Rams Reply

[DCJ001 0]

Hey Ram, be a man and pay him his fuckin money.

Actually, it goes like this: *****

[DanielNegreanu 141]

John Juanda and Phil Ivey are actually very good friends. Good friends that are happy to needle each other at every opportunity. I can guarantee you that if you asked Juanda whether or not Ram should pay the full amount, he would say absolutely.

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

[Balloon guy 158]

On to evidence of that video from the Aussie millions where all the big guns from FT go golfing, Ivey looks like he has a very poor swing, and an 18 h/cap would seem to be optomistic. I would be very interested in the actual scores that were taken, as it was matchplay there won't be scores, but they will all have an idea of what approxiamately was scored. If Ivey has scored around 90+ then I switch sides.

I knew I liked you, not just because you're name reminds me of my old Wilson driver the Fat Shaft. I used to whack that ball forever with that Fatshaft. My longest drive ever was with the fatshaft, over 340 yards... but I took a lesson, changed my swing and have more control, but less distance. Now I rarely see 300, but I also save about 5 balls a round.If you can admit that Phil having a pretty high overall score would give you reason to reconsider your support of Ram, then you are a bigger man than most.

[Balloon guy 158]

Barry posted this on The HendonMob Web site in response to the: #10 was wrong so therefore everything Barry ever said is wrong also logic:

I can't believe I am responding to the guy who tried to discredit me by saying that Phil Ivey posts on FCP forums. (The obvious Phil Ivey imposter said he throws his own feces as a poker tell.) 1. Ram told me that he never thought Phil was as good as Erick Lindgren. He said Marc misunderstood the conversation. 2. Ram still claims Phil took a 13 on a par three. I agree that anything more than three over par should not count in determining his final score. Phil claims his scores are not under 90 with that adjustment. Ram says the course was difficult from the back tees and that Phil's scores were therefore better than expected. I played the course in 2006 and I didn't think it was difficult, but I may not have played the back tees. 3. Phil lost more than $100,000 at golf in Barcelona, and in four matches previous to that. When I asked Ram how he can maintain that he hadn't won much, he said Marc must have won the lion's share. (There are individual bets as well as team bets.) Ram also said he couldn't remember what he lost at chinese poker. 4. You may be the only one who thinks the big number didn't matter. That is a big part of Ram's complaint. He said when he won, it wasn't for the obscene amount of money that Phil got him for. One million dollars is a lot to all of us poker players. We are not as rich as people think. 5. I meant I was not brought to the meeting in Monte Carlo to fight Phil's battles. My previous long post was in response to Ram's. Phil had no part in me posting. When I told him I was going to write something, he said he was afraid I would screw things up, and make it harder for him to collect his money. He didn't know about Daniel's post beforehand. I was the one who told him about it. Some of Daniel's analogies may have been better chosen if Phil was involved. 6. I don't think Phil knew any of these forums existed until a couple of weeks ago. I don't think he has ever gone to them except through links in e-mails I have sent him since. If you go into the big room in the Bellagio and ask who has ever read anything on 2+2, I would probably be the only one to say yes, unless Jennifer is there. Doyle knows they exist. Live game players are not that aware of the things on the Internet. The big game players who play on the Internet, use their computers for two things: poker and e-mail. 7. Many people have told me Ram has been consistently honorable in his gambling career. Because of that, I do not intend on writing any more disparaging comments about Ram. I don't think I have said anything that can be construed as attacking in this post. He and I disagree on some things in this debacle, but I am inclined to take him at his word that he believes he is right. Barry

[nutzbuster 7]

I keep wondering if Ivey would take even a partial payment just to end this?NAW!!!Edit: On a side note, regarding Ivey ever posting here, I seriously doubt it. I know that Jenn reads this stuff every now and again and I'm pretty sure that Mikey did too for a while, but he got so much crap from the idiots here that he stopped coming around.

[Naismith 0]

I keep wondering if Ivey would take a partial payment just to end this?

I'll take a partial payment and no longer talk about it.

[Azwethinkweiz 0]

I have read, re-read, analyzed everything over and over from both sides(that I know about). So, my conclusion is only based on the information provided to the public. What was Ram expecting Mr. Ivey to shoot? It seems his scores are consistent with his ability. I've concluded that Ram thought he had a signifigant edge on particular said course, that's why he continued to play(if he thought things werent right). But that's just me reaching. Reaching, for a way to make Ram's side on this be of pure-hearted innocence. But, the fact of the matter, the pill that is hard to swallow, is that is not correct. Phil Ivey has done nothing wrong in this matter whatsoever. He can only be faulted for having such loyal friends. So much so, that they are coming to defend his honor and his collection of a wager. Because the amount of figures involved in this wager are so large, it's human nature to look for a cop-out. You have to look for a way to get out of a big loss, or you wouldnt be the caliber of player you are on the felt, let alone the golf course.It appears to me Mr. Ivey's game improved on recovery and the putting green. how else could you shoot what you are suppose to shoot(mid-90's) and still have the opposition in an uproar that they arent winning? The bets continued to press and press and Ram was picking up the slack on others involved, just to keep the match afloat. To conclude, it doesnt matter what the intentions of said parties involved were. A bet is a bet, a wager is a wager. You take your wins, you take your losses. If you cant handle the pressure, or your bankroll cant handle this kind of hit, you have no business playing above your head. That is no excuse to try and get out of paying a debt. Phil Ivey won fair and square, as fair and square as you can in a gamble. If you take sheltered Amy off the street who has never touched a basketball in her life and you have a freethrow shoot out, best of 10. if she completely misses the rim on the first two, but then makes seven in a row, do you cop out of a bet? do you cop out because you thought you were better, because you think you are suppose to win? Phil Ivey is a competitive person. He HAS to be, for the majority of the poker world to herald him as one of the most well-rounded players in the game. It doesnt matter if its cards, golf, racing, or tictacphuckingtoe, it doenst matter what the experience level is, or what you think should happen. Once a bet is in place for an event between two people, past means nothing. You live in the now. On that particular day, Mr. Ivey shot what he was suppose to, but buckled down, and came through on clutch shots. That's the unexplainable attribute involved with a person's drive.If you are in a pool game. and your opponent knows you have a tough time keeping your cue ball control for more then 3 consecutive shots, and on that paricular day, you buckled down and kept the match in your favor with precise defensive shots, and low percentage shots open for your opponent, does a bet become void? Is a bet null, because an aspect of your game came through that the opposition didnt expect? Hell no. You found a way to win. You played your game. Doesnt matter what the past represented. The now is the now. Doesnt matter if you went from playing for 50 bucks a rack, to 5,000 a rack. You are responsible for all wagers you partake in.You pay the man, you pay Mr. Ivey what he has due to him fair and square, whether you like it or not. There are no excuses, it doesnt matter what the conditions were, it doesnt matter what you expect of an opponent. If you cant handle it, quit gambling. It doesnt even matter what intel the public doesnt know about. As soon as you continue to play when you are off your game, or the opponent is definitely not off his, you be the man and pay. You didnt minimize your losses and you want a friend get out of jail free card. because you think it was "friendly", doubling the stakes to try and get even, doesnt count unless it makes you even...Learn life.

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

Azwethinkweiz. you said it all man. Nothing left to be said. Anything after that is just kicking a dead pony.

[James D 0]

This is quite interesting. It's a quote from a post by Barry Greenstein on the Hendonmob forum:5. I meant I was not brought to the meeting in Monte Carlo to fight Phil's battles. My previous long post was in response to Ram's. Phil had no part in me posting. When I told him I was going to write something, he said he was afraid I would screw things up, and make it harder for him to collect his money. He didn't know about Daniel's post beforehand. I was the one who told him about it. Some of Daniel's analogies may have been better chosen if Phil was involved.So... Phil apparently didn't know about Daniel's blog? Hmmmm.. someone's not telling someone the truth, either way, as DN has stressed that he had Ivey's permission, before writing the blog.Just another example of the mis-communication over this whole thing.

[nutzbuster 7]

This is quite interesting. It's a quote from a post by Barry Greenstein on the Hendonmob forum:5. I meant I was not brought to the meeting in Monte Carlo to fight Phil's battles. My previous long post was in response to Ram's. Phil had no part in me posting. When I told him I was going to write something, he said he was afraid I would screw things up, and make it harder for him to collect his money. He didn't know about Daniel's post beforehand. I was the one who told him about it. Some of Daniel's analogies may have been better chosen if Phil was involved.So... Phil apparently didn't know about Daniel's blog? Hmmmm.. someone's not telling someone the truth, either way, as DN has stressed that he had Ivey's permission, before writing the blog.Just another example of the mis-communication over this whole thing.

To be fair, maybe Phil didn't know EXACTLY all the details of what Daniel would say....but I'm gonna bet there is no way that Daniel would have made that blog without Phil knowing in advance. No way. What Barry was probably saying here is that he was telling Phil what Daniel ultimately wrote in the blog, because Phil probably hadn't read Daniels blog yet?I seriously doubt Daniel would risk his reputation and friendship with Phil by writing about all this without discussing it first with Phil.

[ftxxpower 0]

I have read, re-read, analyzed everything over and over from both sides(that I know about). So, my conclusion is only based on the information provided to the public. What was Ram expecting Mr. Ivey to shoot? It seems his scores are consistent with his ability. I've concluded that Ram thought he had a signifigant edge on particular said course, that's why he continued to play(if he thought things werent right). But that's just me reaching. Reaching, for a way to make Ram's side on this be of pure-hearted innocence. But, the fact of the matter, the pill that is hard to swallow, is that is not correct. Phil Ivey has done nothing wrong in this matter whatsoever. He can only be faulted for having such loyal friends. So much so, that they are coming to defend his honor and his collection of a wager. Because the amount of figures involved in this wager are so large, it's human nature to look for a cop-out. You have to look for a way to get out of a big loss, or you wouldnt be the caliber of player you are on the felt, let alone the golf course.It appears to me Mr. Ivey's game improved on recovery and the putting green. how else could you shoot what you are suppose to shoot(mid-90's) and still have the opposition in an uproar that they arent winning? The bets continued to press and press and Ram was picking up the slack on others involved, just to keep the match afloat. To conclude, it doesnt matter what the intentions of said parties involved were. A bet is a bet, a wager is a wager. You take your wins, you take your losses. If you cant handle the pressure, or your bankroll cant handle this kind of hit, you have no business playing above your head. That is no excuse to try and get out of paying a debt. Phil Ivey won fair and square, as fair and square as you can in a gamble. If you take sheltered Amy off the street who has never touched a basketball in her life and you have a freethrow shoot out, best of 10. if she completely misses the rim on the first two, but then makes seven in a row, do you cop out of a bet? do you cop out because you thought you were better, because you think you are suppose to win? Phil Ivey is a competitive person. He HAS to be, for the majority of the poker world to herald him as one of the most well-rounded players in the game. It doesnt matter if its cards, golf, racing, or tictacphuckingtoe, it doenst matter what the experience level is, or what you think should happen. Once a bet is in place for an event between two people, past means nothing. You live in the now. On that particular day, Mr. Ivey shot what he was suppose to, but buckled down, and came through on clutch shots. That's the unexplainable attribute involved with a person's drive.If you are in a pool game. and your opponent knows you have a tough time keeping your cue ball control for more then 3 consecutive shots, and on that paricular day, you buckled down and kept the match in your favor with precise defensive shots, and low percentage shots open for your opponent, does a bet become void? Is a bet null, because an aspect of your game came through that the opposition didnt expect? Hell no. You found a way to win. You played your game. Doesnt matter what the past represented. The now is the now. Doesnt matter if you went from playing for 50 bucks a rack, to 5,000 a rack. You are responsible for all wagers you partake in.You pay the man, you pay Mr. Ivey what he has due to him fair and square, whether you like it or not. There are no excuses, it doesnt matter what the conditions were, it doesnt matter what you expect of an opponent. If you cant handle it, quit gambling. It doesnt even matter what intel the public doesnt know about. As soon as you continue to play when you are off your game, or the opponent is definitely not off his, you be the man and pay. You didnt minimize your losses and you want a friend get out of jail free card. because you think it was "friendly", doubling the stakes to try and get even, doesnt count unless it makes you even...Learn life.

Azwethinkweiz, you analogy is flawed. It's more like, you see a little girl and she tells you that she hasn't played basketball or that she shoots 10% from the free throw line. And you tell her that you shoot 20% from the free throw line. So you guys decided to make a wager, out of 100 shots. You give her 10 shots advantage, but it turns out that you made 20 shots out of 100 and she made 90 out of 100. You realized that you have been conned, cause shooting 90% is nearly impossible. Maybe it is possible for her to shoot 15% - 20% on a good day, but 90%? This is similar to the Ivey - Ram situtation. Another thing, if you get conned and you actually pay for it, then it makes you twice as dumb. I don't think ANYONE would pay if they knowingly got hustled despite what all these people like to say.

[Naismith 0]

Azwethinkweiz, you analogy is flawed. It's more like, you see a little girl and she tells you that she hasn't played basketball or that she shoots 10% from the free throw line. And you tell her that you shoot 20% from the free throw line. So you guys decided to make a wager, out of 100 shots. You give her 10 shots advantage, but it turns out that you made 20 shots out of 100 and she made 90 out of 100. You realized that you have been conned, cause shooting 90% is nearly impossible. Maybe it is possible for her to shoot 15% - 20% on a good day, but 90%? This is similar to the Ivey - Ram situtation. Another thing, if you get conned and you actually pay for it, then it makes you twice as dumb. I don't think ANYONE would pay if they knowingly got hustled despite what all these people like to say.

This is probably the most preposterous analogy I have ever seen.Were this even in the realm of being an actually useful comparison, Ivey would've had to shoot like a 56.

[fatshaft 0]

Azwethinkweiz, you analogy is flawed. It's more like, you see a little girl and she tells you that she hasn't played basketball or that she shoots 10% from the free throw line. And you tell her that you shoot 20% from the free throw line. So you guys decided to make a wager, out of 100 shots. You give her 10 shots advantage, but it turns out that you made 20 shots out of 100 and she made 90 out of 100. You realized that you have been conned, cause shooting 90% is nearly impossible. Maybe it is possible for her to shoot 15% - 20% on a good day, but 90%? This is similar to the Ivey - Ram situtation. Another thing, if you get conned and you actually pay for it, then it makes you twice as dumb. I don't think ANYONE would pay if they knowingly got hustled despite what all these people like to say.

This is a really bad counter-analogy. First of all, to compare by Ram/Marc's story, then the girl would have shot around 20 as well, rather than the expected 10. I agree with the asking the girl bit, but even here Ram and Marc's story diverge somewhat, in that Marc claims it was asked pre-round, Ram claims mid-round.Now we are lead to believe that Ivey usually shoots around 90ish, and judging by the initial reports he shot in the 70's. This would fit your analogy somewhat, but we are now hearing he still shot around 90, and it was actually Ram that was playing poorly. If so, as I said above, the dramatically changes the whole story for me.

[James D 0]

This would fit your analogy somewhat, but we are now hearing he still shot around 90, and it was actually Ram that was playing poorly. If so, as I said above, the dramatically changes the whole story for me.

It has emerged (from Barry Greenstein), that Phil shot a 13 on one par 3. I assume they were playing per hole, and not on their overall score (correct me if I'm wrong, please). Therefore this would slightly 'mask' his score/level of play.Just letting you guys know, if you didn't know that detail.

[LITTLEPOPPA 0]

does anyone consider that mabye phil didnt shoot better because he didnt have to ? He put up the score he needed to win...but dont give him redit for "just" shooting in the 90's

[fatshaft 0]

does anyone consider that mabye phil didnt shoot better because he didnt have to ? He put up the score he needed to win...but dont give him redit for "just" shooting in the 90's

no, he's hardly sandbagging if he's won over a $million

[fatshaft 0]

It has emerged (from Barry Greenstein), that Phil shot a 13 on one par 3. I assume they were playing per hole, and not on their overall score (correct me if I'm wrong, please). Therefore this would slightly 'mask' his score/level of play.Just letting you guys know, if you didn't know that detail.

Very true

[almostharmless 0]

>In the States 'hustling' is considered respectable. >In England 'hustling' is considered cheating. You are basically conning someone out of their money by some underhanded means. >All the old Texans where hustlers and made their money by hook or crook. Look at Amerillo Slim, one of the biggest Hustlers in American history.I don't know what happened; Ram's story sounds plausible, but I'm in no position to decide and I doubt that any of the principals would give a rat's patoot about my opinion on the matter one way or the other.That said, as to the above quote, there's a difference, IMHO. You hustle strangers -- and know in advance where the escape routes are. You don't hustle friends, for the simple reason there are no escape routes.

[Miguel McHarris 0]

Certain individuals would be more than willing to "fix" this problem for Phil, esp. considering the amount involved. Ram's lucky Phil is such a level headed guy and it's probably one of the reasons he refused to pay.

[Balloon guy 158]

does anyone consider that mabye phil didnt shoot better because he didnt have to ? He put up the score he needed to win...but dont give him redit for "just" shooting in the 90's

so he 9 putted to keep Ram in the game?If he can shoot a convincing 13 on a par 3, then he is -5 handicap and should have played the Masters.Only way this happens is if he throws 2 in the water, knocks the next one OOB, putts off the green into the sand and take 2 stroke to get out of the sand before he 3 putts.All while Ram throws 2 in the water, knocks one OOB, putts off the green into the sand, takes 2 strokes to get out, and 4 putts.Nothing suspicios about that. No wonder Ram didn't know Phil was being coached for the last 4 months.

[El Guapo 8]

There is something to be learned by being hustled. My Freshman football coach was also my freshman science teacher. He would make bets with us all the time for random duties in the class room or at football practice, but he almost always had an advantage until we figured out what it was. Here are two examples. After practice we would have our punter "kick" against him for less or extra running. After the first few times of him drop kicking and rolling a 70 yard kick we learned that we cannot win that game and defined what punting was.In the classroom he would bet us for sodas, the first time I won we bet a coke on a coin flip. I won, he handed me an empty can of coke, I did not specify. The next time we bet I said if I flip tails you will take $.50 of your own money, walk to the soda machine imediately and purchase me the soda of my choice and then give it to me right afterward. I won and he complied with the stipulations of the bet.Needless to say some of the most important life lessons I ever learned were 17 years ago by a hustling science teacher/football coach.

[akoff 0]

That kind of says it all...

[El Guapo 8]

Kinda interesting. I am watching the most recent rerun of HSP and they are talking about golf and Daniel is saying that the last 4 people he played against had the round of their lives. He wasn't calling them cheaters and I am sure he paid them assuming he lost. But it seems like he knew that they fudged their so called avg. round when figuring out strokes.Any coment on this Daniel. Since all of this crap has been slung, I was wondering if maybe you could give some real life examples (without throwing anyone under the bus) of Ivey/Ram sit that happened to you, where you paid, didn't ***** but were suspect to play the next time or got better info before the next match?

[ftxxpower 0]

This is a really bad counter-analogy. First of all, to compare by Ram/Marc's story, then the girl would have shot around 20 as well, rather than the expected 10. I agree with the asking the girl bit, but even here Ram and Marc's story diverge somewhat, in that Marc claims it was asked pre-round, Ram claims mid-round.Now we are lead to believe that Ivey usually shoots around 90ish, and judging by the initial reports he shot in the 70's. This would fit your analogy somewhat, but we are now hearing he still shot around 90, and it was actually Ram that was playing poorly. If so, as I said above, the dramatically changes the whole story for me.

I was just making up numbers as I actually did not work out the math. But, what I meant by that post was that since Ram claimed he lost by over 100 shots and that all three combined to lose over $1.8 million, then I figured that my numbers aren't that far off.