Ram Vaswani speaks about that 'Golf Game'.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Also, the whole "anything goes when gambling in golf" thing is fine, whatever. If somebody who is not familiar with the "whatever goes" attitude to golf gambling is being hustled by a hustler and doesn't pay, it's sort of up to the person who "goes by those rules" to get him to pay.

No matter how big of a hustler you are, and how big of a fish you feel you are playing, if your con has been setup so that the fish will not pay you if he finds out about your con, you are no longer the hustler, you are the hustled. That's the way of the game of hustling, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, if you play by PI rules than I see no reason for RV to pay. Everything goes in the game of Hustle.

Anyway I think this whole thing is terrible for the image of poker and is going to cause a rift between the old and new players. I hope Ivey and Ram come to an arrangement that involves a reduction in what is expected to be paid and that they can both put it down as a mistake and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see no reason to pay? You guys are taking the logic a step further than some people, but not far enough, and you have no excuse. Many posters in this thread have already explained it to you. Fine, RV not paying means he is the hustler and PI is the hustled...but that isn't going to happen. He has no reason to pay? Of course he has a reason to pay! You are going to have to make the argument that him the 2 million he owes is worth more than he will lose by not paying, and I think you are going to have a hard time making that argument. He will lose all action for a long time, and clearly, he craves action. He will lose integrity, which may or may not be worth a lot to him. And he may also lose physical health, although I have no idea if that would happen and am in no way implying PI or his partners are 'that type of people.'

[pyedog]

[ 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.

[ChicagoRy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Also, the whole "anything goes when gambling in golf" thing is fine, whatever. If somebody who is not familiar with the "whatever goes" attitude to golf gambling is being hustled by a hustler and doesn't pay, it's sort of up to the person who "goes by those rules" to get him to pay.

No matter how big of a hustler you are, and how big of a fish you feel you are playing, if your con has been setup so that the fish will not pay you if he finds out about your con, you are no longer the hustler, you are the hustled. That's the way of the game of hustling, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, if you play by PI rules than I see no reason for RV to pay. Everything goes in the game of Hustle.

Anyway I think this whole thing is terrible for the image of poker and is going to cause a rift between the old and new players. I hope Ivey and Ram come to an arrangement that involves a reduction in what is expected to be paid and that they can both put it down as a mistake and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see no reason to pay? You guys are taking the logic a step further than some people, but not far enough, and you have no excuse. Many posters in this thread have already explained it to you. Fine, RV not paying means he is the hustler and PI is the hustled...but that isn't going to happen. He has no reason to pay? Of course he has a reason to pay! You are going to have to make the argument that him the 2 million he owes is worth more than he will lose by not paying, and I think you are going to have a hard time making that argument. He will lose all action for a long time, and clearly, he craves action. He will lose integrity, which may or may not be worth a lot to him. And he may also lose physical health, although I have no idea if that would happen and am in no way implying PI or his partners are 'that type of people.'

[/ QUOTE ]

You think if a high stakes player sees Ram sitting at a 300-600 table and he feels he has an edge over him he's not going to sit because "this guy got hustled for 2 mil from Ivey and didn't pay." ?

I have a hard time believing this, especially with a lot of the same people that advocate paying the full amount say about all the top pros being degenerates. I won't go as far to say Ram wouldn't lose action over this, and if you read my whole post I do not advocate Ram not paying any money either, I just feel the need to bring up the alternative points that some people choose to ignore thinking this is a full amount or zero amount issue.

Myself and most others, if not all people on this thread, do not know the whole truth to this. The people that may know the whole truth so far have seemed to take very biased views on this, so obviously my comments are based on what I and others have made out to be the sketchy facts of this matter.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Also, the whole "anything goes when gambling in golf" thing is fine, whatever. If somebody who is not familiar with the "whatever goes" attitude to golf gambling is being hustled by a hustler and doesn't pay, it's sort of up to the person who "goes by those rules" to get him to pay.

No matter how big of a hustler you are, and how big of a fish you feel you are playing, if your con has been setup so that the fish will not pay you if he finds out about your con, you are no longer the hustler, you are the hustled. That's the way of the game of hustling, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, if you play by PI rules than I see no reason for RV to pay. Everything goes in the game of Hustle.

Anyway I think this whole thing is terrible for the image of poker and is going to cause a rift between the old and new players. I hope Ivey and Ram come to an arrangement that involves a reduction in what is expected to be paid and that they can both put it down as a mistake and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see no reason to pay? You guys are taking the logic a step further than some people, but not far enough, and you have no excuse. Many posters in this thread have already explained it to you. Fine, RV not paying means he is the hustler and PI is the hustled...but that isn't going to happen. He has no reason to pay? Of course he has a reason to pay! You are going to have to make the argument that him the 2 million he owes is worth more than he will lose by not paying, and I think you are going to have a hard time making that argument. He will lose all action for a long time, and clearly, he craves action. He will lose integrity, which may or may not be worth a lot to him. And he may also lose physical health, although I have no idea if that would happen and am in no way implying PI or his partners are 'that type of people.'

[/ QUOTE ]

You think if a high stakes player sees Ram sitting at a 300-600 table and he feels he has an edge over him he's not going to sit because "this guy got hustled for 2 mil from Ivey and didn't pay." ?

I have a hard time believing this, especially with a lot of the same people that advocate paying the full amount say about all the top pros being degenerates. I won't go as far to say Ram wouldn't lose action over this, and if you read my whole post I do not advocate Ram not paying any money either, I just feel the need to bring up the alternative points that some people choose to ignore thinking this is a full amount or zero amount issue.

Myself and most others, if not all people on this thread, do not know the whole truth to this. The people that may know the whole truth so far have seemed to take very biased views on this, so obviously my comments are based on what I and others have made out to be the sketchy facts of this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they aren't going to refuse to play him at 3/6 if the money is already there. That doesn't even make sense. But lets try a slightly different, actually relevant scenario: RV sees a big fish sitting at 3/6 who is absolutely a favorite over, but doesn't have any money online. You think anyone is going to give him a loan? How many situations like this does it take to equal 2 million in EV, over the course of RV's life?

People have short memories, that is definitely true, but I think gamblers have longer memories than most. I'm hardly a grizzled veteran of the gambling world, so I won't presume to know how this will certainly effect RV for the forseeable future. I'm merely repeating some of the things that others more experienced have said, and making some logical deductions.

[ 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 ]

[ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S]

[censored] ridiculous... i didnt even finish it.

ram - YOU LOST PAY UP ITS SIMPLE

[TheTid]

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.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[benhoug]

[ 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.