[Lurker.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is hard or me to believe how gullible the people on here and on the Hendonmob forum are. Someone trying to get out of a debt comes up with a reason not to pay, and so many of you bought it.

1. Phil never lied to them. And he didn't shoot better than he said he would. He putted well, but hit the ball worse. He shot in the 90's as expected.

2. Erick Lindgren gave Phil 10 shots during the summer. He now gives Phil 8 shots. They played even in a nine-hole TV match in Australia, and Erick clobbered Phil. When Mark and Ram asked Erick if they ever played even, he admitted they had, but he made sure that Ram knew that he was a much better golfer than Phil. That conveniently got left out of Ram's post.

3. Mark and Ram beat Phil five times in a row. The last time was in Barcelona where Phil lost six of the first seven holes and then walked off the course. Ram says Phil lost only $34,000, which is hard to do playing in increments of three different $10,000 bets per hole. (Two individual bets and a team bet.) Ram forgot to mention that the reason they are not much ahead of Phil is that Phil won most of the money back at Chinese Poker.

4. After they played the first nine holes in Australia, they made a small adjustment in the match, and Ram and Mark asked for a contract. (A contract means no more adjustments while in Austrailia.) They continued for a total of 72 holes. (Mark didn't finish the last nine.) At what point, should they have taken responsibility for their loss? Or is it OK to play to try to win money back, and not pay if you lose?

6. Except for nine holes where Mark parred seven holes, as expected, since he is nearly a scratch golfer, I don't think Mark shot less than 45, where his average was expected to be 38. And Ram, who was supposed to be better than Phil, was having trouble breaking 100 for 18 holes.

7. If $140,000 had been won instead of $1,400,000, the money would have been paid and a new match would have been negotiated. As Benny Binion once said, "I usually find that people are honorable as long as they can afford to be."

8. I was not brought in as an arbitrator or to fight Phil's battles. Phil wanted me to show up because he said, "You're never going to believe what they have to say. Their whole argument is that since they didn't realize they were clear underdogs in the match, the match should be voided."

9. Phil usually tells me about his matches. I invariably tell him he is an underdog. He always says he likes to win as the underdog by being tougher under pressure, and if he loses he will practice and get better and eventually win the money back.

10. The reason Phil has never defended himself is that he is a private person, and he didn't even know these forums existed until I told him about what was being posted. I have a feeling Phil may have someting to say or write once this is settled.

I can't believe that this thread has gotten so big, starting from a false hypothesis.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

how many times do i have to be exactly right about something before people stop f'ing with me? i knew i should never leave the diablo forum, but even on that forum their are some morons who question my authority. why do you little worms come here? is it just to spout nonsense or learn from real pro gamblers who have paid their dues and know the score.

[/ QUOTE ]

*there

[/ QUOTE ]
oh boy.