New article by Vicky Coren - Amarillo Slim: the Man in the Giant Hat

[MM]

There's a new article by Vicky Coren:

Amarillo Slim: the Man in the Giant Hat

[Seb]

"I thought: if I were wrongly accused of child molesting, that's not what I'd do."

I hate comments like this.

[Brodders]

[Seb]

[beded]

[pokerwaldorf]

I think its a decent article, not sure about the comment Victoria makes about winning more money than him...seems to be missing a mention of the Hendon Mob Database!!

Its a fair article, in my opinion, but I'd like to know more about the line towards the end...

"Even the sporting status is under a cloud; many people say he was a cheat."

Any further reading on this?
_________________
AKA: Gary Oakes
Head of Poker
Genting Poker

ISPT Wembley
€1MILLION GTD 1st Prize
Qualify straight into Day 2
http://www.gentingpoker.com/gps
Let's Play Again

[Seb]

[Brodders]

[Seb]

[The Dean]

Totally impossible IMO to compare recent tournament winnings with what Slim will have won in cash games lifetime. Slim was already an old man when the poker boom started and the massive tournament money started flowing in and playing strong poker over several days would have been beyond him physically in all likelihood.

But what needs remembering is that Slim inhabited the same poker circles in the 70's and 80's as Doyle, Chip Reese, Stu Ungar, Bobby Baldwin, Brian Roberts and Johnny Moss who were absolute legends of the game and played the highest stakes imaginable. Taking inflation into account then the stakes these players operated at were very high.

I would estimate personally that Slim's cash game winnings would have been tens of millions.......how much he kept hold of is another matter. But people like Moss and Doyle and Chip held him in the highest possible regard as a poker player and that should be good enough for anyone.

Love him or hate him......he operated at the highest level in his day and would have certainly won untold millions based on ability and not through binking the odd tournament.
_________________
Poker columnist at www.poker.co.uk

[Brodders]

[Seb]

I'm always serious.

"I completely agree that the article insinuates that Slim was guilty of molesting his grandchild but for the reasons I stated before that's totally understandable and acceptable."

We clearly have different moral codes. The author has no knowledge so is in no position to insinuate except as gossip. All she can honestly do is state her beliefs. I wonder what Johnny Hughes would make of it.

[Brodders]

[darrensprengers]

There is a more obvious question being missed. if your daughter came to you and told you of this what would it take for you to allow that person to "accept" a plea bargain. No court cases and almost a full family retraction. It all seems suspicous and open to imterpretation in both repects. the repects are that an innocent man accussed on a whim and also a guilty man seeking an easy solution.

from the "evidence" presented within this article both conclusions could be met with an equal amount of logical reasoning. to assert either as fact would be at best assumption and at worst predjudice.

the reason most pieces has skirted the issue is that it colours an article. when you say he was a drawling, sexist people can assert some levity to it because he was born before the second world war. it is very difficult to judge people based on actions we could not comprehend as the impetus and causal action has long since been resigned to history.

Even though seb is merely trolling he has hit apon a very interesting facet of human understanding. the word "if" causes, involuntarily, the logical debate into what an alegation being a fact would mean. an intelectual can obviously go through both routes of the "if" and add in some other information spurious or factual. unfotunatley not everyone is an intellectual. Judging by some of the responses to the articles on the guardian page this is now evidenced in print

How many times have you mentioned some news story and a friend almost out of the blue says "i heard it was the step dad". Someone else showing limited interest says "any evidence?". A blank look follows and the simple response is "i just bet he did it".
A texan whose philosophy was to not argue a point but bet on it or shut up might love the irony.
_________________
The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing.

-- Nick "The Greek" Dandalos

[Seb]

Brodders, you're talking yourself in knots. It's not gossip because he admitted a lesser charge? Sit down.

"What would YOU have done if you were falsely accused of molesting your grandchild?"

I've no idea, but I know it's not relevant to anything except what I believe happened. You state your beliefs, you insinuate facts (if anything). To insinuate beliefs is to give them the quality of gossip - speculative, nasty stuff that you'd like other people to believe. Do you genuinely not see what I'm saying here?