Talk:Jack Straus

message: It seems someone's added their opinion that a fact in this article is not true. I've removed the actual statement they made from within the article but copied it over here for people to voice their thoughts. The old version:
 (This bluff was credited to Stu Ungar in the biopic High Roller: The Stu Ungar Story.)
And the new:
 (This bluff was credited to Stu Ungar in the biopic High Roller: The Stu Ungar Story. --Not true. A character in the movie other than Ungar made this bluff.)
Please see if you can find some facts about the issue.
:I added the original comment. My memory is that Ungar was shown making the bluff but it's been some time since I've seen the film. I'll note that the bluff was depicted without assigning it to a player. Otto4711 16:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over bluff credited to Stu Ungar 

message: The unattributed story that the one chip was hidden under a napkin is highly suspect.  It sounds like something invented by someone who did not understand how a player could declare all-in, get called, and still have a chip left after losing. (That would happen if the opponent had one fewer chip than Mr. Straus.)
When the hidden chip was discovered, there is no way Straus should have been allowed to keep it. In a no-limit game, it is every player's absolute obligation to keep all his chips in plain view. By keeping it hidden, inadvertently or not, he illegally denied his opponent the opportunity to put him truly all-in.  The only question would have been whether to award the chip to the winner of the pot, or take it out of play. Jive Dadson 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident is common knowledge witnessed by dozens of people at the time.  It isn't the only time a bad ruling happened in a tournament. 2005 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if someone could name one of those dozens of people who says that's what happened. Jive Dadson 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just searching one way you can find hundreds of mentions of it online.  Again, even if it sounds weird, it is common knowledge with tons of references to it around. 2005 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no doubt that he was down to one chip. What I doubt is that the chip was hidden under a napkin.  Did they really allow paper napkins on the table?  The fact that the story is repeated on the internet does not convince me.  Now it's repeated in Wikipedia.  Does that make it true?  I doubt that a tournament director would allow him to play on in that circumstance.  In any case, I'm done talking about it. Jive Dadson 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Did they really allow paper napkins on the table?"  Sure.  Still do.  "The fact that the story is repeated on the internet does not convince me.  Now it's repeated in Wikipedia.  Does that make it true?"  It's true, but the criteria for the Wikipedia is attribition anyway WP:ATT, not even necessarily truth.  "I doubt that a tournament director would allow him to play on in that circumstance."  They did.  Why do you doubt everybody?  Why do think no stupid ruling has ever taken place? 2005 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As I have heard the story told on some poker show that mentioned the "Chip and a Chair" situation, Jack apparently pushed all the chips he had in front of him that he saw as a bet.  He did not say he was all in.  His intention was most certainly meaning to push all in, but if he did not actually verbally say All-in, then any chips left behind that were not pushed in on the original bet were not a part of the pot itself.  It would be similar to you thinking you have 50,000 in chips in front of you, but actually having a $500 chip under a napkin or whatever may be there, and you pushing the 50,000 in chips into the pot.  Your bet is 50,000, you did not declare all in, so your bet would not include the inadvertedly hidden chip.  For that matter, trying to put the extra $500 chip into the pot at that point would be an illegal move as it would be a "string bet", since no all-in declaration was made.--Pparazorback 04:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hidden chip? 

message: Why does it list zero wins at WPT? Jack Straus was dead before the WPT was formed.
Well then, that would certainly mean he didn't have any wins there, right?
:You're right. Better put in that he didn't win any gold medals in the 2000 Olympics either.219.89.167.136 (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPT 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jack Straus. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090125045458/http://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/hallofame/ to http://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/hallofame/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified