View Full Version : Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim and Sailor Roberts

Roy Munson
12-02-2005, 05:20 PM
Recently during a bout of insomnia I logged some time with a TV special on the life of Doyle Brunson.

Doyle stated that when he used to travel with Amarillo Slim and Sailor Roberts that they played out of the same bankroll. Would this not lead to collusion among the three, especially against players who may not have been aware of this arrangement?

This has also led me to think about the legendary "big game" at the Bellagio that everyone seems to be fascinated with.
I do not wish to incriminate specific players but according to many there are a group of regulars in this game who seem to have a good working relationship with each other. Is it unrealistic to believe that they may subtly work with each other against any non-regular who happens to find their way into this game?

12-02-2005, 06:02 PM
It wouldn't suprise me if Doyle, Amirillo, and Sailor were colluding somewhat. In those games there was always the threat of getting cheated, robbed, or worse so I am sure in some games they wanted to maximize whatever win they could get out of the room with. Probably nothing too blatent but I would guess there was some unsavoryness going on as some point.

As far as the big game I wouldn't think there would be much collusion. If you want some decent insight to the "big game" I would recommend reading "The Professor, The Banker, and The Suicide King". While that game is mostly about the games and matches with Andy Beal it does get into the "big game" and some of the stories behind it.

12-02-2005, 06:28 PM
I think it would be naive to think that there's no collusion in the big game (even if subtle.)

12-02-2005, 06:37 PM
...regulars in this game who seem to have a good working relationship with each other...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread after thread after thread in 2+2's forums talk about reading players. Online players hands are recorded and studied.

Don't you think the top players would have a pretty good idea about how their peers play? Sure, friendships may occasionally cause a hand to be played a little different, but not, IMO, to the point of being collusion. And certainly not to a degree that causes the other player's any problems. Otherwise I'd think you'd be hearing at least a couple of them talking about being cheated.

I've got no interest in defending anyone. I just wanted to point to another direction for you to consider.

12-02-2005, 06:42 PM
...regulars in this game who seem to have a good working relationship with each other...

[/ QUOTE ]

Everone in the big game knows each other pretty damn well, so unless everyone is colluding with everyone else the answer is probably no. I found the use of the word "incriminating" hilarious, it suggests some sort of evidence rather than random stabs in the dark.

12-02-2005, 08:42 PM
I think back when these guys placed, colluding was widespread. The three of them might have colluded, but most likely so was everyone else. It was probably almost like a team game then.

12-02-2005, 08:44 PM
Regarding the Big Game, I'd think 'collusion' is extreme. Anyone who comes into that game is going to be an underdog because of a) the competition b) the structure c) the stakes. The regulars are going to individually target the weak guy and have to respect one another's games. They're individualy working towards the same goal. They each understand this arrangement is to their benefit, because its better to go up against the weaker players at the table. I doubt it goes beyond that.

12-02-2005, 09:08 PM
If they were some bunch of sharks waiting for a mark to roll into their game with a million to lose they wouln't play against each other everyday, and it is a rotating group of people, so are all the pros who attend just in on the big secret?

The big winners in the game are Ivey, Greenstein, Reese and Brunson if I remeber correctly, doesn't excactly seem like the closest in the bunch, reeese and brunson maybe, but other than that speculation and rumours are just silly.

Also they hardly need to collude to beat a rich fish, in fact I bet they would rather compete over who can get the most of his cash before he runs out instead of spreading it 14 ways (or how ever many are regulars).

12-02-2005, 11:25 PM
I can't say that Doyle, Amarillo and Sailor never colluded in a poker game, but I can say that they didn't always play in the same game - but they knew each others moves and styles because they discussed their play with each other after games. What better way to learn than to have two friends that also play a good game and then re-hash everything you've seen for the last 20 hours? I'm jealous.

Also, since most of the games they were playin in during the late 1950's and early '60's were held at "wealthy" rancher and oil men's homes (where you attended by invitation only), it is doubtful that the other players (like Johnny Moss, Jack Straus, Bob Hooks, Puggy Pearson etc.) would have allowed - or not seen any collusion going on. Nobody knows for sure, but I would bet against serious going on.

More on Doyle et. all: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2005/06/poker-legends-doyle-brunson.htm

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

12-03-2005, 02:54 AM
The big winners in the game are Ivey, Greenstein, Reese and Brunson if I remeber correctly, .

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my understanding that Jenn Harman is also a winner in that game

to see who's donating though just read DN's blog with updates on his dropping 150-200k there in a night,
and also keep in mind that they aren't exactly soft playing each other in
the props either. . .

12-03-2005, 05:26 AM
They were just sharing a bankroll to help with the fluctuations, not colluding. Also, back in the day when they were travelling, they were just as likely to walk into a rigged gamed so they needed some sort of protection. Tough to beat all of them.