Ram Vaswani speaks about that 'Golf Game'.

[marcj85]

sorry, i just want to know why it should be ok to lie during negotiations to gain an edge? To say its fine to lie aslong as each side agrees to what they believe is a fair game for them?
To what extent can they lie during negotions of the game?

[ChicagoRy]

If Phil really did lie to the extent that has been claimed, and Ram told Phil he would pay before the match (not that you ever have to say that, it is a given if you enter a bet you will pay..) and later it is found that Phil lied about something, it doesn't mean Ram is lying because he won't pay. Going back on your word because the person in question lied to you doesn't make you a liar in all situations.

The argument, assuming we are pretty close to the truth of the story here, is basically why did Ram keep playing after he knew he was being hustled and does this mean he should have to pay? Given all the info provided it appears Ram will end up paying something, but not the total amount and not zero.

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? You can lie about anything you want beforehand but you cannot be lied to afterwards? I dunno, it's kind of murky to me here, and I doubt there is a threat of violence from one of the richest poker players alive to Ram, which is usually how these things get settled.

Using these sorts of tactics (assuming it is true) to hustle people are usually reserved for those who can physically force the fish to pay.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if this is all true and Ivey was just hustling Ram, if he is really upset about not getting paid what did he expect? It's obviously not worth the money Ram owes him to physically hurt Ram through whatever channel, that'd be stupid with the wealth and popularity Phil has.

I guess the most likely story here is we have two degenerate gamblers here and one of them got hustled, neither could probably stop if they were losing and now there is controversy about it. The most fair thing is probably a partial payment, as Shaniac suggested, as both players seem to be at fault here.

Blah, I'm done ranting.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
The most fair thing is probably a partial payment, as Shaniac suggested, as both players seem to be at fault here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ram pretty much agreed to that already by suggesting arbitration instead of just saying "nope, goodbye". I imagine Ram would end up paying 25% or whatever...

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but your handicap does not adjust upwards as fast as your improvement.

Phil may have been playting to a 20 handicap, didn't play for 3 months but instead took lessons everyday.

When he plays again his handicap is still 20. Even though he may now have the skill of a 10 handicapper, his handicap does not adjust because he took lessons. It only adjusts based on the scores you shoot.

Handicaps are calculated using your best 10 out of your last 20 scores. Shooting one good score or one bad score does not usually change your handicap very much.

Phil's handicap, by the numbers, was probably correct at the time of the match.

[/ QUOTE ]Wow, how can everything you posted in this quote be so wrong?

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We need Limon's opinion...

[/ QUOTE ]
they are attempting to appeal to an uninformed public

[/ QUOTE ]

And based on the posts across the different forums it seems to be working too...

[/ QUOTE ]

of course becuase people think you can lie about a handicap in a histakes golf game. as if a handicap is some sort of scientific reference point. handicaps are complete bullshyt and everyone knows it...especially guys who bet 10k a hole. if the handicap meant anything ram wouldnt even mention how hed been playing or his clubs hed just hand over his handicap card phil would hand over his theyd look at the rating and slope of the course and the bet would be set w/o a word being uttered. BUT THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH TRYING TO LIE, LIE LIE LIE LIE. Ram is just a complete moron, he was chosen for that fact. phil and his backers had one chance to spring his new golf game on the public, they needed maximum bang for the buck. they needed to choose the stupidest mark they could find...enter ram vaswani. i guarantee they didnt even float an idea of the match to hamilton or tomko because after 9 holes they would have quit and renegotiated.

[/ QUOTE ]Limon, you could very well be right, but if you are then it only proves Ivey deliberately set out to cheat another player who was allegedly his friend.

[Mmike]

Why don´t they settle in an Australian court?

[fish2plus2]

the more i think about this, the more likely it is that Ram had no intentions of paying, and was freerolling.

[hencole]

[ 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.

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway I think this whole thing is terrible for the image of poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. I can't see how the general poker watching/crap-buying public is going to hear about it. ESPN aren't exactly going to have a jokey 3-minute slot about this. Although it would be cool if they did. "The last time these two faced off for high stakes, it escalated into a major cheating/welching feud ! And now here they are, heads up for the title !!"

[Ellsworth T]

My question to Phil is, if you position is as undeniably righteous as you claim why not agree to an arbitrator?