Phil Ivey Gossip

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]


by saying who the [censored] you are not your IQ.

[Devil Duq]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

"We" refers to those who have shared my [censored] opinion in this [censored] thread. As to who I [censored] am, its none of your [censored] business.

[Jooka]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

"We" refers to those who have shared my [censored] opinion in this [censored] thread. As to who I [censored] am, its none of your [censored] business.

[/ QUOTE ]

so your some anonymous ass that posts are as much bullshi tt as blairs when it comes to this circumstance?

[apefish]

Devil- is it possible that all parties involved were not operating under the same presumed code Blair talks about?
If the players don't all show up with 30 clubs in their bags and jars of vaseline is it less likely that this match went off under the type of conditions that Blair was talking about?
Even though it was asked of Blair and you didn't offer an answer to the actual question, I will ask once again- is there anything anyone involved in a match like this could do that crosses a line that isn't supposed to be crossed? If so, what?

[Devil Duq]

[ QUOTE ]
Devil- is it possible that all parties involved were not operating under the same presumed code Blair talks about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely possible - in fact, I'd say likely, otherwise Mr. Goodwin would have taken precautions against the possibility that Mr. Ivey was engaging in a deception. That does not, IMO, relieve Mr. Goodwin from the consequences of the omission, no more than operating a car without using a seat belt relieves a driver from the consequences of getting into an accident.

[ QUOTE ]
Even though it was asked of Blair and you didn't offer an answer to the actual question, I will ask once again- is there anything anyone involved in a match like this could do that crosses a line that isn't supposed to be crossed? If so, what?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Rules of Golf should be followed in all aspects, unless it is agreed to proceed otherwise, perhaps under "gambler's rules" (ie 30 clubs in the bag) as previously discussed. However, the Rules do not speak to golf wagering, nor prescribe any penalty for misrepresenting one's handicap in order to gain a competitive edge. Otherwise, as someone else mentioned, amateur golf tournaments would cease to be played on this planet.

Golf wagers are the product of negotiation. Can we at least agree on that much? What is the typical consequence of bad negotiation? Someone gets screwed.

Now I have a question for you: Should a person take responsibility for the consequences of their bad negotiation? Or is simply saying "I was deceived" enough to absolve them of that responsibility?

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]

Now I have a question for you: Should a person take responsibility for the consequences of their bad negotiation? Or is simply saying "I was deceived" enough to absolve them of that responsibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems pretty clear to me that at least some of those among the losers share this perspective, otherwise Ram Vaswami wouldn't have made arrangements with Ivey to pay what he believes he owes.

[fatshaft]

Marc wrote
[ 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 ]

Devil wrote
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]Devil, Marc quite clearly points out his answer in the post you yourself quote, he and I think any golfer would say that someone asked straight out how many shots they received from another player, which was to be the basis of the handicap that day, then lies outright about it, then the bet was not based on anything other than an outright lie. Ivey cheated.

[fatshaft]

Devil wrote
[ QUOTE ]
However, the Rules do not speak to golf wagering, nor prescribe any penalty for misrepresenting one's handicap in order to gain a competitive edge. Otherwise, as someone else mentioned, amateur golf tournaments would cease to be played on this planet..

[/ QUOTE ]utter bollocks, you don’t even play golf do you?

The reference earlier to amateur tournaments was in relation to players shooting low scores in open events. All of these guys are using certified handicaps that are maintained by their home club, do you realize that?

They do not roll up and lie about their handicap.

On any given day, someone, ,most likely high handicappers will shoot a score 5,6,7 or more under their handicap and win, that is the variance of a high handicapper, a single digit guy will rarely shooot this far under his handicap.


Admittedly some players will nurse their handicap, but very few, particularly by not reporting good away scores, which will maintain an artificially high number, but even then this will be only by a couple of shots at most, and if the USGA has the same system in America that is now used by the R&A, then even this loophole is no longer possible, as the away club must report any scores returned by visitors who make the buffer zone or better.

I also seriously doubt the validity of the post on the subject anyway, tournaments with $1000 buy-ins are outwith the scope of Amatuer golf and not permitted, this sounds more like private gambling which the original poster claims is nothing like real golf.

[apefish]

Devil- I'll post a full reply later today when i am not asleep on my feet.
In short, yes we can agree the wager is a product of negotiation.
Yes, by and large people should take responsibility for a bad negotiation on their part.
No, simply being deceived shouldn't/doesn't relieve them from a burden in many instances.
There are degrees of this and it isn't a black and white issue.

I think where we have diverged is to what extent good faith has to be exercised/was exercised in the negotiations, and what if anything can alter an obligation if witheld before the wager occurs.
It sounds a bit silly to use good faith that way but even Blair admitted that some of the games are about trying to gain "some edge" and not the largest possible edge.
There are some variables here that are undisclosed at this point that may matter.

Last, before I sleep- I took a cheap shot and I shouldn't have in a previous post. My apologies.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]

________________________________________

Devil- is it possible that all parties involved were not operating under the same presumed code Blair talks about?

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely possible - in fact, I'd say likely, otherwise Mr. Goodwin would have taken precautions against the possibility that Mr. Ivey was engaging in a deception. That does not, IMO, relieve Mr. Goodwin from the consequences of the omission, no more than operating a car without using a seat belt relieves a driver from the consequences of getting into an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Ivey was involved in lying not deception, he was asked a straight question and lied, how is that deception?

Your analogy is nonsense, if you drive a car without a seatbelt, you have knowingly taken an extra risk if you have an accident, are you trying to say he should know whether he will have an accident on a given day? That is how your analogy pans out.

Ivey lied, therefore he cheated.