On Monday an article by Haley Hintze, writing for Flushdraw (read it here), takes dead-aim at me with the obvious intent of discrediting me as a witness. Her article is severe in its attack, and I cannot say what her motives are. If she is somehow involved with de Wolfe and Gould, or with Les Ambassadeurs Casino, I cannot say.
But I certainly want to address her article. And I will start off by saying that some of her criticism of me is indeed warranted. She starts off by stating that I am a "self-promoter attempting to sell books."
She is certainly right about that! I mean, what author does not want to sell his books? And what professional casino game-protection consultant does not want to self-promote his skills to casinos? That is what I do. I protect both casinos and personal victims from any kind of poker and casino cheating. So if Haley finds something wrong with promoting that, I am guilty. However, she should know that all my books have been out of print for years and nothing about my involvement in the Parvizi case is going to resucitate book-sales.
Her next jab is that "Marcus, who has proclaimed himself somewhere (perhaps in the court documents) as the world’s “best professional poker cheat,” has to be evaluated as well; he’s a veteran huckster at the periphery of the gambling world, and his claims of being an expert in certain areas relevant to this case are, in this writer’s opinion, suspect."
Yes, I have often said I was probably the best professional casino-cheat of all time, and that is indeed more self-promotion. But what Haley is not taking into account is that I have been called the best casino cheat of all-time by many of the industry´s top game-protection people such as Willy Allison, George Joseph, Bill Zender and Andy Anderson. Their statements on me are all on video on the Internet if Haley wants to view them.
Her next shot is how I stole her articles for my blog. This may or may not be true. I do not recall using her articles but I definitely was guilty of posting articles written by others without an embedded link. This happened several years ago, and when I was notified of the fault I immediately added the links or deleted the articles. I still use informative articles written by others with links to their original postings.
Then she says that my statements, in which I attest that the collusion against Parvizi did indeed take place, "did not specify the exact means by which Gould and de Wolfe allegedly colluded."
Well, of course, they didn´t! My "statements" are in the form of a long and thorough report that was prepared after viewing several hundred hands of this poker game via CCTV footage. What she read in whatever articles she used for her own is only what other writers wrote about the case. Furthermore, I would not give out any details of how the collusion took place until after the case is resolved in court. But what Haley needs to take into account, is that I have seen the video and my statements are made based on what I saw. She has not seen the video and is only making assumptions that Parvizi was not the victim of any poker-collusion scam because he was a bad player and was indicted in another case that has nothing to do with this one.
After all, Haley, if Adolf Hitler was the victim of a poker-cheating scam, he would still be a victim in that case, right? Parvizi´s indictment is as immaterial to the case as were my past blog articles. What matters here is simply and only what is on that tape, and that will come out in court.
By the way, Haley, one thing I will tell you that I saw on the tape was an attempt by Roland de Wolfe to steal a £5,000 chip from a pot. He got caught and had to give it back.
Haley then goes on to attack my website entries (notably the Poker Cheating Tips Page), accusing my posts of being coincidental to the Parvizi case.
Well, Haley, you´re right! Of course they are directly related to the case. One of the posts asks "Is is profitable to poker-collude against billionaires?" Well, Haley, if you don´t believe Mr. Parvizi, maybe you believe the Cirque du Soleil billionaire Guy LaLiberte who claims he lost $26 million to collusders in live Las Vegas poker games. So between he and Parvizi a cool $42 million was ammassed by professional poker-colluders who more than not are also big-name WSOP tournament players.
Let´s not forget that two of the biggest names in alleged giant poker-cheating and baccarat scams are Phil Ivey and Russ Hamilton, both of whom were or are big-time tournament players like Roland de Wolfe. So I do admit that all my entries you page-shot to your article were written because of the Parvizi case.
After this, Haley relates her own suppositions about what Gould and de Wolfe might have or not have done at that Les Ambassadeurs table.
Again, it´s speculative crap. What matters is what they DID do, and that is evidenced on the video. Who I am or who Parvizi is has no bearing. Only what the video shows matters!
And finally, Hayle says she thinks I began preparing myself as a witness even before I saw the tapes.
LOL and LOL again! Hayle, without the tapes there is no case and there is no witness. Furthermore, before I was contacted by Parvizi´s lawyers, I had never even heard of Parvizi, nor had I heard anything about Les Ambassadeurs Casino in over 20 years--when I was at one of its roulette wheels doing a humdinger of a cheat move myself!
Finally, Hayley, please note that I have properly linked to your Flushdraw article in this article!