Hendon Mob Responds To Dns Blog

[Zeatrix 0]

That is how Global Warming started......Al Gore specifically invented the Internet with that in mind.

You obviously missed my sarcasm towards deniers

[dingas 0]

Does anyone else see an analogy between this controversy and the whole global warming thing?I mean here Phil Ivey lied about his golf handicap in order to hustle two people out of $1.8 million dollars.Just like Al Gore and the whole scientific community lied about global warming being real in order to convert the world into a socialist dictatorship.Let's not play the part of those two unfortunate Brits in this whole mess, alrighty?

[Guero 0]

I am totally convinced that a huge portion of the "poker community" upper-echelons are populated by social nitwits with emotionally retarded personalities that haven't expanded or grown past the early years of high school.There is no doubt that being a great poker player requires certain "disconnects" in the mind; trickery, lying, deceit and the ability to pathologically disregard the well-being of other people aren't built-in traits everyone has as a matter of default- but from a purely sociological perspective, it never ceases to amaze me how sophomoric and juvenile these idiotic "he said" poker community squabbles can be.Without hyperbole, it is absolutely like watching 15 year olds in the hallway between class.Apparently, you guys have made so much money and are so comfortable in your lives that you've become entirely unaware of what battles are actually worth investing your energies in. I'm not the sort of guy to wish sickness, death, prison or loss on anyone else just to say "I told you so", but I am starting to think that's what some of you dudes need to get your minds right.Let the people who this involves settle it amongst themselves. If there is a welcher involved, their reputation as the lowest form of scum will spread without any kick-starting by a bunch of people with such hollow lives that they just cannot fathom living one single day without sticking their noses in the affairs of others.

AGREED

[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.

[BWToth 0]

"the whole world of course knows exactly who you are talking about"A bit egotistical if you ask me.Also this is childish. Also, stupid.

[LucyLastik 0]

I replied privately to that letter in an e-mail. I was not the one who made this public, and I would not have if Goodwin didn't first write a blog calling Ivey out as a hustler. When that happened, this ceased to be a private matter. One side of the story was made public by Goodwin, and now the other side of the story has also been made public.

You have said since that if Ivey had hustled them by misinforming them of his true ability then it wouldn't make any difference, they still owe. So how can you say it is wrong of them to call him a hustler when you have said yourself you think it would be OK for him to hustle them?Marc says he believes the bet was an unfair one and wants some form of arbitration. He says they are happy to abide by that arbitration and if no agreed arbitration can be achieved they will pay up a and sever ties. How does that get translated as them being welshers?I am very disappointed that you have decided to come out with only one side of the story (and therefore unlikely to have all the facts) and accuse these guys of being welshers. That is a very serious accusation in these circles and I would have expected you to refrain from accusing anyone of that."Judge not lest ye be judged." How would you feel if someone with only one side of a story accused you of welshing? And what gives you the right to publicly declare anyone a welsher?"Two wrongs don't make a right." "Turn the other cheek." Why does Marc, a party to the dispute, writing about it justify you, not a party to the dispute, giving "the other side" of the case?I have no view on who is right or wrong in the case of the golf game as I don't have the facts. But I do have a view that you are wrong to get involved in publicly damaging the reputations of fellow professional players.

[SwedishAnna 0]

Just saw this posted over at their forums... http://www.thehendonmob.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13816I have just spoken to Ram who is not best pleased about the innacurate accounts of the dispute with Phil Ivey which has been doing the rounds and have now appeard on Daniel Negranau's blog. Ram has asked us to reproduce this letter here and will be giving his own full version of events at a later date. Daniel. I have just read your blog in which you complain of your friend's treatment and the hands of a couple of “hustlers”. I understand that you have jumbled the letters in their names, although as a chronic dyslexic this makes absolutely no difference to me. As is your intention, the whole world of course knows exactly who you are talking about. I feel that I know you fairly well, both through our meetings across the poker table and through your public persona. I often cite you as one of the people in poker I most admire and I know that your take on any issue connected with poker is always going to be worth hearing. That is why I am particularly disappointed that you have made a public pronouncement on a private matter about which - as you readily accept - you do not have all the facts, and have only heard from one side. I quote from your blog: 'You played for days and days, continued to raise the stake unprovoked, set the rules for the game...' The first two words are spot on, but everything beyond that tells me that your information is not exactly from the horse's mouth, and I don't think we should be playing Chinese Whispers with people's reputations. I do not know your buddy very well but he has always struck me in the past as a good guy. I do not doubt that he feels aggrieved, and I would not dream of making a public judgment about a dispute he is involved in; Particularly when I have never discussed it with him. Notwithstanding the pressure to find regular content for your blog, it is a shame that you do not accord my buddy the same courtesy. Ram is a man of infinite patience and very few words. For the past few months he has maintained a dignified public silence whilst seeing his character attacked and misinformation spread. I know he does not feel under any obligation to respond to the flamers and gossips, and I don't suppose he will thank me for writing this, but I feel it's time I made one very simple observation. Of all the people I have known both inside and outside poker, none is more fundamentally honest and thoroughly honorable than Ram Vaswani. No one who has spent any time with him on or off the poker table would ever seriously question that. This is not to imply otherwise about any other party, it is simply that I know this about Ram to the extent that I would stake my life on it. Even if I did not know the facts of the case I would therefore be quite certain that he would have to have a very good reason, and certainly to be utterly convinced in his own mind, if he were to dispute a gambling debt. I know that this matter is already in the public domain and that you are only repeating in good faith what you have been told. Perhaps by way of balance though, you might feel it would be appropriate to publish this letter. All the very best. Barny Boatman

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.

[Zeatrix 0]

You know posting the same thing in three different threads isn't very smart, it's mostly annoying.

[Rodney21a 1]

You know posting the same thing in three different threads isn't very smart, it's mostly annoying.

So you thinks its Kosher to have 3 threads about essentially the same damed thing. Rich girls bitching about their makeup and nails? Point is, what has gambling come to? Johnny Moss or Benny Binion would have had it TAKEN CARE OF.

[ariston 0]

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.

Great post and will be interested to see what DN says about it.

[fiezk 0]

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....

The difference is that this is not two golfers gambling, this is professional gamblers golfing. So what you're saying is that this would be different if this was a game of pool? If a group of people gamble on any- and everything, do you think the rules should change if they decided to play golf?

[SwedishAnna 0]

The difference is that this is not two golfers gambling, this is professional gamblers golfing. So what you're saying is that this would be different if this was a game of pool? If a group of people gamble on any- and everything, do you think the rules should change if they decided to play golf?

Frankly my main point is that this is not a simple and clear cut matter - rather it's a clash of golfing rules with prop bet rules ....and that I can see both sides of the argument.... The two guys who lost were / are of the opinion that they were playing golf by golf rules.. whilst Daniel's mate believes it's prop bet rules.. and therefore anything goes. I know which I believe to be more honourable --- but as I say I can see both sides and my main point was that Daniel has let himself down by rehashing one of the protagonists version of the story and not the other. I would simply say to Daniel go ask "so and so" - he knows who he is and see what version he supports.

[Andr4w 0]

Anna I agree with you. I'm seriously wondering if golfing ethics in the UK are just different from the US, thats perhaps why this problem has been created. Like you say certainly in the UK we play by the rules and are perhaps naive in thinking that others will do the same. Maybe in the US this is an acceptable form of hustling that would just not be tolerated in the UK without you getting banned from golf clubs, I dunno?

[snooptoddd 0]

I am totally convinced that a huge portion of the "poker community" upper-echelons are populated by social nitwits with emotionally retarded personalities that haven't expanded or grown past the early years of high school.There is no doubt that being a great poker player requires certain "disconnects" in the mind; trickery, lying, deceit and the ability to pathologically disregard the well-being of other people aren't built-in traits everyone has as a matter of default- but from a purely sociological perspective, it never ceases to amaze me how sophomoric and juvenile these idiotic "he said" poker community squabbles can be.Without hyperbole, it is absolutely like watching 15 year olds in the hallway between class.Apparently, you guys have made so much money and are so comfortable in your lives that you've become entirely unaware of what battles are actually worth investing your energies in. I'm not the sort of guy to wish sickness, death, prison or loss on anyone else just to say "I told you so", but I am starting to think that's what some of you dudes need to get your minds right.Let the people who this involves settle it amongst themselves. If there is a welcher involved, their reputation as the lowest form of scum will spread without any kick-starting by a bunch of people with such hollow lives that they just cannot fathom living one single day without sticking their noses in the affairs of others.

QFT ... and not to be an educational elitist, but have you noticed that those who have college degrees don't tend to get involved in this stuff? It seems like most people learn how to get along with others in college.Oh, with the notable exception of Greg Raymer ... maybe law school causes social regression ...

[Donkey Destroyer 0]

QFT ... and not to be an educational elitist, but have you noticed that those who have college degrees don't tend to get involved in this stuff? It seems like most people learn how to get along with others in college.Oh, with the notable exception of Greg Raymer ... maybe law school causes social regression ...

You are a total idiot. Not to mention absoluetly clueless about the poker community. Many many of the pros either have degrees (hell Chris Ferguson has a doctrate) or dropped out of college to play poker once they realized they could make good money at it. Annie Duke and Howard Lederer both dropped out of graduate studies to play poker. Phil Helmuth was in college whe he stopped to play poker and the list goes on and on. Andy Bloch has like two degrees from freakin MIT. Andy also was part of the MIT blackjack team so their goes your "only da smartest dewds don't do da gambling cuz wez kewl" theory. Actually based on your comments I'd be willing to bet neither of you are all that smart. Like having gone to college is a sure sign of intelligence. Some of the stupidest people I know have degrees.You and the poster you quoted are also like 15 year olds. The kids who aren't one of the "cool guys" so they wrap themselves in their supposed oh so superior intelligence to hide from the fact that YOU are the ones that are socaially inept and instead of fitting in you just try and take down those you can't otherwise elevate yourselves above.

[Donkey Destroyer 0]

As far as the topic at hand I say pay up or shut up. You can't go back on a bet you made and lost when you came up with the rules AND kept increasing the bets and then pretend the other person is the dishonest one. You made the bet, set the rules, upped the bet and even came back a second day to finish the bet off and now are pissing and moaning cause things didn't fall your way. You had ample time and opportunity to stop it before its conclusion and chose not to. That makes you a mark and a general all around idiot in my book. If you didn't end it the second you realized he was better then you thought then A) you thought you could beat him anyway and were totally wrong or B you are a total moron and shouldn't be allowed to have that much money anyway.You got played, realized you were getting played, decided to allow yourself to keep getting played for whatever reason, and now don't wanna pay up. If I was Phil I'd prolly just say **** it and simply not bet and tell all of my friends not to bet with you ever again in the future. Let you buy whats left of your "good name" in the gambling community for the price you'd agreed to pay him but didn't.

[Jowelz 0]

I keep saying that there's one fair way to clear this up, and it's the ONLY fair way.Considering the story of the two "victims" and the fact that they got "hustled" by Phil, because Phil misrepresented his handicap and had an unfair advantage, they are right in the sense that they were mislead, and wrong in the sense that they continued to play under the terms.Phil had an obligation to divulge a true handicap to his victims, but not an obligation to stop playing when he had taken them for a ton of money.SO.Ram and the other guy should bring the money they owe Phil to the golf course, and play double or nothing with Phil's true handicap coming into play. If they lose, they lose double, if they win, they're even. Everyone's friends, everyone gets a fair shot, and the best part is... they get to keep gambling on golf which is what they apparently love doing anyhow.Everyone's reputation is in the clear, and everyone can put it behind them so we can stop talking about it.

[fiezk 0]

I keep saying that there's one fair way to clear this up, and it's the ONLY fair way.Considering the story of the two "victims" and the fact that they got "hustled" by Phil, because Phil misrepresented his handicap and had an unfair advantage, they are right in the sense that they were mislead, and wrong in the sense that they continued to play under the terms.Phil had an obligation to divulge a true handicap to his victims, but not an obligation to stop playing when he had taken them for a ton of money.SO.Ram and the other guy should bring the money they owe Phil to the golf course, and play double or nothing with Phil's true handicap coming into play. If they lose, they lose double, if they win, they're even. Everyone's friends, everyone gets a fair shot, and the best part is... they get to keep gambling on golf which is what they apparently love doing anyhow.Everyone's reputation is in the clear, and everyone can put it behind them so we can stop talking about it.

This would solve nothing.

[ThaKid 0]

Whether they should pay, entirely depends on how the game was set up. If Phil Ivey acted like he was telling the truth (and he was not), hustling these guys in a friendly game is wrong. Add that Ram is a better Poker player (he is) than both DN and ivey, i would suggest a nice home game to settle the matter...

[MDBLakers 0]

Interesting conversation at the Aussie Millions.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DdJu9fwfw...ted&search=

[fighter 4]

Interesting conversation at the Aussie Millions.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DdJu9fwfw...ted&search=

nice link. Wow john really hit home.

[James D 0]

Interesting conversation at the Aussie Millions.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DdJu9fwfw...ted&search=

That actually is very interesting. Thanks for the link.

[Kwest4chipz 0]

hmmmmmmmm

[scram 1]

You and the poster you quoted are also like 15 year olds. The kids who aren't one of the "cool guys" so they wrap themselves in their supposed oh so superior intelligence to hide from the fact that YOU are the ones that are socaially inept and instead of fitting in you just try and take down those you can't otherwise elevate yourselves above.

LOL!Wrong.Ya see, "fitting in" isn't a concern of some people (billionaires, innovators and prisoners alike) Such people are about 2%-3% of the population. The other 97% absolutely cannot fathom how someone could possibly live their lives without being slave to the opinions or collective direction of other people. The mediocre masses. The gray.It's pretty sad, really, and saying it out loud definitely offends those it addresses, but being a "fitter-inner" is codified as being "normal"., so at least you can take solace that most people are "like you".Really, these guys who get involved in this crap just behave like complete fools. It is amazing to watch.What was that table on Poker After Dark- I think it was like Matusow, Tony G, Hellmuth- all guys who do very, very well at their chosen pursuit but watching them for 10 seconds and you can tell that they're abysmal failures as people (no matter how much money they make "playing poker"). They have the character of early teenagers. It's like they became great at poker at the expense of "growing up". As an aside, you kinda shot your argument in the foot by citing all the players you did. You never see Ferguson, Bloch, Lederer (etc), involved in this open-air, e-squabbling bullshit. I don't know if I agree with the theory that college education is a functional metric of acting like a goofball with a retarded level basic social compunction. I've certainly met geniuses who didn't graduate from high school and morons with PhD's, but you sure don't make a good argument for the contrary by citing those players in this context.

[scram 1]

Interesting conversation at the Aussie Millions.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DdJu9fwfw...ted&search=

Wow. That is very, very telling.