Betting And Raising The Limit !

[Taffer92 0]

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO PLAY RAM VASWANI , I MEAN I HATE THE HENDON MOB AND I DO THINK THEY ARE OVER RATED BUT RAM IS A GOOD PLAYER AND POSSIBLY A BETTER CASH PLAYER THAN NEGRANU I THINK HSP PROVES THIS.

[PhilIvey 0]

I'd like to think that this issue can get resolved soon.Peace.

[DCJ001 0]

Why would anyone want to play Ram Vaswani , i mean i hate the Hendon Mob and i do think they are over rated but Ram is a good player and possibly a better cash player than Negreanu i think HSP proves this.

How can HSP prove the better player between Negreanu & Vaswani when Ram has not played on HSP with Daniel? Your conclusion, in this case, is flawed.And doesn't your post look much better with some lower case letters?

[DaRockets 0]

If I were Phil I would straight up have them killed.

[carlos the fraggle 0]

What justification could they have for not even paying the portion that they won from Phil, which is approximately $220,000?

How does $220,000 fit into it? Did they play for 4 days, Ivey lost and paid $220,000 early, then agreed to raise the stakes and creamed them?If so, I'd say he was careless to hustle based on the possible getout of Ram's Lindgren question rather than working a better opportunity to accept 10 strokes. I would have asked the Lindgren question specifically to protect myself, though I'm sure Ram is more trusting than I am.What does Lindgren say about the timeline?

[goferdug 0]

Ah, hell, this happened in Australia and we all KNOW they are all criminals anyway. NO WAY could someone lie about their golf skills in the U.S. and hustle someone else - LOLThank GOD it never happened to me...but i will play DN if he gives me 4 a side!

[SavagePenguin 0]

Based on what DN said, this is how I interpreted the event:Player X got 10 strokes from player E whenever they'd play.Player X lost about $220k to the player's Y & Z.Player X paid player's Y & Z the $220k.Player X worked on his game, but never played player E with a decreased handicap.When asked, player X stated that he was still getting 10 shots from player E.Player X played 18 holes, beating them.That same day player X beat Y & Z after going another 18 holes. (All parties had agreed to up the stakes)The next day, player X beat Y & Z after going another 18 holes. (All parties had agreed to up the stakes again)That same day player X beat Y & Z after going another 18 holes. (All parties had agreed to up the stakes again)Player X played player E, getting 10 shots as normal.Player X and player E played again, but this time adjusted their deal to 0 strokes, to give E help E win his money back.Players Y & Z heard that X was equal with E and refused to pay.If I'm not mistaken, someone claimed that X & Y heard that X & E were equal *before* X, Y, and Z played day #2. I don;t see how this can be true, unless Y & Z enjoy losing money.The grayest area is Z saying he still got 10 stokes from E. He knew he was not a 10 stroke underdog to E, but *technically* that 10 stroke handicap had never changed. Was it misleading? Yes. Was it fraud? No.Even if X lied about the 10 stokes it does not matter.My "Where's the beef?" argument:Let's say that a chef makes you a burger. You eat it all, and put it on your tab.Then you order another burger, eat it all, and put it on your tab. In fact, that day you eat a total of 36 burgers, putting each one on your tab.The next day you go through another 36 burgers, putting each one on your tab.When the chef asks you to pay your tab you refuse, saying that you ordered Angus burgers you found out that they were really tofu burgers.Should you still have to pay? Yes!Now, if you ate a couple burgers, realized that you weren't getting what you expected, and spit it out, I can understand not paying. But after repeated exposer to said burgers you can't claim ignorance to what you were getting.

[carlos the fraggle 0]

When you asked the chef if the burgers were beef, what did he say?Ivey expects a verbal contract to be honoured without any way for it to be voided. Can't have it both ways. He'll have to eat this one.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

When you asked the chef if the burgers were beef, what did he say?

It would be more like this:6 months ago Chef X made nothing but beef burgers. E ate at his restaurant then.Chef X spends his time learning how to make tofu burgers and now that's all he makes.Y & Z ask him what the last burger he served E was.Chef X tells him beef.

[carlos the fraggle 0]

No, that doesn't work. Chef knows they need to know what's in the burgers before they can eat. Chef knows it's beef. The analogy is just crap, unless you think Phil Ivey is an idiot who disconnects the question "Does Erick Lindgren still give you ten?" from the fact Ram and Marc gave him ten shots. I don't think Phil Ivey is an idiot. I think he's probably a hustler whose eagerness caused him to slightly misplay the angle. This handily explains why their friends are talking for them: neither position looks very cool.Still, live and learn.

[Rodney21a 1]

If I were Phil I would straight up have them killed.

TIME TO CALL THE GOODFELLAS

"

[ftxxpower 0]

This dispute intrigued me, so I've decided to give you my 2 cents. In my view, this scenario is similar to:You met Jeev Singh (a real professional golfer, but you are unaware of this fact) on a golf course and decided you wanted to make golf more interesting. So, you proposed to gamble on golf. You asked him a set of questions to determine how good he was. So, you asked a couple of questions. 1) How would you describe your golf game? And, he responds by saying, "Lately, I've not been playing golf often, I was focusing on writing my book. " 2) The last time you played Tom (lets pretend Tom is your golf buddy that you frequently beat and a mutual friend of Jeev) did he give you a 10 shot handicap? And, he responds by saying, "YES!!!." Then, you proceeded to play Jeev in golf for 72 holes and you get your butt kicked because Jeev is a professional golfer. You just lost lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$.To me, this sounds like Jeev is deceiving you! First, he neglected to tell you he's a professional golfer, which is crucial in making golf fair. Second, instead of answering the second question by saying "Yes", which was true, he should have said, "the last time I played with Tom was 6 months ago, he did give me a 10 shot handicap back then, but I've improve so much since then that I can beat him regularly now." So, by Jeev telling the truth, and also hiding the truth, he is partially deceiving you and as a result is taking advantage of you because he fully knows that by telling you that he is a professional golfer would lower his odds or handicap. As a result, he wins less money....You might also bring up the point that they should have stopped after 1st hole and not the 72nd. Well, first, when you are playing golf, and it's hard for people to realize one's skills just on the 1st hole alone. Only over a course of many holes would you realize this. For example, if Tiger Woods par the 1st hole, is he just an average golfer? Only did you realized you were duped when Jeev produced 4 fantastic rounds of golf, by that time it's too late.My opinion sounds very one sided, but I would say this. Gambling is gambling. If you get hustled, then so be it. Gotta pay your tuition. Again, this is only my opinion and is meant to generate friendly discussion.Purely for your entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCzLrZZPkAs .

[samurai_tony 0]

I was curious to know whether daniel felt phil lying or at least not fully disclosing his handicap meant he cheated in respect to the rules of golf, ignoring any hustling or clever cons or whatever. I can see a very very good arguement for phil having just broken the rules of golf in as much as way as if he used an illegal ball. Much of the discussion has been about ram not paying phil if indeed he cheated, i wuold argue that if phil cheated ram going by golfing rules he loses the match and should pay ram the full amount! Thoughts?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I was curious to know whether daniel felt phil lying or at least not fully disclosing his handicap meant he cheated in respect to the rules of golf, ignoring any hustling or clever cons or whatever. I can see a very very good arguement for phil having just broken the rules of golf in as much as way as if he used an illegal ball. Much of the discussion has been about ram not paying phil if indeed he cheated, i wuold argue that if phil cheated ram going by golfing rules he loses the match and should pay ram the full amount! Thoughts?

The "Rules of Golf" are generally well defined. The "Rules of Gambling" depend on the gamblers. When I gamble I make sure the rules are understood and aggred upon. If there is any disagreement, I clarify or stop the game immediately. Even among friends. But I think most gamblers understand that the other guy is trying to take his money, often that is done by pushing the limits of the "letter of the law". Again, even among friends.

[Volume26 0]

I was curious to know whether daniel felt phil lying or at least not fully disclosing his handicap meant he cheated in respect to the rules of golf, ignoring any hustling or clever cons or whatever. I can see a very very good arguement for phil having just broken the rules of golf in as much as way as if he used an illegal ball. Much of the discussion has been about ram not paying phil if indeed he cheated, i wuold argue that if phil cheated ram going by golfing rules he loses the match and should pay ram the full amount! Thoughts?

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

[K-Rock2525 0]

Has Ram ever heard of variance? honestly? I'm a 15 handicapp and I shot 1 under a couple of times last year. Also, I shot 30 over a couple of times. Ivey could of been on his game these days they played, then the next day they go out and he could of just played horrible. Thats golf, thats life. He made the bet he should pay it off.

[ftxxpower 0]

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

Well, I disagree. If Phil lied, then that's not negotiation. If I lie, I can get anyone to do anything. Second, if Phil lied first, then Ram has the right to lie and not pay even though they have this bet.

[Volume26 0]

Well, I disagree. If Phil lied, then that's not negotiation. If I lie, I can get anyone to do anything. Second, if Phil lied first, then Ram has the right to lie and not pay even though they have this bet.

quoting blair rodman here

Games are made on the basis of negotiation. This is fully a part of the game, perhaps the most important one. Negotiations are made on the basis of past experience and gathered intelligence. The more diligent you are in gathering intelligence, the better chance you have of getting the best of the negotiations. Lying is part of the negotiation process. Just as bluffing is in poker.Bluffing is basically lying. Does this mean that all poker players are liars away from the table? Of course not—some may be, some not. Is someone who lies in a golf negotiation in the gambling world a liar otherwise? No, he’s simply playing the game by the rules.

[jooka 0]

funny, I ve read Blairs posts and they all say one thing. He's a cheap hustler. all he is really saying is "I cant win at golf unless i lie before we play." I find it pretty pathetic. Its not like bluffing, its a cheap hustle. It has zero to do with golf and everything how he would treat anyone he could possible get an edge on through cheap sleazy tactics.

[DCJ001 0]

funny, I ve read Blairs posts and they all say one thing. He's a cheap hustler. all he is really saying is "I cant win at golf unless i lie before we play." I find it pretty pathetic. Its not like bluffing, its a cheap hustle. It has zero to do with golf and everything how he would treat anyone he could possible get an edge on through cheap sleazy tactics.

The people who bet and gamble on everything are constantly giving and taking odds on their bets and they won't accept a bet unless they feel that they're getting the right price. It's that simple.I've always competed when I have felt that I could defeat other people, even though many may have felt that they were better, and I've never given or taken odds or a handicap. If I didn't think that I could beat the other person, I didn't compete for money.