review of the Johnny Moss biography "Champion of Champions"

[StevieG]

Don Jenkins’s “Champion of Champions” is a biography of Johnny Moss written in 1981 when Moss was already 74 years old. An interesting, quick read, the book explores the life of one of the greatest documented gamblers of the 20 th century.

The book opens with Moss’s legendary months-long no-limit poker session with Nick “The Greek” Dandalos at Binion’s Horseshoe casino in 1949. The account is detailed and captivating as a hook, but the surprise of the book is that even more worthy of attention is the path that took Moss to participate in that game.

Each chapter of the book begins with a quote from Moss. One, “A Gambler has to be able to play any game available” seems to be a worthwhile them for the entire book. From early on in life, Moss showed an ability and willingness to hustle for money, working as a kid selling newspapers and collecting messages for wire services. Working for nickels each day, he saw more being wagered on one game of dominoes. So he learned to play dominoes. That led craps, and on to poker. But Moss was up for any action, learning to bowl and play golf when the chance for action presented itself.

As colorful as accounts are of Moss learning to play and win, it is instructive to see just how much Moss had to fear from cheats, law enforcement, and outright hijacking. Moss cherished his reputation as honest and trustworthy, and worked to make the games he played in fair for all players.

The book does not include any specific tips from Moss on playing, but it does capture a personal philosophy – be prepared to lose if you want to win, learn from losses and then forget them, stay true to your word and prepare harder than the other guy, and the best players will win out in a fair game. That and his personal story are worth reading about. And today’s players should be thankful that there are so many legal, safe, and honest cardrooms in operation as opposed to when Johnny Moss was making a name for himself.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Moss cherished his reputation as honest and trustworthy, and worked to make the games he played in fair for all players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi StevieG:

I've never read the book but I got a kick out of that quote. Did it have a section about how polite he was at the poker tables, especially to the women?

Best wishes,
Mason

[FeliciaLee]

Thank you for the great review!

I loved the book, but I am biased, as I am a big Johnny Moss fan. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

(I don't care about his personality, his behavior at the tables, his dislike of women players, etc. I am judging solely on his poker skills, both cash games and tournaments.)

As an FYI, Gambler's Bookshop in Vegas is selling the Moss biography for 1/2 price, as it is out of print, and several boxes were found in the attic.

[Mason Malmuth]

Felicia:

I played a bunch of times with him, and his poker skills were just awful. It's hard to describe how truly bad he played. My best guess is that he averaged losing $500 to $1,000 a day at the $20-$40 limit, and a number of players got pumped up because of him. To me it's almost a crime the way he is eulogized as some type of special poker person.

By the way, I just happen to know someone, whose name I can't mention and who I don't think you would have heard of anyway, who worked for Johnny Moss as a shift manager at one of the cardrooms that he ran years ago. I think my favorite story is how Moss would empty out the drop boxes in front of the customers on an empty table at the end of a bad day so that he could keep playing poker. (He leased the room so the casino didn't care if he grabbed all the money.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[RowdyZ]

Is this the same Johnny Moss who won the WSOP 3 times? Wow maybe one day I can that bad a poker player.

[MRBAA]

Mason, by the time you played with Moss he must have been close to 75 and perhaps the game had passed him by. But Doyle Brunson and Benny Binion thought he was top notch, as did others of his generation. And he did win the WSOP three times. And place a bunch of others. He just can't have been as clueless and bad a player over his whole career as you say. Now, maybe he was a clueless player and a nasty one as an old man -- although even here Alvarez played with him and doesn't say it was that bad in his books.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
To me it's almost a crime the way he is eulogized as some type of special poker person.



[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

I have no doubt that what you're saying is true. But, he DID win the world series 3 times. Only one other person has ever matched that. That player is someone who also gets alot of criticism for his lifestyle, gambling addiction, etc. Still, neither can be ignored as poker greats.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi MRBAA:

I've had this argument made to me before, but I don't believe it. Someone who would call three bets cold because he has an ace in his hand isn't someone who got old and had the game past him by. This was someone with absolutely no clue of how limit hold 'em was played.

I have been told that he just didn't understand limit but was pretty good at no limit. Perhaps that's the case, but I find it hard to believe.

As for his tournament results, I think he was probably an overall loser there as well, but I'm not sure. In the beginning, a few players did well in tournaments simply because they played way too loose. They unknowingly took advantage of better players who didn't know how to adjust to tournament play. I believe Moss was in this group.

And finally, he made most of his lifetime income running cardrooms as opposed to being a successful player. Even when I played against him, he got $200 a day to be the host. He also tried to get two or three dealers fired everyday for dealing him losing hands.

Best wishes,
Mason

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
Moss would empty out the drop boxes in front of the customers on an empty table at the end of a bad day so that he could keep playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having read the biography, this seems entirely in character. Even in this flattering account, the author describes large swings in Moss's bankroll and a willingness to scrape at anything to put some scratch together again.

[FeliciaLee]

Hi Mason and all,

I have heard these sad stories about Moss many times, and it is really too bad. His play obviously deteriorated with age, and I think he was said not to ever be a great limit player.

Like some other NL tourney "greats," Johnny seemed to have a certain skill set he excelled at, whereas other important poker skills were severely lacking.

While studying the old WSOP tapes, I was amazed at his lack of any tells. Unlike the other players, he was not constantly fiddling with his chips. He wasn't checking his hole cards every time the flop came suited. He didn't reach for his chips out of turn.

These kinds of tells seem elementary to us, but in the early 70's, even the "pros" were giving away their hands all the time. At one point, Puggy Pearson turns over his hand before he calls Jack Straus, in order to gauge Jack's reaction to his hand. Seeing that he has Jack beat, he calls. This kind of angle would never be permitted these days.

I don't know much about Johnny's cash game success or failure, as there are no records to be found, but I have put together a spreadsheet of his WSOP success.

Like another poster said, some of it can be attributed to the lack of competition in the early days of the WSOP, but Moss was still winning bracelets in the late 80's!

Although my spreadsheet is not finished, by far, it is complete enough for me to know that if Johnny Moss wasn't a tournament WCP, I want his kind of failure! Hehe! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

If anyone is interested in viewing my spreadsheet on Moss, and his overwhelming success in 19 years of playing the WSOP, please PM me, I will be happy to provide what I have.

If anyone has more completed information on results of WSOP events from 1971 to 1989, please PM me so that I can complete my research on Johnny Moss.

Thanks!

[act]

Hi Mason,

thanks for great reviews.

Could you please explain the following quote to me:

"In the beginning, a few players did well in tournaments simply because they played way too loose. They unknowingly took advantage of better players who didn't know how to adjust to tournament play. I believe Moss was in this group.
"

How can you take advantage of anyone by playing too lose? As a rule of thumb i would play tighter in a tornament because i woulden't expekt multiway action and because my tournament expectation usually drops more by losing a dollar than it increases by winning a dollar. Am I wrong? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Cyrus]

Why would ever want to erase that image of Johnny Moss Champion of Champions from your mind?

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi act:

A very quick explanation is that in tournaments many players tighten up too much since they don't want to go broke. Thus it becomes easy to steal the blinds and sometimes steal the pots later in the hand.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Al Mirpuri]

In 'The Biggest Game In Town' Moss admits to being a cheat himself when he started out.

Does the account of the Moss-Dandolos marathon game add anything to the account found in the above mentioned book or that found in 'Fast Company'?

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif i lived in vegas when moss ran dunes card rook...

lol

one of the more charitable things said about him:

"no one would ever accuse johnny moss of being nice"

lol

gl /images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
He also tried to get two or three dealers fired everyday for dealing him losing hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true I hope he dies.

But seriously, who cares how good a player he was or wasn't. A lot of these so-called legends were creepy people, cheats, murderers or worse (worse?).

Many of the players of yesteryear could have never made it today because many of their angle-shoots and other tactics and strategies wouldn't work today. Today's top players are too sophisticated. Many of these players wouldn't have been able to adjust. Moreover, many of the players the public sees at the "top" today aren't as good as they appear. Let's see how many of them are around in 10 years.

[ QUOTE ]
Did it have a section about how polite he was at the poker tables, especially to the women?


[/ QUOTE ]

This says more about him than all the WSOP titles in the world.

If you're looking for someone to look up to you're looking in the wrong place.

[Bill Murphy]

In S/S he sez Moss was the best NL player he ever saw. Slim also sez this in his book. Doyle also sez that Moss was the first to correctly adapt to tourney conditions.

I'm sure Moss was an atrocious 20-40 player in the last ten years of his life(Jack Binion let him live at the Shoe and prolly gave him playing money too), as well as an unpleasant jerk, possible cheat etc.

But I cannot fathom why Mason won't acknowledge that a 30 year old man playing headsup NLHE & NL lowball w/his own money is a far different animal than a 75 year old passing time in a 20 game with his casino owner friend's play money.

Moss' 3 champ's are devalued somewhat by the tiny fields, and the first one was by vote, so doesn't really count. But he was a force in the biggie thruout the 80's; I think he even got to another final table or too. And give him full credit for his last couple bracelets.

[BruceZ]

But I cannot fathom why Mason won't acknowledge that a 30 year old man playing headsup NLHE & NL lowball w/his own money is a far different animal than a 75 year old passing time in a 20 game with his casino owner friend's play money.

I'd like to understand this too. Especially if Moss didn't start playing limit poker until he was much older. It is very common for NL players, and especially NL tournament and shorthanded players, to be ridiculously loose, bluff and slowplay too much, and generally play "awful" at limit, especially when they step down in stakes. If you take an old man who has played nothing but high-stakes NL tourneys and shorthanded all his life, and suddenly put him in a medium stakes limit game which he has no desire to learn to play correctly and doesn't take seriously, I suspect he'd be apt to constantly misuse deception to project an image almost independent of his cards. Sometimes the line between brilliant play and insanity becomes blurred. Combine that with a little genuine senility, and the image he projects could be just what Mason saw.

Mason has stated that Doyle was just being very kind in his assessment of Moss. Mason respects Doyle's expertise, and Doyle played a lot with Moss in his prime, so I think Mason would respect Doyle's true assessment of him, whatever that may be.

Doyle's in Vegas right? I wish he and Mason would have a 5 minute conversation and settle this once and for all.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bruce:

Here's the way I understand things. Moss was a cardroom manager.

I won't mention his name but I know a very good player who got his start playing $3-$6 stud day in and day out with Johnny Moss back in the 1970s. Doyle during this period was playing, as far as I know, fairly high stakes no limit hold 'em. I doubt if they played very much together.

But my opinion on Moss as a player is based on the fact that he didn't even understand basic principles about poker. Now I've also been told that he was decent at no limit, but my guess is that he could only beat very easy games.

As for his tournament results, I also believe that in the early days, those players who were just too loose for full ring games actually had an advantage over the same opponents in a tournament since they accidentally took advantage of tight play. (See Sklansky's book for more discussion.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[RowdyZ]

I disagree that Moss's first win should be devalued because he won by vote. He was playing againist the other top pokers players at the time if that group said someone was the best then he was. The same with his other wins, the fields might have been small but again it was all top pros so coming out on top of that field is impressive. Finally Moss have a total of 8 WSOP titles including his 3 World Championships so he was more then just a NLHE player.
He won
the 7 card stud event in 75,76,79
the 7 card stud split in 81
and the Ace to 5 in 88

[Bill Murphy]

"Here's the way I understand things. Moss was a cardroom manager."

Was he a cardroom manager back in Texas during the '30s & 40s?

"I won't mention his name but I know a very good player who got his start playing $3-$6 stud day in and day out with Johnny Moss back in the 1970s. "

The 1970's, jesus. Moss was over 60. 3-6 stud, he was propping his own games, for chrissakes.

"Doyle during this period was playing, as far as I know, fairly high stakes no limit hold 'em. "

Um, that'd be my guess too.

"I doubt if they played very much together."

Wrong, at least according to both Doyle & Slim.

"But my opinion on Moss as a player is based on the fact that he didn't even understand basic principles about poker."

He didn't understand basic principles about MEDIUM STAKES, DOUBLE BLIND, NINE-HANDED LIMIT HOLD'EM! And he didn't care to know, either. Unbelievable how you won't recognize this. Moss didn't even like nine handed NL.

" Now I've also been told that he was decent at no limit, but my guess is that he could only beat very easy games."

You mean like those easy games in Texas during the early 60's aganst Doyle, Slim, Sailor, etc?

"As for his tournament results, I also believe that in the early days, those players who were just too loose for full ring games actually had an advantage over the same opponents in a tournament since they accidentally took advantage of tight play. (See Sklansky's book for more discussion.) "

You've got this completely wrong. In S/S Doyle sez Moss was the first to correctly just try to survive during the early stages of the WSOP.

I'll voluntarily retire from this subject, but I'm absolutely baffled by you & Ray here. Doyle says Moss was the BEST, period. He's a kind man, but if Moss really sucked I highly doubt he'd say that.

Note that neither Doyle nor Cowboy Wolford, both close as family to Benny & Jack Binion, ever wrote a word about Benny or Jack being good players out of kindness.

ALright, I'm done, but I'd love it if some local player would get the nerve up to ask Doyle about this someday.

[MRBAA]

Just on pure logic, you have to accept that Johnny Moss could not have won the tourneys he did, again and again, if he were a fish. Before that, he could not have been playing in the tough games he played in, including the famous marathon with Nick the Greek, without being something special. It's not plausible -- he was too successful for too long. On the other hand, many people report that he was a rather unpleasant old man and a losing player. That's believeable -- but why go from that to try to wipe out his undeniable, on the record, achievements? I'd not be surprised if Moss was very bigoted -- perhaps he offended you (and others) when you played with him?