Ram Vaswani speaks about that 'Golf Game'.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just feel its fine to try and gain some kind of edge in the game.. however there has to be a line which when crossed the behaviour becomes unacceptable. You can't gain an advantage at any cost. I would say it is perfectly acceptable for Ivey to pretend to play badly to gain extra shots from Ram then when he's happy he has an edge then to up the stakes... but when directly asked how muched he had played and to lie about it then this becomes unacceptable and the game should be deemed void.

I 100% agree with Ram... but I don't really blame Ivey for having a go.. but its a bit bad to try and con a friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. You think the line should be drawn before what Ivey did. Every single person on this thread who gambles on golf, in any serious fashion, disagrees whole-heartedly with you. I guess its a case where reasonable people differ? Or maybe you are just wrong, and they are right.

Do we both agree that checkraising is ok, or do you draw the line before that as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for telling me I'm wrong great arguement on your part!

[/ QUOTE ]

What more do you want? Honestly. You've made it clear you draw the line before what Ivey did. So what? Its arbitrary. You think what he did was wrong, how could anyone convince you otherwise? More importantly, what difference does it make? The people who play golf for money draw the line somewhere else, and their opinion is the only one that really matters.

Seriously, are your feelings hurt by being told you are wrong? If it makes you feel better, ultimately the lines are arbitrary and your line is just as valid as theirs, except no one will observe your line and you should almost certainly never play golf for any kind of money with anyone who isn't just like you.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lying about your golf handicap is cheating. Like in holdem, its assumed that everyone gets 2 cards and then you play off that. Its cheating if someone is hiding an extra card. The reason for a handicap is to make the game somewhat even so the winner is based on some level of skill, not just lying about some arbitrary number before the match.

For those who dont think lying is cheating, what about a situation where PI or whoever showed up in a wheelchair and a cast on his leg and claimed he just broke it, wanted to play (using a cart) and that he should get 30 strokes. If Ram agrees then in the 1st fairway Phil takes off his cast and he is fine does he have to keep playing? If he waits a few holes to do so and wins does Ram have to pay him for those? I mean, this is the same lie about is ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you choose THAT part of hold'em as your analogy? Could it be because you prefer supporting your uninformed point of view rather than being intellectually honest? How in the world do you compare haggling over handicaps to getting 2 cards? I think Ivey still used golf clubs and not a laser-guidance system, which would be far more analogous to getting 3 cards.

Why don't we make the correct analogy here, and say that lying about your handicap is much more similar to lying about the strength of your hand? OMFG IVEY JUST CHECKED AND THEN RAISED WHAT A LIAR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow are you a moron. Lying about the strength of your hand and lying about your handicap are the same? OMG, that is pathetic.

Do you even play golf? If you gamble in golf and are giving strokes an accurate handicap is everything.

Once again, could Ivey claim an injury like wearing a massive knee brace or something? i assume in your pathetic and dishonest existence that that would be perfectly fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well-reasoned analysis. Lying about the strength of your hand and lying about the strength of your golf game are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. However, lying about the strength of your golf game and playing poker with 3 cards instead of two are exactly the same. Thanks for the analogy lesson.

Also, no I do not gamble on golf. Thats why I'm relying on the 100% consistent opinion of every single person in this thread who DOES gamble on golf. And every one of them has essentially agreed that lying about your handicap is pretty much identical to lying about the strength of your hand. Surprisingly, none of them has compared lying about your handicap to playing with 3 cards, or being able to stack the deck, or any other ridiculous, pointless analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the way you describe check-raising as lying, as to say not betting is lying.

The idea of a golf handicap is to make the game even. If you really shoot 5 over but claim you shoot 18 over, that is cheating because you are getting then 13 strokes as an advantage. This would be the same type of advantage in hiding a 3rd down card when playing holdem. The game is supposed to be at least close to square and then won or lost on the ability of the play that day, not because someone got an unfair amount of strokes (by lying abou their ability) or an unfair advantage in holdem (because of hiding extra cards).

[/ QUOTE ]

NO, it is NOT. That may be the point of handicaps in some offical, "Rules of Golf" sense, but for God's sake man, read and listen the posts of people who do this for a living, people like limon and others. They are telling you that the handicap is MOST CERTAINLY NOT used for this purpose, it is used as a method of gaining advantage, exactly identical to betting, calling, raising and folding in hold'em.

Or just continue saying that handicaps are offical, scientifically valid parts of the game and therefore sacrosanct, just like getting three cards or acting in turn.

[noidea]

Maybe this is a cultural issue.

Many Americans seem to think that Ivey is a hero for carrying out this hustle, and think that Ram is a scumbag for not paying.Most British posters seem to think the opposite.
I am going to go out on a limb here.

I think the American culture is far more individualistic and money seems to be the bottom line.

In the uk we do see things a little differently.Our society has institutions like the welfare state and the National health service.We do see value sacrificing some individual benefits for the greater good.
I know this point is a little off topic,and I am not saying Ram is a saint,but I do think that Ram and Ivey come from different cultures.
In the UK we have a profound sense of fair play.So beating someone at a poker table is fine, because of the nature of the rules and the equality of the participants ,regardless of skill levels.
To a British person, scamming or "hustling" someone out of money is not cool.Its not cricket.Its a no class move.
To some americans it seems to be a badge of honor.

If I was in Rams spot I would not pay.I believe Ram was honest about his handicap.No way I am giving Ivey 1 mill just because he lied to me.Ivey lying to me would void the game.Ram didnt make this up.FFS Iveys best friend basically told him that he had lied and cheated!!

If I play Ivey, beat him for a mill, then I find out that he lied about his handicap and still lost,no way i am giving the money back.Seriously why should I?I was playing fair, he tried to [censored] me,at that point all bets are off, and I will [censored] him back.He forfeits his right to any mercy by trying to [censored] me.
Its interesting that Ivey ( doyle,greenstien and daniel) feels that he might shame Ram into paying by citing the "code of the gambler" arguement.And I can see why many americans would agree with this.I can see why Americans see this as Welching.
But in the uk this is not even a issue.We might not be very bright , but we are not stupid.What kind of a muppet would Ram be if he paid 1 mill to a guy who lied to him and tried to scam him?
The only way that I would pay would be if I was in debt to a Gangster who hustled me,because he would break my legs and/ or kill me.I would have to pay because he would be a cheating hustler with muscle.According to me Ivey is a cheating hustler with no muscle.So he tries to use public opinion as muscle,so Negreanu, Doyle and others chip in.
But that cant work coz Rams value system is different.Sam Torrence has chipped in and has sided with Ram.But he is British.
I am losing my train here a bit , but one last thing.Maybe Ram doesnt have the money to pay, maybe he was on mad tilt.I really dont think that is the point.Even if he wasnt on tilt and he does have the money, he still shouldnt pay.Would you? and if you would, why?.

[TheTid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just feel its fine to try and gain some kind of edge in the game.. however there has to be a line which when crossed the behaviour becomes unacceptable. You can't gain an advantage at any cost. I would say it is perfectly acceptable for Ivey to pretend to play badly to gain extra shots from Ram then when he's happy he has an edge then to up the stakes... but when directly asked how muched he had played and to lie about it then this becomes unacceptable and the game should be deemed void.

I 100% agree with Ram... but I don't really blame Ivey for having a go.. but its a bit bad to try and con a friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. You think the line should be drawn before what Ivey did. Every single person on this thread who gambles on golf, in any serious fashion, disagrees whole-heartedly with you. I guess its a case where reasonable people differ? Or maybe you are just wrong, and they are right.

Do we both agree that checkraising is ok, or do you draw the line before that as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Checkraising is strategy w/in the game itself, attempting to use some deception.

It is the same thing as fake-punt in football, you fake like you are punting then run the ball. In poker, you check like you have a weak hand then raise because you have a strong hand.

Deceptive strategy w/in the game is different then lying about the basic structure of the game. There is a huge difference, but apparently only noticable if you have a soul and an IQ over 50.

[TheTid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lying about your golf handicap is cheating. Like in holdem, its assumed that everyone gets 2 cards and then you play off that. Its cheating if someone is hiding an extra card. The reason for a handicap is to make the game somewhat even so the winner is based on some level of skill, not just lying about some arbitrary number before the match.

For those who dont think lying is cheating, what about a situation where PI or whoever showed up in a wheelchair and a cast on his leg and claimed he just broke it, wanted to play (using a cart) and that he should get 30 strokes. If Ram agrees then in the 1st fairway Phil takes off his cast and he is fine does he have to keep playing? If he waits a few holes to do so and wins does Ram have to pay him for those? I mean, this is the same lie about is ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you choose THAT part of hold'em as your analogy? Could it be because you prefer supporting your uninformed point of view rather than being intellectually honest? How in the world do you compare haggling over handicaps to getting 2 cards? I think Ivey still used golf clubs and not a laser-guidance system, which would be far more analogous to getting 3 cards.

Why don't we make the correct analogy here, and say that lying about your handicap is much more similar to lying about the strength of your hand? OMFG IVEY JUST CHECKED AND THEN RAISED WHAT A LIAR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow are you a moron. Lying about the strength of your hand and lying about your handicap are the same? OMG, that is pathetic.

Do you even play golf? If you gamble in golf and are giving strokes an accurate handicap is everything.

Once again, could Ivey claim an injury like wearing a massive knee brace or something? i assume in your pathetic and dishonest existence that that would be perfectly fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well-reasoned analysis. Lying about the strength of your hand and lying about the strength of your golf game are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. However, lying about the strength of your golf game and playing poker with 3 cards instead of two are exactly the same. Thanks for the analogy lesson.

Also, no I do not gamble on golf. Thats why I'm relying on the 100% consistent opinion of every single person in this thread who DOES gamble on golf. And every one of them has essentially agreed that lying about your handicap is pretty much identical to lying about the strength of your hand. Surprisingly, none of them has compared lying about your handicap to playing with 3 cards, or being able to stack the deck, or any other ridiculous, pointless analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the way you describe check-raising as lying, as to say not betting is lying.

The idea of a golf handicap is to make the game even. If you really shoot 5 over but claim you shoot 18 over, that is cheating because you are getting then 13 strokes as an advantage. This would be the same type of advantage in hiding a 3rd down card when playing holdem. The game is supposed to be at least close to square and then won or lost on the ability of the play that day, not because someone got an unfair amount of strokes (by lying abou their ability) or an unfair advantage in holdem (because of hiding extra cards).

[/ QUOTE ]

NO, it is NOT. That may be the point of handicaps in some offical, "Rules of Golf" sense, but for God's sake man, read and listen the posts of people who do this for a living, people like limon and others. They are telling you that the handicap is MOST CERTAINLY NOT used for this purpose, it is used as a method of gaining advantage, exactly identical to betting, calling, raising and folding in hold'em.

Or just continue saying that handicaps are offical, scientifically valid parts of the game and therefore sacrosanct, just like getting three cards or acting in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

No moron. The reason handicaps were invented and are still used is so that people who wanted to gamble in golf had an accurate measure of the ability of the other players, so then people could make their bets based off of that.

"The handicap system is a method of leveling the playing field. If a golfer who shoots in the low 70s plays a golfer who shoots in the high 90s, we all know who's going to win. But by using handicaps, those players can play each other as if they are equal in ability." This is the non-gamble reason for handicaps.

[pyedog]

What if it was revealed after the fact that Ivey kicked a ball out of the rough on one of the holes when he thought nobody was looking? What would the resolution of that be for the professional golf gamblers/hustlers?

Would that void the entire bet? Or just cause a one hole penalty to be imposed?

I bet there is some real cheating which goes on in these high stakes golf games. People will do some real scum bag things when it is for a lot of money and they know they won't be caught. Especially when they're already encouraged to do a lot of other borderline cheating.

aaargh once again:

[ QUOTE ]
yea ram thought they were great friends and could never think he could do this, oh wait he was hustlin ivey since he started playin golf, and it was for way more than he says. please anyone who doesnt golf gamble SHUT UP AND JUST READ THE POSTS by blair rodman and limon and others. I cant believe how many people still continue to open thier mouths and give thier 2 cents when theyre all completely wrong and just have no clue. you dont tell your doctor how to give open heart surgery do you? no because you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. and yet people keep coming up with their own golf gambling rules and guidelines and code of ethics just shut up

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
Sam Torrence has chipped in and has sided with Ram

[/ QUOTE ]

Now just a minute. Sam had the situation explained to him by Vicky Coren at the poker table, and he apparently "sided with Ram" there. Vicky knows nothing at all about golf and is great friend of Ram's, and fair play to her for sticking up for her friends, but to imply that Torrance has "ruled" on this is well offside. Goodness only knows how garbled the report he heard was, and to what extent his answer was just being polite to someone who obviously had their friend's best interest at heart.

Edit: And I'd also like to add that we're three pages in and still every single analogy has been awful. Suppose they were playing holdem, suppose it was omaha, suppose someone pulled out a gun. How about we suppose they were playing golf ?

[TheTid]

[ QUOTE ]
What if it was revealed after the fact that Ivey kicked a ball out of the rough on one of the holes when he thought nobody was looking? What would the resolution of that be for the professional golf gamblers/hustlers?

Would that void the entire bet? Or just cause a one hole penalty to be imposed?

I bet there is some real cheating which goes on in these high stakes golf games. People will do some real scum bag things when it is for a lot of money and they know they won't be caught. Especially when they're already encouraged to do a lot of other borderline cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suppose that would only affect something on that particular hole, though if it happened against me i would be questioning whether he was doing that on other holes as well. Of course, before the bet i am assuming it is understood that you are playing by the rules of golf, otherwise, you could do anything out there and claim "Hey, we never agreed on a certain set of rules."

The lying about your handicap affects the entire round though, hell if you got enough strokes you wouldnt even have to really play, you could probably kick the ball w/ your foot and still win.

[marcj85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just feel its fine to try and gain some kind of edge in the game.. however there has to be a line which when crossed the behaviour becomes unacceptable. You can't gain an advantage at any cost. I would say it is perfectly acceptable for Ivey to pretend to play badly to gain extra shots from Ram then when he's happy he has an edge then to up the stakes... but when directly asked how muched he had played and to lie about it then this becomes unacceptable and the game should be deemed void.

I 100% agree with Ram... but I don't really blame Ivey for having a go.. but its a bit bad to try and con a friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. You think the line should be drawn before what Ivey did. Every single person on this thread who gambles on golf, in any serious fashion, disagrees whole-heartedly with you. I guess its a case where reasonable people differ? Or maybe you are just wrong, and they are right.

Do we both agree that checkraising is ok, or do you draw the line before that as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for telling me I'm wrong great arguement on your part!

[/ QUOTE ]

What more do you want? Honestly. You've made it clear you draw the line before what Ivey did. So what? Its arbitrary. You think what he did was wrong, how could anyone convince you otherwise? More importantly, what difference does it make? The people who play golf for money draw the line somewhere else, and their opinion is the only one that really matters.

Seriously, are your feelings hurt by being told you are wrong? If it makes you feel better, ultimately the lines are arbitrary and your line is just as valid as theirs, except no one will observe your line and you should almost certainly never play golf for any kind of money with anyone who isn't just like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, thats fair.. so is it that there is no line to be drawn and all behaviour is acceptable when negotiating to gain the most strokes.. but only strictly relating to your ability.. you can't lie about other aspects of the bet?

So, PI says: I havent played in three months
Ram says: I'll give you a number of shots based on you not having played for that time

Afterwards.. Ram finds out PI has played everyday with coaching

There is no question that PI lied.. but thats part of negotiations. So Ram should pay. Is that right?