Rams Reply

[gwoo10 0]

I wonder how the benefits are? Other than the free clothes I mean

This has made my day!!

[robgibraltar 0]

I love how one side of a story can be totally dismissed as being incorrect and the other side of a story is "a rational and coherent account.......". I'm also a HUGE fan of adolescent name calling "Danielle". I mean its so witty and classy. Without it, his comment would have been immediately disregarded.There are truly only a handful of people who know the real story and the matter should be left with them.

Toby - I never said DN's account was wrong, I never said it was right either. I believe at the time I was questioning his decision to make judgements on a situation which he himself confessed he had only heard one side of, COMBINED WITH the fact that he is widely read, and (mostly) well respected.I stand by what I say about Ram's reply. It is a thoughtful, rational and coherent account of what happened from his perspective. I believe him, although that is irrelevant to this post and to your criticism.DN's blog entry (by the way, I'm probably not the first, but doesn't the phrase "lol, blogament" fit quite well here?) on the other hand was irrational, emotional, judgementive & somewhat prejudiced. I congratulated DN at the time for giving voice to his 'buddy's' predicament, however I distinctly remember expressing an opinion at the time that DN's account and subsequent judgement and accusations was irresponsible.And yes, before anyone asks, I do realise that I stated in an earlier post a few weeks ago that I would not post more on the subject. So sue me.Thanks,R.

[Rodney21a 1]

YOU WONT OF HEARD OF ME, I AM A BARE KNUCKLE BOXER FIGHTING ILLEGALLYBELIEVE ME ONE MINUTE WITH ME AND YOU WOULD BE CRYING FOR MERCY

Basically I find you a joke. Your probably some pencil necked geek at his computer. You probably look like this. I guess pencil neck wouldn't apply to you.I would cry if I met you too.For your edification " read this.An innovative master of the proposition bet-which is probably as old as gambling itself -- was the great Titanic Thompson, a scratch golfer who'd beat somebody as a righty, then offer to play a double-or-nothing round with his left hand, presumably as a concession (Thompson always neglected to mention that he was a natural lefty). After betting a group of golfers that he could hit a golf ball 500 yards, Thompson drove to a frozen lake near Chicago to accomplish the seemingly impossible task by skidding the ball across the ice.Decades later, in the mid-1960s, proposition master "Amarillo Slim" Preston taught himself to play with a hammer instead of a golf club, and he's beaten pros by using a bow and arrow instead of a club and balls. During a memorable match at Las Vegas Country Club, he accepted a bet against famed hustler Lee Crump, who was sure that he could hit the roof of the distant Hilton Hotel with a golf ball (Crump played himself on that one and Slim won the wager).Puggy Pearson, the aged hustler who spent his golden years beating men half his age at all kinds of golf bets (some of which were actually on the square), devoted years of his youth to perfecting the kinds of trick shots that can turn pool rooms into prop-betting gold mines. "Pride and ego is what I take advantage of when laying down a prop bet, especially against the young whippersnappers," drawls Pearson, who's lauded as one of the world's great intuitive gamblers. "You figure out what somebody thinks you can't do, even though you know you can. Then you find a guy with a swelled head and take advantage."TIME TO CALL THE GOODFELLAS

[WashaUffizi 0]

We are discussing something that we cannot possibly validate. Daniel said something in his blog, and Ram replied on his own. Does that make any of it 100% factual? If what Ram said was true, then Ivey hustled him...but did not cheat. Cheating and hustling are two very different things.

QFT

[robgibraltar 0]

Amazingly ignorant reply.

Qualify your statement please.

[tobytobey 0]

And this is why Danielle made an error of judgement getting involved.Can any, even just one, of sycophants not see he made a mistake?...........

If I take DN at his word (and I have no reason not to), Ivey asked him to talk about it. Should he have told Ivey that the issue didn't involve him and that he wanted to stay out of it? Maybe. But then again, what kind of friend would he be.Had DN on his own decided to spout off about it by his own accord then I would agree that it would be an error in judgement.Keep up the childish name calling, it has me on the floor rolling.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

We are discussing something that we cannot possibly validate. Daniel said something in his blog, and Ram replied on his own. Does that make any of it 100% factual? If what Ram said was true, then Ivey hustled him...but did not cheat. Cheating and hustling are two very different things.

Exactly.Folks, I do not pretend to be a high stakes Golfer (nor even a high stakes poker player). But it is my understanding that people (even good friends) routinely hedge and sandbag. This happened over the span of several days and adjustments were made during that span. How much better could Ivey have gotten since Ram had last played him? Give me a break! Gambers bluff in poker, they overstate their winnings and understate their losses. Gamblers find an edge wherever possible. That isn't "Cheating". No one, not even Ram, seems to suggest that any cheating occured. The rules of golf were followed.

[FoxwoodsPro 0]

Makes Phil look very badBad form Phil Almost 100 strokes over the course of 3 days wtf??Edit, Changed mindThe brit was dumb enought o play phil for 3 days and couldn't figure out he was getting scammed, or couldn't adjust the game to make it even? Silly man pay that man his mobney. On a side note having the best and maybe most popular player in the world be a scam artist is no good. Should we embrace Jamie Gold?

[robgibraltar 0]

If I take DN at his word (and I have no reason not to), Ivey asked him to talk about it. Should he have told Ivey that the issue didn't involve him and that he wanted to stay out of it? Maybe. But then again, what kind of friend would he be.Had DN on his own decided to spout off about it by his own accord then I would agree that it would be an error in judgement.Keep up the childish name calling, it has me on the floor rolling.

I don't believe DN made an error getting involved, it's something any good friend would do if asked to, the issue I personally had was the judgement making without knowing the full facts. He is of course entitled to post his opinions, as long as it's clear that they are opinions.

[tobytobey 0]

Toby - I never said DN's account was wrong, I never said it was right either. I believe at the time I was questioning his decision to make judgements on a situation which he himself confessed he had only heard one side of, COMBINED WITH the fact that he is widely read, and (mostly) well respected.I stand by what I say about Ram's reply. It is a thoughtful, rational and coherent account of what happened from his perspective. I believe him, although that is irrelevant to this post and to your criticism.DN's blog entry (by the way, I'm probably not the first, but doesn't the phrase "lol, blogament" fit quite well here?) on the other hand was irrational, emotional, judgementive & somewhat prejudiced. I congratulated DN at the time for giving voice to his 'buddy's' predicament, however I distinctly remember expressing an opinion at the time that DN's account and subsequent judgement and accusations was irresponsible.And yes, before anyone asks, I do realise that I stated in an earlier post a few weeks ago that I would not post more on the subject. So sue me.Thanks,R.

I've not made any comment about either side of the story other than to say that only a few people know the truth, and everyone else knows someone's perspective/version of the truth. I think the saying goes that there are three sides to every story, with only one of them being the truth.And to your point about Ram's reply, your initial statement (Finally - a rational and coherent account of what really happened. And not one iota of conjecture or hearsay.) left out "from his perspective", as opposed to your statement which indicated that Ram's reply should be regarded as gospel.Meh, I've involved way to much of my own time in this dicussion....carry on.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I don't particularly care about the outcome of this any more... they'll settle it, and all be fine in the end. But I will say that my opinion of Phil Ivey has changed a lot. Especially after watching that clip of him at the Aussie Millions cash game talking about it.Is he a great gambler? - Yes. Would I trust him in any way, even away from the poker table? - Nope.I guess in the interests of fairness, I'll say that they were definately stupid to get involved in something that, apparently, everyone else knew about - that Ivey had been coached and had improved drastically. So yeah, they're dumb.And guys.. please stop all this BS about Euro v USA. That's not even the issue. It's about 3/4 guys and a golf game, and that's it. If you are basing your decisions purely on where you are from, then it's ridiculously narrow-minded.

You're kidding right?I saw that clip and IMMEDIATELY liked Ivey more. I am not much of a fan of Ivey, he seems to be very overrated. He makes more than his share of final tables and then inexplicably seemingly lose his focus and donk out. But that clip seemed to have happened after the Hustle and he was sort of talking crap. I like that, but I love finding an edge in someone else's personality flaws.

[robgibraltar 0]

I've not made any comment about either side of the story other than to say that only a few people know the truth, and everyone else knows someone's perspective/version of the truth. I think the saying goes that there are three sides to every story, with only one of them being the truth.And to your point about Ram's reply, your initial statement (Finally - a rational and coherent account of what really happened. And not one iota of conjecture or hearsay.) left out "from his perspective", as opposed to your statement which indicated that Ram's reply should be regarded as gospel.Meh, I've involved way to much of my own time in this dicussion....carry on.

Ok - I concede the point about perspective, which is why I made it later on.

[carlos the fraggle 0]

Dan is credulous, loudmouthed and affable. I would use him exactly like Phil did. Ram is an action junkie. Phil played him well too, except for mucking up the aftermath. Table selection is the most important skill and Ivey is considered the best.

[Volume26 0]

what many of the people not familiar with golf gambling fail to understand is that this is NOT golf, it is GOLF GAMBLING. Everything including rules, handicap etc must be negotiated beforehand. Ram clearly lost that negotiation but that's all part of the game.

[wisky_VI 0]

next thing you know peeps will be whining and wanting their WPT buyin ins back because they didn't realize they were playing poker professionals and at a huge disadvantage. O THE HORROR Ram is a donk for continuing after the first days match and deserves to pay up just for stupidities sake alone. this type of 'handicapping' of golf matches has been going on long before we were all born and will be going on long after we're dead and buried.

[farmist 0]

next thing you know peeps will be whining and wanting their WPT buyin ins back because they didn't realize they were playing poker professionals and at a huge disadvantage. O THE HORROR Ram is a donk for continuing after the first days match and deserves to pay up just for stupidities sake alone. this type of 'handicapping' of golf matches has been going on long before we were all born and will be going on long after we're dead and buried.

Exactly right.

[milbucksfans 0]

Paging 50 year old bare-knuckle boxer. More, please.2nd request.

[fatshaft 0]

this type of 'handicapping' of golf matches has been going on long before we were all born and will be going on long after we're dead and buried.

what nonsense. So cheating at golf has gone on for decades so it's okay? Cheating at golf is pretty rare, and certainly for these sums of money, unforgiveable.

[fatshaft 0]

Dan is credulous, loudmouthed and affable. I would use him exactly like Phil did. Ram is an action junkie. Phil played him well too, except for mucking up the aftermath. Table selection is the most important skill and Ivey is considered the best.

This has nothing in common with poker, your analogy is nonsense

[socalpoker_j 1]

If Phil Ivey hustled me so blatantly the only thing he'd get is a punch in the face. I can't beleive you guys actually think its ok to hustle someone so openly and expect to be paid!

You do know he's black right?

[fatshaft 0]

what many of the people not familiar with golf gambling fail to understand is that this is NOT golf, it is GOLF GAMBLING. Everything including rules, handicap etc must be negotiated beforehand. Ram clearly lost that negotiation but that's all part of the game.

Clearly from the statements of both Marc & t Ram, they were under the impression they were playing golf, just as they had been every other time they played together. Ivey on the other hand thought they were playing muggers and pensioners.

[Volume26 0]

what nonsense. So cheating at golf has gone on for decades so it's okay? Cheating at golf is pretty rare, and certainly for these sums of money, unforgiveable.

it's not cheating and it's not golf.get a clue

[TheGuvnor 0]

HAHA STOP WHINGING AND WHININGIVEY IS A CHEAT N A LIARIVE MET RAM WHEN HE CAME TO SEE ME BOX, HE ACTUALLY WON 400K BY BETTING ON ME TO WIN IN THE FIRST MINUTE. HES A GOOD MANI AM GOING TO AMERICA ON HOLIDAY IN A MONTHS TIMEIF ANYONE WANTS TO CHALLENGE ME TO A FIGHT OVER THIS THEYRE WELCOME

[UKSHIPITHOLLAAAAAAAAAA 0]

ill fight you.

[HubDub04 0]

HAHA STOP WHINGING AND WHININGIVEY IS A CHEAT N A LIARIVE MET RAM WHEN HE CAME TO SEE ME BOX, HE ACTUALLY WON 400K BY BETTING ON ME TO WIN IN THE FIRST MINUTE. HES A GOOD MANI AM GOING TO AMERICA ON HOLIDAY IN A MONTHS TIMEIF ANYONE WANTS TO CHALLENGE ME TO A FIGHT OVER THIS THEYRE WELCOME

Rooofllless