Thursday, June 15, 2017

Revelation Regarding the (Alleged) Moss-Dandolos Match

Busy days here on the farm of late, although like everyone I’ve been following all that has gone on at the World Series of Poker thus far. Hard to believe they are only about two weeks into the series, as they’ve already gotten up to the 30th event today.

Have been glad to track the updates on PokerNews once more, and am tuning in over at PokerGO now and then. Speaking of the latter, they finally did get PayPal working and so I got a monthly subscription. They have it on Roku now, too, although I never have been able to get anything to load over there (it seems to stick in a “Retrieving” cycle and never quite opens the live event).

I did want to touch base, though, and let visitors know about a recent “Poker & Pop Culture” column of mine that relates somewhat to the history of the WSOP.

A few weeks back I ran a revised and expanded version of a column focusing on a famous heads-up poker game between Johnny Moss and Nick “The Greek” Dandolos. If you’re reading this blog you’ve probably heard of that match before.

According to most accounts, the pair got together sometime around 1951 (or thereabouts) at Binion’s Horseshoe to play a high-stakes match that lasted several months, with Moss ultimately said to have come away a big winner ($2 million or more, say some). The game was open to the public, goes the story, and for that reason sometimes gets linked to the later idea of the WSOP first run at Binion’s in 1970.

That column, titled “Moss and Dandolos at the Horseshoe - Legend or Myth?” was really more about the many stories about the game than about the game itself.

I included in there how one of the most referenced sources for details regarding the match is Al Alvarez’s The Biggest Game in Town (1983), a favorite poker book of mine that I’ve written about here many, many times over the years.

I also included a bit from Jesse May regarding how some of those who talked to Alvarez for his book (including Moss) likely embellished their tales more than a little bit.

In any case, about a week after that column went up I had a nice surprise when I got a note from a person who works for Jack Binion. The note asked if I could get in touch, as Mr. Binion had some information to share about the Moss-Dandolos story that could help clear up a lot of the uncertainty surrounding it.

I called and after a couple more exchanges ended up getting some fairly remarkable memories from Jack Binion regarding the alleged match. I say “alleged” because one of the clarifications he made was to explain that the match never really happened! At least not at Binion’s, and not in public. And likely not for the super-high stakes often cited, either.

I won’t give away the rest of the story here, but instead point you over to the newer article that shares Jack Binion’s insight:

Poker & Pop Culture: Jack Binion Sorts Fact From Fiction Regarding Moss-Dandolos Match.”

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Reporting from the 1975 WSOP

Here’s something interesting, worth a look here on the eve of another World Series of Poker -- a short video of a televised news item from 1975 filed during that year’s WSOP Main Event.

The clip got passed around a little on Twitter not too long ago, which is how I first saw it. It’s from the Associated Press and was first posted on their YouTube channel last summer. The report is interesting in part because there isn’t really any other footage from that year’s WSOP floating around.

For a deeper look into the WSOP circa that early era at Binion’s, you can see a lot more from the 1973 WSOP in the televised special created that year for its CBS Sports Spectacular weekend show. That entire program is up on YouTube, if you’re curious.

There’s a reference at the start of the clip from 1975 to “only 20 men” being able to come up with the $10,000 entry, although in truth there were 21 entered that year. Brian “Sailor” Roberts would be that year’s champion, and I believe he can be spotted briefly early on in the video, as can a couple of other early WSOP Main Event winners, Amarillo “Slim” Preston and “Puggy” Pearson.

The reporter notes the winner-take-all format, the stamina required to play for long periods, and the fact that many of the better players are from Texas.

Johnny Moss appears briefly, introduced as “the Hank Aaron, Joe Namath, or Jack Nicklaus of World Series Poker.” Moss talks about having won the year before (his third WSOP title), then answers a few questions about the tournament.

“They should let us buy all the checks we want and play three days,” opines Moss, suggesting he’d rather not stick with the freezeout tournament format. In fact, it sounds as though he and some of the other players were having a discussion that year about changing things going forward.

“They gonna do it next year,” he continues. “They gonna make this tournament three eight-hour shifts, and buy all the checks you want. Then you’ll see millions of dollars.”

Of course, what Moss is describing isn’t really so much a tournament at all, but what would be a high-stakes cash game (kind of like they played back at the first WSOP in 1970). As we know, that plan did not come to fruition, as they kept with the freezeout tournament format the following year and every year since.

It would take a few more years -- not until 1982 -- before the prize pool would exceed $1 million in the WSOP Main Event. The first time the winner took away $1 million would be 1991. Then it wouldn’t be too long after that before they could say there really were “millions of dollars” at stake in the event.

Check it out:

Photo: “A group of players outside of Binion's Horseshoe in 1974.” CC BY 3.0.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Poker Book Review: Fast Company by Jon Bradshaw

'Fast Company' by Jon BradshawFast Company: How Six Master Gamblers Defy the Odds -- and Always Win by Jon Bradshaw is one of those titles some readers of poker books might recognize. I say that because it does get referred to now and then in other poker-related texts. But I’m guessing not too many have had the chance to pick it up and see what it’s all about.

Which is too bad, because as poker and/or gambling books go, I’d rate it as one of the best there is. In fact, I’d say even those who aren’t necessarily interested in gambling or gamblers are likely to enjoy this series of brilliant character sketches, each punctuated by suspenseful accounts of various competitions in which the subjects are involved.

The book was first published in 1975. It never did sell very well, apparently. In fact, I believe it even languished out of print for a time before the London-based High Stakes Publishing put out a new edition in 2003. In his preface to that 2003 edition, Nik Cohn reports that when the book first appeared it was “to modest sales and rave reviews.”

Cohn’s preface does a good job introducing the colorful Bradshaw (who died in 1986 at the age of 48), an American magazine and newspaper writer who might be considered as part of that “New Journalism” group that included folks like Tom Wolfe, Hunter S. Thompson, Norman Mailer, and others.

Cohn is quick to distinguish Bradshaw from “the so-called gonzo writers,” however, who generally would “turn every story into a stage to strut on.” The distinction Cohn makes has to do with Bradshaw’s approach, which was more concerned with “observation and memory, clean style, [and] an unfailing eye for the telling detail” than promoting oneself as a larger-than-life reporter-character (like Thompson does, especially). In other words, as one soon discovers in Fast Company, his focus was always more directly trained on his subjects than himself.

That said, Bradshaw is, one might say, “part of the story” throughout. The book consists of six chapters, ranging from 20-50 pages, each of which focuses on a single “master gambler” personally interviewed by Bradshaw sometime during the early 1970s. Thus each portrait also involves a relation of the encounter between writer and subject, though that context is consistently set to the side in order to spotlight the interviewee more directly.

Bradshaw presents us three poker players (Puggy Pearson, Johnny Moss, and Titanic Thompson), a tennis pro (Bobby Riggs), a backgammon player (Tim Holland), and a pool player (Minnesota Fats). Of course, while the games may be different, all are first and foremost gamblers. And all six of them, in Bradshaw’s view, are to be recognized as examples of consistent winners, though each in his own way.

As Bradshaw explains in his introduction, he had started out thinking he’d be writing “an account of winners and losers,” and had thus traveled to Las Vegas in search of examples of both. “But it soon became clear,” he explains, “that while losers flourished everywhere, winners were a rare and reticent breed with preferences for camouflage and anonymity.” The winners were much more interesting -- and mysterious -- it turned out, thereby proving more curious as subjects for the investigative reporter to pursue.

The book begins with Pearson, and he provides several observations that sound themes that will subsequently run throughout Fast Company.

Pearson frequently refers to the desire to compete, and “the satisfaction of performing well” as a reward exceeding any money won. He also speaks of how he thinks of himself as a winner, and how doing so is, in his view, an essential component to being a successful gambler.

Additionally, Pearson more than once recognizes how money can affect one’s competitors, and how easily thinking about money can throw people off their games. Indeed, a gambler’s “ability to think clearly under stress” is perhaps the most important trait, according to Pearson.

The next chapter presents Bobby Riggs, the tennis pro whom some of us recall as having played Billie Jean King in that “battle of the sexes” tennis match back in the ’70s. Bradshaw’s interview with Riggs takes place before and after his earlier, less remembered match versus Margaret Court (in May 1972). Like Pearson, Riggs loves the many, complicated mind games associated with competition and gambling. The chapter also includes a lot of interesting observations about men and women and how they might well think differently in such contexts.

'Fast Company' by Jon BradshawBesides being a great reporter -- the blow-by-blow account of the Riggs-Court match is masterfully handled here -- Bradshaw has a wonderful knack for description, especially of the gamblers he’s presenting. For example, Riggs the huckster is said to have “the face of a man who sold encyclopedias from door to door; one was suspicious, but never offended.” Bradshaw goes on to mention how Riggs refers to himself in the third person, “as if he were talking of his fondest invention.”

Riggs is also said to possess that curious (or dubious) understanding of “honesty” common to most successful gamblers who seem to endorse the view that the truth “was for dupes and dummies.” “The truth was an admission of defeat,” writes Bradshaw, attempting to portray Riggs’ mindset. “Something you said in the dark or when you were caught with your hand in the till.” Nearly every page of Fast Company includes examples of such crafty prose.

Subsequent chapters on Minnesota Fats, Tim Holland, and Johnny Moss present each as complicated figures, all acutely aware of the difference between their “real” selves and how they are perceived by others. The same goes for Titanic Thompson, whose story is mostly told via the many myth-like gambling tales with which he’s associated.

Like Pearson, though, all have that necessary self-confidence. “To be a winner,” Thompson tells Bradshaw, “a man has to feel good about himself and know he has some kind of advantage going in. Smart is better than lucky.”

Thompson’s point hints at yet another common thread one finds tying together all of these winning gamblers -- the sense they all share that they aren’t really “gambling” or at least taking unwarranted risks, but participating in contests in which they know they have an edge.

After a lengthy explanation of how he played poker -- constantly studying his opponents’ every move (“I not only played my own hand, I played everybody else’s”), Thompson explains how his approach necessarily gave him an edge, making the game less of a gamble for him than it was for others.

“I treat everything like playing roulette,” he says. “And the only way to win at roulette is to own the wheel. I tell you, gambling is hard work.”

As one might expect, the chapters on Pearson, Moss, and Thompson are where you’ll find most of the poker talk (including a lengthy report of the 1973 WSOP Main Event final table in which Pearson defeated Moss). But they, too, play and bet on other games -- golf, in particular -- and thus the overall focus of the book is really not poker-centric but more about trying to get at a comprehensive and coherent definition of the winning gambler.

Like I say, I recommend Fast Company without reservation to poker fans as well as to fans of good writing, generally speaking. It’s the sort of book that will certainly entertain and edify most readers, and perhaps even inspire most writers. It’s available on Amazon and elsewhere, where one can pick up a used copy for pocket change.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Watch & Wondurrrr: The Tom Dwan Challenge Has Begun

Tom 'durrrr' DwanAm sure most of you reading this here blog have at least heard of that high stakes, heads up challenge issued by Tom “durrrr” Dwan late last year in response to which a few players -- Patrik Antonius, David Benyamine, and Phil Ivey -- have agreed to take a shot. The first match began a couple of hours ago, with Antonius and Dwan each taking spots across from one another at four different $200/$400 pot-limit Omaha tables (especially named “durrrr Challenge”) over on Full Tilt Poker.

For those who don’t know exactly how Dwan set up the challenge, he invited anyone (other than his friend Phil “OMGClayAiken” Galfond) to play heads up, four tables of either PLO or no-limit hold’em, at a minimum of $200/$400 blinds. The challenge would last for 50,000 hands, at the end of which whoever was ahead -- even by a single dollar -- would be the victor. If Dwan won, the loser owed him $500,000; if Dwan lost, he’d pay his vanquisher $1.5 million.

The winner would also (of course) claim whatever was won during the challenge itself, an amount which has the potential to exceed the bet amount. Considerably.

I’ve actually railed a little bit this morning, and it appears both players are mostly playing tight with big pots erupting only occasionally. Of course, with blinds this huge even the small pots are not insignificant, and with four tables going the swings are noteworthy.

Here’s the biggest pot I saw during the short time I was watching, a $90,000 pot won by Antonius. Took place on “Table durrrr Challenge 3” around 8:10 a.m. ET:



Kind of curious to see both players pushing the flop with what appear to us mortals as fairly thin holdings (even for heads up). Such is the world of high stakes PLO, I guess.

Just glancing at the sure-to-be-monstrous thread over on Two Plus Two (where folks are posting lots of hands), it appears Antonius might have taken an early lead, going up about $68,000 after 170 hands, then Dwan won a couple of huge pots, including one over $100,000. But Antonius battled back and appeared to be enjoying a $70K lead or so after 300 hands of play when the pair took a short break. All that seems a bit fuzzy, though, as posters appear unsure whether or not Antonius might have rebought on one of the tables.

Not to mention that in the time it took me to type that, all has no doubt changed.

I suppose I am as intrigued as anybody about the challenge. Kind of harkens back to that legendary match between Johnny Moss and Nick “the Greek” Dandalos at Binion’s Horseshoe back in 1949 or 1951 or whenever it did (or didn’t) take place.

That was that four- or five-month long match staged by Benny Binion that some want to say planted the seed for the World Series of Poker (which started in 1970), although the connection is a bit tenuous. Although much that surrounds the Moss-Dandalos match is shrouded in mystery, certain details have been repeated many times, including the fact that pots sometimes reached as large as half a million dollars, and in the end Moss won a heady amount off of his Crete-born opponent, perhaps as much as $2 million.

Binion's Horseshoe, circa 1950sThe pair began their match back in the poker room, but Binion apparently moved them out to the casino’s entrance so as to attract the attention of those passing by on Fremont Street. In Big Deal, Anthony Holden notes that “the crowd stood six deep around the table, marveling at the nerve and stamina of these two poker titans, and at the vast amounts of money passing back and forth between them.” James McManus says in a Card Player article there were “200 or 300” watching the match. I suspect a few more than that might be railing over on Full Tilt right now.

In fact, even Albert Einstein -- who was living out his last years in the U.S. at the time -- was reported to have been among the railbirds. (If yr curious, you can read more about the whole story of the Moss-Dandalos match here.)

There is one huge difference between the Moss-Dandalos match and the “Durrrr Challenge,” though -- the historical record. When it comes to the final results of the Antoinus-Dwan battle, one thing we can all be assured of is that it will be reported widely. That wasn’t the case for Moss-Dandalos; in fact, some (including Michael Craig) have expressed doubts about whether the match even took place at all!

No, there will be no doubts, I wouldn’t think, about what actually happened between Antonius and Dwan. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone took all of the hand histories, imported them into a hand replayer such as the one above, and built a YouTube movie of the match for all to watch.

And analyze. And wonder.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Older Posts

Copyright © 2006-2021 Hard-Boiled Poker.
All Rights Reserved.