seif rips gold - Page 2

DVO · #11 12-23-2006, 07:32 PM

Now I have two reasons to [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Mark Seif.

The other was him doubling me up as a desperate short stack in a $1500 WSOP event. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

RikaKazak · #12 12-23-2006, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming Gold isn't really a poker player is somewhat ridiculous. My take on the case seems to be the opposite of everyone else's. I don't see how you can possibly award $6 million dollars on the basis of a deal for which there's no paperwork/contract.

If Gold reneged on a deal then I hold him in as much contempt as anyone else but courts have to decide according to the law. You can't enforce these privately agreed deals, or as Sam Goldwyn memorably put it: "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on."

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf are you talking about? oral contracts ARE binding in many states...if it's over $500 and the job or performance can reasonably be completed in under a year

so yes...6 million is > $500...and the tourny last under a year...hence Gold should HAVE TO pay the 6 million if they did make the contract (at least in Washington state)

shaniac · #13 12-23-2006, 08:17 PM

I like it how Seif spends a whole paragraph explaining the importance of writing a clear and concise piece and then proceeds to publish something that is rambling, disjointed and emotionally charged.

gdsdiscgolfer · #14 12-23-2006, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I like it how Seif spends a whole paragraph explaining the importance of writing a clear and concise piece and then proceeds to publish something that is rambling, disjointed and emotionally charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

But a blog is...well...casual.

JayTee · #15 12-23-2006, 08:33 PM

"(despite the headline which appeared in some articles today stating the opposite - it was just a typo)."

Any links to these articles? Is he saying that several articles had the same typo, that just happened to disagree with his opinion?

Erik Blazynski · #16 12-23-2006, 08:46 PM

i think that about 75% of these pro players are total scumbags. but it seems that these agreements are upheldchr(2c) almost as an unwritten scumbag code of ethics. jg seems to be a different kind of scumbag one that does not understand the poker player scumbag code of ethics. this doesn't make him better or worse he's just different.

Masquerade · #17 12-23-2006, 08:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
wtf are you talking about? oral contracts ARE binding in many states...if it's over $500 and the job or performance can reasonably be completed in under a year

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say verbal contracts weren't valid, I said they weren't *enforcable*. How can you enforce a verbal contract between just two people who now dispute the details?

betgo · #18 12-23-2006, 08:52 PM

Very poorly written and meaningless article.

Yeah, Gold is obviously a sleaze. There are hints of collusion in the ME. This disagreement over the staking deal and the alleged staker being a body building cyclist also do nothing for his reputation. His occupation as a Hollywood agent also builds a certain image.

However, there have been poker players like that for ever. There are no character qualifications for ME winners.

I don't know what Seif means that Gold is not a poker player. He was not a professional player. He apparently played 10/25 NL or something fairly regularly in LA. I don't know if he was a losing player who could afford to play at that level or a winning player who had a good job and didn't need to play poker for a living, but based on ME results I am inclined to believe the latter. Anyway, it probably takes a lot of talent and a lot of luck to win an 8000 player tournament.

NicksDad1970 · #19 12-23-2006, 10:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming Gold isn't really a poker player is somewhat ridiculous. My take on the case seems to be the opposite of everyone else's. I don't see how you can possibly award $6 million dollars on the basis of a deal for which there's no paperwork/contract.

If Gold reneged on a deal then I hold him in as much contempt as anyone else but courts have to decide according to the law. You can't enforce these privately agreed deals, or as Sam Goldwyn memorably put it: "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on."

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless Sam Goldwyn is the judge then it doesn't matter what his toughts are....

I realize I only see what the other public sees but IIRC Gold called the other guy and said everything on doods voice mail.

I'm not really trying to make this a insult towards you but IMHO your comment doesn't say much for you does it?

Unless I misunderstood you then you're basically saying it's ok to lie to someone as long as it's not in writing.

Maybe you should find out how popular some person is around here for not following through with a coin flip.

The willingness to take someone at their word can be priceless.

PairTheBoard · #20 12-23-2006, 10:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wtf are you talking about? oral contracts ARE binding in many states...if it's over $500 and the job or performance can reasonably be completed in under a year

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say verbal contracts weren't valid, I said they weren't *enforcable*. How can you enforce a verbal contract between just two people who now dispute the details?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty easy when you've got an injuction on the money and a judge deciding who gets it.

PairTheBoard