Ram Vaswani speaks about that 'Golf Game'.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the best indicator for what that expected playing level was? The easiest answer is simply the Play which he performed in those two days. If you adjust the Strokes to That level, you should get a payoff of zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) I see no reason that his play on a given day should be the maximum likelihood estimate of his "expected play" on that day.

(2) If one were to accept your line of reasoning, no golf bet (and few other proposition bets) would ever be paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is under the assumption that Ivey violated (2) in my post. He broke the "Friendship Game agreement" to give full information about his expected playing level. Once the Arbitrators decide he did that, my reasoning is that he can't be trusted to give the Arbitrators correct information either. And even if he did, there's no way to make a precise calculation based on that information. The best evidence available to the Arbitrators then is the actual level of play Ivey demonstrated in the match.

The difference between this situation and the everyday situation you describe, is that the everyday situation doesn't go to Arbitration because estimated expected levels of play had been based on incorrect information provided during negotiations in violation of the Friendship Game Agreement.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess there's another factor that could apply in an Arbitration decision. They could decide that Ivey violated the Friendship-Game-Agreement but that Ram and Partner played below their Fair Expected Playing Level. In that case the Arbitrators could reasobably decide that Ram should pay Ivey, but pay him less than the Full Amount. I suspect if they go the Arbitration route this is what will happen.

Personally, I think these guys are kidding themselves with this Friendship-Game-Agreement thing. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, when playing for that kind of money you had better be awfully close friends to think you're really getting complete and honest information about your opponents. How close? Well, if you're close enough to give him your password to all your online Bank and Brokerage accounts then maybe that's close enough. Because you are doing something very similiar to that when you take his word at purely face value in negotiating the spot at $20,000 per hole.

Are you close enough friends to let him put his hand in your pocket?

PairTheBoard

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the Group of Arbitrators, despite possibly being weighted in Ivey's favor, suggested the outcome of the wagers be adjusted indicates that . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? Where are you getting this "Group of Arbitrators" stuff from?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the Group of Arbitrators, despite possibly being weighted in Ivey's favor, suggested the outcome of the wagers be adjusted indicates that . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? Where are you getting this "Group of Arbitrators" stuff from?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I read the story, Phil and Ram talked about putting the question to Arbitration. They met at a Tourny where Phil had gathered some people, including Barry G, to possibly act as Arbitrators. As I understood it, the Group made the suggestion that an adjustment be made to what Ram owed. I was trying to look at the implications of such a suggestion, assuming that's what actually happened. If that's not the way it happened then the implications I observed for it it are void and purely theoretical.

Furthermore, I ammended my original ideas for the implications to include the possibility for a reasonable settlement of less than the Full Amount.

btw, I don't really care about any of this one way or the other. I don't know any of these guys from Adam. I'm just trying to look at the principles involved.

PairTheBoard

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]

As I read the story, Phil and Ram talked about putting the question to Arbitration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps they're struggling to identify an arbitrator because neither side can negotiate an acceptable edge? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the Group of Arbitrators, despite possibly being weighted in Ivey's favor, suggested the outcome of the wagers be adjusted indicates that . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? Where are you getting this "Group of Arbitrators" stuff from?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I read the story, Phil and Ram talked about putting the question to Arbitration. They met at a Tourny where Phil had gathered some people, including Barry G, to possibly act as Arbitrators. As I understood it, the Group made the suggestion that an adjustment be made to what Ram owed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, okay. Your reading differs from mine. (When Ram said that the Phil walked in with his "very own arbitrators" who "were obviously on his side" I took that to mean that Ram declined to arbitrate.)

But thanks for the answer. Now I understand your post and agree with your general take on things.

[tipperdog]

Clearly, the facts are in dispute here and there's no way we can claim to know the details of this situation.

However, I have a general question (well, two) for the golf gamblers out there:

Is it considered permissible to deliberately lie about your handicap/ability/experience in order set favorable terms for yourself?

If, for example, you set a handicap based on your opponents assurance that "I haven't touched my clubs in months," you lose big, and then you subsequently find out that he's been training 4 hrs/day with a top coach, should you refuse to pay?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, the facts are in dispute here and there's no way we can claim to know the details of this situation.

However, I have a general question (well, two) for the golf gamblers out there:

Is it considered permissible to deliberately lie about your handicap/ability/experience in order set favorable terms for yourself?

If, for example, you set a handicap based on your opponents assurance that "I haven't touched my clubs in months," you lose big, and then you subsequently find out that he's been training 4 hrs/day with a top coach, should you refuse to pay?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. not permissible...mandatory
2. sure you can refuse to pay...but you better pay. while your at it you should also refuse to pay your markers at harrahs becuase you lost 10k on "the worlds loosest slots". and definately dont play in poker games that allow the "check and raise" its so unsportsmanlike.

[CptSensible]

From the Rules of Golf

6-2. Handicap
a. Match Play
Before starting a match in a handicap competition, the players
should determine from one another their respective handicaps.
If a player begins a match having declared a handicap higher
than that to which he is entitled and this affects the number of
strokes given or received, he is disqualified;

Ivey is a cheat - End Of

Hussle = Cheat

Cheat = Lying scum

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
From the Rules of Golf

6-2. Handicap
a. Match Play
Before starting a match in a handicap competition, the players
should determine from one another their respective handicaps.
If a player begins a match having declared a handicap higher
than that to which he is entitled and this affects the number of
strokes given or received, he is disqualified;

Ivey is a cheat - End Of

Hussle = Cheat

Cheat = Lying scum

[/ QUOTE ]

You are dumb.

[Orlando Salazar]

They don't play by standard rules. Have you ever played basketball in the park? You take foul shots? Call 5 second violations? That's why I thought. This isn't league play.