Ram Vaswani speaks about that 'Golf Game'.

[jmill2511]

I still find it remarkable that Ram could be so naive to take a professional gambler at his word when gambling for large sums of money.

Wait really, someone that gambles for a living and is ultra competitive is capable of hustling you?

Well [censored], I never could have seen that coming.

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


* If that's how it all went down of course!

[/ QUOTE ]


This doesn't look good for Ram. However, I think Ivey should offer to split the debt in half and compel Ram to pay the rest. That way Phil looks reasonable (acknowledging that his "friend" gambled over his head but not that he was "cheated"), and it's hard for Ram to find a way out. Also better to have a guy agreeing to pay up $1M than refusing to pay up $2M.

[/ QUOTE ]

that could seriously lead to people trying to take advantage of him later down the road though, don't you think?

"oh, phil, i heard that you let ram out for 1/2 come on, we're friends i'm hurting for money right now. i'll make it up to you later i promise." yadda yadda yadda.

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't phil seem to have all the characteristics of a total sicko gambler.... how does he always manage to keep from falling off the edge? in golf gambling, the losing player always seems to dig himself a deeper hole. i honestly think that sicko gamblers have a responsibility to one another to prevent things from getting out of control, especially if tilt is in play (and we know from the ram v rugby match that ram is capable of extreme tilt). -ba

[/ QUOTE ]

from any stories i've ever heard (obviously second/third hand) phil RARELY if ever gambles w/o having the best of it. just because he's inferior at any game [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img], doesn't mean he doesn't have the best of the gamble.

also like shaniac said, he seems to be the kind of person who is always in it for himself. not neccessarily a bad trait, but even though he has people he considers "friends" his only responsibility is to get the best of it for himself, which may also entail taking the worst of it, in order to get much more the best of it later on.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


* If that's how it all went down of course!

[/ QUOTE ]


This doesn't look good for Ram. However, I think Ivey should offer to split the debt in half and compel Ram to pay the rest. That way Phil looks reasonable (acknowledging that his "friend" gambled over his head but not that he was "cheated"), and it's hard for Ram to find a way out. Also better to have a guy agreeing to pay up $1M than refusing to pay up $2M.

[/ QUOTE ]

that could seriously lead to people trying to take advantage of him later down the road though, don't you think?

"oh, phil, i heard that you let ram out for 1/2 come on, we're friends i'm hurting for money right now. i'll make it up to you later i promise." yadda yadda yadda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any resolution that involves Ram not paying anything (short of violence) is worse in those terms, I think...I personally wouldn't gamble for any significant sum of money (significant defined in my terms, not even in the terms of high-stakes ballers/degenerates) without arranging a clear payment plan. Part of the skill in making a bet involves knowing how (and that) you will get paid.

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


* If that's how it all went down of course!

[/ QUOTE ]


This doesn't look good for Ram. However, I think Ivey should offer to split the debt in half and compel Ram to pay the rest. That way Phil looks reasonable (acknowledging that his "friend" gambled over his head but not that he was "cheated"), and it's hard for Ram to find a way out. Also better to have a guy agreeing to pay up $1M than refusing to pay up $2M.

[/ QUOTE ]

that could seriously lead to people trying to take advantage of him later down the road though, don't you think?

"oh, phil, i heard that you let ram out for 1/2 come on, we're friends i'm hurting for money right now. i'll make it up to you later i promise." yadda yadda yadda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any resolution that involves Ram not paying anything (short of violence) is worse in those terms, I think...I personally wouldn't gamble for any significant sum of money (significant defined in my terms, not even in the terms of high-stakes ballers/degenerates) without arranging a clear payment plan. Part of the skill in making a bet involves knowing how (and that) you will get paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

couldn't that have been based on their "friendship?" i mean, if you and a friend of yours that were friends, but not very close best friends, went out and gambled for stakes average to you, but maybe not frequent for your friend, would you really expect to need a payment plan/system set up? i know that if i was going to do something like this, i wouldn't ever even thing of doing it unless i knew FOR SURE that i was going to get paid and when. even with people that i consider any kind of a friend, this would never be a concern.

[chucksim]

[ QUOTE ]
My god how dumb can Ram be?

Hasn't he ever heard of adjusting the handicaps after 9 or 18 holes? This is common in every bet I have ever made after playing golf.

Not only does he not adjust the handicaps, he let's Phil play for higher stakes, then he accepts the doubles bet of Mark after he walks off! So as I understand it, Phil's team is playing 2 balls and Ram is only playing one and counting it for both scores. That's financial suicide.

Anyone who plays more than 10 rounds a year can recognize a good golf swing and knows when a player has improved and is not just getting lucky.

After playing 36 holes with Ivey, Ram should have been able to tell the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree on all counts. No way Ram looked at Ivey and didn't realize he improved this much (assuming everything he says is true). This would be patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about golf.

I also agree about the adjustment. Although, I read somewhere (maybe in this thread, maybe not) that Phil wouldn't take an adjust. If true, Ram obviously wanted the match more than this more than fair (IMO) stipulation.

Bottom line - Ram's fault. He'll pay, but his rep's tarnished for good.

[Eagles]

Shaniac has hit this right on the head in the Hendon Mob thread there are two very interesting quotes.

One by Joe Beevers

"The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not it is ok to lie to a friend, betray friendship and trust to take a friend's money when they have no chance of winning. "

and the other by Barny Boatman

"The cultural differnce if anything is between the old style "anything goes" gamblers exemplified it seems by Doyle Brunson, and those of us (from anywhere as you rightly point out) who have a different code of honour. I would suggest that the 'new' approach is more in keeping with a game that wants to sell itself to the world as a sport."

I think these explain the situation very well. Now with ESPN/WPT/Online poker poker has been legitimized and its starting to be viewed more as a "sport" or a game like chess than gambling. Because of this a lot of younger players are far too trusting without realizing the number of pros who are sick degen gamblers who care a lot more about making money than maintaining friendships/ethics. Ram has a right to be upset. He trusted Phil and believed he was good friends with him but he was wrong and got hustled. Ivey was unethical but he did nothing against the rules and Ram has to pay up now.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]


couldn't that have been based on their "friendship?" i mean, if you and a friend of yours that were friends, but not very close best friends, went out and gambled for stakes average to you, but maybe not frequent for your friend, would you really expect to need a payment plan/system set up? i know that if i was going to do something like this, i wouldn't ever even thing of doing it unless i knew FOR SURE that i was going to get paid and when. even with people that i consider any kind of a friend, this would never be a concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it wasn't implicit in their friendship, since we're seeing a major controversy erupt over this.

Since I've been saying all along that Ivey and Ram were never truly friends (in the sense of "true friend"), it seems obvious in retrospect that Phil should have established a payment plan ahead of time. It's not uncommon to hear a huge bet proposed among poker players and a condition of the negotiation involves the bet being paid off, say, when the loser of the bet hits a score of x-amount in a 10k event.

[buckslayer80]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Daniel played Patrick heads up pot limit omaha every day for a week. Patrick wins ten million dollars in the first six days and is paid. On the seventh day Daniel wins one million but Patrick hasn’t paid him yet. Then Patrick finds out that on the last day when he lost Daniel was actually playing each hand with 5 cards instead of 4 having dealt himself an extra card each time. Patrick finds out about this and says to Daniel ‘I’m not paying you, because I know you were cheating.’ Doyle then turns to Patrick and says “-------, did Daniel put a gun to your head and force you to keep playing?""

There's a difference between an agreement in a golfround and blatant cheating in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm more inerested in this than the golf. How does the other guy play with 5 cards all day and someone not notice? Am I being leveled?

[/ QUOTE ]he's using it as an example that if this story was indeed true, then people would think it was fair to welch on the bet. He's comparing this scenario to him getting hustled on the golf course (which is not the same at all).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I'm dumb. Thanks Zeebo.

[[Phill]]

Looks like a solid response setting out his stance prior to the 2nd round of negotiation.

RV wont pay full amount. If PI is clever he wont make him. Where it finishes up in the middle is hard to say.

Fwiw, i think PI bringing his close friend Barry G to fight his corner in what was assumed to be independant arbitration in round 1 is way more scummy.