Talk:Chip Reese

Death

The Negrenau blog isn't a cite that should be used for long. But Lou Kreiger and others in the poker community have confirmed the death. I'll put in a better reference as soon as Lou publishes it. PhGustaf 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's on the front page of the Las Vegas Review-Journal right now. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Another reference is at http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/12/chip-reese-passes-at-56.htm Myth America (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC) please fix the word "betted" no such word exists, I'm pretty sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.243.116 (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. "betted" bugged me too, and I fixed it. There's more copy editing to be done, but that's for later. PhGustaf (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Add this "Reese is survived by a son, a daughter and a stepdaughter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.209.193 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the suggestions coming. Sorry about the page being protected, but it was suffering steady vandalism. PhGustaf (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You can also create an account and contribute directly - that would be even better! ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection affects newly registered user as much as IPs... KTC (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"He is survived by his ex-wife, son, daughter, and stepdaughter." actually his son just died...:( http://www.doylesroom.com/blog/?p=152

Intro too long

I took a very quick cut at moving stuff ouy of the intro section. I'll leave the infobox up for its poster to remove if he sees fit. The article does need copy editing. PhGustaf (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Chip Reese greatest cash game player

Chip Reese has been regarded as the greatest cash game player that ever lived. Both ESPN and NYTimes said this. This title was bestow upon him while he was still alive. Doyle Brunson and others said he was the greatest player that ever lived out of respect on the day of his death. Suggesting that he was a great person which im sure he was. Doyle Brunson, Mike Sexton, and many professional poker players have also regarded Stu Ungar as the greatest all around player. There are citation for that as well. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The article now says some players regarded him as the greatest cash game player. That's fine. Saying he was the greatest isn't going to happen, and going on and on about it isn't either. He's certainly not the greatest tournament player by any measure, and he lost millions to Archie Karas playing heads up, and quit playing him. So while we can make the point that he has immense respect as an all around player, labeling him the best of all time is non-encyclopedic and way over the top considering all the facts. 2005 (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you guys don't know what you are talking about. Chip Reese ended up WINNING millions off of Archie Karas, after Karas admittedly won about 2 million from him his during his initial, famous rush. Read Richard Munchkin's Gambling Wizards, a 2002 book which contains interviews with several of the world's most famous and accomplished gamblers, Chip Reese included. Karas also admits to losing back several million to Reese in the series of interviews that he recently did with Tom Sexton at Pokernews.com. The reasons why Karas losing the money back to Reese are relatively unknown are two fold: (1) Archie lost that money back after the "run," as his historic rush has been called by some, so it didn't garner much publicity (Karas went broke a long time ago); and (2) on a related matter, Chip was low-key, old school and did not wish to and did not advertise his wins. In fact, in Munchkin's book and elsewhere, Reese stated that he was happy that people thought he had lost all of that money to Karas and regularly liked it when others similarly claimed wins off of him. It was good for "business." Of course, whether and/or how much he won off Karas in his lifetime is neither here nor there, as whether Reese lost to any particular player in a side game at a given moment in time is completely irrelevant.

Similarly, labeling Reese the best all around player is not "non-encyclopediac" [sic], as you erroneously state. It is pretty much by consensus. This consensus was reached long before he died, though you had to dig a little to find it, as Reese shunned the limelight. Read Timothy O'Brien's "Bad Bet." Go back and watch ESPN's airing of the "tournament of champions" that Annie Duke won, in which it was repeately stated that most of the top players considered Reese to be the greatest all around player in the world. See what Lyle Berman and Bobby Baldwin have to say about the subject, and had said well before Reese died. Everyboydy just didn't declare him to be the greatest ever just because he died and they wanted to say nice things about him. Do your homework. Find the story about Jennifer Harman asking other professionls for their opinion about how she played a hand, and read about her characterization of Reese as the "greatest poker player to ever walk the face of the earth." Annie Duke provides nearly the exact same description in her biography (see description of Reese in index). Doyle himself has been quoted countless times, WELL BEFORE REESE'S DEATH, calling Reese the greatest ever.

Do your homework you wikipedia dorks. It is apparent that you probably idolize some of the "TV players" out there today and are extremely ignorant as to who was the best. Just because you know how to navigate the "wikipedia waters" better than me does not mean that you know what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.158.238 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing: why don't you check for the veracity of the alleged, objectionable quotes? If you do, you will see that they are all 100% accurate, and then, instead of complaining, you can use your wikipedia proficiency to link the sources so that they are satisfactorily cited. That is of course if you are interested in having accurate and complete articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.158.238 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexton's articles made it clear Karas beat Reese out of millions. He did not "lose it back." Chip, and everybody else, quit playing Karas. Karas lost his millions at craps. As for calling people dorks, please move on. the article already mentions Reese is regarded by many as the greatest cash game player ever. The article says that. No sensible person calls him the greatest tournament player ever. many peope consider him the best overall player (meaning razz, stud, hold 'em, etc, not ring games and tournaments. The praise/reputation comment could be expanded at the end of the article, not the lead, if the quotes are properly sourced. You continually adding stuff that violates the encyclopedias policies and guidelines is not helpful, and actually hurts your apparent mission here. 2005 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about Karas. Although Archie of course tries to rationalize his downfall as he tries to position his story as a potential book and/or movie, he acknowledges, though he ties to downplay, that he lost millions back to Chip (see Part 7 of the series written by Sexton, fessing up to 2 million), of course claiming that he "wasn't focusing on poker when this happenned." Take that for what it's worth. So, he did "lose it back," and, according to Chip in Gambling Wizards, more than the 2 million. At any rate, it is of course true that Archie lost way more back in craps, though he also won way more in craps as well. Chip and Doyle actually paid Archie do play with them (accordng to Archie himself), so please take with a grain of salt Archie's somewhat self-serving claims years later, as he is apparently trying to get a movie and/or book made and/or written about the "run." Notwithstanding the above, the gist of the Archie story, as recounted to Tom Sexton, is true by all accounts. Again, however, the whole Archie Karas story is neither here nor there as it relates to Chip's place in poker lore.

Also, you erroneously refer to a "ring game" as something distinct from a cash game. A "ring" game is a cash game.

Finally, I don't know how to link the articles/sources that were previously referenced, all of which are 100% accurate. Have you checked themselves? If you have, perhaps you can add to the article as you deem appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.158.238 (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't know a ring game is a cash game you probably shouldn't be editing poker articles. And then, losing 2 million of 7 million is not "losing it back". That's silly. No one disputes Karas got way the best of everybody back in the day. But if you take a step back you'll see none of that matters. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanboy site. We are not going to say Reese was a better player than Little Man Popwell, or Johnny Moss in his day, or Wild Bill Hickock for that matter. We will say that some players said some things about him. Which we do in the article, citing three sources to that effect. This is an encyclopedia article, not an entire website or book. We don't just go on and on repeating the same thing. Facts are the focus, plus a lesser amount of appropriate opinion that can be cited. And we follow article structures and policies. if you can't be bothered to learn them, fine, but then your contributions won't be included. Unsourced quotations attributed to living persons should be removed on sight. That's the starting point. Afer that, the lead of an article needs to follow guidelines for a lead. That then leaves the possibility of including more opinion about Chip's skills at the end of the article. There could be a sourced quote or two that is both in moderation and has an encyclopedic context, meaning we will never say he WAS the best ever. that is unknowable. We will only include quotes of others, and a general summary of such sentiments. At this point, we do that, so there is no need for more. but if a sensible amount of "more" is added at the end of the article, it just needs to be sourced according to the encyclopedia's polcies. 2005 (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

I am well aware that a "ring game" is a cash game, as my previous statement makes clear. It is you who apparently wasn't aware of this. Go back and read your previous comments: "many [sic] peope [sic] consider him the best overall player (meaning razz, stud, hold 'em, etc, NOT ring games and tournaments" (emphasis added). Your statement clearly implies a distinction between ring games and cash games, as your citing of Reese's prowess in games such as razz, stud, etc. obviously involves and refers to cash games. Perhaps you meant to emphasize the word "and" that precedes the word "tournaments." Or perhaps you just learned that ring games are cash games, in which case it is you who shouldn't be editing poker articles.

Also, and although it doesn't matter as you accurately state, Karas didn't win 7 million from Reese. And yes, people do dispute whether Karas "got the best of everybody back in the day." He certainly got the "best of everybody" during his initial rush, which was famously featured in an article in Cigar Aficionado. What was less publicized, however, was how much he subsequently gave back in poker losses. Obviously, there is no way of knowing for sure how much Archie lost, or won for that matter, playing poker during his famous stretch, though I have previously referred to you Richard Munchkin's Gambling Wizards, in which Chip talks about what he won and lost against Karas. You are probably some young punk who just learned of the Archie Karas story, and are naturally taken in with its romantic allure. It's a great story to be sure; however, its details, no matter how "fast and loose" Archie may be playing with them these days several years after the fact (not so much how much he won and lost overall, but the extent of his poker losses), are completely irrelevant to the discussion of Chip's place in poker lore. You at least acknowledge this much.

Finally, and at any rate, none of my previous edits of the underlying article purported to say that Chip was definitively THE BEST player ever. Rather, they stated that he is "widely considered" (or words to that effect) to have been the greatest all around poker player ever, which is an accurate statement. There are hundreds of sources which reflect this sentiment. Any google search will do the trick. Apparently, the distinction between saying that someone is "widely considered" to have been the best and that he is the best is lost on you. It is you, I'm guessing, who is the "fan boy" of some other poker player (probably some "TV player") and therefore resistant to the publishing of the accolades properly attributed to Reese, hiding behind purported Wikipedia journalistic standards of course.

Sorry, but I don't think I'll discuss your fan or TV interests. My post stated that people regard Chip as the best all around player when talking about games like razz and stud, not one in discussing poker tournaments versus ring games, nor head up poker. If you'll read the articles, you'll see ring games are games played for cash in casinos. Perhaps that will clear up your confusion. In any case this is not a fansite. The encyclopedia has style guidelines and policies involving verifiability and attributing direct quotes, which these articles will follow. 2005 (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is you who is confused, among other things. Chip's prowess in the many forms of poker (e.g., studd, omaha, hold'em, razz, etc.) involved cash games; hence, your juxtaposition between ring (i.e., cash) games and tournaments following your reference to his prowess in the many forms of poker demonstrates that you are the one who is confused, or, at a minimum, a very sloppy and poor writer. Chip's three decade dominance in poker, whether it was stud, omaha, razz, etc., was in CASH/RING GAMES. Do you get it? Tell me, does the "encyclopedia" have any writing "guidelines"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.176.187 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK everyone. This talk page is not for discussing Reese but for the Reese article. One more irrelevant comment and I might just archive the entire conversation as off-topic. Again, if you want to describe Reese in some way, get a source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Need some Cliffsnotes for the above section

As someone famous once said, "I ain't readin' all that ****."Ykral (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor text removal

I removed a sentence fragment regarding Chip's playing bridge - " one of his regular bridge partners was Jim Ryan". This is meaningless if we don't know who Jim Ryan was. PKT(alk) 17:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chip Reese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513024749/http://www.pokerpages.com/players/profiles/55213/david-reese.htm to http://www.pokerpages.com/players/profiles/55213/david-reese.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207132043/http://www.pokerroad.com/_/the_bear_blog/12-4-07/ to http://www.pokerroad.com/_/the_bear_blog/12-4-07/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Low-importance?

Could someone take a look at this and consider reassessing as at least mid-importance? This player was one of only three inducted into the hall of fame while still living, and was the youngest-ever inductee. I was surprised to see it assessed as low-importance within the field of gambling, but I don't know enough about the overall topic to be able to assess it myself. Thanks! 2605:A000:C7C0:FC00:6856:F9B8:DE5B:96AE (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)