Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

This is lifted from another thread, to which it was not germane. Also it was kind of buried, and Mase's question is valid, and deserves response.

Posts: 3127
Loc: Nevada Re: John Bond's apology to Mason, posted on rgp
04/29/05 04:44 AM Edit Reply Quote



Hi John:

Let's get back to the important issue. Roy Cooke has endorsed someone who has called virtually everyone with any name recognition a cheater. As one friend of mine put it to me in private, calling everyone a cheater is similar to the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy when he called almost everyone a communist.

Cooke has certainly damaged himself by making this post. But, in my opinion, he can minimize the damge by withdrawing from his statement. However, the longer he waits to withdraw, the larger the damage.

Since you're his pal, the best thing you can do, again in my opinion, is to convince Cooke to take his medicine and post a retraction.

Best wishes,
Mason

Edited by Mason Malmuth (04/29/05 04:47 AM)

Re: Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

[ QUOTE ]
Edited by Mason Malmuth (04/29/05 04:47 AM)

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh?

Re: Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

Mase --

RC won't retract. I'm sure of it. Why? Because much of what Russ says is true. No, not the wild-eyed point the finger at the world allegations against big names - though you and I both have heard many of the sordid stories of poker's early days and we both saw what was going on in the 80s… RC made it pretty clear he wasn’t validating any of those stories in particular, while conceding that some of them likely have some truth in them.

You can bet RC chose his words carefully, and he was quite clear not to validate any particular cheating allegation against anybody by Russ. I’m not going to bother re-quoting what RC’s post says - -but it says what it says. It says it’s NOT a blanket endorsement ,etc, etc with substantial reminders of that fact.

What RC was and is trying to draw attention to is what's going on in Internet poker and tournaments today. A subject about which Georgiev has written with the great knowledge of an experienced slimeball. (RC’s word.)

By his very nature, and the manner in which he has in McCarthy-like fashion (quite the valid metaphor by you imo) shot off at every big name that comes to his mind, Georgiev has no credibility. And yet many of his observations about Internet poker, high stakes poker, and tournament poker are dead on. Because he is an idiot with his other crap the merit in those matters has been lost. Because of the source, and because of fascination with the big names, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.

RC makes quite clear that his post is not about personalities, or who did what when. It's about cheating. Ongoing collusion. Inappropriate partnerships. Scammers beating Internet site protections for players.

The “was this guy a cheater or that guy a cheater twenty years ago” question is a red herring. It distracts from the important thing RC is trying to say. It is essentially irrelevant to poker's present and future. And that’s Russ’s fault because he mixed the two things up, not RC’s fault. Separating those questions, and removing the important one from the bailiwick of a lunatic is what’s important.

What matters is what the hell is going to happen now, and people damn well better wake up. As you noted Caro's been speaking about it forever, and there's your article in Poker Essays III, and there are Roy's recent articles. But the fact is this whacko Russ G has devoted more space to the legitimate cheating issues than anybody up until now. He’s owned this issue on the web (except for some private communications among industry insiders) and that has marginalized the importance of the subject.

What RC is basically doing is hijacking the issue from him --- but he can only do that by conceding that he was right about much of it in the first place.

RC has heard every damn cheat story that has passed through Vegas for thirty years and you’ve heard lots of em too. And some of em are true, some of em aren’t. So what?

What RC’s post is about --- and all that matters here – is wtf are we going to do to prevent a gigantic cheating scandal from adversely affecting the industry’s prospects in what could be very significant ways?

That’s what it’s about. Russ has been right about that. Roy gives him credit on that account because that is an essential step of working against the kind of stuff he talks about. And Roy doesn’t care squat about who did what yesterday. He cares what we’re all going to do about tomorrow.

I understand you have a problem with his approach. Oh well, won’t be the first time you two have disagreed.

But it just is what it is --- and what it isn’t is a validation of any specific claim Russ has made about any particular person. It’s about getting people talking. About credible spokespeople owning the issue. That’s the first step on the road to action.

Don’t fall for the trap of focusing on Russ’s allegations – true or not - -about the past. They just don’t matter. Focus on what he has said about collusion in tournaments and ring games, and cheating the Internet. He’s been right on much of what he has said on these subjects. He is an expert freaking cheat with 40 years experience—he knows his stuff on these issues!

And Roy - -and you and David and Sexton and Caro and all the other credible spokespeople – need to seize the issue from him and lead the industry to action.

Right now, I don’t see much action. I think RC’s post is a significant and major step toward making things happen.

Best,

jb

Re: Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

"Roy gives him credit on that account because that is an essential step of working against the kind of stuff he talks about."

Why is that an essential step? When I write that you shouldn't play medium pairs in eight or better stud it is not essential that I mention that Russ once wrote something similar.

Re: Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

[ QUOTE ]
RC won't retract. I'm sure of it. Why? Because much of what Russ says is true .

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
RC made it pretty clear he wasn’t validating any of those stories in particular, while conceding that some of them likely have some truth in them .


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, not the wild-eyed point the finger at the world allegations against big names - though you and I both have heard many of the sordid stories of poker's early days and we both saw what was going on in the 80s



[/ QUOTE ]

Am I wrong or are you now insinuating, no flat out saying that you and Mason can verify that some big names were cheating in the 80's as claimed by Russ?

Vince

Re: Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

That line was probably included from Mason's original post on RGP.

Re: Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Roy gives him credit on that account because that is an essential step of working against the kind of stuff he talks about."

[/ QUOTE ]

There in lies the fallacy in RC's defense here. There is NO need to bring Russ Georgieve into a discussion designed to bring attention on cheating on Internet Poker sites. Why would someone call a person a Slimeball (RC's description of Georgiev) and not credible and then use them as a source to prove some point. Does not compute!

Vince

Re: Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Roy gives him credit on that account because that is an essential step of working against the kind of stuff he talks about."


Why is that an essential step? When I write that you shouldn't play medium pairs in eight or better stud it is not essential that I mention that Russ once wrote something similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi David,

It's good to see you chip in on this.

There's a lengthy rationale to this -- even lengthier than all that has gone before, but a big part of it can be illustrated by carrying forward Mason's metaphor ---- to tackle this issue in a public way on the web without dealing with Russ would be sort of like tackling the issue of the Soviet threat in the 50s without dealing with McCarthy. To proceed intelligently with that issue required separating the ridiculous charges from the reality of the threat. How much harder would it have been on everybody from George Marshall to Ronald Reagan if McCarthy hadn't self-destructed, but remained active on the scene?

RC has chosen this route to get people's attention and segregate the important part of the issue from what I have referred to earlier as the imcomprehsible screeds. Agree or disagree with thetactic, it seems to be getting traction.

IMO -- not particularly relevant I might add -- this is necessary because Roy and you and the others were quiet too long and left a void that was filled by the likes of Georgiev. And that is why we are confronted with issues like Tuan/Habib and worse which will probably eventually come to light.

I believe it's incumbent on all of you to create a national strategy to stop what's happening before it gets the industry slammed.

Not that i'd say what I think [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Best,

jb

Re: Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

This whole thing wreaks of trolling. Can people verify that this was indeed Roy making the post? I found it odd the way he was pushing the pokermafia website.

I'm not an RGP member, so I don't know the detailed history, it just seems odd also that Roy would stick his neck out and associate with this Russ character.

Re: Mason\'s question about Cooke, and a response
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agree or disagree with thetactic, it seems to be getting traction.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just plain silly! The only "traction" Roy Cooke got was to get people to wonder what " Roy Cooke knows" about the big names of Poker being cheats. That is it in a nutshell. This discussion and others began here are not about internet cheating they are about Roy Cooke validating Russ Georgiev's claims concerning his big name cheating accusationbs. If you read Russ Georgiev's reply to Cooke you will see that Russ thanks Roy for giving credence to his claims.

John Bond is trying to justify his own defense of Roy Cooke with this silly rhetoric. Anyone on this forum or anywhere else in the "Poker Wolrd" would welcome Roy Cooke's comments concerning internet poker (cheating). He doesn't need the endorsement of a Russ Georgiev. John Bond's diversion towards internet gambling and Roy's ulterior motives is nothing more than the proverbial smoke screen sent out by a (lawyer) spokesman to cool the heat and dodge the public flack that their client is experiencing.

Vince