Sefaje 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 jesus, losing a bet is losing a bet. if you're dumb enough to give someone 10 strokes without personally assessing their game first, and gamble for 72 holes against them with ascending stakes, even if it was lying/hustling/whatever, you got beaten. pay. Link to post Share on other sites
longdistance 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Hi Daniel,When did goodwin and vaswani find out that edog no longer gives strokes? Was he completely lying that it was that night?We all know Ivey is probably the best gambler in the world, and he knows how to get an edge--Did he mislead or misrepresent himself at all? I'm sure whatever was said by him is acceptable and not immoral for this type of wagering, as I am sure you are a better judge of that than anyone else besides a few people (who've you also gambled with)...I'm just curious if they are totally making up a false pretext to welch, or whether they arguably have a case.Thanks,Jay in montreal Link to post Share on other sites
DCJ001 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...showtopic=96204How likely do you guys think it is that Daniel has been promised a % of the 1.6 million owed if Ivey is able to recoup it?I will go first: 100%I can't believe he would intervene in this issue, tarnish his name, create enemies in the poker world, all for nothing. I wouldn't even be surprised if he gets half of what is paid. He is basically acting as Ivey's publicist, and since there is no contract and there is no documentation of their gambling Ivey will have a hard time collecting.In any case, if you aren't getting part of the debt Daniel then you are the one being hustled.You say this and then you ask Daniel if you can work for him. I wonder why he turned you down? Link to post Share on other sites
DanielNegreanu 141 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Hi Daniel,When did goodwin and vaswani find out that edog no longer gives strokes? Was he completely lying that it was that night?We all know Ivey is probably the best gambler in the world, and he knows how to get an edge--Did he mislead or misrepresent himself at all? I'm sure whatever was said by him is acceptable and not immoral for this type of wagering, as I am sure you are a better judge of that than anyone else besides a few people (who've you also gambled with)...I'm just curious if they are totally making up a false pretext to welch, or whether they arguably have a case.Thanks,Jay in montreal I believe what happened was after the match, by then end of the trip, Ivey played a match even with Erick. They started at 5 a side (10 strokes) and made adjustments. Phil won, and decided to give Erick a chance to win his money back by playing in a little made for TV special for their website. Later they heard that they played even and thought Phil was lying about what he'd said. When Ivey said what he said, he was telling the truth. It wasn't till after their match did his spot with Erick change. Link to post Share on other sites
DCJ001 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I'm just so completely uninterested in cultivating my position as a celebrity. Seriously, all I really want to do is play poker, write what I want to write, play my fantasy sports, and not worry about what my position as a celebrity is.Come on, Daniel. You could be the next...Phil Hellmuth!Nevermind. Having goals like playing poker, writing what you want to write, playing fantasy sports, and not worrying about what your position as a celebrity must be nice goals to have. Link to post Share on other sites
longdistance 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I believe what happened was after the match, by then end of the trip, Ivey played a match even with Erick. They started at 5 a side (10 strokes) and made adjustments. Phil won, and decided to give Erick a chance to win his money back by playing in a little made for TV special for their website. Later they heard that they played even and thought Phil was lying about what he'd said. When Ivey said what he said, he was telling the truth. It wasn't till after their match did his spot with Erick change.Great response, I think that will really clear the air. Link to post Share on other sites
jooka 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Great response, I think that will really clear the air.How? in there report they say they had dinner that night w/ them and e dog said he gives Ivey 0 strokes. DN says it was days later. Someone is lying straight up. Link to post Share on other sites
DanielNegreanu 141 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 How? in there report they say they had dinner that night w/ them and e dog said he gives Ivey 0 strokes. DN says it was days later. Someone is lying straight up. That makes absolutely no sense at all. If that were true, that would mean that they'd have this information, yet still agree to play the same match the next day. They did play the next day as well... Link to post Share on other sites
robgibraltar 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Daniel - I appreciate what you're saying.However I feel that almost everything posted so far has been hearsay and conjecture, made worse by the judgements posted by many people who simply weren't there.Has Phil written a formal piece on his side of the events? If he wants to avoid litigation then he can by all means avoid referencing real names in much the same way that you did (I'm not criticising this I understand why it was done).Without something official from Phil, and without an official, measured response from those he is accusing and who would possibly counter-accuse, there is nothing really tangible - it's all smoke and mirrors.It's easy to become embroiled in matters which don't concern you - I'm doing exactly the same, but I feel strongly that those accused by Phil have been done so unfairly, much the same way that you do from the other side.Would Phil be willing to submit a statement on his version of events? So that we can all hear things 'from the horse's mouth' as it were?Thanks,R. Link to post Share on other sites
xmykro 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Daniel - I appreciate what you're saying.However I feel that almost everything posted so far has been hearsay and conjecture, made worse by the judgements posted by many people who simply weren't there.Has Phil written a formal piece on his side of the events? If he wants to avoid litigation then he can by all means avoid referencing real names in much the same way that you did (I'm not criticising this I understand why it was done).Without something official from Phil, and without an official, measured response from those he is accusing and who would possibly counter-accuse, there is nothing really tangible - it's all smoke and mirrors.It's easy to become embroiled in matters which don't concern you - I'm doing exactly the same, but I feel strongly that those accused by Phil have been done so unfairly, much the same way that you do from the other side.Would Phil be willing to submit a statement on his version of events? So that we can all hear things 'from the horse's mouth' as it were?Thanks,R.Do you really think you are that important to be requesting statements from Phil Ivey? LMAODaniel is a good friend of Phil, just read what Daniel has wrote. That's the closest you're gonna get to Phils story.Hell will freeze over before you see Phil write anything. He doesn't even write on Full Tilt. Link to post Share on other sites
robgibraltar 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Do you really think you are that important to be requesting statements from Phil Ivey? LMAODaniel is a good friend of Phil, just read what Daniel has wrote. That's the closest you're gonna get to Phils story.Hell will freeze over before you see Phil write anything. He doesn't even write on Full Tilt.Thanks - you have just perfectly highlighted the hypocrisy of this situation.Phil is unwilling to provide a real version of events, so relies on hearsay and misinformation through someone else's medium to garner support.If he is unwilling to provide a full version, from his own hand, then he should not be asking others to post opinions and hearsay.This is my last post on this forum on this subject.Rgds,R. Link to post Share on other sites
MajorHangover 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Do you really think you are that important to be requesting statements from Phil Ivey?Well - clearly he is. Phil Ivey was obviously sufficiently worried about public opinion that he asked his pal to speak up on his behalf on a public forum. Rob is a member of that public just like you and me. Phil wants to influence our opinions. By raising it in this way people are entitled to ask questions. Should we all just accept that DN's opinion is fact and be good little members of the public and quietly go away now? Daniel is a great poker player, and from all accounts an honourable guy on and off the table. But by abusing his position of power and influence this way - he has potentially tarnished the names and reputations of two highly respected UK players. He should quite rightly be held to question for this by the very public which this blog was targetted at. In the fine words of one of the Hendon Mob's own notorious posters "The Internet's a Serious Business". Link to post Share on other sites
iowahawk09 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Heres an idea...how bout we end this extremely long and drawn out thread and let the parties involved settle this. Everything that is being said has already been mentioned about 3x already and its getting repetitive. Link to post Share on other sites
wisky_VI 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 like that's the point of DN's blog, to get the ball rolling on working this out between Ivey and Ram. Probably would have worked better last week bankroll wise before Ram got his arse handed to him HU versus Aba this week. Also bringing it to a head so to speak now in time to put it to bed while the Bellagio tourney is running and they are all in vegas together. Link to post Share on other sites
iowahawk09 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (chanting) End this Thread! Link to post Share on other sites
KUPoker5 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (chanting) Give Me Beer! Link to post Share on other sites
iowahawk09 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (chanting) Give Me Beer!Bud Select ok? Link to post Share on other sites
KUPoker5 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Bud Select ok?Works just fine in the mornings...I have a two-story beer bong that I need to use, so make sure you have enough of those things. Link to post Share on other sites
DanielNegreanu 141 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Well - clearly he is. Phil Ivey was obviously sufficiently worried about public opinion that he asked his pal to speak up on his behalf on a public forum. Rob is a member of that public just like you and me. Phil wants to influence our opinions. By raising it in this way people are entitled to ask questions. Should we all just accept that DN's opinion is fact and be good little members of the public and quietly go away now? Daniel is a great poker player, and from all accounts an honourable guy on and off the table. But by abusing his position of power and influence this way - he has potentially tarnished the names and reputations of two highly respected UK players. He should quite rightly be held to question for this by the very public which this blog was targetted at. In the fine words of one of the Hendon Mob's own notorious posters "The Internet's a Serious Business". What exactly do you think they did by making this whole thing public and posting it on the internet. Let's be clear on this, Phil nor I were the ones to make this situation public, it was the blog posted by Goodwin that made it a public affair. Ivey would never do that in a million years. They wrote a piece that potentially tarnishes the name and reputation of a highly respected US player. Since I had an account of Phil's side of the story, with his permission I posted a different side of the story. In the first public statement made by Goodwin, there was no mention at all of Ivey's side of the story. Link to post Share on other sites
Teffy 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Vaswani and Goodwin by refusing to pay are also dragging thier own names through mud in the world of high stakes gambling. Can you ever imagine legends such as Doyle, Chip, Amarillo, Puggy etc not paying off a loss? NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS. They may get even down the road, but would always square up immediately. By not paying, you lose on out many future potential earnings.Guess what - Ivey comes from this school. Ivey is close with Doyle and Chip, and in fact play golf together frequently.By orchestrating this whole fiasco - do you ever think Ram or Marc will ever be welcomed to the big game? HAHA - never. Can you imagine any one willing to risk high stakes on anything with someone who has a history of welching? Ram and Marc made a HUGE mistake on this issue IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
gmanshade 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Daniel, If Phil Ivey would like to hire an arbitrator for this dispute with Vaswani/Goodwin I am willing to act as one. I will ask each side to summarize their account of the event in a brief form, I will read through these texts, and then facilitate a meeting between the two sides to reach an agreement. If Phil is interested in hiring me for this please send me a PM. Link to post Share on other sites
flyingdonkey 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Daniel, If Phil Ivey would like to hire an arbitrator for this dispute with Vaswani/Goodwin I am willing to act as one. I will ask each side to summarize their account of the event in a brief form, I will read through these texts, and then facilitate a meeting between the two sides to reach an agreement. If Phil is interested in hiring me for this please send me a PM.You're a funny kid... Link to post Share on other sites
gmanshade 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I'm completely serious. Link to post Share on other sites
Guero 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I'm completely serious.exactly why it's so funny!! Link to post Share on other sites
gmanshade 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 everything I've posted in this thread Daniel has directly responded to. I think he can see my insights are valuable. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now