Phil Ivey Gossip

[kerze]

A couple of interesting things here.

It is fairly well known that Ivey and EDog have a big golf bet. Ivey has bet EDog that he will be able to beat EDog with no handicap over 72 holes within 10 years (bet was made a couple of years ago). If Phil is indeed almost as good as EDog, he will probably be able to cash on this bet.

Also, FWIW, I believe Ivey's partner in the match discussed above was Gus Hansen based on this link:

http://www.blondepoker.com/index.php?q=node/6908

"Hi Blonde people!! This year’s poker frenzy begins with a trip to Australia and the Aussie Millions in Melbourne. Its like a whos who here in The Crown Plaza hotel. Just met Andy Roddick in the lift and Martina Hingis by the pool. Had to blank them both though as I had an important tournament later in the day and didn’t want to lose focus.

All the Full Tilt boys are here and tomorrow we head off with Phil Ivey and Gus Hanson for a high stakes golf match with my partner in crime Ram Vaswani. One round of golf is worth a year’s winnings on the Europen Tour so, as you can imagine, some serious verbal takes place, with all sides trying to negotiate the best handicap - he reason we win is that Ram is different class at winding up Mr Ivey"

[Blair Rodman]

Lots of amateur tournaments, including most country club events, have some kind of entry fee and prize money.For instance, one I used to play each year at PGA West was an invitational event put on by a member. The entry fee was about $1000 per team. It's not enough to make a good living, but a lot of these guys are retired and if they play a couple of these a week they can make a little side income. I'm sure a lot of them find a way to rationalize their actions, as do most people.

[Devil Duq]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that many posters in this thread are confusing golf with golf gambling...I would never play a stranger for any kind of serious money unless I had some reliable information about their game. I would also never get in a big match with someone who I knew might have improved rapidly unless I knew his story. Among gamblers this information is fairly easy to gather.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Mr. Rodman. I'm gratified that someone with sufficient credibility in the gambling world kindly restates the exact points I have made all along. Until I read Blair's posts, I was contemplating firing off a BBV-esque post about my golf (and golf gambling) credentials, which are substantial. Now I can remain blessedly anonymous.

I'm also glad Blair mentioned and briefly described "gamblers' rules" in relation to high-stakes golf matches. Do we now understand the difference between those shark-infested waters and kind of genteel, kiddie-pool matches that authors of the "Phil Ivey = obv scumbag" posts must be playing?

Thanks also to "kerze" for identifying Ivey's partner in the better ball doubles match. Figures that it was Gus.

[AAAAx]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm also glad Blair mentioned and briefly described "gamblers' rules" in relation to high-stakes golf matches. Do we now understand the difference between those shark-infested waters and kind of genteel, kiddie-pool matches that authors of the "Phil Ivey = obv scumbag" posts must be playing?


[/ QUOTE ]

The rules are not quite clear to me. I tried to bring some points with the "legal agreement", but obviously the rules bend more than that?

Where is the point when people start finding themselves with broken arms?

[Devil Duq]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the point when people start finding themselves with broken arms?

[/ QUOTE ]

When they refuse to pay their gambling debts.

[AAAAx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where is the point when people start finding themselves with broken arms?

[/ QUOTE ]

When they don't pay their gambling debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier in this thread there was a different kind of case which made me wonder.

[Devil Duq]

Here again, we must return to the salient point in all this, one which I originally made and which Blair Rodman et al reiterated.

The error that resulted in the bet being lost was not Phil's deception, nor his play nor the play of Goodwin/Vaswani in that particular round. It was the losers' lack of, as Blair put it, "due diligence" in determining if Ivey was being truthful in his claim(s), an error compounded by their agreeing to absurdly unfavorable terms (such as no in-round stroke adjustment).

BTW, it seems highly unlikely from the testimony presented that this wager was made "on the first tee" as some have insinuated. It seems clear that agreement was reached well in advance of the match, with more than enough time available to make a verifying phone call with E-Dog, or anyone else familiar with Ivey's newly-honed golf skills.

It's simply pathetic for experienced gamblers to make such a rookie mistake, and this presents further proof that Goodwin, at least, had no business gambling that high.

Lesson learned: noobs must pay.

Regardless of the denouement of this amusing affair, I highly doubt that Phil is going to lack for suitors in future high-stakes golf matches. In fact, the exact opposite will likely prove to be the case.

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm also glad Blair mentioned and briefly described "gamblers' rules" in relation to high-stakes golf matches. Do we now understand the difference between those shark-infested waters and kind of genteel, kiddie-pool matches that authors of the "Phil Ivey = obv scumbag" posts must be playing?


[/ QUOTE ]

The rules are not quite clear to me. I tried to bring some points with the "legal agreement", but obviously the rules bend more than that?

Where is the point when people start finding themselves with broken arms?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you're referring to my story about my ex's dad. I don't really know the answer. We all got drunk one night and they started telling me some of Dad's old pool stories. When I asked him why he got his arms broken, all he really said was, "I [censored] up." My impression was that he knew he had breached what little etiquette they had.

[apefish]

Devil- if you think due diligence was not taken in this bet you would have a hard time finding a game with an overwhelming majority of the people who actually play nassaus/skins.
Blairs post only applies if at all to a certain select few people who have decided that no rules that pertain to how the real world treats golf apply at all.

"Lack of due diligence" only applies if the participants in the bet think it does. It is pretty obvious that Marc thinks a line has been crossed. How do you reconcile that? He's just bitter?

Blair, I am curious. Since lying is apparently perfectly fine when asked a precise question, is there any line at all that is drawn? For instance what if one person pulls a firearm on another player on the course. How about if he shoots him in the leg on the second hole?
Seems like a good way to gain an edge no?

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of the denouement of this amusing affair, I highly doubt that Phil is going to lack for suitors in future high-stakes golf matches. In fact, the exact opposite will likely prove to be the case.

[/ QUOTE ]


I would actually think it would go down for a period of time. if anyone who would play Ivey reads/hears of this he wont get action untill he plays with them or they have real info of where he stands. Its clear he sandbagged these players, in there world its a legit tactic.(i still find this somewhat pathetic but since they really just play degenerate gamblers turned golfers I can understand it) Now that they know the deal his action will be somewhat ruined until more info is available. basically he will now have to go back to playing [censored] for a period before playing well to get action. Only people who will give action are those who know his real skill level. he wont get to really hustle as in this case.