Phil Ivey Gossip

[Devil Duq]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now I have a question for you: Should a person take responsibility for the consequences of their bad negotiation? Or is simply saying "I was deceived" enough to absolve them of that responsibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems pretty clear to me that at least some of those among the losers share this perspective, otherwise Ram Vaswami wouldn't have made arrangements with Ivey to pay what he believes he owes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed! That's why I stated in my original post that Ram comes across as the most upright citizen in this whole sordid affair. He proves himself to be a true high-stakes gambler who understands that when you make a bad bet, you don't cry about it, you pay up. This certainly doesn't mean you don't try to exact your revenge later!

Despite the "Devil's Advocate" stance I've taken in this thread, I'm unquestionably rooting for Vaswani to extract the amount he lost (and more) from Ivey at some future date, be it on the golf course or at the poker table. That's the proper way to handle this situation -- make 'em bleed a little bit more this time than you did the last time.

[Devil Duq]

[ QUOTE ]
Last, before I sleep- I took a cheap shot and I shouldn't have in a previous post. My apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sleep well, sir, your apology is accepted -- and please accept mine for any uncivil tone or unwarranted asides which I might have employed in my response(s) to you.

As for the other flamers, en garde!

[Devil Duq]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the Rules do not speak to golf wagering, nor prescribe any penalty for misrepresenting one's handicap in order to gain a competitive edge. Otherwise, as someone else mentioned, amateur golf tournaments would cease to be played on this planet.

[ QUOTE ]
utter bollocks, you don’t even play golf do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sir, I absolutely guarantee that I've played far more golf on many more courses around the world for far more money than you ever will - although that point is at best tangential to this conversation.

Regarding your post on how indexes are calculated, maintained and all that other remedial rubbish, I can only request that you place my quotes in their proper context. I was responding to apefish's query as to whether they were any inviolable standards in a match "like this" or if it should be considered a no holds barred, anything goes affair. Please re-read that portion of the post in question; I was not in any way comparing the subject of our debate to USGA or R&A sanctioned amateur events, and you know it.

Just to show you that I too can play that game, I'll take one of your quotes out of context:

fatshaft wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
This sounds more like private gambling [which is] nothing like real golf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many thanks, fatshaft, for acceding to my central point. I couldn't have stated it any better.

[ QUOTE ]
Mr Ivey was involved in lying not deception, he was asked a straight question and lied, how is that deception?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, for someone who earlier condescendingly took me to task for needing translation to English from "American English", this last quote makes you look like an unmitigated fool.

Perhaps you require a refresher from Mr. Webster:

lie n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression

So, yes, you insufferable Brit, I understand a bit of your native tongue. Brush up on your cognitive skills while I take a nap.

[Flacks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if all that was said about handicapp's was in fact this: " "does Eric Lingdren still give you 10 shots" to which Phil replied yes!!"[and that was in fact true.], and they wagered hundreds of thousands with no other info, its their own fault and what phil did was fine.

if, however, phil actually lied about his handicap, then its pretty low in my book.

im interested as to what was really said.

[/ QUOTE ]Well Marc states on Blonde that this was exactly what was asked and exactly what Ivey said. Nothing more or less than cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being confrontational but why do you put such validity in one persons comments and none in what may have happened from a different perspective?

I mean I can say "I'm King of the Universe" here but it doesn't make it so. Just because someone steps forward doesn't mean their version of the truth is reality.

Just curious

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]

Agreed! That's why I stated in my original post that Ram comes across as the most upright citizen in this whole sordid affair. He proves himself to be a true high-stakes gambler who understands that when you make a bad bet, you don't cry about it, you pay up. This certainly doesn't mean you don't try to exact your revenge later!


[/ QUOTE ]

And actually, to give Goodman some credit, he also says that if -- when they meet next in Vegas -- they can't agree terms, they'll probably just pay him and sever ties.

It seems to me though, that their big error was to agree to no adjustment to the terms of the bet halfway through the game. If you thought that you were still likely to give Ivey a spanking, I can see why you would be happy to agree to this, because you wouldn't want him getting off your hook.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]

Sir, I absolutely guarantee that I've played far more golf on many more courses around the world for far more money than you ever will - although that point is at best tangential to this conversation.

[/ QUOTE ] Not a chance ducky, the money part almost certainly, the rest without doubt not.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding your post on how indexes are calculated, maintained and all that other remedial rubbish, I can only request that you place my quotes in their proper context. I was responding to apefish's query as to whether they were any inviolable standards in a match "like this" or if it should be considered a no holds barred, anything goes affair. Please re-read that portion of the post in question; I was not in any way comparing the subject of our debate to USGA or R&A sanctioned amateur events, and you know it.

[/ QUOTE ] in this quote clearly you state that the rules of golf do not relate or mention golf wagering, they 100% do if you care to read the rules of golf, which someone with your extensive playing record [apparently] must I presume have flicked through at some point? Your statement was clear and I have not taken this out of context. See below again. If you were referring solely to this match, then why bring in amateur tournaments into your argument?
[ QUOTE ]
However, the Rules do not speak to golf wagering, nor prescribe any penalty for misrepresenting one's handicap in order to gain a competitive edge. Otherwise, as someone else mentioned, amateur golf tournaments would cease to be played on this planet

[/ QUOTE ]


Apologies for “deceptive”, bit early in the day for that rant, please replace with disingenuous which is what was in my head, based on how I was reading your defence of Ivey, it certainly seems to be what is being implied by Ivey’s other defenders as well as you. If you actually did mean that he was outright lying, then I can’t see what your problem is? You’ve said you’re playing devil’s advocate, although there has been scant evidence of that, you seem to be wholeheartedly behind the idea that there are no morals in golf, and that lying and cheating are fine, well thankfully it isn’t and there are.

Btw – personal insults, thanks for that.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if all that was said about handicapp's was in fact this: " "does Eric Lingdren still give you 10 shots" to which Phil replied yes!!"[and that was in fact true.], and they wagered hundreds of thousands with no other info, its their own fault and what phil did was fine.

if, however, phil actually lied about his handicap, then its pretty low in my book.

im interested as to what was really said.

[/ QUOTE ]Well Marc states on Blonde that this was exactly what was asked and exactly what Ivey said. Nothing more or less than cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being confrontational but why do you put such validity in one persons comments and none in what may have happened from a different perspective?

I mean I can say "I'm King of the Universe" here but it doesn't make it so. Just because someone steps forward doesn't mean their version of the truth is reality.

Just curious

[/ QUOTE ]
At the moment we have the second hand rumours, we then received a first hand report from Marc rubbishing much of what was in the rumours, apart from the meat itself, that Ivey lied about the number of strokes he currently received from Lindgren.

There is the 3rd part to come, from Ivey himself, I am sure we'll never see that, he's not exactly a forum guy is he.

For now, Marc's reputation and the fact he's a scratch golfer lead me to believe his side of the story, especially as stated above he ends with...
[ QUOTE ]
And actually, to give Goodman some credit, he also says that if -- when they meet next in Vegas -- they can't agree terms, they'll probably just pay him and sever ties.

[/ QUOTE ]

[dinopoker]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of lean this way on the situation. A line was crossed, and despite what others may think, I believe (assuming the story is true, of course) that Ivey would, and should, have trouble finding action in the future. One thing is for sure, people will be less likely to believe him when he talks about his game. In fact, his credibility will be damaged in all things by this, if the story is true.

ONe thing I note - Daniel N. said a couple of times on HSP that people he golfed with kept shooting the 'round of their life' against him. My guess is that, since both Phil and DN started golf at the same time, many of the more experienced golf husters in the poker world have beat them for some pretty good money over the last couple of years, and I suspect that they've been lied to many times. Maybe Phil was just getting some of his money back. If that's the case, maybe we're in a grey area.

Either way, the bet has to be payed off. I think that's a given no matter what.

[sandycove]

It’s fair to say that a country club sandbagger and a professional gambler/hustler expose themselves to similar fates…

The sandbagger will be identified and ostracized, socially, as well as on-course, and the damage to his reputation will likely extend to his business dealings in the broader community as well.

The hustler, if he breaks a generally-agreed-upon gambler’s code, and does not correct his error after a renegotiation, will become an isolated pariah.

Greed is not good because, in the long run, it ain’t profitable.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
It’s fair to say that a country club sandbagger and a professional gambler/hustler expose themselves to similar fates…

The sandbagger will be identified and ostracized, socially, as well as on-course, and the damage to his reputation will likely extend to his business dealings in the broader community as well.

The hustler, if he breaks a generally-agreed-upon gambler’s code, and does not correct his error after a renegotiation, will become an isolated pariah.

Greed is not good because, in the long run, it ain’t profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say, nail on the head.