HamNo over at Gawker objects to the idea of a $100 million dollar pot, in a story about gambling told here:
What?!? People don't _really_ gamble this much money on the turn of a card in Hold'Em?!? Someone should have told the people who had a $115 million pot in the newer Casino Royale (thanx, hubs -- I was skeptical, but yes! The Bond franchise is that silly).
The comments thread at gawker is spectacularly idiotic. I gave up after reading a few dozen so it is _just_ possible that eventually someone pointed out the obvious.
In the original version of the story, it's a Tom Hall/Macau thing, it's in HKD NOT USD, and it's over the course of a session (30-40 hours with meal breaks) NOT a single pot.
Funny how those qualifiers get fucked with!!!
I agree with Hamilton Nolan. This story does not pass any kind of sniff test. But then, really, gambling and fish stories rarely do.
ETA: Here's my theory for the likely origin of this particular fish story:
From the Hollywood Reporter article:
"Their bets paled beside those of some really high-stakes gamblers, according to a regular on the gambling circuit. In one game alone, attended by an L.A.-based investor, the pot rose to $100 million. "Everyone was out of the game except the billionaires," says the insider."
Notice that this paragraph -- the one Nolan objected to -- does not specify PLACE, or even which kind of dollar (altho US would be presumed unless specified otherwise). Instead of place, only "gambling circuit", which would include Macau under any plausible understanding of the term. If the game was attended by an "investor" it _really_ sounds like Macau or some place similar.
So I _don't_ agree with this, from the gawker article:
"Let us step back and comprehend what is being alleged here: it is alleged that there was a private (illegal) underground poker game in L.A."
There is no indication in that paragraph that the poker game with the very large pot occurred in LA, just that it was on a "gambling circuit" attended by an "LA investor".
The Milch story as a whole is kind of horrifying, however, with Milch's wife -- despite apparently a lot of contact with the financial managers for the family -- being completely in the dark about the extent of her husband's gambling. I don't know if there is a useful moral here, other than, we really need to define what "fiduciary" means, so that if your advisors/managers don't tell you your spouse has spent all the money because they are afraid you will fire them, well, they go to jail or lose their license or whatever. Because honestly, fiduciary would _seem_ to cover this situation! And yet there they are.
The whole thing really reminds me of why I don't trust anyone, and live in fear of developing dementia.
That said, Milch's wife knew about his drug history when they got together, so on some level, this cannot have been a complete surprise. There are clearly Issues.