Hustled For The Very Last Time

[AngloBoy 0]

If he wants to recount Phils side of things thats fine, but its not fair of him to start expressing his own strong opinions when he doesn't know the other side of the story. Apparently both sides are meeting in Vegas soon and Daniel is just using his blog (that is read by a wide audience) to get people on Phils side and he shouldn't be doing.

Last time I checked there was still free speech in the US.And why is Phil not allowed to get his friend to put his side forward? Marc Goodwin has put his out there, and Ram has got Barny Boatman to put his side out there.

[KUPoker5 0]

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Nice constructive reply there, think-for-yourself-er.

[bdc30 0]

think-for-yourself-er.

Not sure wtf that is supposed to mean, but your original comment made no sense either.Telling people you are a donk, then raking up a cash game is neither immoral, nor cheating, and I don't see how it relates to the topic being discussed.

[Andr4w 0]

Last time I checked there was still free speech in the US.And why is Phil not allowed to get his friend to put his side forward? Marc Goodwin has put his out there, and Ram has got Barny Boatman to put his side out there.

Barney only replied when he saw DN sticking his nose in in this blog, it would all have been kept quiet otherwise. The whole point is its between Ram, Marc and Phil, its no-one elses business not even DNs. Lets leave them to sort out their own private matter.End of my posts

[AngloBoy 0]

Barney only replied when he saw DN sticking his nose in in this blog, it would all have been kept quiet otherwise. The whole point is its between Ram, Marc and Phil, its no-one elses business not even DNs. Lets leave them to sort out their own private matter.

What the difference??? Daniel wrote his because of Marc, Barny wrote his because of Daniel.And if it wasn't for Marc it would have just been yet another internet rumour and they could have kept it private.

[fiezk 0]

Isn't this really the same as representing yourself as a fish when you sit down in a cash game and proceed to take everyone's money? How is this different? It's just survival of the fittest here. Sometimes you gotta fib a little to get a lot.

I find it very similar. There are two things that I think makes this seem less moral to many.1. An experienced poker player has a smaller edge against an amateur. Leaving the "pray" with no chance of winning tend to make people feel sorry for the poor guy.2. Poker is a hustling game, golf is a gentleman's sport. When viewed from an outside perspective, a poker game is where you expect to be hustled, whereas in golf things like honor and trust are highly regarded. In this case however, it was a match between professional gamblers playing for high stakes -- it doesn't matter if it's poker, golf, a spitting contest or flipping coins.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Barney only replied when he saw DN sticking his nose in in this blog, it would all have been kept quiet otherwise. The whole point is its between Ram, Marc and Phil, its no-one elses business not even DNs. Lets leave them to sort out their own private matter.End of my posts

Again it ceased to be a private matter when Goodwin gloated in his Poker Player column about golfing with Phil, and then posting his side of the story on the internet! Had that not been posted, there is no way I would have posted it in my blog. However, it really bothered me that Phil was being painted in the wrong when the otherside has already taken his money, but yet, still haven't paid him back a penny.

[WaitingforMyRuca 0]

Daniels opinion counts for Jack **** and he has no business sticking his nose in here. If he wants to recount Phils side of things thats fine, but its not fair of him to start expressing his own strong opinions when he doesn't know the other side of the story. Apparently both sides are meeting in Vegas soon and Daniel is just using his blog (that is read by a wide audience) to get people on Phils side and he shouldn't be doing.

Umm...Isn't this just your opinion? So ultimately doesn't it just account for Jack ****? *shrug* I guess hypocrisy is okay where you're from.

[KUPoker5 0]

Telling people you are a donk, then raking up a cash game is neither immoral, nor cheating, and I don't see how it relates to the topic being discussed.

That was my whole freakin' point, genius. Are you always this slow on the uptake?

[James D 0]

Again it ceased to be a private matter when Goodwin gloated in his Poker Player column about golfing with Phil, and then posting his side of the story on the internet! Had that not been posted, there is no way I would have posted it in my blog. However, it really bothered me that Phil was being painted in the wrong when the otherside has already taken his money, but yet, still haven't paid him back a penny.

This is quite an important point imo...I remember reading that column a while ago, and I have knowledge that Goodwin had been gloating about his new found status (if you can call it that), after the Monte Carlo Millions.I honestly think that if it had been Vaswani on his own, it would have been sorted out in private, and that he would never have shown the lack of class that Goodwin did, in making it public. Basically, if it wasn't for Goodwin's cocky, yet unjustified, persona, we would never have heard about it. I think that, in trying to make a name for himself, he's dragged Vaswani's previous good image through the muck with his column... and after this is over, Ram (and the Hendon Mob) should not associate with Goodwin anymore.Hopefully Vaswani can sort this out by paying up, then he can then make up with Ivey et al, and his reputation can remain. From what I know of Vaswani, he's a good guy, and I honestly think there wouldn't have been a problem in sorting this out, if Goodwin wasn't involved. As for Goodwin, he's just a newcomer who's out of his depth... he's the one who should be shunned from the poker community for his cockiness and lack of class.

[NoShowJones 0]

Again.. I say this with complete disregard to the Phil Ivey situation...Saying that it is okay to lie about your handicap just blows my mind.Where do you draw the line on trying to gain an edge? There's no rule that says you have to stand any certain place while your opponent putts, but would you stand right over him breathing down his neck to gain an edge? Would you jump up and down like a clown to try and distract him? Would you scream right during his backswing? Would you intentionally make spike marks (which under USGA rules cannot be repaired by your opponent) in his putting line?

[Balloon guy 158]

Remember these are gamblers playing golfnot golfers gamblingSo don't invoke the gentleman's game etc into the mix. They gamble because that's what they do. If they took a sucker bet, and don't pay they will still have a hard time getting future games, because that's the way it is. But they will still get games, because that's the way it is.I'm glad DN is sticking up for Phil, with only one side of the story, I thought maybe Phil had lied to hustle them, but if they continued to play after the hustle, then they are too stupid to have money and deserve to lose.

[Rodney21a 1]

Johnny MossAnecdotesOne time Moss was playing in Oklahoma when he noticed a peep hole in the ceiling where someone was relaying information about cards to a player at the table. After Moss' threat to shoot the man if the hole wasn't plugged wasn't taken seriously, Moss ended up wounding him. Moss also regularly had to threaten people to get them to remove their clothes when he knew they were using mechanical cheating devices.Another time, Moss was playing high-stakes golf against a wealthy businessman. Going into the last few holes, Moss had lost over a quarter of a million dollars. The people who were sponsoring the match on Moss' behalf wanted to simply kill his opponent rather than pay, but Moss won the last few holes. The businessman told him, "Moss, you're the luckiest man alive." Moss responded, "No sir, you are."Lets go back to the OLD DAYS.Bunch of Bitches.

[SwedishAnna 0]

Daniel,The way you portrayed the story certainly points fault at the supposed hustlers. How would your stance change if the story instead went down like this:1) Initially, the games were played where you were spotted a 1-0 lead, and you won $300,000. This was perceived at slightly disadvantageous to PA, but there were no hard feelings.2) Nine months later, you and PA decide to play pool again. This time, however, you do not know where to set the line, as you've heard that PA may have been playing every day with a world class coach.3) It is then brought up that you have both played pool with lets say, Eric Lindgren. You ask PA if he was spotted a 1-0 lead when he played Eric, and he says yes. Based on this knowledge and Eric's perceived skill level, you agree on a fair line.4) PA then adds another stipulation; that is, he requires that you play a full 7 games and if one is to quit, they would have to pay a $300k penalty.5) PA crushes you for $1.8 million.6) Again, no hard feelings, but then you run into your buddy Eric and tell him the story. He then says that when he and PA play, he does not give PA any sort of spot and they play straight up.This story, which may or may not be true, is more similar to the "other side". The key points to this side, is that "PA" lied about his handicap with another player. If these were indeed true, would you feel it necessary to pay the $1.8 million? If you were to pay it, would you think it was ethical/fair that you were hustled by "PA"?I'm not sure what side is true, but if the above stipulations were added, I'm curious to see how you would actually respond. Additionally, I have no experience with high stakes golf gambling, if lying about your handicap is typical, then there is no problem. If, however, lying about one's handicap breaks the "honor among thieves", this may be the problem.

I really am quite surprised Daniel has chosen to air one side of a pretty contentious dispute without listening (and airing ) the other. I know the other two involved - and have listened to their side of this misadventure - true I haven't heard Daniel's buddy's side - but in the interest of balance allow me to put their side - as I know it.True, the guys have been playing golf together for 8 months or so, Daniel's mate and his "coach" against the other two.... they played in Vegas and Europe during the summer of 2006.. and true Daniel's buddy lost most of these encounters. As Daniel knows I'm sure - golf is a game where there is a handicap system - so before each game the protagonists agreed what was considered an equitable handicap for each player and battle commenced.. all of the games were by all accounts fairly close .. Before Australia this year the guys had NOT played together for months - so when they met up again - handicaps had to be agreed - now as the guys hadn't played together for a while they struggled to get an agreement on this fairly central point...so some questions were asked -- very specific questions of Daniel's buddy.... Like had he played much since last they played -- to which the answer offered was no...... another very specific question was asked -- had Daniels bud played "so and so" recently -- yes was the offered answer..... Ok , so do you still receive 10 strokes (per 18 holes from this guy)? again yes was the proferred answer.... So the friends (for that it what they were) agreed to play with the same handicaps as before... But Daniel's bud insisted upon 36 holes at this handicap (contract) and then they would adjust.... Ok, thought the other two -- we have played "so and so" and therefore know that if he still gives Daniel's bud 10 strokes then the previous handicap is fairly accurate. For those golfers amoung you Daniels Bud had a handicap of c26 The others were about 4 and about 15 ......So they set off to play - and actually played quite happily for 18 holes .. wherein Daniel's buddy and his partner proceeded to thrash the other two ..... they all finished and were quite amiable -- next day as per contract they continued on the same handicaps - and again Daniel's buddy and his partner thrashed the others -- this time however one of the other guys walked off in disgust - calling foul whilst the other carried on to the bitter end... Ok so a salutory tale for the other 2 guys ... had that been the end of things they would have reluctantly paid -- but would have paid.... Daniel's buddy - shot fairly close to level par for most of the holes (there was one very high number on one hole)The evening after the second day's golf - the two guys were approached by several senior figures within poker to warn them about an alleged "hustle" that they had suffered... independently - these guys were told how Daniel's bud had been receivng coaching and shooting level par scores on TPC courses in the states and had been winning vast (and I mean vast) quantities of cash from other guys on the golf course.... All of which would be perfectly fine and dandy if not for the following .... The very specific questions that were asked of Daniel's buddy on the 1st tee on the 1st round. "Had he played much since they last played?" Well very clearly he had been working his tail off... and much more damning "Did he still receive 10 strokes from "so and so""? Well actually no he didn't - the last time they had played together they had played off scratch.. no strokes either way -- so a ten stroke difference.... An apparent untruth.... which was later confirmed by "so and so". Further he had taken "so and so" for a few million dollars.....Golf is a game of honour and self regulation - had a member of a local country club failed to adjust his handicap to such extreme improvements (Daniel's buddy improved by an average of 12 strokes a round) he would be banned not just from that club but from all others... In golf this is regarded as cheating.... Now I can see that in prop betting anything goes and the bettor beware motto applies... golf is different -- golf is a game of honour and self regulation as I said earlier.... I can see Daniel's buddy's side of the story -- but I can also see the other two's side.. and to represent it as Daniel did in his Blog as a "simple" case of welching is incredibly unfair and does the normally smart and fair Daniel absolutely no credit.

[Wingmaster05 0]

Remember these are gamblers playing golfnot golfers gamblingSo don't invoke the gentleman's game etc into the mix. They gamble because that's what they do. If they took a sucker bet, and don't pay they will still have a hard time getting future games, because that's the way it is. But they will still get games, because that's the way it is.I'm glad DN is sticking up for Phil, with only one side of the story, I thought maybe Phil had lied to hustle them, but if they continued to play after the hustle, then they are too stupid to have money and deserve to lose.

QFTThat is about what it boils down to. Phil won the negotiating game, and they were too sure of themselves to realize they've been had to quit. And Daniel is right to point out that something doesn't add up if the losers were indeed doubling the stakes; you don't double the stakes if you can't pay up. Especially if you thought the numbers weren't in your favor. It's that simple.For those who hadn't read Blair's post, it does add a good perspective.