Phil Ivey Gossip

[dinopoker]

I'll also point out that the odd pool player has found himself in real danger of being killed in this exact type of scenario. I'm sure Phil doesn't have to worry about that with the guys he was playing, but if the story is true he should be careful in the future.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ergo Ivey is a cheat, simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at calling Ivey a cheat based on third hand gossip.

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]LOL at you not reading Marc's version of events that confirm the broad base of the story.

Let me summarise for you, MArc/Ram generally give Ivey 10 shots as he is piss poor and this is what Lindgren also gives him.

Marc/Ram don't play him for 3 months, during which time he has been practising like crazy and had been having(allegedly) expensive lessons.

Marc/Ram after much haggling ask Ivey how many Lindgren gave him last time they played, "ten" says Ivey, when in fact the real answer was "zero". So they gave him 10.

Ivey is a golf cheat, this isn't poker it's golf.

LOL at you for failing to understand the game. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]

He will not play on a "fair" level as demonstrated by this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought his opponents had been spanking his ass for the past year or so? Surely he's been taking the worst of it up until this game?

Personally, I'd like to hear Ivey's side of the story. I bet it differs from that of the losers.

[Evigt_Drabbad]

dinopoker: whos the hot girl in your avatar? looks familiar [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[apefish]

IF Goodwin's version is accurate this is far closer to cheating than it is a simple hustle.
I play nassaus and skins hundreds of times a year and wagers are generally decided on the first tee/hole after some simple questions about relative handicaps that people expect to be answered at least mostly truthful.
If you accept Goodwin's version of the story and also accept that Lindgren wasn't currently giving Ivey 10 strokes when this match went off but in fact was giving him ZERO- this is simple cheating.
This isn't your standard angle shoot or prop bet where you have more info than another person.
Again- if Goodwins versions is correct.
For those who are having a hard time wrapping their heads around it, Ivey's answer that he still gets ten shots from Lindgren is where this whole thing goes awry.

It is one thing to not have a handicap card/established index.
It is quite another to stand on the first tee and blatantly lie about something central to the bet. I think people are confusing the two.
While done at times, it isn't tolerated.
Ivey's answer/lie is a proxy for a handicap card in this instance.
It is how these bets are routinely handicapped.
"oh... so and so played so and so with this many shots and I play that person with this many so we'll adjust the match this way..."
Golfers rely on that type of info to get these matches going all the time precisely because nobody offers a handicap card when standing on the first tee. And it isnt a perfect science.
But you have to at least be in the ballpark with a correct answer.
There are degrees between a hustle and a cheat. A blatant lie that skews a match so that it cannot be won by one side under even the best of performances isnt a fantastic hustle.

Let's change the facts just a bit for a hypothetical.
Goodwin asks Ivey "how has your game been". Ivey answers "meh". Goodwin then says "well let's give you the same strokes as usual." Ivey agrees. Ivey gets the better end of a bet.

That isnt the same as what happened here. Do you see why?

Again this is all dependant on Goodwin's story being accurate, which I am not saying it is. But please stop all the lame "oh boohoo a hustler got hustled" crap. That isn't what this is about.

Fwiw- I've paid off bets where it is clear I got outnegotiated and didnt exercise due diligence.
I've also refused to pay someone who was provably 7 strokes better than he claimed his handicap was. That player as far as I know has never found another regular game at our course.
Last, there are tournaments that take place for decent amounts of money at courses all over where handicap indexes are required to enter. The USGA/state organizations flag scores that come in far below where they should in these instances. And courses can and will bar you from ever participating in events when your scores repeatedly or substantially exceed your ability according to your card.
They call it cheating and don't want cheaters in their games.

Neither do I.

[fatshaft]

apefish is 100% accurate with his analysis of the issue.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL at you not reading Marc's version of events that confirm the broad base of the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read "Mr Cool's" version of events. Just cause someone posted on an obscure internet message board that he is someone doenst make it so. I'm pretty sure you have a fat shaft, though.

This is what's called heresay. You don't have a clue if ANY of this is true, yet definitively call him a cheat. Nice work.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL at you for failing to understand the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does me calling you a moran over unfounded accusations have to do with my understanding of golf and golf gambling?

Never mind, continue on with the hyperbole.

Tuco.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]


I read "Mr Cool's" version of events. Just cause someone posted on an obscure internet message board that he is someone doenst make it so. I'm pretty sure you have a fat shaft, though.

[/ QUOTE ]Keep on blowing, Blonde is far from obscure, I believe it is the UK's biggest poker website.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
I read "Mr Cool's" version of events. Just cause someone posted on an obscure internet message board that he is someone doenst make it so. I'm pretty sure you have a fat shaft, though.

[/ QUOTE ] Wrong again then, I part exchanged it last year for a Fusion FT-3

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL at calling Ivey a cheat based on third hand gossip.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


This is what's called heresay.

[/ QUOTE ]Hearsay or third party gossip, which one is it?

Well actually neither, Marc has made a statement on this rumour that is floating around, it is therefore a direct statement from one of the parties involved, confirming the broad basis of the rumour that Ivey cheated.