Phil Ivey Gossip

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
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 personally dont buy what Blair is selling in this particular case. I do believe people fudge a stroke here or there. The [censored] we a reading about is in no way normal. ie: lieing about a 10 stroke advantage.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, it seems highly unlikely from the testimony presented that this wager was made "on the first tee" as some have insinuated. It seems clear that agreement was reached well in advance of the match, with more than enough time available to make a verifying phone call with E-Dog, or anyone else familiar with Ivey's newly-honed golf skills.


[/ QUOTE ]REally? Right enough, let's just conveniently ignore the facts.

Marc clearly states:

[ QUOTE ]
At the start of the game, we said to Phil that as we haven't played for 3 months and he must have improved we need to adjust the handicaps. We could not agree and we were doomed to no game until Ram said, "Does Eric Lingdren still give you 10 shots" to which Phil replied "yes"!!

[/ QUOTE ]..now maybe that's English to American English not translating, so I'll do that for you, they are STANDING ON THE FIRST TEE.

[Devil Duq]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How, exactly, do you define due diligence, and what leads you to believe anything other than simply (and foolishly) taking another man at his word took place here?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What Blair's posts make clear is the world of high stakes golf matches are as far removed from "how the real world treats golf" as it is possible to get. It is, to paraphrase Bobby Jones, "a world with which you are not familiar".

[ QUOTE ]
"Lack of due diligence" only applies if the participants in the bet think it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a complete non-sequitur that goes to further my point that you are speaking well above your pay grade here.

[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty obvious that Marc thinks a line has been crossed. How do you reconcile that? He's just bitter?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he merely seeks a means of avoiding the loss of $450K.

[ QUOTE ]
Blair, I am curious...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'll answer for Blair, if that's alright. Here, you've served up a real straw man argument. Phil broke no established law (ie possession of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder) as in your weak-kneed analogy. He deceived to gain an edge in a high-stakes wager, and found himself a compliant sucker. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, if some future thread emerges about how a .50/1$ NL player sandbagged his buds out of a $20 nassau, then please feel free to enlighten us with your moral certitude. I believe that's closer to your balliwick.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that many posters in this thread are confusing golf with golf gambling...I would never play a stranger for any kind of serious money unless I had some reliable information about their game. I would also never get in a big match with someone who I knew might have improved rapidly unless I knew his story. Among gamblers this information is fairly easy to gather.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Mr. Rodman. I'm gratified that someone with sufficient credibility in the gambling world kindly restates the exact points I have made all along. Until I read Blair's posts, I was contemplating firing off a BBV-esque post about my golf (and golf gambling) credentials, which are substantial. Now I can remain blessedly anonymous.

I'm also glad Blair mentioned and briefly described "gamblers' rules" in relation to high-stakes golf matches. Do we now understand the difference between those shark-infested waters and kind of genteel, kiddie-pool matches that authors of the "Phil Ivey = obv scumbag" posts must be playing?

Thanks also to "kerze" for identifying Ivey's partner in the better ball doubles match. Figures that it was Gus.

[/ QUOTE ]Absolute tosh, as is Blair's justification for this cheating.

Marc is a scratch golfer, Ram plays off 5, their is no 40 club sets, play every ball as it lies, use a hand wedge whenever you like involved here, this was a golf wager based on normal negotiations with a player who did not have a handicap. It happens all the time although admittedly these are abnormal stakes.

Has Ivey (and Blair/DevilDuq)picked up their golf knowledge from watching James Bond in Goldfinger?

While what Blair says is fine in some ways, that players will negotiate all sorts of mulligans etc, claiming that you still get 10 from someone who now plays you off scratch is lieing, and cheating straight out, not negotiation of a slightly favourable handicap.

10 shots more than you should get in better ball, do me a favour, Ivey would have to break a leg on the 1st fairway to have any chance of not winning nearly every hole, as of course he did.

He is a cheat and should apologise and own up to it.

I sincerely hope no-one is stupid enough to ever give him a match off anything more than scratch in future.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, if some future thread emerges about how a .50/1$ NL player sandbagged his buds out of a $20 nassau, then please feel free to enlighten us with your moral certitude. I believe that's closer to your balliwick.

[/ QUOTE ]What a pompous oaf you are DevilDuq, are you going to challenge him to a heads-up game next?

The amount of the wager has no bearing on this at all, MArc and Ram have made a wager on their golf play, Ivey lied, it was in essence fraud.

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if some future thread emerges about how a .50/1$ NL player sandbagged his buds out of a $20 nassau, then please feel free to enlighten us with your moral certitude. I believe that's closer to your balliwick.


[/ QUOTE ]


since you want to make credibility out of this post, who the [censored] are you? lets us know your not some kiss ass ivey worshipper/rodman when came into the thread [censored]. lets go with who the [censored] you are.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How, exactly, do you define due diligence, and what leads you to believe anything other than simply (and foolishly) taking another man at his word took place here?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What Blair's posts make clear is the world of high stakes golf matches are as far removed from "how the real world treats golf" as it is possible to get. It is, to paraphrase Bobby Jones, "a world with which you are not familiar".

[ QUOTE ]
"Lack of due diligence" only applies if the participants in the bet think it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a complete non-sequitur that goes to further my point that you are speaking well above your pay grade here.

[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty obvious that Marc thinks a line has been crossed. How do you reconcile that? He's just bitter?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he merely seeks a means of avoiding the loss of $450K.

[ QUOTE ]
Blair, I am curious...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'll answer for Blair, if that's alright. Here, you've served up a real straw man argument. Phil broke no established law (ie possession of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder) as in your weak-kneed analogy. He deceived to gain an edge in a high-stakes wager, and found himself a compliant sucker. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, if some future thread emerges about how a .50/1$ NL player sandbagged his buds out of a $20 nassau, then please feel free to enlighten us with your moral certitude. I believe that's closer to your balliwick.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty clear you are a master of the ad hominem, which most people who have little productive to say otherwise are.
You miss every point left and right, and hide it with sentences that use unnecessary words.
Well done.

Edit: Since you miss the point often I'll make it clear. You are a douche.

[Devil Duq]

[ QUOTE ]
What a pompous oaf you are DevilDuq, are you going to challenge him to a heads-up game next?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, no. The thought hadn't entered my mind. I might mention, however, that pomposity is not a sin in which I alone share. The mirror, sir, is in the next room.

[ QUOTE ]
The amount of the wager has no bearing on this at all, MArc and Ram have made a wager on their golf play, Ivey lied, it was in essence fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, this is your opinion; not a difficult one to justify, but an opinion nonetheless. I say that the higher the stakes, the more likely a party to the wager is to deceive, and therefore the more necessary it becomes for the participants to ensure that they have not been deceived BEFORE play ensues. In other words, check to make sure the red rubber ball is in fact resting under one of the shells prior to placing your streetcorner wager.

Allow me to quote Mr. Goodwin here:

[ QUOTE ]
Let me put this question to you all. If i had turned up with a pro golfer and Phil said do you get shots off Eric, we said yes 10 . We played and won then he found out should he pay even a penny? If you think that he has been hustled not cheated and its just unlucky then you must be of the opinion that we should pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, some of us are of that opinion. We say if one is foolish enough to make a high-stakes bet (in which having an edge is crucial) under vastly unfavorable terms, even if deception is involved, then the losers are obligated to pay the debt as, if nothing else, a penalty for their own stupidity.

Why, sir, have you no answer for this aspect of the argument? Or do you attempt escape all your betting losses by claiming ex post facto that that the scales were hopelessly tipped in your opponent's favor?

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, some of us are of that opinion. We say if one is foolish enough to make a high-stakes bet (in which having an edge is crucial) under vastly unfavorable terms, even if deception is involved, then the losers are obligated to pay the debt as, if nothing else, a penalty for their own stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]


who is this we [censored]? who the [censored] are you?

[Devil Duq]

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty clear you are a master of the ad hominem, which most people who have little productive to say otherwise are. You miss every point left and right, and hide it with sentences that use unnecessary words.
Well done.
Edit: Since you miss the point often I'll make it clear. You are a douche.

[/ QUOTE ]

You accuse me of making ad hominem arguments, and then conclude by making an ad hominem attack. I may "miss every point left and right" but I believe I caught the thrust of your blatant hypocrisy. Any more where that came from?