Phil Ivey Gossip

[Tuco]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Tuco.

[Jooka]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]

didnt Marc goodwin get quoted in this very thread saying Ivey lied? are people not believing it was him or something?

[Evigt_Drabbad]

its like getting checkraised.. pay and move along

[J.A.K.]

[ QUOTE ]
its like getting Colluded .. pay and move along

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mhoram]

Regardless of the ethics of it, I don't think he's ruined his action, he won't get that sort of handicap again, but he'll still get all the action he can handle, just on a fair level, maybe have to give handicaps rather than get them.

[J.A.K.]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of the ethics of it, I don't think he's ruined his action, he won't get that sort of handicap again, but he'll still get all the action he can handle, just on a fair level, maybe have to give handicaps rather than get them.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[HOWMANY]

I must really not understand gambling on golf, because I don't see how it's cheating when you go from having the rules set up in a way that makes one player a clear favorite to making the other a clear favorite.

[J.A.K.]

OK, HOWMANY. I say I am an 18 HC and my opponent is a 6 HC...I get 12 strokes on the hardest 12 holes of the course. But in reality I am a 12 HC so I have a 6 stroke adv.



Am I a savvy bettor...or POS?

edit for spelling

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
I must really not understand gambling on golf, because I don't see how it's cheating when you go from having the rules set up in a way that makes one player a clear favorite to making the other a clear favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://golf.about.com/od/golfterms/g/bldef_sandbag.htm

[dinopoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This scenario is laughably typical of gambling degeneracy. How does one agree to a golf match at these stakes based upon someone's unverified handicap claim? Moreover, how does one agree to do this with no provision for mid-round adjustment?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a long-time pool player I'll contribute a little. You can easily agree to wagers such as this because you are accepting the person's word as to how they play. Now, if it turns out that they lied about their skill level, well then I'll tend to pay off (mostly because I still have the ability to 'outrun' the excessive spot), but I will never again give them action. Remember, you have to give action to get action, and clearly the liar in such an instance is more interested in getting action than he is in giving it. In other words, if a game was set up on the basis of being a fair gamble and it turned out it wasn't, then how can you trust anything the opponent says ever again? The spirit of the game is ruined.

Doyle is a great example of the 'right' kind of hustler, in my opinion. He's willing to give a fair game and even take the worst of it, but he bets so high that he takes people out of their comfort zone and wins because he's got better nerves with big cash on the line. That's my kind of hustler.

The other kind, well there are tons of them in the pool world, and while they make the odd score here and there because they're good con men, they'll never acheive the level of someone like Doyle (or Jack Cooney in pool) when it comes to making real scores. For a case in point, a friend of mine, Jim, made a game with a new guy in the poolroom and agreed to give him 5 games on the wire in a race to 9 on the basis that the guy (call him Frank) said he was an APA 5. They played the first set for $20, Jim won, and then Frank upped the bet to $100 and pretty much blew Jim away, causing Jim to quit an $80 loser. Meanwhile, if Frank had just told Jim that he wanted to play even, he probably could have won $300 in this fairer game before Jim quit, albeit with a smaller edge. Frank also had a hard time getting any action the rest of the time he was in town.

Now, with all of that said, if Phil managed to turn the tables on some guys who had been beating him fairly regularly, well, the situation enters a grey area. On the one hand you could maybe say that he just won back the money that they hustled him out of over the previous period, but on the other hand, you could easily argue that he lost that money fair and square, and he should win it back the same way - without having to resort to treachery.

Personally, based on what's said so far, I think Phil was in the wrong, but I think the best course of action for his opponents is to pay off and just stop giving him action. They have reputations to uphold as well and they did agree to the wager.

/my two cents