Ram Vaswani speaks about that 'Golf Game'.

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
No-one seems to have discussed that the reason Ram hasn't paid the money is that he can't afford to.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes what he is doing so much worse. There is some shame in incurring a gambling debt you don't have the means to pay, but reneging (based on dubious cheating accusations) rather than negotiating payment is just about the most dishonorable thing a person can do.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Ram has a dilemma. Does he pay or does he not pay? What are the likely consequences of not paying? How do people feel about whether he pays or not? Presumably, these are all issues of interest to readers of 2+2, because most of us are gamblers who either have faced or may face similar situations in the future, regardless of our interest or lack of same in the personalities involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the implication of this for us is that we need to be aware that there is yet one more factor involved for us in our calculations as gamblers. Will we be paid? It's another cost of doing business, just like taxes and the rake. Unless we want to resort to unsavory collection methods there is always going to be some chance that we will have to eat it. This factor can't be ignored.

That's why gamblers take it as an extreme insult for any question to be raised as to their integrity on this point. Once word gets around that you've welched on a bet you find doors closed on you. No more little loans on your word in the middle of a game. Who's going to put you into tournaments if you need to go that route someday? You may never pay them if you score. It's no fun working in an environment where everybody thinks you're a lowlife.

[ QUOTE ]
I do think it somewhat peculiar that some people here are so insistent that it's incumbent on a golf gambler to minimize their edge, when there's no such obligation on a poker player.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference between poker and golf. The skill levels in poker are not so obvious and short term luck dominates. In golf, a player who has never broken 100 could never win playing even against a scratch golfer. So in golf a Spot must be negotiated or there is no match. The point of honor in negotiations is that truthful information be provided. An example of a "Hustle" would be if a Scratch golfer claimed he had an established 20 handicap. If Ram had actually been playing every day for the last 4 months but instead lied and said he hadn't played at all, that would be a "Hustle". As our UK friends have pointed out, regardless of the relationship Gentlemen are expected to give truthful information in the negotiations for the Spot.

But that's not to say the players are not trying to negotiate a favorable Spot for themselves, within the framework of Truthful Information. It's like when you sell a house. All pertinent information must be included in the Listing. If the house is in Escrow and something is discoverd that wasn't in the listing, the agreed to price in Escrow can be adjusted. The Listing Agent can be sued. So a framework of pertinent information should be in the Listing. But that information does not determine the Price settled on in negotiations. When the Seller shows the house she points out all the wonderful things about it. On the other hand, the prospective buyers point out all its faults. Both try to negotiate the best deal for themselves. That's been the nature of negotiation since time immemorial.

So when Ram said he hadn't played in the last 4 months, Ivey naturally countered with, "I haven't been playing either", meaning he hadn't played in the last couple of weeks if Ram had bothered to ask more about it. Ivey told him he was shooting hot and cold and that he recently had a round in the low 90's. That's a breakthrough round for Ivey and Ram should have realized it. From that framework of truthful information Ram should have known what he was getting into.

Ram simply failed to accept the possible perfect storm that was coming. His real stupidity was continuing to deny that reality even when in the midst of that storm. He should have walked away long before the boat capsized. In fact, if Ivey was intransigent with the negotiations in the face of the evidence Ram should have never started the match. Ram had the evidence availbale to him for what might happen. As it turned out, he was just stupidly overoptimistic. He was like the buyer of dot-com stocks at Nasdaq 5000. The information was available. He just didn't want to see the downside risk.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
So if someone attempted to kill you and you defended yourself and killed him, you're a criminal?

bwahahahah.

Dude, quit posting for life.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. You are a moron. Do you seriously not understand analogies? You giving a ocunterexample demonstrates my point exactly. We need to be concerned about what TYPE of crime both of us are committing, not just that we are both committing crimes. Just like in the real example, we need to be concerned with what TYPE of hustle or whatever each person is doing, not just say something moronic like "They were both hustling." It is hilarious to me that you are arguing with me and calling me a moron while simultaneously making my point.

[Neil S]

Idle thought: Maybe the reason some people here are on Vaswani's side here, is that we don't understand the point on gambling with a handicap in a game of skill? I mean, we don't give handicaps to weaker players in poker, so looking at a game like golf (or billiards I believe) where you can use that system for hustling, it seems a little foreign.

Personally my gut is with Ivey here, but somehow I think I'll never truly know what happened that one day on the course.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the Group of Arbitrators, despite possibly being weighted in Ivey's favor, suggested the outcome of the wagers be adjusted indicates that . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? Where are you getting this "Group of Arbitrators" stuff from?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I read the story, Phil and Ram talked about putting the question to Arbitration. They met at a Tourny where Phil had gathered some people, including Barry G, to possibly act as Arbitrators. As I understood it, the Group made the suggestion that an adjustment be made to what Ram owed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, okay. Your reading differs from mine. (When Ram said that the Phil walked in with his "very own arbitrators" who "were obviously on his side" I took that to mean that Ram declined to arbitrate.)

But thanks for the answer. Now I understand your post and agree with your general take on things.

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if someone attempted to kill you and you defended yourself and killed him, you're a criminal?

bwahahahah.

Dude, quit posting for life.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. You are a moron. Do you seriously not understand analogies? You giving a ocunterexample demonstrates my point exactly. We need to be concerned about what TYPE of crime both of us are committing, not just that we are both committing crimes. Just like in the real example, we need to be concerned with what TYPE of hustle or whatever each person is doing, not just say something moronic like "They were both hustling." It is hilarious to me that you are arguing with me and calling me a moron while simultaneously making my point.

[/ QUOTE ]



Your analogy was retarded to begin with and not realistic.

So there are differences in what kind of "hustling" someone is doing?

I think some people are being obtuse, look at who we are talking about.

Anyway, I guess Ive spent to much time already talking about two multi millionaires and their gambling problems.....

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if someone attempted to kill you and you defended yourself and killed him, you're a criminal?

bwahahahah.

Dude, quit posting for life.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. You are a moron. Do you seriously not understand analogies? You giving a ocunterexample demonstrates my point exactly. We need to be concerned about what TYPE of crime both of us are committing, not just that we are both committing crimes. Just like in the real example, we need to be concerned with what TYPE of hustle or whatever each person is doing, not just say something moronic like "They were both hustling." It is hilarious to me that you are arguing with me and calling me a moron while simultaneously making my point.

[/ QUOTE ]



Your analogy was retarded to begin with and not realistic.

So there are differences in what kind of "hustling" someone is doing?

I think some people are being obtuse, look at who we are talking about.

Anyway, I guess Ive spent to much time already talking about two multi millionaires and their gambling problems.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course my analogy was retarded. It was crafted for the sole purpose of demonstrating how retarded your comment that 'they both hustled each other, a hustle is a hustle, blah blah blah' was. I'm glad it was effective in its purpose.

Like previous posters have mentioned, I don't really care if Ivey gets his money or not, I don't know him and it won't benefit me. However, this incident brings up a bunch of interesting questions and debates that ARE relevant for anyone who intends to make gambling any significant part of their life.

[rgold79]

[ QUOTE ]
As much as I find it retarded that two Poker Pros are diddling on a golf course wagering for money most people won't see in a lifetime, I find it more retarded that so many people have so much to say about a bet between two guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouting about nothing is great because once this "issue" is "resolved" you can pretend you played a role in it and got to interact with some real "pros" along the way.

My personal favorites are the people who write posts saying this is going to trash the outside world's view of poker and gambling, as if there were more than 2,000 people on Earth with even a vague awareness of this entire thing.

[csquard]

Thanks to Barry certainly for articulating his take on all of this.

Understanding that this is well trodden ground, I still can't figure out how anyone can feel Ivey hustled Vaswani. For any of us who have played any stakes in golf, players always have to be suspect of claims regarding where their opponent's play is. It is why the handicapping system was put in place in the first place and why so much work goes into ensuring that scores are logged in. When I play a friend who I haven't played with in quite awhile, we go back and forth until we decide upon what the strokes are. Then I get beat normally if I haven't been playing much.

Vaswani had all the opportunity to quit, to keep the stakes where they are, to renegotiate strokes (very common practice after nine holes, much less after a round). To Barry's point, it seems like it was the wrong extremes of variation combined with Vaswani wanting to win his cash and pride back. Anyone who has played golf has been exactly where Vaswani was, albeit not for $1.4M.

To the point regarding the cash and Vaswani's ability to pay, I'm sure that can be figured out. I mean, I've seen movies like Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Rounders. It's called a payment plan (see the plasma screen television rental industry for appropriate interest rates).

[www.raise.tv]

Apparently the situation is solved, both Ram and Marc talked to our team at the WPT Main Event at Bellagio (last two broadcasts). The commentary is in german but all the interviews (www.raise.tv) are in english. We will try to talk to Phil as well - he left very quickly after he exited the event.