[Ellsworth T]

I know this argument is slightly diluted but I am truly interested in the ethical conclusion from my fellow twoers, and hopefully I can add my epistemological perspective on this affair.

There appears to be two sides to this debate: 1)that phil ivey's actions, namely his lying/deception with regards to his handicap were unethical and reprehensible and thus grounds for nullifying the bet. 2) that ivey's actions were within the bounds of gambling on golf and that the real fault lie not in ivey's deceit but in the irresponsibility of his competitors (brief and summarized i know).

It appears then that the component of this event most central to a proper and fair resolution is presented in the interpretation of the acceptable standards in the golfing/gambling world, not the comparable yet for for purposes of this argument entirely different boxing/poker/pool gambling rubric.

An example may help clarify my argument. You are playing poker and are asked if you have a certain hand, you say no and based off of this information your opponent makes a call they would not have if you had told them otherwise. Intuitively this is acceptable behavior in poker stemming from necessity. However, you cannot lie in a game of say highschool basketabll by claiming that your 26 year old brother is really 16. I think I may be running on because all of this is self-evident and clear-cut but I feel it was necessary to restate because of the tangible divergence in opinion on this subject. To them I wish to state: different moral standards exist in different settings. So your digust in Ivey's actions stemming from notions of ethical conduct may be misplaced, but maybe not...

Were Phil Ivey's actions cheating or not? I would imagine there would have to be some precedent in the golf-hustling world that would clearly state one way or the other. Either caveat emptor or direct violation of implied trust, but not so gray.

I wanted to ask you directly as obviously I am not accepting as readily as many of the posters have that Ivey's actions are blatant cheating because of the obvious contextual fallacy this conclusion accords. I am curious, however, about your conclusions and this seems to be where the other posters derive their animosity towards Ivey's conduct in that ostensibly this deception goes against the natural rythm of the hustle or angle shooting.

I think the staggering sums merely accentuate the moral dilemma in this situation but irrespective of the sums, if you had been told pregame that your opponent was a 15 handicap and then was found to be a scratch golfer what would your reaction be?