we need to make poker honest. I don't think the general steps you would take to protect games would be any different than the steps you would take to keep poker honest. But what would happen is that focus would be put on certain players without any proof, and nothing would be accomplished.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

I don't appreciate in any way what you are trying to do. The reason I use the word "most" is that I don't have the ability to prove a negative. If Russ G names enough people I'm sure he'll eventually hit at least one person who has an unscrpulous background.

Now if you have any proof that someone has cheated and you can be specific, then you should come forward with it. We would all like to know this and it would benefit the industry in general. But I suspect this won't happen.

If you want to talk about techniques or procedures that can insure the games and tournaments of the future are honest, then I think that is a good topic. But quit implying that I'm somehow supporting the position that you want to take.

MM

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record. I like John Bond.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet John Bond feels the same way.

Vince

[Josh W]

Mason -

I certainly did not mean to imply that I have information regarding dishonesty in games now. It just seems somewhat naive to assume that ALL of the games being spread are 100% honest 100% of the time.

I certainly don't think that we (being the poker community) should invoke some sort of witch-hunt without dang solid proof.

I just think it would be silly to build really tall walls to protect poker and 'keep' it honest without first checking to see if there are rodents tunnelling UNDER the existing walls, currently harming the honesty.

I think we need to listen (at least with one ear) to people who are willing to talk about the current state. Listening to these people does not imply carte blanche belief in what they say.

Josh

edit: I guess what I'm saying is when people throw around accusations that "oh my, there sure is a lot of cheating", we can take that with a grain of salt. But when (if?) people have specific names and instances, those should pique our interest....IMHO.

[deathtoau]

Ok, We have now beat a dead horse and then buried it.

Then we dug it up again and beat on it a few more times and then buried it.

DON'T DIG UP THE DEAD HORSE ANYMORE. JUST DROP IT!