reviews on book that chronicled the Andy Beal game ?

[andyfox]

On page 42 of your book (which I am enjoying immensely), you say one of the reasons cheating disappeared from the big games in Vegas after 1980 as that "[t]he best players didn't need to cheat." But then, on page 45, you point out that casinos preferred players who played their other games to poker players because they "wanted to risk losing to the players in exchange for the chance at greater profits."

In other words, the bottom line is the bottom line. So why wouldn't players cheat for the chance at "greater profits" no matter what their skill level? A player can make x playing honestly. Why wouldn't he want to make 2x playing dishonestly, just like a casino would take a risk losing to players in exchange for a chance at greater profit?

I'm not saying the top players cheat. I'm saying I've often heard the "why should they cheat" explanation, and not just involving gambling. It never rang true to me, either logically, or from my own business experience, where I see guys making seven and eight figures a year cheat all the time. Seems to me a guy making x always wants to make x plus. I was wondering whether any of the players specifically asserted that cheating was much more rampant in the "bad old days" than it is now.

Thanks.

[andyfox]

According to author Craig, David responded to his email about contributing to the book by saying "I do almost nothing unless it is worth VERY big bucks to me."

Should we let others elaborate?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Andy:

Both David and I, and Two Plus Two in general, get constant requests from people (some of which are writers) to do all sorts of stuff fot them. Many of these tasks would take many hours of our time or they include the reprinting of much of our written material. It's our standard policy to tell them that if they want or expect this, then they're going to have to pay for it. So David's reply is consistent with our standard policy.

best wishes,
Mason

[andyfox]

Makes sense, thanks Mason.

Mr. Craig said in the book that "Andy Beal and several players had very strong opinions about Sklansky and, even apart from that, it would have been interesting engaging poker's leading theorist on the applicaton of his theories to this unusual poker game. But I wasn't offering him even SMALL bucks, so he was certainly within his right to refuse."

[pipes]

Great read, I got it yesterday and decided to keep on reading last night instead of playing. Only Halfway through though.

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
According to author Craig, David responded to his email about contributing to the book by saying "I do almost nothing unless it is worth VERY big bucks to me."

Should we let others elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

What about helping an old lady across the street?

[MikeCraig]

[ QUOTE ]
On page 42 of your book (which I am enjoying immensely), you say one of the reasons cheating disappeared from the big games in Vegas after 1980 as that "[t]he best players didn't need to cheat." But then, on page 45, you point out that casinos preferred players who played their other games to poker players because they "wanted to risk losing to the players in exchange for the chance at greater profits."

In other words, the bottom line is the bottom line. So why wouldn't players cheat for the chance at "greater profits" no matter what their skill level? A player can make x playing honestly. Why wouldn't he want to make 2x playing dishonestly, just like a casino would take a risk losing to players in exchange for a chance at greater profit?



[/ QUOTE ]

Andy:

We're talking theoretically here, so I don't have any special qualifications. In FACT, I learned from numerous sources in numerous ways that the top games are very honest. That was Andy Beal's opinion and he had both the motivation and the means to consider the matter thoroughly.

As a theoretical matter, the overall reason cheating doesn't make sense in the modern high-stakes poker game is that it's not as profitable IN THE LONG TERM. If I'm a high-stakes pro and I can clean you out of $50k by cheating but my expectation is only, say $15k by playing honestly, I can see why you wonder why it's not in their interest to cheat.

But over the long haul, honest games, in which the lousy players win sometimes, yield a greater expectancy. If the pros ALWAYS win, or there are rumors of cheating, it's going to be hard for them to stay in action. Maybe they can score that $50k only 20 times a year. But in an honest game, where everyone has a good time and the amateurs score some wins, perhaps the pro can count on 150 nights of $15k in expected profits.

Again, who knows the numbers, but everyone with theoretical understanding of these things agreed: a small edge in an honest game will keep you in action far longer and allow you to make more than a big edge in a dishonest game.

Mike Craig

[MikeCraig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What about helping an old lady across the street?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, that sounds like a dig at me! Am I an old lady who needs help getting across the street from David Sklansky? (At the poker table, yes, probably.)

M.C.

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What about helping an old lady across the street?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, that sounds like a dig at me! Am I an old lady who needs help getting across the street from David Sklansky? (At the poker table, yes, probably.)

M.C.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike, no way bud, not a dig at you! By the way, great book! I finished it last night. I liked how you told the story about Ted Forrest just dropping in on the 10K/20K game. another funny part was Forrest and Seed running the marathon.

You obviously did alot of research here, the anecdotes really came alive and were very interesting.

[Craig C]

I'm about 2/3 of the way through this one. It has been a very entertaining read. It grabs you with the one of the first lines "Show us your Pocket Kings"... The author thinking he was a true pro had his hand read by a leathery old cowboy.

I've gotten a new appreciation for Ted Forrest in this book and the risks that the best in the world will take... in that they will put their large(though limited) bankroll up against an unlimited bankroll if they think they have the edge.

Definitely a read for poker entertainment - not to add to skill set.

Craig