Who Made A Deal But Then Lied About It?

[HLS2k6 0]

I suppose public image is not important to these people right ? To have the whole poker world know you are full of crap would be trivial, right ?Filed their taxes...publically stated something different. Read your own post moron.

First of all, don't call me a moron. Second of all, you told me to read my own post. Why don't you read the very next sentence: "obviously, you know, there was a deal made, but the tax records don't show that and publically this person didn't say that." I think your interpretation of the facts is likely right, but it's far from clear because Daniel says two different things (see above). As far as "public image" from lying about a deal to the press/public, do you really believe that crap? Has the Travel Channel ever mentioned allegations that Menh Nguyen had chips dumped to him? Ever heard anything on ESPN about Howard Lederer and bookmaking? Seen anything about David Williams's film career on NBC? Any mention of playing regular cash games at Larry Flynt's when GSN tells you how wonderful Barry Greenstein is? None of this has hurt any one's image to the mainstream public; its not even mentioned, because the mainstream press doesn't want to or doesn't care to jump on rumor and innuendo.

[navybuttons 15]

i really wouldn't be suprised if it was annie duke. i just thought it was weird that daniel seemed to go out of his way to say 'person' as opposed to classifying gender.

[Suited_Up 2]

He never stated it was a WPT event actually.

He did say it was in 2004 though.

[FatBurger 0]

...because the mainstream press doesn't want to or doesn't care to jump on rumor and innuendo.

Wha-?

[PotDragon 0]

Grasp for straws HLS2k6...its all you got.

[KDawgCometh 2]

Too funny.Who else besides Annie Duke won a tournament where it was even an issue ? The TOC was winner take all...Phil H loves deals...is there really a question ?Maybe it was Andy Bloch chopping some unknown win.

daniel was the only player at the table that doesn't do deals, so needless to say, it would be expected that the deal was done after he got eliminated

[HLS2k6 0]

Wha-?

I meant with regard to the poker boom. Obviously the same doesn't apply to politicians, other athletes, etc. Can you imagine the interesting and sordid stories that must be in poker's history back when these guys were road gamblers travelling town to town to fleece people? Lying about a deal just doesn't seem like it'd compare to me. Cheating on your taxes is a whole nother matter, though. That'd certainly get certain people's attention.

[PotDragon 0]

daniel was the only player at the table that doesn't do deals, so needless to say, it would be expected that the deal was done after he got eliminated

SOMETIME AFTER. Maybe even when her brother was still there.Call with pocket 6's ?

[KDawgCometh 2]

I stopped reading all the previous posts because you guys are talking about the TOC.... that is a WSOP tourney. I'm 99% sure that they are atalking about a WPT tourney.My guesses:howard in 02 or 03Andy bloch in 03

it would be impossible for bloch and lederer to have made a WPT FT deal at any point, it is in the WPT bylaws that there can't be any deals, and if you do make one that you won't be able to play in the WPT. Both players played in WPT events after their Final tables in season I

[PotDragon 0]

it is in the WPT bylaws that there can't be any deals

Terrific point.

[KDawgCometh 2]

As far as "public image" from lying about a deal to the press/public, do you really believe that crap? Has the Travel Channel ever mentioned allegations that Menh Nguyen had chips dumped to him? Ever heard anything on ESPN about Howard Lederer and bookmaking? Seen anything about David Williams's film career on NBC? Any mention of playing regular cash games at Larry Flynt's when GSN tells you how wonderful Barry Greenstein is? None of this has hurt any one's image to the mainstream public; its not even mentioned, because the mainstream press doesn't want to or doesn't care to jump on rumor and innuendo.

how on earth is the bolded portion shady at all. To be honest, I'm rather surprised that the Flynt games are as known as they are, cause one would imagine that with the money that flies in those games that all players involved would be extremely tight lipped. Being associated with larry flynt isn't anywhere near scandalous

[HLS2k6 0]

Grasp for straws HLS2k6...its all you got.

Once again you've managed to reply without actually saying actually making a relevant point about the topic. At least you've moved on from ad hominem attacks like "moron" to unsupported assertions like I'm grasping at straws. My only point was (1) I don't see this scandal as being any sort of an obstacle to a lawsuit. Lying would be admissible in court only for very limited purposes (i.e. to impeach direct testimony); and (2) Poker has much bigger scandals in its past that haven't impacted these players' popularity.

[OVERKILL 0]

HLS -- I was writing down the transcript as well when I realized that I was probably confused. On first listen (and I still think this is what DN intended to say) I understood what Potdragon and Stevedar did, ie it was claimed no deal was made but the tax records suggest otherwise.Overkill, the plaintiffs are not all FTP: it's Bloch, Duke, Lederer, Ferguson, Gordon, Raymer, and Hachem.

I wasnt SURE who all was involved, but the names I did hear were from FT. But thanx for the clarification.

[HLS2k6 0]

how on earth is the bolded portion shady at all. To be honest, I'm rather surprised that the Flynt games are as known as they are, cause one would imagine that with the money that flies in those games that all players involved would be extremely tight lipped. Being associated with larry flynt isn't anywhere near scandalous

You're right KDawg, it's not. I meant some Bible-belt type poker fans might forget that poker players are professional gamblers and all that comes with that behind the scenes (including associating with certain people), as opposed to just being professional athletes playing under the lights of tv every week. I'll admit it's a weak point to suggest that's scandalous, though.

[PotDragon 0]

Once again you've managed to reply without actually saying actually making a relevant point about the topic. At least you've moved on from ad hominem attacks like "moron" to unsupported assertions like I'm grasping at straws. My only point was (1) I don't see this scandal as being any sort of an obstacle to a lawsuit. Lying would be admissible in court only for very limited purposes (i.e. to impeach direct testimony); and (2) Poker has much bigger scandals in its past that haven't impacted these players' popularity.

Once again ? You should learn to read.1- Who said it was an obstacle to the lawsuit ? The question is who lied...not "what effect willl the lie have".Moron.2- Poker has not had a big scandel since the boom...moron.3- Player popularity sells books and dvds. Only morons like you would buy a book from someone who said they made no deal but did.4- Answer the question...who out of the 7 won a tournament where it was even a question if there would be or was a deal ?Moron.

[HLS2k6 0]

Once again ? You should learn to read.1- Who said it was an obstacle to the lawsuit ? The question is who lied...not "what effect willl the lie have".Moron.2- Poker has not had a big scandel since the boom...moron.3- Player popularity sells books and dvds. Only morons like you would buy a book from someone who said they made no deal but did.4- Answer the question...who out of the 7 won a tournament where it was even a question if there would be or was a deal ?Moron.

Tell you what; I'll learn to read as soon as you learn to spell. For my part, I'm done discussing this with you. As my post count indicates, I mostly lurk. I'm a big fan of DN's and have learned a lot from the strategy forum here, so I enjoy reading and will continue to do so. I don't usually post, but decided to chime in on this because I'm interested in this suit and in Andy Bloch, since, as my SN alludes, I recently graduated from Harvard Law School. Nice talking to you (sw).

[PotDragon 0]

I "once again" avoided the topic...but that's your answer ?Stay in school.Edit :Pointing out typos is for the very weak minded...I guess you fit right in.

[eYank 0]

I "once again" avoided the topic...but that's your answer ?Stay in school.

thats good advice,im too lazy to read through it so everyone, listen to his advice, he is a smart man

[HLS2k6 0]

I posted an off-topic reply while indicating I was done discussing the topic. Fine, I'll respond substantively one last time. You said there's been no scandal since the poker boom. This is false and irrelevant. Certain things about poker just come with the game, and the mainstream media ignores it. Just like you don't hear about infidelity in the NBA unless someone says they didn't consent or a player catches HIV. Chip dumping allegations are hugely scandalous, whether they allegedly occurred a couple of years before Moneymaker or not.You also said no one would buy a book from any one who lied about making a deal. This is also very likely untrue. I could find out something like this about DN and I would still respect and support him because of every thing else I know. It would be one mistake, maybe even one that could be explained. I promise if Phil Ivey published a new book tomorrow that made Harrington on Hold Em look like Hellmuth's Be-An-Eagle book, it would sell like mad even if it said he lied about something like that right in the author/player bio on the back cover.

I "once again" avoided the topic...but that's your answer ?Stay in school.Edit :Pointing out typos is for the very weak minded...I guess you fit right in.