Ram Vaswani speaks about that 'Golf Game'.

[458 Lott]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the poker world needs a new term (like we don't have enough).

THE ENGLISH BET
Applied to wagers which will be collected on if won, but not paid out if lost.

Once I asked a guy, when facing a big bet, if he had the flush. He said yeah, he'd show me. So I folded my set, and he turned over a bluff. He lied, which I consider unethical, personally, even in the middle of a poker hand. BUT: he got the pot, and even if I'd had the option of not paying off, I would have paid off, AND it never occured to me to get mad at him, only myself.

Ivey may be a scumbag (I feel this way about liars in poker games, though I don't think they're cheating), but RV had notice very early on, and kept playing, AND it's silly to think that RV is stiffing PI for any reason other than the amount of the loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this, the "English Bet". Good one. Anytime someone refuses to pay off on a loss, it should be referred to as an "English Bet" from now on.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how DN called out guys who hustle golf like this a few years ago, but when his buddy does the same thing, it's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing.

The Main Issues are,

1.Was this a "Friendship Game" where the "agreement" is that everybody gives full information as to their current expected playing level per practice, recent play, health, etc?

2. If (1) applies, did Ivey break that "agreement" by withholding such information or misrepresenting it?

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 they thought there was some truth for yes answers to both (1) and (2). Otherwise, why adjust anything? If the negotiated Strokes were indeed based on good faith information there should be NO adjustment. The bets should stand as is and Ram should pay up Fully. The same is true even if (2) holds but (1) doesn't. If it was not a "Friendship Game" and anything goes in the negotiation for strokes, then Ram just got legitimately hustled and should pay up IN FULL.

But the Aribitrator Group did not decide Ram should pay up IN FULL. Now here's the Twist. If they are going to say that the Payoff should be adjusted, what should it be adjusted to based on (1) and (2)? Well, it should be adjusted to the outcome that would have resulted if the Strokes had been on the basis of Ivey's Real expected playing level.

What is the best indicator for what that expected playing level was? The easiest answer is simply the Play which he performed in those two days. If you adjust the Strokes to That level, you should get a payoff of zero.

Better yet, if the Arbitrators decided that Ivey's violation of (2) indicates he was sandbagging on the First Day, they might decide that his play the Second Day was the best indicator for his expected playing level, and award the Strokes on Both Days according to that level. In that case, a Fair Arbitration Decision on adjusting the payoffs could actually end up showing that IVEY OWES RAM MONEY!

PairTheBoard

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the best indicator for what that expected playing level was? The easiest answer is simply the Play which he performed in those two days. If you adjust the Strokes to That level, you should get a payoff of zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) I see no reason that his play on a given day should be the maximum likelihood estimate of his "expected play" on that day.

(2) If one were to accept your line of reasoning, no golf bet (and few other proposition bets) would ever be paid.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the best indicator for what that expected playing level was? The easiest answer is simply the Play which he performed in those two days. If you adjust the Strokes to That level, you should get a payoff of zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) I see no reason that his play on a given day should be the maximum likelihood estimate of his "expected play" on that day.

(2) If one were to accept your line of reasoning, no golf bet (and few other proposition bets) would ever be paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is under the assumption that Ivey violated (2) in my post. He broke the "Friendship Game agreement" to give full information about his expected playing level. Once the Arbitrators decide he did that, my reasoning is that he can't be trusted to give the Arbitrators correct information either. And even if he did, there's no way to make a precise calculation based on that information. The best evidence available to the Arbitrators then is the actual level of play Ivey demonstrated in the match.

The difference between this situation and the everyday situation you describe, is that the everyday situation doesn't go to Arbitration because estimated expected levels of play had been based on incorrect information provided during negotiations in violation of the Friendship Game Agreement.

PairTheBoard

[458 Lott]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Barry. I hope that you're not so fed up with all of this nonsense to the point that you are just done with this thread, but I'll ask you anyway:

Is there ANY doubt whatsoever in your mind that, in the context of what is understood to be "these situations" (of which you are undoubtedly intimately acquainted), there is a right party and a wrong party, and that their identities are not ambiguous?

Based on your post here, it would appear that there is no question in your mind that Ram is angling to justify shameless welching. My question is whether we believe his to be rationalizing(doesn't realize he's wrong), or if he's really just trying to front that he truly believes he's right?

I'm sure there was a more verbally economical way to ask that question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is RV an idiot or a scumbag? Thats the economical way to ask that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of a golf handicap is to make the game even. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No moron. The reason handicaps were invented and are still used is so that people who wanted to gamble in golf had an accurate measure of the ability of the other players, so then people could make their bets based off of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people play golf for sport or friendship; some play for money. People of the first type prefer it either when they break even and stay friends or one player edges out in a theoretically even match by inspiration or tenacity. People of the second type only care about getting the money. Typically they're either junkies for action, or they see every opponent as a mark, an opportunity. Fortunately, people usually manage to stick within their category. You're of the first type, I surmise. Your statements are entirely false for people of the second type--and they all would acknowledge it.

I think it's still interesting to try to distinguish theoretically between:

1. Lying about your ability.
2. Lying about your handicap.
3. Lying about being willing to pay.
4. Lying about recording your strokes accurately.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea of a golf handicap is to make the game even. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No moron. The reason handicaps were invented and are still used is so that people who wanted to gamble in golf had an accurate measure of the ability of the other players, so then people could make their bets based off of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people play golf for sport or friendship; some play for money. People of the first type prefer it either when they break even and stay friends or one player edges out in a theoretically even match by inspiration or tenacity. People of the second type only care about getting the money. Typically they're either junkies for action, or they see every opponent as a mark, an opportunity. Fortunately, people usually manage to stick within their category. You're of the first type, I surmise. Your statements are entirely false for people of the second type--and they all would acknowledge it.

I think it's still interesting to try to distinguish theoretically between:

1. Lying about your ability.
2. Lying about your handicap.
3. Lying about being willing to pay.
4. Lying about recording your strokes accurately.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you are going to find any logically satisfying answer for the distinctions. But then, most people everywhere think lying is ok under some limited circumstances and not on others, and they would be equally as hard-pressed to rigorously define the boundaries. The important part, which you seem to be fully aware of, is that the arbitrary, imaginary lines are agreed upon by all people in each category. They apparently are, and its the people who are in one category and judging the people in the other category by their own arbitrary, imaginary standards that are making a mistake.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Barry. I hope that you're not so fed up with all of this nonsense to the point that you are just done with this thread, but I'll ask you anyway:

Is there ANY doubt whatsoever in your mind that, in the context of what is understood to be "these situations" (of which you are undoubtedly intimately acquainted), there is a right party and a wrong party, and that their identities are not ambiguous?

Based on your post here, it would appear that there is no question in your mind that Ram is angling to justify shameless welching. My question is whether we believe his to be rationalizing(doesn't realize he's wrong), or if he's really just trying to front that he truly believes he's right?

I'm sure there was a more verbally economical way to ask that question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is RV an idiot or a scumbag? Thats the economical way to ask that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's preferable.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the best indicator for what that expected playing level was? The easiest answer is simply the Play which he performed in those two days. If you adjust the Strokes to That level, you should get a payoff of zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) I see no reason that his play on a given day should be the maximum likelihood estimate of his "expected play" on that day.

(2) If one were to accept your line of reasoning, no golf bet (and few other proposition bets) would ever be paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is under the assumption that Ivey violated (2) in my post. He broke the "Friendship Game agreement" to give full information about his expected playing level. Once the Arbitrators decide he did that, my reasoning is that he can't be trusted to give the Arbitrators correct information either. And even if he did, there's no way to make a precise calculation based on that information. The best evidence available to the Arbitrators then is the actual level of play Ivey demonstrated in the match.

The difference between this situation and the everyday situation you describe, is that the everyday situation doesn't go to Arbitration because estimated expected levels of play had been based on incorrect information provided during negotiations in violation of the Friendship Game Agreement.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess there's another factor that could apply in an Arbitration decision. They could decide that Ivey violated the Friendship-Game-Agreement but that Ram and Partner played below their Fair Expected Playing Level. In that case the Arbitrators could reasobably decide that Ram should pay Ivey, but pay him less than the Full Amount. I suspect if they go the Arbitration route this is what will happen.

Personally, I think these guys are kidding themselves with this Friendship-Game-Agreement thing. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, when playing for that kind of money you had better be awfully close friends to think you're really getting complete and honest information about your opponents. How close? Well, if you're close enough to give him your password to all your online Bank and Brokerage accounts then maybe that's close enough. Because you are doing something very similiar to that when you take his word at purely face value in negotiating the spot at $20,000 per hole.

Are you close enough friends to let him put his hand in your pocket?

PairTheBoard