Yeah, I knew you were a good player, but I didn't know you were that good! I
never did play any razz or stud (no-limit or nothing here). And, actually, I
never played seriously until online-poker came about (I prefer speed poker and
like to play at least 4 to 8 tables at the same time, even though that makes it
much harder to win). I should also mention that the reason I quit is exactly
the same as your's. For the last 5 years, online poker has been completely and
utterly corrupt (and the sites don't care about stopping the massive amount of
cheating, as it makes them tons of money). I stopped playing shortly after I
found out that the largest online poker site wasn't even checking to see if
multiple players at the same table were playing from the exact same IP address
(meaning multiple players could play from the same house and share info with
each other and never get caught). At the time, they were advertising that they
had something like 100 million players registered, and I was ranked #4 in their
tournament rankings (and I was working another job at the time too). Yet I
just walked away from all that money, it pissed me off so much. If they
weren't doing the very basic things about security, how were they going to
catch the professional cheaters? They set up a system where they would only
catch the most egregious violators. When I mentioned that those industries
were honorable, I was more referring to private games. Perhaps casino games.
The old west. But, after what you posted, I guess that's not really the case
unfortunately (I always tell people that I'm absolutely shocked how every
single industry I learn about, I find them to be absolutely shamefully crooked
upon closer inspection)... That's why every major poker player claims
themselves to be unlucky - they actually are unlucky. They don't win quite as
much as they should thanks to all the collusion, etc... And, there's no way
you'd know without doing a massive, in-depth statistical analysis of your
expected winning percentages vs. your actual winning percentages (I actually
did that once and found that I didn't win nearly as much as would be expected
based on the odds, although I was still making decent money)... For instance,
this is what you're facing when you play online poker nowadays: Multiple
computer programs will follow you to whatever table you play on and watch,
literally, every single hand you ever play. Not just today, but every hand you
have ever played. It will database all that info and analyze every move you
ever make - in every possible situation. Those programs will then give the
cheater every possible odd he might need to know - and tell him how to play
everyone at the table to his best advantage (based on the spying). The
programs are designed to be pretty-much unbeatable (how can you beat a computer
that has analyzed every move you've ever made at a game with a small amount of
permutations). The only way to beat that is to set elaborate traps... And,
that's assuming that the cheater isn't also part of a world-wide collusion
ring...
Good point, I wouldn't want to imply that poker was honest anymore. Just
slightly more so than many other industries I've been involved with (Hollywood
seems to be far seedier).
Cheers,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hershenson
To: Bob Brooks
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] E.T. BIKE POSTER - Can we clear up another difference of
opinion?
Great post, Bob, and I applaud you for it! The hatchet is completely buried
as far as I am concerned, and I imagine Dave will say the same when he sees
this.
It ABSOLUTELY is the good guys against the good guys in most of the
bickering, and the true bad guys (the handful who have sold staggering amounts
of repros as originals) have surely been laughing themselves silly over this,
and it would be so great if the bickering would completely end and we can focus
on the real enemy.
I do want to slightly correct something you wrote, which is about poker
(maybe add on is more accurate). I don't know if you know that I was one of the
very first "modern day" full time pro poker players in Las Vegas (from 1972 to
1982). I got there before Chip Reese and all the other modern guys (who are now
old timers!), and about the only people there before me were Doyle Brunson and
a bunch of other real old guys who are mostly dead now. I did not care about
the tournaments until 1979, when I played in Amarillo Slim's 1st Super Bowl of
Poker (a friend of Slim's asked me to play) and I won the 7 stud event there,
and then I won the 1981 World Series of Poker 7 card razz event, and soon after
I left Vegas.
So I REALLY know what I am talking about when it comes to pro poker (at least
in terms of 1972 to 1982). You say, "you're expected to lie in poker, you'll
also get shot for cheating", but nothing was further from the truth in Las
Vegas the 1970s! Almost EVERY top pro in the highest games in Las Vegas at that
time was VERY involved in massive cheating, and I wanted no part of that, and
that is why I did not play in the highest games at that time, and why I left
Vegas.
I had been planning for years to write a "tell-all" book about the massive
cheating that went on then, naming names, but of course I have been waiting for
the really heavily involved guys all to die first, as my revelations would not
go over well in certain quarters. But as they have been dying off, I have been
thinking I should just let them take their secrets to the grave, for I could
only reveal the truth about a few dozen famous names, and there would surely be
hundreds more who were also crooks but who I did not have personal info on, so
why tarnish the reputations of just some of them?
Anyway, my point is that high stakes poker is actually JUST LIKE our current
situation in the poster world. There are major crooks who operate openly, and
no one does anything about it. I think it is only if all the "good guys" quit
bickering and get together on exposing these outright crooks that things will
change. I have written of the dozens of lobby card titles that have recently
joined the inserts. We need to get together and spread the word about these
many counterfeits (through sites like mine and Dave's and LAMP, and hopefully
Dan's intended book) so that the bad guys sell so few of their fakes that they
will find some other hobby to try to ruin.
Thanks so much for this great fence-mending post, Bob! As Victor Lazlo said
to Rick Blaine at the end of Casablanca, I say to you "Welcome back to the
fight. This time I know our side will win."
Bruce
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Bob Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Bruce, et al:
Yeah, I should probably apologize as well. As you say, every time we have
one of these arguments, both sides get lumped in with the true 'bad guys' in
this hobby (and there are sooooo many of them that it's not fair to either of
us). Same with Lieberman. I try to point out (yet it's probably never very
clear, as I do tend to be a bit of a know-it-all asshole) that I don't consider
you two the bad guys. I may have issues with your marketing and promotion
methods, and we may snipe back and forth, but that's a whole other sport than
what the real bad guys are doing. Not even comparable in the slightest.
Again, it's really a shade of grey and not worth arguing about. Both of you
have done far more good for the hobby than bad (much more so than I). I think
it all stems from the fact that over the years, I've been (arguably) a
professional gambler in several different disciplines (poker, billiards and
horses). While all of those industries are thought to be dishonorable, I have
found them all to be probably far more honorable than any other. I'm
old-school. So, while you're expected to lie in poker, you'll also get shot
for cheating. So, whenever I see a company stretch the truth when they're
trying to get someone's money, I get my panties in a bunch. But, again, that's
arguable, as you don't expect any marketing materials to be the God's-honest
truth... Which, again, is why I'm saying that any problems I have with Dave or
Bruce are absolutely miniscule compared to the real problems in this hobby. I
love to argue (and so do B&D), so it always seems much worse than it actually
is. The real bad guys have long since learned to keep their mouths shut
(leaving the good guys to fight amongst themselves and take the pressure off
them). So, you're absolutely right. We really need to join forces and start
bickering about the real problems out there. The inserts we are (stupidly)
arguing about are still circulating. Same with all the other bootlegs. The
bad guys must be sitting there laughing at us. So, I shall cease and desist
too, and focus my energy where it belongs, on the real bad guys (plus, I'm
moving right now, so most of my computer equipment is in boxes)...
"Are you talking about Thomas Loce here:
"And, I've never, ever slandered anyone on the internet, not even Loce"
I ask this because I'm curious about what you or others have on him."
While I won't go into detail, let's just say that if he ever decided to
make good on his threats and sue anyone in the poster hobby (even Lieberman),
that I'd probably be on the first plane to the courthouse with what would
likely be enough to get the case dismissed on the spot (and perhaps make for
some serious counter-claim issues that would make his life a bit miserable).
But, then, he's been threatening lawsuits for years to no fruition (not a
surprise there, considering)... And, actually, I should point out that even
though Dave and I have our differences, I do have a fair bit of respect for him
for being one of only a tiny handful of people willing to go on the record
about Loce/Richter (and he was probably the most vocal of the group). He
deserves wicked props for that.
Cheers,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hershenson
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] E.T. BIKE POSTER - Can we clear up another difference
of opinion?
I am glad you weren't long-winded. I will make this simple. I should not
have said you "slandered" me because I am not a lawyer, and did not even take
law in college, which I guess is about the same. I publically apologize for
that.
You now say "I don't think Bruce ever sided with the minty whites per se,
but he sure did make fun of us for claiming that they were fakes". I will cease
arguing whether you ever said otherwise. Please simply show me one or more
examples of when and how I "made fun of you" for claiming they are fakes, and I
will apologize for that as well.
I am just trying to finally put this to rest, and I will gladly apologize
for any "making fun" I may have ever done of you, once you can establish that
you are not confusing something I said with something someone else said.
Once that is established, I will gladly cease to ever mention you or
contact you in any way, if that is your preference.
Thanks.
Bruce
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:01 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Mopo:
I wrote a big, long-winded reply to this, but decided not to post it
(needless to say, it didn't make Bruce look good). Despite what Bruce seems to
think, I don't wish him ill-will. Despite some iffy things, I don't consider
him one of the 'bad guys' (Lieberman either). So, over the years, I've
with-held some information that doesn't make him look good. I have bigger fish
to fry. But, if he keeps it up, I may just post it anyways (he didn't listen
to me the last time I gave him this kind of warning, to his grave detriment)...
I shall simply point out my very last exchange with Bruce here on Mopo
(he must have forgotten how bad he looked). This is a quote from a Mopo email
(around 6pm on January 31st of this year, in case anyone wants to check) of
mine after Bruce had (falsely) accused me of slander (what he actually meant
was libel - which was a false accusation as well, but I hesitated to point out
his mistake, as I didn't want to make him look too stupid):
"And, I've never, ever slandered anyone on the internet, not even Loce
(I took law in college, so I know how to frame criticisms). So, before you
accuse me (aren't false accusations slander?), why don't you post my
'slanderous comments' here for everyone to see? That's right, you won't..."
You will notice that Bruce disappeared after that and never posted
again in the thread. The so-called proof should have been easy to find (it
wasn't from over the course of years, almost a decade ago - what he was
referring to was recent and from one or two short threads that would have been
easy to track down). So, isn't it a bit hypocritical of him to ask me for
proof (that's not the least bit feasible to track down and doesn't exist in the
Mopo archives, on archive.org or in google's cache) about my beliefs as to his
opinion about posters I don't care about from years and years ago, when he
refused to provide proof of his public accusations of criminal activity against
me?!?
If Dave has balls the size of small planetoids, Bruce must have balls
the size of whatever's causing dark-flow...
Cheers,
Bob
PS. I don't think Bruce ever sided with the minty whites per se, but he
sure did make fun of us for claiming that they were fakes. So, if you make fun
of someone for stating an opinion, that sure as hell implies that you disagree
with said opinion...
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hershenson
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] E.T. BIKE POSTER - Can we clear up another
difference of opinion?
In thsi spirit of "clearing the air", I thought this would be a great
time for Bob Brooks to confirm or deny something he has posted repeatedly,
namely that I (Bruce Hershenson) at one time defended the "minty white" inserts
as genuine, and that it was only after Bob and Dan exposed them as fakes that I
changed my tune and denounced them.
I am not calling Mr. Brooks a liar, but I have no memory of the above
events happening, and I am wondering if it is possible that Mr. Brooks is
either mis-remembering the series of events, or perhaps confusing me with some
other person.
I ask him to produce the evidence of his repeated statements to the
above sequence of events (posts from forums, my e-mail club, private e-mails,
etc).
If he can, I will publically apologize to him for ever having doubted
him, and for ever saying these fake inserts were real. If he can't, I don't
care if he apologizes, but ask that never again post something along these
lines, since he would have no factual proof of what he said.
I know that I was first warned about these inserts long before Bob or
Dan ever posted about them, for I was privately contacted by two major dealers
who were offered them soon after they first appeared (were printed), and who
turned them down and who called me to warn me about these fakes. According to
Bob's memory of events, I would have had to then go on and begin defending
these after that time, which seems to me to indicate a clear memory lapse on
his part.
I am very much hoping to settle this, because I think there are clear
"bad guys" in this hobby (who repeatedly sell fakes as real) and I think it
hampers efforts to stop them or at least slow their criminal behavior when some
of the "good guys" fight amongst themselves.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is
solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1773 - Release Date: 11/7/2008
9:08 AM
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1773 - Release Date: 11/7/2008
9:08 AM
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
