Ram Vaswani speaks about that 'Golf Game'.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is what Ram said in the Post linked to by OP:

[ QUOTE ]
Ram -
When we arrived in Monte Carlo and had our meeting to try and resolve this Phil walked in with his very own arbitrators, Barry Greenstein and Martin De Knijff, who were obviously on his side only having heard his side of the story. The four players were there as well as Richard Redmond who is a mutual friend and who also played with us on the second day. Of course it wasn’t long before it was agreed that the handicaps were more than a few shots out.

Then there was talk of finding the value of the missing shots in the handicap and taking it off the money that was won/lost but I didn’t agree that I should pay anything due to the fact that it was a total con. As far as I am concerned it’s a void game.

[/ QUOTE ]

So according to Ram there was Talk about adjusting the amount owed which Ram disagreed with, wanting a Void Game. Ram's reasoning for why he declined at that time is not really relevant to what I was saying about the implications of that "adjustment" idea.

Of course the whole thing is moot now with these latest developments. Although I wonder if this new Arbitration Group of 3 decided that payment should be made In Full. I wouldn't be suprised if they kept the terms of the final agreement confidential.

PairTheBoard

[the machine]

[ 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 ]


what???!?!?!?! this is like the exact opposite of what is acceptable. him playing poorly then upping the stakes and kicking ass is by far a hustle.

both people negotiated to play a game on set terms. PI and RV are both gamblers. they look for +EV situations. they both felt upon agreement that they each were +EV in hte game regardless of what was said.


if they had been playing poker HU and agreed to play 2-7 triple draw and during negotiations PI says he hasnt played that too often in the past month, then waxes RV because he actually had been playing it a fair amount is it unacceptable.


why do you think the corporation plays andy beal HU for 50k 100k blinds. they think they are +EV. if he tells them he hasnt played poker in a year and wants the game, then the best players in the world sit with AB, and he cleans them out because all he has been doing is studying and playing poker, should the corporation not have to pay?????


lets be serious here guys. If RV took the bet and killed ivey there would be no discussion here. all the top pros used to take action from PI years back because he was horrible and they knew they were +EV in the game, so i guess PI was hustled all these years by his friends.


cmon now

[the machine]

if RV said ill give u a 5 HC and PI takes it and gets spanked ohh well PI shouldnt have agreed to that. RV probably thought he was getting a great +EV situation, hence him agreeing to it. if RV thought it was even, like a handicap is supposed to do, he wouldnt have taken the bet cause hes not playing to break even

if ivey boasted about how much better he got, him training with top instructors and wants to spot rv strokes, rv wouldnt tell ivey he is out of his mind and not accept the bet, he would agree to it whether it were true or not because of an increased edge.


both players are by far looking for an edge. PI got it

[CardSharpCook]

so.... what was the number? What did Ram lose in the game?

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]
so.... what was the number? What did Ram lose in the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it was $1.4m.

Has anyone heard anything about the terms of the settlement somebody posted about?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
It is hard or me to believe how gullible the people on here and on the Hendonmob forum are. Someone trying to get out of a debt comes up with a reason not to pay, and so many of you bought it.

1. Phil never lied to them. And he didn't shoot better than he said he would. He putted well, but hit the ball worse. He shot in the 90's as expected.

2. Erick Lindgren gave Phil 10 shots during the summer. He now gives Phil 8 shots. They played even in a nine-hole TV match in Australia, and Erick clobbered Phil. When Mark and Ram asked Erick if they ever played even, he admitted they had, but he made sure that Ram knew that he was a much better golfer than Phil. That conveniently got left out of Ram's post.

3. Mark and Ram beat Phil five times in a row. The last time was in Barcelona where Phil lost six of the first seven holes and then walked off the course. Ram says Phil lost only $34,000, which is hard to do playing in increments of three different $10,000 bets per hole. (Two individual bets and a team bet.) Ram forgot to mention that the reason they are not much ahead of Phil is that Phil won most of the money back at Chinese Poker.

4. After they played the first nine holes in Australia, they made a small adjustment in the match, and Ram and Mark asked for a contract. (A contract means no more adjustments while in Austrailia.) They continued for a total of 72 holes. (Mark didn't finish the last nine.) At what point, should they have taken responsibility for their loss? Or is it OK to play to try to win money back, and not pay if you lose?

6. Except for nine holes where Mark parred seven holes, as expected, since he is nearly a scratch golfer, I don't think Mark shot less than 45, where his average was expected to be 38. And Ram, who was supposed to be better than Phil, was having trouble breaking 100 for 18 holes.

7. If $140,000 had been won instead of $1,400,000, the money would have been paid and a new match would have been negotiated. As Benny Binion once said, "I usually find that people are honorable as long as they can afford to be."

8. I was not brought in as an arbitrator or to fight Phil's battles. Phil wanted me to show up because he said, "You're never going to believe what they have to say. Their whole argument is that since they didn't realize they were clear underdogs in the match, the match should be voided."

9. Phil usually tells me about his matches. I invariably tell him he is an underdog. He always says he likes to win as the underdog by being tougher under pressure, and if he loses he will practice and get better and eventually win the money back.

10. The reason Phil has never defended himself is that he is a private person, and he didn't even know these forums existed until I told him about what was being posted. I have a feeling Phil may have someting to say or write once this is settled.

I can't believe that this thread has gotten so big, starting from a false hypothesis.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

how many times do i have to be exactly right about something before people stop f'ing with me? i knew i should never leave the diablo forum, but even on that forum their are some morons who question my authority. why do you little worms come here? is it just to spout nonsense or learn from real pro gamblers who have paid their dues and know the score.

[tiltseeker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is hard or me to believe how gullible the people on here and on the Hendonmob forum are. Someone trying to get out of a debt comes up with a reason not to pay, and so many of you bought it.

1. Phil never lied to them. And he didn't shoot better than he said he would. He putted well, but hit the ball worse. He shot in the 90's as expected.

2. Erick Lindgren gave Phil 10 shots during the summer. He now gives Phil 8 shots. They played even in a nine-hole TV match in Australia, and Erick clobbered Phil. When Mark and Ram asked Erick if they ever played even, he admitted they had, but he made sure that Ram knew that he was a much better golfer than Phil. That conveniently got left out of Ram's post.

3. Mark and Ram beat Phil five times in a row. The last time was in Barcelona where Phil lost six of the first seven holes and then walked off the course. Ram says Phil lost only $34,000, which is hard to do playing in increments of three different $10,000 bets per hole. (Two individual bets and a team bet.) Ram forgot to mention that the reason they are not much ahead of Phil is that Phil won most of the money back at Chinese Poker.

4. After they played the first nine holes in Australia, they made a small adjustment in the match, and Ram and Mark asked for a contract. (A contract means no more adjustments while in Austrailia.) They continued for a total of 72 holes. (Mark didn't finish the last nine.) At what point, should they have taken responsibility for their loss? Or is it OK to play to try to win money back, and not pay if you lose?

6. Except for nine holes where Mark parred seven holes, as expected, since he is nearly a scratch golfer, I don't think Mark shot less than 45, where his average was expected to be 38. And Ram, who was supposed to be better than Phil, was having trouble breaking 100 for 18 holes.

7. If $140,000 had been won instead of $1,400,000, the money would have been paid and a new match would have been negotiated. As Benny Binion once said, "I usually find that people are honorable as long as they can afford to be."

8. I was not brought in as an arbitrator or to fight Phil's battles. Phil wanted me to show up because he said, "You're never going to believe what they have to say. Their whole argument is that since they didn't realize they were clear underdogs in the match, the match should be voided."

9. Phil usually tells me about his matches. I invariably tell him he is an underdog. He always says he likes to win as the underdog by being tougher under pressure, and if he loses he will practice and get better and eventually win the money back.

10. The reason Phil has never defended himself is that he is a private person, and he didn't even know these forums existed until I told him about what was being posted. I have a feeling Phil may have someting to say or write once this is settled.

I can't believe that this thread has gotten so big, starting from a false hypothesis.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

how many times do i have to be exactly right about something before people stop f'ing with me? i knew i should never leave the diablo forum, but even on that forum their are some morons who question my authority. why do you little worms come here? is it just to spout nonsense or learn from real pro gamblers who have paid their dues and know the score.

[/ QUOTE ]

*there

[Lurker.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is hard or me to believe how gullible the people on here and on the Hendonmob forum are. Someone trying to get out of a debt comes up with a reason not to pay, and so many of you bought it.

1. Phil never lied to them. And he didn't shoot better than he said he would. He putted well, but hit the ball worse. He shot in the 90's as expected.

2. Erick Lindgren gave Phil 10 shots during the summer. He now gives Phil 8 shots. They played even in a nine-hole TV match in Australia, and Erick clobbered Phil. When Mark and Ram asked Erick if they ever played even, he admitted they had, but he made sure that Ram knew that he was a much better golfer than Phil. That conveniently got left out of Ram's post.

3. Mark and Ram beat Phil five times in a row. The last time was in Barcelona where Phil lost six of the first seven holes and then walked off the course. Ram says Phil lost only $34,000, which is hard to do playing in increments of three different $10,000 bets per hole. (Two individual bets and a team bet.) Ram forgot to mention that the reason they are not much ahead of Phil is that Phil won most of the money back at Chinese Poker.

4. After they played the first nine holes in Australia, they made a small adjustment in the match, and Ram and Mark asked for a contract. (A contract means no more adjustments while in Austrailia.) They continued for a total of 72 holes. (Mark didn't finish the last nine.) At what point, should they have taken responsibility for their loss? Or is it OK to play to try to win money back, and not pay if you lose?

6. Except for nine holes where Mark parred seven holes, as expected, since he is nearly a scratch golfer, I don't think Mark shot less than 45, where his average was expected to be 38. And Ram, who was supposed to be better than Phil, was having trouble breaking 100 for 18 holes.

7. If $140,000 had been won instead of $1,400,000, the money would have been paid and a new match would have been negotiated. As Benny Binion once said, "I usually find that people are honorable as long as they can afford to be."

8. I was not brought in as an arbitrator or to fight Phil's battles. Phil wanted me to show up because he said, "You're never going to believe what they have to say. Their whole argument is that since they didn't realize they were clear underdogs in the match, the match should be voided."

9. Phil usually tells me about his matches. I invariably tell him he is an underdog. He always says he likes to win as the underdog by being tougher under pressure, and if he loses he will practice and get better and eventually win the money back.

10. The reason Phil has never defended himself is that he is a private person, and he didn't even know these forums existed until I told him about what was being posted. I have a feeling Phil may have someting to say or write once this is settled.

I can't believe that this thread has gotten so big, starting from a false hypothesis.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

how many times do i have to be exactly right about something before people stop f'ing with me? i knew i should never leave the diablo forum, but even on that forum their are some morons who question my authority. why do you little worms come here? is it just to spout nonsense or learn from real pro gamblers who have paid their dues and know the score.

[/ QUOTE ]

*there

[/ QUOTE ]
oh boy.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
ram said the average winnings from the other rounds played with ivey where like 10 - 50 k and ivey was actually up on him by something close to 30k. For vaswani to then go and lose 2 million in two rounds is pretty incredible and shows something was completely [censored] in the negotiations. No way im paying if im Ram. He lives in the UK i really dont think he will care about losing ivey and his friends either

[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling debts are not enforceable under UK law. Vaswami would not have to pay even if everything had been on the up and up never mind as it stands. Did Phil Ivey think he was Titanic Thompson?

[swill300]

If they both agreed to the stakes, that's all that matters IMO (means zero). Ram should pay regardless of how he "feels" about the situation. A gamblers word means everything, he didn't need to stay and keep playing, whether to try and get even or whatever. He lost, he should pay up and be done with the situation.