Rams Reply

[Rodney21a 1]

I feel like a dog chasing my tail here. Hustling is cheating so no cash is that clear? Reading previous posts saying same would have saved you some time posting.

I posted the "rules" and Ivey didn't break any. Ram is a loosing gambling dog. Like many, he is always mismanaging his bankroll and stuck for hundreds of thousands. If Ivey is guilty of anything, its preying on such an easy sucker or MARK. Hay, he will probably get out of not paying Ivey because Ivey won't have him killed or broken. Maybe Phil wants it happen but he CANT do it. Some OTHER guy will get stuck by RAM and PRESTO...no more RAM.

[Zebediah 0]

It's amazing to me that people are trying to argue about the "handicaps" as if they were analogous to an established handicap for an established golf league. That's clearly not what's going on here. This is clearly a situation where a temporary handicap substitute (giving someone x number of strokes vs. another) is negotiated prior to playing, agreed upon by both players, with no riders or attachments. To claim that this agreement is "invalid" because one player lied in that negotiation process is simply ludicrous. By this sort of definition, any time you lost a bet you could claim that the handicap was invalid, since, by definition, your opponent overplayed his expectation. IF these guys had have been playing with a pre-established, mathematically-determined handicap, and Phil had lied on the stats that determined that handicap, then Ram might have a valid argument, because that would void the contract. But to whine as he does about somebody lying during a process of negotiation shows an astounding naivete of the negotiation process, particularly for someone presumably accustomed to dealing with enormous sums of money.Is Ivey a bit of a prick for utilizing his friendship with Ram to capitalize on that naivite? Absolutely. And I fully acknowledge that I really have no real knowledge of the world that these guys live in, where $10k bets on a hole can possibly be considered "too small". But I do know that when a meaningful amount of money is involved to the parties involved, there are no friends. Just as I wouldn't expect top players who also happen to be friends to soft-play each other at the final table of the WSOP, I wouldn't expect negotiations for betting on golf for obscene (to my eyes) amounts of money to be "friendly". In order for these guys to do what they do, they have to be exceedingly skilled at separating their friendships from their financial opponents, even when it's the same people in both categories. I would venture a guess that that seems to be something that Ram is not particularly skilled at, and I fear that that is going to leave him open to being manipulated as he was here.Indulge me an anecdote with different 0's at the end. I occasionally bet on disc golf with my friends. We generally play for $5 a hole, not a meaningful amount for us. We're all fairly even, but when one of us has developed an advantage, we will negotiate a small temporary handicap. We had a new player come in and hustle us; he joined in for $5 a hole at our baseline handicap, he soft-played and we wound up close to even. He then wanted to play a second round, this time for $10 a hole, and said he'd even give anyone an extra stroke. That set off my alarm bells, but I also figured that this guy probably wasn't THAT much better than me, and so I agreed (I was the only one). $10 isn't a meaningful amount for me. And so he turned it up, and revealed on the first hole that he was a very good player, and managed to take 10 of 15 holes from me with spotting me one throw. I owed him $50, and said, "well, jackass, I hope this was worth it because you're not welcome back here", but then I paid him his money. I was the sucker here, and acknowledge it, but I was willing to pay to see his hand, so to speak, because it wasn't all that much money.Had he tried to push it to $100 a hole (a meaningful amount), I would have told him to do several things that are anatomically impossible and walked away. That's the difference between a meaningful amount of money and a trivial amount, and that's what Ram should have done here.IANAL but I pretty strongly feel that no arbitrator in the world would rule in Ram's favor here. Phil and Ram were obviously playing a game where the rules were determined by a negotiation prior to the game, with no specific stipulation on whether the information offered in those negotations was truthful (this is a weak arrangement, and I find it astonishing that these guys apparently have no system for an official handicapping process based on official records of their matches with this sort of $$ at stake).DN's posts on the subject have been quite unnecessarily hyperbolic and over-the-top, in my opinion, but that doesn't make him wrong. Ram owes money that he doesn't want to pay because he wrongly expected the truth to be told in a negotiation where massive amounts of money was at stake.And watching people try to wax knowledgeable on the cultural differences between Brits and Yanks in this thread has been somewhat akin to watching a 5th grader try to understand Shakespeare: just painful.

Hi (and yes I have followed a link from the hendon mob).Read this thread with interest and think this is by far and away the best post I have read.Only change I would make on your golf hustle experience is what if it was one of the regular players that managed to stick you for a large sum, and not a newbie for a small amount?One general question I do have...doesn't the USA have a history of dealing out harsh vigilante punishment on hustlers?i.e. pool hustlers with broken fingers.Or do hustlers victims across the US accept they were just out thought?Also a question for DN...you say Phil shot in the nineties and Ram shot around 110?Is this really a fact? As wasn't it Phil who was getting shots from Ram? I think the hustle would have been discovered within the first round if this was the case.If this is true then I agree with the poster above, Phil is a lowlife but should be paid.The one thing I dislike about this thread is DN providing "facts" from Phil.Ram has stated his side in black and white, this will be held against his rep if proved wrong.Phil is getting DN to state his side, but he can then deny saying anything proved wrong later on as "he" didn't say it. This feels unfair.It would be nice to hear Phil state what happened himself as Ram has done. i.e.Ram has stated that he and Phil have won and lost both ways with him $34,000 up (small potatoes to them).DN says a different amount, come on Phil, you tell us how much you have lost to Ram prior to this game.Phil is it true that the arbitrators (inc B Greenstein who is a great choice) tried to arrange a new result from the match with handicapping closer to what you should have had?I think my thought on this is down to what spirit these games are played in, I was initially behind Ram as I saw this a time out recreation with mates from the poker with a bit of cash on the side to make it interesting.You don't expect to be hustled by a friend in a sociable game, but many people are stating this was pure gambling between them.But lets wait for the whole facts to come out.

[Andr4w 0]

I posted the "rules" and Ivey didn't break any. Ram is a loosing gambling dog. Like many, he is always mismanaging his bankroll and stuck for hundreds of thousands. If Ivey is guilty of anything, its preying on such an easy sucker or MARK. Hay, he will probably get out of not paying Ivey because Ivey won't have him killed or broken. Maybe Phil wants it happen but he CANT do it. Some OTHER guy will get stuck by RAM and PRESTO...no more RAM.

I refer to my previous answer and the most fundamental rule.The rule about not f-u-c-k-ing your mates over by lying. Its one of those rules thats so fundamental for 99.9% of the population it goes as unspoken, but clealy not in Ivey's case.Should I add you to the scumbag group then?

[fiezk 0]

I think a fair abitrator will be needed to resolve this dispute. The UK vs US cultures differ too much to trust either party. Let a good old Canadian listen in and make a decision, then we can all get along again.

I think it's more of a gambler versus golfer culture.

I think Ivey abused of an unspoken trust these guy had between each other, and that is pretty low. The mob has to pay up tho, they got angleded at best but not cheated.

I agree completely with this, solely based on the mobs side of the story. The only real issue here, as I see it, is how much of an ******* Ivey was. That's impossible to tell since both sides have a different view of what happened.

[Rodney21a 1]

I refer to my previous answer and the most fundamental rule.The rule about not f-u-c-k-ing your mates over by lying. Its one of those rules thats so fundamental for 99.9% of the population it goes as unspoken, but clealy not in Ivey's case.Should I add you to the scumbag group then?

Is that what the Crown is doing by withdrawing troops from the Middle East Conflicts? Not "****ing over your mates". Again. Ram is a poor gambler. Its a known fact. He is a sucker. He is a welcher. He will get his in the future.

[Zeatrix 0]

I think it's utterly ridiculous to bet on golf. Everyone knows that god decides everything, so why gamble on something that is predetermined. Right, louismustdie?

[fatshaft 0]

To be honest with you I feel no sympathy for them, especially after they are not only painting the picture that Ivey cheated, that in fact, they are claiming that they don't have to pay because Ivey, in fact, cheated. Ivey didn't cheat, he beat them fair and square.

Clearly John Juanda, who was in Melbourne at the time, doesn't agree with you here.

[Andr4w 0]

Is that what the Crown is doing by withdrawing troops from the Middle East Conflicts? Not "****ing over your mates". Again. Ram is a poor gambler. Its a known fact. He is a sucker. He is a welcher. He will get his in the future.

LOL if your going to make analogies make sure they are true donkey. Not that its relevant in the least but the troop issue is agreed from your side.More importantly, I can see your a man of integrity when it comes to cheating. Bet you don't have many friends if that is how you would treat them.

[fatshaft 0]

...and in my neighborhood failure to pay a fair gambling wager would result in far worse...

fair eh? clearly your definition of fair is as dodgy as Ivey's!

[Rodney21a 1]

LOL if your going to make analogies make sure they are true donkey. Not that its relevant in the least but the troop issue is agreed from your side.More importantly, I can see your a man of integrity when it comes to cheating. Bet you don't have many friends if that is how you would treat them.

Are they "friends"? One lives in Las Vegas the other lives in Dumpy ol' England. Land of bad teeth and bad gamblers. They are professional gambling acquaintances and ONE got the BETTER of the OTHER. Boy. Your DENSE. As for the Troops? Well, England has lost its "resolve" and are withdrawing. Your Prime Minister is stepping down because of the debacle. As our "mate", shouldn't you stay until the END? In for a penny, In for a pound. Everybody KNOWS all the tough ENGLISH were shipped off to Australia any way. That Nutty Priminister their is actually ESCALATING their commitment. Aussie Aussie Aussie. OY OY OY. I bet Joe Hachem wouldn't have welched. I think and Aussie or and American would have paid the money and broken Phil's head with a sand Wedge. He would have PAID the MONEY.

[Andr4w 0]

Are they "friends"? One lives in Las Vegas the other lives in Dumpy ol' England. Land of bad teeth and bad gamblers. They are professional gambling acquaintances and ONE got the BETTER of the OTHER. Boy. Your DENSE. As for the Troops? Well, England has lost its "resolve" and are withdrawing. Your Prime Minister is stepping down because of the debacle. As our "mate", shouldn't you stay until the END? In for a penny, In for a pound. Everybody KNOWS all the tough ENGLISH were shipped of to Australia any way. That Nutty Priminister their is actually ESCALATING their commitment. Aussie Aussie Aussie. OY OY OY. I bet Joe Hachem wouldn't have welched. I think and Aussie or and American would have paid the money and broken Phil's head with a sand Wedge. He would have PAID the MONEY.

LOL you have no clue. I'll reply to the next relevant worthwhile poster who knows what he's talking about.

[James D 0]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This guy's pretty dumb. That's all I've got to say really.edit - the arrows were supposed to be pointing to Rodney. Andr4w got in there too quick.

[fatshaft 0]

LOL you have no clue. I'll reply to the next relevant worthwhile poster who knows what he's talking about.

seconded

[Rodney21a 1]

LOL you have no clue. I'll reply to the next relevant worthwhile poster who knows what he's talking about.

Sure, you ENGLISH have a very superior View of yourselves and your country don't you?. What ever? I don't care if I'm not judged "worthy" by a wort like you and those who agree with you. English have a lot to learn about MANHOOD anyway. The ENGLISH are WHATS WRONG WITH THE WORLD. Lets see. Suppressed all of India for years. Arbitrarily carved up Africa and we can see the consequences of that. Tried to control the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Bravo!. DON'T WANT TO PAY GAMBLING DEBTS.

[Zebediah 0]

I suppose you wish we left america to the french as well then?Ignore this, no point in any discussion with you I fear.

[Triangle 0]

I don't think many will argue that this matter has done little for the reputations of all involved - Ivey being branded a cheat and liar, Ram being branded a welcher. Its a sad state of affairs that should have been settled out of forum. Neither Ram or Ivey wanted things to deteriorate level I'm sure.Everyone had their 2 cents/pennies worth and although I'd like to see this matter settled amicably I fear the argument will rage on and deteriorate further, doing little for non poker players perception for the game as a whole.This weekend heralds UFC 70 "Nations Collide" over here in Manchester - a missed opportunity for Ivey and Ram to settle this matter in the octagon. - a welcome addition to an already impressive card.I'll be there and am excited to say the least. Anyone else fancying the underdog Gabriel Gonzaga to submit Cro Cop? I have a 50 sheets on him at 6-1... watch this space.

[Moneyball16 0]

Im not on either side of the argument here, but this is golden. Brings me back to all the photoshop in the Brandi thread on 2+2.

[Rodney21a 1]

I suppose you wish we left america to the french as well then?

Nope. I prefer to think the begging of the Plague of the ENGLISH as starting with the Defeat of the Spanish Armada. Been all Down Hill ever since.

[fatshaft 0]

English?

[Rodney21a 1]

English?

I'm assuming you can read and comprehend what you read so here.ENGLISHThe English are an ethnic group and nation primarily associated with England and the English language. They are native to the country of England. The largest single population of English people reside in England, the largest constituent country of the United Kingdom.[6]Contents[hide] * 1 Origins o 1.1 Danish - Viking influence o 1.2 Unifying into a people o 1.3 Recent contributions * 2 Geographic distribution * 3 Culture o 3.1 Contribution to humanity o 3.2 Language o 3.3 Religion o 3.4 Sports o 3.5 Symbols * 4 Identity * 5 References * 6 See also * 7 External links[edit] Origins Further information: Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland, Anglo Saxons, Ancient Britons, Romano-Britons, Vikings, Danelaw, Normans, Sub-Roman Britain, Immigration to the United Kingdom (until 1922)The English as an ethnic group trace their heritage largely to the Anglo-Saxons,[7] the Romano-Britons,[8] the Danish-Vikings[9] that formed the Danelaw during the time of Alfred the Great, and the Normans.[10][11] The name of England derives from the Angles. Anglo-Saxon is a collective term usually used to describe the Germanic population (and assimilated natives) living in the south and east of the island of Great Britain (modern England) from around the mid-5th century AD to the Norman conquest of 1066.[12] It was once generally believed that a mass invasion by various Anglo-Saxon tribes largely displaced the native British populations.[13] Some archaeologists however see only limited evidence of immigration in the record. Francis Pryor states "I also can't see any evidence for bona fide mass migrations after the Neolithic."[14] Germanic immigrants and Roman auxiliary troops may have settled in Britain long before the departure of the legions; indeed German auxiliary troops may even have been involved in the Roman invasion of the island in the 1st century A.D.[15] This same process occurred in many other provinces along the Roman border with the Germani. There is no reason to assume that the process of immigration was any different to other Roman provinces, in which case there may have been a Germanic influence on indigenous culture and language long before Roman legionaries left the island.[15]Archeological discoveries suggest that North Africans may have had a very limited presence in those parts of Britain that were to become England at the time of the Roman Empire.[16][17][edit] Danish - Viking influence Further information: Danelaw, Treaty of Wedmore, Treaty of Alfred and GuthrumBy the time of the first Viking attacks around 800 CE, the numerous petty kingdoms in south and east Britain had coalesced into what is commonly referred to as the Heptarchy. The most powerful of these at this time were Mercia and Wessex. The increasing pressure of Viking attack led to more cooperation between Wessex and Mercia; most notably, this period saw the rise of Alfred the Great, the only English born King of England to be titled 'the great'.Alfred defeated a Danish army at the Battle of Edington in 878, coming to terms with the Danish leader Guthrum. After the Battle of Edington, Alfred negotiated the Danelaw with the Danes, resulting in a settlement of Danish-Vikings in northern and eastern England.[18] The influence on the English language by Danes, particularly in the former Danelaw, is most pronounced in places like York, formerly the settlement of Jorvik, although Jorvik is derived from the Old English Eoforwīc and in turn possibly from the Brythonic name Eborakon which was a settlement long before the Danes.[19] These groups had a noticeable impact on the English language; for example, the modern meaning of the word dream is of Old Norse origin.[20] Additionally place names that include thwaite and by are Scandinavian in origin.[21]Southern Great Britain in AD 600 after the Saxon settlementSouthern Great Britain in AD 600 after the Saxon settlement[edit] Unifying into a peopleFollowing Alfred's victory, his son Edward the Elder, daughter Æthelflæd lady of the Mercians and grandson Athelstan gained significant military success, incorporating much of the Danelaw into the nascent kingdom of England. The nation of England was initially formed in 937 by Athelstan of Wessex after the Battle of Brunanburh.[22][23] Therefore Wessex had grown from a relatively small kingdom in the South West to become the founder of the Kingdom of the English, incorporating all Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and the Danelaw.[24] Over the following century and a half England was for the most part a politically unified entity, and remained permanently so after 959. There were both English and Danish kings during this period, including Aethelraed Unraed (sometimes referred to as Ethelred the Unready) and Canute the Great.The Norman Conquest of 1066 brought Anglo-Saxon and Danish rule to an end, and began a diminished period, both culturally and socially, for the native inhabitants. The new Norman elite almost universally replaced the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy and church leaders. The Anglo-Saxons existed as a subject class for about 300 years with the aristocracy speaking Anglo-Norman until a full assimilation was made by the time of Chaucer, in the late 1300s. By this time a large number of French words had been added to the English language. Although few Normans actually settled in England, they made great impacts on the culture, government, and law of England.[24] However, most of the English nobility and upper classes are descended from the Normans.The English lineage with the dutch is why they, The Dutch, Helped them defeat the Spanish Armada. This lead to the English thinking themselves superior to all others.IDIOTS.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I feel like a dog chasing my tail here. Hustling is cheating so no cash is that clear? Reading previous posts saying same would have saved you some time posting.

...and again one of The Mob calls Ivey a "cheater"......and again I ask: "What rule of Golf did Ivey break?"...still waiting...

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Clearly John Juanda, who was in Melbourne at the time, doesn't agree with you here.

Spoken with Juanda lately have you?

[Andr4w 0]

...and again one of The Mob calls Ivey a "cheater"......and again I ask: "What rule of Golf did Ivey break?"...still waiting...

Already posted, I'll repeat for you-I refer to my previous answer and the most fundamental rule.The rule about not f-u-c-k-ing your mates over by lying. Its one of those rules thats so fundamental for 99.9% of the population it goes as unspoken, but clealy not in Ivey's caseAnd I don't post on THM by the way.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Already posted, I'll repeat for you-I refer to my previous answer and the most fundamental rule.The rule about not f-u-c-k-ing your mates over by lying. Its one of those rules thats so fundamental for 99.9% of the population it goes as unspoken, but clealy not in Ivey's caseAnd I don't post on THM by the way.

...and yet again, I'll take that as another vote for "No Rule Broken"...thanks again for playing......I got your nose.

[Andr4w 0]

...and yet again, I'll take that as another vote for "No Rule Broken"...thanks again for playing.

Nope don't agree. So your another person who has no friends because youve ****ed them all over.No morals you lot, tut tut. You should be ashamed of yourselves.