Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Funny how little the outside world understands the gambler’s world and the gambling mentality? The World Series of Golf is going to be an interesting example. After the last practice round at Primm I was helping the organizers with some of the rules. My intention was to close some of the opportunities for players to take “shots”, ploys that would be unethical in a strict golf setting but would fall within their rules. Tom Meeks, recently retired as the USGA’s lead rules official and head rules guy for the WSOG, replied to one of my suggestions that ‘I don’t think anybody is going to do that! I would hope that players will adhere to the golfer’s code of honor.’ I replied, “This is a gambling tournament. Players are putting up a lot of their own money and will play to win within the rules. If you expect them to adopt the ethics of pro golfers you’re going to be disappointed.” This relates directly o the Ivey-Vaswani incident. The outcry over Phil’s actions, whatever they may have been in reality, demarcates the line between those who understand the ways of the gambler and those who don’t. People who aren’t hardcore gamblers and live by golf’s honor code are aghast at the implications of Phil’s actions, think he cheated and think Ram has every right to not pay. Real gamblers find Ram’s protestations rather amusing. I’m sure somewhere Johnny Moss and Puggy Pearson are having a good chuckle at all of this. He got beat at the most important part of the game, the negotiation, and is crying foul to avoid paying. This is unacceptable to the gambler. Had Phil actually cheated it would be a different story.The problem I have with this is that Vaswani isn’t from the outside world. He’s a professional gambler and has been for a long time. This wasn’t a friendly golf match. It was a high-stakes gambling game. If Ram doesn’t understand the ways of the gambling world by now he needs to find a new profession, regardless of how good a card player he might be. Or, he should stick to cards and stay out of the other gambling arenas. I’m not saying the gamblers world is pretty. There are lots of things that non-gamblers find distasteful, and they have a good case. However, it is what it is and it’s probably not going to change any time soon. I think this incident has opened a lot of eyes. Many of today’s successful poker players are internet-spawned, learned in isolation and have little understanding of the other aspects of the gambling world. The fact that this incident has generated such interest illustrates this. The good news is that a lot of light has been shed and lessons have been learned.
Wow. Very interesting perspective Blair. An enlightening angle to view this from and I think you hit the nail on the head here.Most of our "outsider" opinions are indeed from a non gambling perspective. But however unsavory some of this may seem to us, one thing is still clear to me....Pay the man Ram!
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 420
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This whole thing is so freakin' ridiculous it amazes me. How anyone can back Ram's position I'll just never understand. So many posts claim that Ivey lied... who said Ivey lied??? It was none other than, Ram Vaswani. This guy is totally full of it and calling Ivey a cheater because he lost money to him is completely out of line. I don't believe Ivey lied at all. Again, even if he had, it wouldn't change the fact that he won the money FAIR AND SQUARE. I believe that Ram is either just flat out lying himself, or had too much novacaine in him to remember what happened. Yes, that's right. He came to the golf course from the dentist's office to play the "sucker" Ivey. Goodwin gloated in Poker Player magazine, basically admitting to "hustling" Ivey at golf, and Ram wouldn't let a silly dentist's appointment keep him from playing with "the sucker." These guys are so far out of line it's just scary. It's just laughable. They thought they had a live one, but sorry kids, the live one got better, tough luck! Also, Ivey DID tell them the following even before the round, "I can shoot good sometimes. I had a round recently where I shot a 37 on the front and a 55 on the back." That makes 92. Ivey never broke 90 during their matches!!! Ivey shot what he was supposed to shoot, but his opponents played ridiculously bad and lost. Rather than just pay, they started a whining campaign to try and convince people that they'd been cheated. Total garbage. There is no other side to this story. Ivey has done absolutely nothing wrong and should be paid all of the money. How sick is it that despite losing $230,000 combined to Ram and Marc, Ram wrote in his blog that he doesn't feel as though he should pay a penny! Not even the money he beat Phil out of???? That's crazy, is it not?
Really Daniel, the point is this...why on earth are you getting involved? Phil is a big boy who can look after himself.Your last two blogs on Phil Hellmuth and the gambling incident demonstrate a complete lack of judgement by you.Why slag off a fellow professional and get involved in an incident that is nothing to do with you?You claim you are a christian...well I'm not religious but I believe the bible says "those without sin cast the first stone.."You should really think hard about what you are trying to achieve with your blog.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, I agree they should play Ivey the money Ivey lost to them. Since, I am a solution oriented person, they pay Ivey $230,000 and move on with their lives. This way both parties win. Ivey wins by getting some money owed to him and Marc and Ram win by paying less money. "I don't believe Ivey lied at all. Again, even if he had, it wouldn't change the fact that he won the money FAIR AND SQUARE" -- that's a good line. Isn't lying = cheating = not fair? This is what is so great about the English language. Same words have different meanings to different people.
Ivey should be paid every single penny IMO. Hustle, cheated what ever you want to call it its a dumb arguement. Doyle Brunson talked about how the big game grew to playing so many variations of poker because they'd talk people into playing ie: hustling. "of triple draws your best game, I'm not all that good at it but we'll throw it in the mix." as everyone had pointed out countless time this is HIGH STAKES GAMBLING. There was no gun to anybodys head, and on more than one occassion Ram was given the chance to renegotiate the stakes and I would assume strokes etc. What ever it was ego or blatant stupidity continued to take the bad end of the negotiation. The fact that people continue to argue the validity of anything Ram has said is mind boggling. I had a home poker game two weeks ago where a friend of a friend showed up. As soon as I met this guy he asked if I ever played poker and I stated a little...now certainly I could've told him that I play hours everyday but I didn't see the point. We played three sng's and I didn't fair great. People started to mingle/leave etc and he and I were the only two who still wanted to play. We played heads up for three games and I beat him in all fairly quickly. After we stopped we got to talking abit about the game, he was asking me strat questions at that point I told him how much I played and how I learned etc at no point did he demand his money back nor did he accuse me of cheating and not one person who was there that night has accused me of any wrong doing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole thing is so freakin' ridiculous it amazes me. How anyone can back Ram's position I'll just never understand. So many posts claim that Ivey lied... who said Ivey lied??? It was none other than, Ram Vaswani. This guy is totally full of it and calling Ivey a cheater because he lost money to him is completely out of line. I don't believe Ivey lied at all. Again, even if he had, it wouldn't change the fact that he won the money FAIR AND SQUARE. I believe that Ram is either just flat out lying himself, or had too much novacaine in him to remember what happened. Yes, that's right. He came to the golf course from the dentist's office to play the "sucker" Ivey. Goodwin gloated in Poker Player magazine, basically admitting to "hustling" Ivey at golf, and Ram wouldn't let a silly dentist's appointment keep him from playing with "the sucker." These guys are so far out of line it's just scary. It's just laughable. They thought they had a live one, but sorry kids, the live one got better, tough luck! Also, Ivey DID tell them the following even before the round, "I can shoot good sometimes. I had a round recently where I shot a 37 on the front and a 55 on the back." That makes 92. Ivey never broke 90 during their matches!!! Ivey shot what he was supposed to shoot, but his opponents played ridiculously bad and lost. Rather than just pay, they started a whining campaign to try and convince people that they'd been cheated. Total garbage. There is no other side to this story. Ivey has done absolutely nothing wrong and should be paid all of the money. How sick is it that despite losing $230,000 combined to Ram and Marc, Ram wrote in his blog that he doesn't feel as though he should pay a penny! Not even the money he beat Phil out of???? That's crazy, is it not?
Daniel, you just might have something there with that Novocaine angle. I once had a horrible round after a root canal because my face was numb and I kept drooling on my ball. :club: PAY IVEY RAM!!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. Very interesting perspective Blair. An enlightening angle to view this from and I think you hit the nail on the head here.Most of our "outsider" opinions are indeed from a non gambling perspective. But however unsavory some of this may seem to us, one thing is still clear to me....Pay the man Ram!
His post alone is a peek at the inside world most of us don't understand and therefore shouldn't really judge.I'm Drunk !!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Really Daniel, the point is this...why on earth are you getting involved? Phil is a big boy who can look after himself.Your last two blogs on Phil Hellmuth and the gambling incident demonstrate a complete lack of judgement by you.Why slag off a fellow professional and get involved in an incident that is nothing to do with you?You claim you are a christian...well I'm not religious but I believe the bible says "those without sin cast the first stone.."You should really think hard about what you are trying to achieve with your blog.
Why on earth is he getting involved? Why on earth are you getting involved? His friend is having his name dragged through the mud in the poker media when by all accounts every big name gambler agrees with Ivey. To hold Ivey in a negative light publicly imo sets a negative cast on every high stakes player and all of them should be speaking out against this christain or not.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel,You can go on arguing the logic till your blue in the face. Ram and the Mob wrote their little blog bulletin with expressed intent of causing many of their loyal fans to come over to your Forum and start this little discussion. They have an opinion thats not going to change. What I read over and over again is the question of friendship. Many of them have said Phil and Ram were friends and you do not screw over your friends. Many of those same people want to know why your "defending" or "advocating" for Phil. I believe you and Phil are friends, you go out and socialize and live in the same town. Friends defend other friends. Can you tell me if Phil and Ram were friends or, as I believe, friendly professional acquaintances? Fellow PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS. Ram is known to be a guy who gambles, and looses, on ANYTHING. If Phil was guilty of anything he was guilty of taking advantage of a poor golfer who gambles. How many of the people flaming this thread would STOP playing against Ram if they were privileged enough to have been in the same situation. A guy is giving huge sums of money to you. I don't think Ram is going to pay Phil any money. I do think that Ram will get in the same situation with somebody else(he is a known mark now) and suffer the consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why on earth is he getting involved? Why on earth are you getting involved? His friend is having his name dragged through the mud in the poker media when by all accounts every big name gambler agrees with Ivey. To hold Ivey in a negative light publicly imo sets a negative cast on every high stakes player and all of them should be speaking out against this christain or not.
My point is that Daniel is clearly an intelligent guy who is well respected in the poker industry, who chooses to write a blog. I have enjoyed reading many of his blogs when he focuses on his his career as a poker pro giving excellent insight which is interesting and helpful to an amateur player like me who has played in 3 big events cashing in last years WSOP main event and a WPT event.I think he does himself a disservice by writing blogs that focus either on ridiculing a fellow pro (Phil Hellmuth which would not happen in any other industry) and getting involved in a private gambling matter (which you will note I make no comment on). I was simply trying to point out that Daniel just needs to decide what he is trying to achieve with his blog, and as I am a customer of his blog I am providing him some feedback that he may or may not choose to consider. I have never posted on a blog until a couple of days ago, but I really feel strongly that he is damaging his own credibility and reputation, something I am sure he would not wish to do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that Daniel is clearly an intelligent guy who is well respected in the poker industry, who chooses to write a blog. I have enjoyed reading many of his blogs when he focuses on his his career as a poker pro giving excellent insight which is interesting and helpful to an amateur player like me who has played in 3 big events cashing in last years WSOP main event and a WPT event.I think he does himself a disservice by writing blogs that focus either on ridiculing a fellow pro (Phil Hellmuth which would not happen in any other industry) and getting involved in a private gambling matter (which you will note I make no comment on). I was simply trying to point out that Daniel just needs to decide what he is trying to achieve with his blog, and as I am a customer of his blog I am providing him some feedback that he may or may not choose to consider. I have never posted on a blog until a couple of days ago, but I really feel strongly that he is damaging his own credibility and reputation, something I am sure he would not wish to do.
I see your point. The Hellmuth blog was purely a joke and was intended as such. Outside of that a blog is a place to express yourself, your thoughts and your opinions on things going on in and around your life. Surely reading through forums and other blogs where your friend is being tarnished would likely bring into the forefront of your thoughts. You state you are a customer of his blog however his blog is not a payed service its a way for him to share his life with others. To suggest he should limit his thoughts and the way he expresses them is like suggesting violent tv shows should be cancelled instead of people who don't like them changing the channel.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I see your point. The Hellmuth blog was purely a joke and was intended as such. Outside of that a blog is a place to express yourself, your thoughts and your opinions on things going on in and around your life. Surely reading through forums and other blogs where your friend is being tarnished would likely bring into the forefront of your thoughts. You state you are a customer of his blog however his blog is not a payed service its a way for him to share his life with others. To suggest he should limit his thoughts and the way he expresses them is like suggesting violent tv shows should be cancelled instead of people who don't like them changing the channel.
Well I'm all for free speech but we are customers (note the advertising on every page that DN gets revenue from).I just think he's made a misjudgement here getting involved in a pretty heated issue and approaching it in a rather one sided way (and again I make no judgement either way on the rights or wrongs of the situation).I still maintain DN would be better providing us with insight into his life as a pro rather than getting involved in such matters.Whilst you may think the hellmuth blog was a joke, i bet Phil was very offended (and again i'm not taking Phils side) simply that it was rather offensive and demonstrates a lack of maturity on DN's behalf. Another example of this was DN's commentary on Mike Matasow on high stakes poker which upset Mike greatly.The point I am trying to make is that I think Daniel is better than this and if he is really true to his values he should think carefully before writing future blogs.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that Daniel is clearly an intelligent guy who is well respected in the poker industry, who chooses to write a blog. I have enjoyed reading many of his blogs when he focuses on his his career as a poker pro giving excellent insight which is interesting and helpful to an amateur player like me who has played in 3 big events cashing in last years WSOP main event and a WPT event.I think he does himself a disservice by writing blogs that focus either on ridiculing a fellow pro (Phil Hellmuth which would not happen in any other industry) and getting involved in a private gambling matter (which you will note I make no comment on). I was simply trying to point out that Daniel just needs to decide what he is trying to achieve with his blog, and as I am a customer of his blog I am providing him some feedback that he may or may not choose to consider. I have never posted on a blog until a couple of days ago, but I really feel strongly that he is damaging his own credibility and reputation, something I am sure he would not wish to do.
Whether you (or anyone else) thinks that Daniel is right or wrong for sticking up for Phil is irrelevant.Daniel's got his friend's back here. That's what great friends do for each other.Thats as solid as it gets in my book.PAY IVEY RAM!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I'm all for free speech but we are customers (note the advertising on every page that DN gets revenue from).I just think he's made a misjudgement here getting involved in a pretty heated issue and approaching it in a rather one sided way (and again I make no judgement either way on the rights or wrongs of the situation).I still maintain DN would be better providing us with insight into his life as a pro rather than getting involved in such matters.Whilst you may think the hellmuth blog was a joke, i bet Phil was very offended (and again i'm not taking Phils side) simply that it was rather offensive and demonstrates a lack of maturity on DN's behalf. Another example of this was DN's commentary on Mike Matasow on high stakes poker which upset Mike greatly.The point I am trying to make is that I think Daniel is better than this and if he is really true to his values he should think carefully before writing future blogs.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion perhaps you should create a blog. I don't see a lot of advertising on this site so I still stand by the notion of not being a customer. It is a little prosterous for you to "bet Phil was offended" concerning the Hellmuth blog which was written on April fools day and blatantly a joke. Whether you agree with what he writes or not you have every choice to not read it. I find it a little laughable how every week people come out of nowhere to critique his blog and offer forms of censorship on an opinion based outlet.edit: this needs to get back on topic. Ram is a welcher!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well - maybe not. After reading all this on both sites - here's a thought:What if no one did anything wrong?What if there are no bad guys, no "right" and this is just a good example of how wars start?This is what I believe really happened: it was a culture clash. It's like the day I sat down at a newly opened table at the casino and a guy I never saw before sits down next to me and says he is there on vacation and maybe I can explain to him how the game is played. So, I might look like I just fell off the turnip truck, but I didn't get hit in the head with the turnips. I say, "So, you've been playing since what? You were twelve or so?" His wife who is right there cracks up and makes a comment about how I have his number. I think this is what happened with the Ivey-Ram debacle.See, people like Daniel and Ivey "grew up" in a gambling/poker culture - lying is the game, the manipulation, the bluff, the intimidation or deceit, all things frowned upon in polite society. We reward and admire that in our gamblers and try to emulate it if we can. It's what the game really is after all, a con game that uses cards as a prop. But poker is not golf. And when poker players who basically only have other poker players for friends start playing golf, they play with one another and they play the same way: con game with club and ball.But that isn't the way the rest of the world plays golf - the world outside of Las Vegas and immediate environs. Especially for the British - where golf is practically an ancient tradition.I think when Phil heard Ram say he hadn't been playing much and his handicap should be adjusted, in Phil's mind Ram was just lying - just playing the game as Phil understands it - I don't think he thought Ram was doing a bad thing - it was just the kind of jousting he is used to in gambling games. So, of course, he rersponded in kind. "Oh yeah, I haven't been playing either..." Not a lie in Ivey's eyes - just strategy. But Ram was quite serious - stating something honestly as they tried to arrange their handicaps - because for him it was not gambling with clubs and balls as props - it was golf played by certain standards in which there is some wagering onthe holes. It was a gentlemen's agreement - no need for spelling it all out - everyone who plays golf (in his culture) understands this - they try to make it as even as possible prematch - it's supposed to be that way. Not for the American poker player who believes all games are wagering games and the point is to amass any advantage any way possible.I believe both sides in this issue simply assumed a reality that only existed for themselves and then, when it was over, wish to insist the other side accept their version of reality. No one is lying, everyone thinks they are the victim and both are as wrong as they are right - which means neither. Again, this whole thing should never have become public, it is no one's business but theirs. But since it is: if the two sides will agree to binding arbitration, find a cultural anthropologist and a family court judge from Australia to decide the issue and when they come to a decision that neither side likes - we'll know it was the correct call. As for Daniel's comments over all, I disagree, coming from a family that played as much golf as you do poker, that "high stakes" golfers would agree with Ivey. What golfers would those be? Tiger? Phil? Veejay? If you mean Las Vegas gamblers who play golf, I'm sure you are correct. But this isn't the way golf is played - not in the world outside your sub-culture. Of course, my family is also something of a sub-culture, so perhaps I am mistaken and I can't imagine the aforementioned superstars of golf touching this issue with an Oveglove on a twenty-foot putter.
Tremendous post 11 to 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no enforcement mechanism here.Ram won't pay and that's that. Why? Because he feels he was conned (or hustled if you prefer that term - same thing). If you feel you've been cheated and pay up anyway you are a MAJOR SUCKER (unless there are severe penalties for not paying such as violence or jail time). Frankly, I don't understand how people can say in the same breath: 1) Ivey hustled Ram and 2) Ram should pay up. A good con must remain undetected until the mark pays you off; no one expects a mark to pay if they discover they've been conned before the money changes hands.Daniel at least is consistent in implying that Ivey is totally innocent in all this. Deluded, but consistent nonetheless. He's been a friend of Ivey's for a number of years, so he has zero credibility as an unbiased observer in this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that is the main point. A close second is the fact that lying about your hcp/abilility in golf is seen as serious cheating on this side of the atlantic.It's also seen as serious cheating from where I sit - and that is in Toronto, Canada. Mr. Negreanu also sees it as cheating, and I know this because he wrote a blog about it last year, about a guy who misrepresents his golf abilities in order to get overwhelmingly favourable odds. And he didn't write that blog implying he condoned it - quite the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for the American poker player who believes all games are wagering games and the point is to amass any advantage any way possible.I have to say you are totally full of it.If I'm playing poker with you and Imake a huge overbet on the river. Then, while, you are considering calling, I pull out a loaded gun and say "I would fold if I were you". This must be permissable, after all, I'm just trying to amass any advantage any way possible (those are your words). And pulling out a gun puts a little bit of extra pressure on my opponent, doesn't it.It would be a huge overgeneralization to say that American poker players seek every edge.In this case, when wagering on golf between friends, I would think it is obvious that setting a "fair" handicap is a rule of the game. Sometimes, unintentionally, a handicap is set that is not fair to one side or another. That happens.But it is a different story if one side misleads the other side with the express purpose of setting up an unfair handicap. If that is what happened here (and I think that the overwhelming evidence suggests that it has), then the rules of the wager were broken from the outset.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think that is the main point. A close second is the fact that lying about your hcp/abilility in golf is seen as serious cheating on this side of the atlantic.It's also seen as serious cheating from where I sit - and that is in Toronto, Canada. Mr. Negreanu also sees it as cheating, and I know this because he wrote a blog about it last year, about a guy who misrepresents his golf abilities in order to get overwhelmingly favourable odds. And he didn't write that blog implying he condoned it - quite the contrary.
Which blog was that? Do you have a link? Thanks
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet a view at the scorecards would change a few tunes around here.The real hustle here is this:Phil has been getting one on one coaching for months, and the best he can do is shoot 92?????Phil's the one that got hustled if you ask me.BTW Nuts: I've invited my dentist to the FCP golf tournament for FREE EXAMS before the round for all of you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy this back and forth is getting old!!!!! The situation that occurred with Ram & Ivey happens ALL THE TIME in golf matches! Ivey DID NOT cheat at all ! In fact he shot in the 90s! If he claimed to be a 30 HCP thats a different story but he didnt. Obviously they thought IVEY was the SUCKER and they were the HUSTLERS and it backfired and they got crushed on the links. If they REALLY felt they were being hustled they should have adjusted the match but the DID NOT, they continued to press the bets and played on...TOUGH SH.IT. Ivey obviously made the putts and the shots at the right time (most likely on the pressed holes) and they got hammered...tough luck. Pay up and then make another game and try to get your money back PERIOD! Most of the time it evens out in money games anyway...they should have taken there licks and asked for a re-match.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got this from the Hendon Mob site, and they got it from the 2+2 site:Barry Greenstein wrote:

It is hard or me to believe how gullible the people on here and on the Hendonmob forum are. Someone trying to get out of a debt comes up with a reason not to pay, and so many of you bought it. 1. Phil never lied to them. And he didn't shoot better than he said he would. He putted well, but hit the ball worse. He shot in the 90's as expected. 2. Erick Lindgren gave Phil 10 shots during the summer. He now gives Phil 8 shots. They played even in a nine-hole TV match in Australia, and Erick clobbered Phil. When Mark and Ram asked Erick if they ever played even, he admitted they had, but he made sure that Ram knew that he was a much better golfer than Phil. That conveniently got left out of Ram's post. 3. Mark and Ram beat Phil five times in a row. The last time was in Barcelona where Phil lost six of the first seven holes and then walked off the course. Ram says Phil lost only $34,000, which is hard to do playing in increments of three different $10,000 bets per hole. (Two individual bets and a team bet.) Ram forgot to mention that the reason they are not much ahead of Phil is that Phil won most of the money back at Chinese Poker. 4. After they played the first nine holes in Australia, they made a small adjustment in the match, and Ram and Mark asked for a contract. (A contract means no more adjustments while in Austrailia.) They continued for a total of 72 holes. (Mark didn't finish the last nine.) At what point, should they have taken responsibility for their loss? Or is it OK to play to try to win money back, and not pay if you lose? 6. Except for nine holes where Mark parred seven holes, as expected, since he is nearly a scratch golfer, I don't think Mark shot less than 45, where his average was expected to be 38. And Ram, who was supposed to be better than Phil, was having trouble breaking 100 for 18 holes. 7. If $140,000 had been won instead of $1,400,000, the money would have been paid and a new match would have been negotiated. As Benny Binion once said, "I usually find that people are honorable as long as they can afford to be." 8. I was not brought in as an arbitrator or to fight Phil's battles. Phil wanted me to show up because he said, "You're never going to believe what they have to say. Their whole argument is that since they didn't realize they were clear underdogs in the match, the match should be voided." 9. Phil usually tells me about his matches. I invariably tell him he is an underdog. He always says he likes to win as the underdog by being tougher under pressure, and if he loses he will practice and get better and eventually win the money back. 10. The reason Phil has never defended himself is that he is a private person, and he didn't even know these forums existed until I told him about what was being posted. I have a feeling Phil may have someting to say or write once this is settled. I can't believe that this thread has gotten so big, starting from a false hypothesis. Barry
Link to post
Share on other sites

10. The reason Phil has never defended himself is that he is a private person, and he didn't even know these forums existed until I told him about what was being posted. I have a feeling Phil may have someting to say or write once this is settled. This is nonesense. DN has already stated that Ivey knew he was making his original post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10. The reason Phil has never defended himself is that he is a private person, and he didn't even know these forums existed until I told him about what was being posted. I have a feeling Phil may have someting to say or write once this is settled. This is nonesense. DN has already stated that Ivey knew he was making his original post.
This is a very simlilar defense that the Hendon Mob tried to make:Since # 10 might be wrong, let's discount the rest.Tell you what, we'll give you that Phil Ivey might have actually known that there was an internet, that people chatted on it, and that they were talking about him. How much less does Ram owe now?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...