[captZEEbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I love it how people think it was cool for Ivey to hustle Ram by misrepresenting his handicap, but it's uncool for Ram to "hustle" Ivey by refusing to pay.

The two are equivalent in my book.

In poker the money is on the table: you win the pot, the chips get shipped your way. You don't have to depend on people keeping their word and paying up if they lose.

If these high stakes golfers were smart, they'd give the money to a trusted third party to hold while the match was going on (or at least a hefty deposit).

When someone gets hustled, there's an increased risk they're not going to pay. And since (it seems) that golf gambling is all about hustling, it seems foolish for the hustler to risk not getting paid.

So who was the big dope here, Ram or Phil? It turns out Ram was freerolling and Phil was the sucker.

[/ QUOTE ]there's a difference that I'm surprised you can't see.

First off, EVERYONE shortsells their handicap. Second, image a policy that welching on a bet is acceptable anytime someone "lies" about their handicap. That would mean, anytime you lose you don't have to pay b/c obviously the other person lied about their handicap if they shot above it. Therefore, nobody would gamble. That policy doesn't make sense. The only thing that makes sense as a policy is always honor your bets, don't make the bets if you are a bad gambler.