Ram Vaswani speaks about that 'Golf Game'.

[marcj85]

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.

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
During negotiations...

Ivey: I haven't played in the last three months

Ram: Sure i'll pay you if i lose

So, the first lie by Ivey is ok b/c he is just getting an edge over Ram... but Ram lying to get a freeroll is not ok?
Seems to me like Ram got the best of this bet if you look at it that way. Thats only true if lying is an acceptable part of negotiations as has been stated throughout this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lying is acceptable, not paying is unacceptable. Go back to equivocation school.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever, he lied about having the money and he lied about the fact that he was going to pay if he lost. Why is that the only lie which isn't permitted? These guys both sound like scum. Too bad they both couldn't have lost a million in this bet to some third non cheating party.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one cares if Ram lied about not paying. They only care that he IS NOT PAYING. You understand the difference? No one cares if I lie about accepting the house rules of a casino, they only care if I break the rules. I can say "No I won't play by them" and then play by them, therefore lying, and no one will care.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well he lied that he wanted to play the golf matches for real money. If anything goes lying wise in these golf matches then I don't see where you can draw the line. I wonder if this went to court if all of the "allowed" lying would make it harder for Ivey to win the case.

Stupid example, but if I say "Bet you a million dollars you can't sink that putt" in a playful manner then I don't think you'll be able to force me to pay. Phil was stupid for not demanding the money up front, especially when he was planning on hustling him with such a lopsided match.

Did the match start at 20K per hole and then cap out at 100K per hole? If they're playing skins does that mean that Ivey won at least 20-40 more holes than Ram over two days? That seems excessive, wouldn't he need to have won almost every hole they played?

[TheTid]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

[ 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?

[TheTid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think one of the major points here is Ram didn't cry foul after a few holes. He played golf for like 3 days with the man, and kept upping the stakes. You're talking apples and oranges here.

[/ QUOTE ]

There would be no way to judge whether the handicap is accurate after a few holes, hell, even after just 1 round. I dont know what phils handicap was but lets say it is around 18, if he shoots 10-12 over for 1 round you could say he had a very good day, it happens, and that is part of the gamble. Now, if he shoots 10 over 3 straight days you would know something is up, but it would take that many rounds to realize it. (unless he shot 5 over, which is virtually impossible for an 18 handicap to do). To judge skill in golf after a few holes is impossible, one of the other reasons the necessity for a true handicap.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think one of the major points here is Ram didn't cry foul after a few holes. He played golf for like 3 days with the man, and kept upping the stakes. You're talking apples and oranges here.

[/ QUOTE ]

There would be no way to judge whether the handicap is accurate after a few holes, hell, even after just 1 round. I dont know what phils handicap was but lets say it is around 18, if he shoots 10-12 over for 1 round you could say he had a very good day, it happens, and that is part of the gamble. Now, if he shoots 10 over 3 straight days you would know something is up, but it would take that many rounds to realize it. (unless he shot 5 over, which is virtually impossible for an 18 handicap to do). To judge skill in golf after a few holes is impossible, one of the other reasons the necessity for a true handicap.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, all of the golf pros and golf gamblers have disagreed strongly with you. Every one of them has said that, just by watching his swing and the way he hits, you should be able to tell that a player has obviously greatly improved. These guys had played with Ivey before. They should have been able to realize he was clearly better. They wanted to gamboool, though.

[marcj85]

[ 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 ]
we need Blair Rodman's input!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I just saw that he made a post over at the FCP forums:

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how little the outside world understands the gambler’s world and the gambling mentality? The World Series of Golf is going to be an interesting example. After the last practice round at Primm I was helping the organizers with some of the rules. My intention was to close some of the opportunities for players to take “shots”, ploys that would be unethical in a strict golf setting but would fall within their rules. Tom Meeks, recently retired as the USGA’s lead rules official and head rules guy for the WSOG, replied to one of my suggestions that ‘I don’t think anybody is going to do that! I would hope that players will adhere to the golfer’s code of honor.’ I replied, “This is a gambling tournament. Players are putting up a lot of their own money and will play to win within the rules. If you expect them to adopt the ethics of pro golfers you’re going to be disappointed.”

This relates directly o the Ivey-Vaswani incident. The outcry over Phil’s actions, whatever they may have been in reality, demarcates the line between those who understand the ways of the gambler and those who don’t. People who aren’t hardcore gamblers and live by golf’s honor code are aghast at the implications of Phil’s actions, think he cheated and think Ram has every right to not pay. Real gamblers find Ram’s protestations rather amusing. I’m sure somewhere Johnny Moss and Puggy Pearson are having a good chuckle at all of this. He got beat at the most important part of the game, the negotiation, and is crying foul to avoid paying. This is unacceptable to the gambler. Had Phil actually cheated it would be a different story.

The problem I have with this is that Vaswani isn’t from the outside world. He’s a professional gambler and has been for a long time. This wasn’t a friendly golf match. It was a high-stakes gambling game. If Ram doesn’t understand the ways of the gambling world by now he needs to find a new profession, regardless of how good a card player he might be. Or, he should stick to cards and stay out of the other gambling arenas.

I’m not saying the gamblers world is pretty. There are lots of things that non-gamblers find distasteful, and they have a good case. However, it is what it is and it’s probably not going to change any time soon. I think this incident has opened a lot of eyes. Many of today’s successful poker players are internet-spawned, learned in isolation and have little understanding of the other aspects of the gambling world. The fact that this incident has generated such interest illustrates this. The good news is that a lot of light has been shed and lessons have been learned.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheTid]

[ 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).