Daniel,
The way you portrayed the story certainly points fault at the supposed hustlers. How would your stance change if the story instead went down like this:
1) Initially, the games were played where you were spotted a 1-0 lead, and you won $300,000. This was perceived at slightly disadvantageous to PA, but there were no hard feelings.
2) Nine months later, you and PA decide to play pool again. This time, however, you do not know where to set the line, as you've heard that PA may have been playing every day with a world class coach.
3) It is then brought up that you have both played pool with lets say, Eric Lindgren. You ask PA if he was spotted a 1-0 lead when he played Eric, and he says yes. Based on this knowledge and Eric's perceived skill level, you agree on a fair line.
4) PA then adds another stipulation; that is, he requires that you play a full 7 games and if one is to quit, they would have to pay a $300k penalty.
5) PA crushes you for $1.8 million.
6) Again, no hard feelings, but then you run into your buddy Eric and tell him the story. He then says that when he and PA play, he does not give PA any sort of spot and they play straight up.
This story, which may or may not be true, is more similar to the "other side". The key points to this side, is that "PA" lied about his handicap with another player. If these were indeed true, would you feel it necessary to pay the $1.8 million? If you were to pay it, would you think it was ethical/fair that you were hustled by "PA"?
I'm not sure what side is true, but if the above stipulations were added, I'm curious to see how you would actually respond. Additionally, I have no experience with high stakes golf gambling, if lying about your handicap is typical, then there is no problem. If, however, lying about one's handicap breaks the "honor among thieves", this may be the problem.
Full Version: Hustled For The Very Last Time
First of all, that $300,000 would get paid IMMEDIATELY. Second of all, the reason they feel cheated is because AFTER that match Ivey did play with Erick and beat him bad... getting 10 shots. He then decided to throw him a bone and played him a round even. This was AFTER the big match though...
QUOTE (DanielNegreanu @ Monday, April 9th, 2007, 12:18 PM) 
First of all, that $300,000 would get paid IMMEDIATELY. Second of all, the reason they feel cheated is because AFTER that match Ivey did play with Erick and beat him bad... getting 10 shots. He then decided to throw him a bone and played him a round even. This was AFTER the big match though...
Fair enough. It definately seems as if the money should be paid according the additional information.
I'm curious if Ivey answered honestly when asked if he had been playing a lot since the last time they played (with a world class coach). If saying no about this, I don't think it is AS unethical.
It is a bit surprising that he played with Erick getting 10 shots. Was Erick not aware of Ivey's coaching?
If you were in Erick's shoes, and Phil played you without presenting the knowledge of his world class coach, would you feel cheated?
QUOTE (ImDonaldo @ Monday, April 9th, 2007, 12:26 PM)
Fair enough. It definately seems as if the money should be paid according the additional information.
I'm curious if Ivey answered honestly when asked if he had been playing a lot since the last time they played (with a world class coach). If saying no about this, I don't think it is AS unethical.
It is a bit surprising that he played with Erick getting 10 shots. Was Erick not aware of Ivey's coaching?
If you were in Erick's shoes, and Phil played you without presenting the knowledge of his world class coach, would you feel cheated?
I'm curious if Ivey answered honestly when asked if he had been playing a lot since the last time they played (with a world class coach). If saying no about this, I don't think it is AS unethical.
It is a bit surprising that he played with Erick getting 10 shots. Was Erick not aware of Ivey's coaching?
If you were in Erick's shoes, and Phil played you without presenting the knowledge of his world class coach, would you feel cheated?
His coach has been with Ivey for a year. They all knew about him as he caddies for Ivey everytime he plays. They'd played with him like 7 times.
The situation with Erick went like this, Ivey actually neevr said he gives him 10 shots. They played 9 holes at 5, and Ivey shot a 37 so they adjusted to 3 and Ivey shot a 55. When they played even it was for a Full Tilt thing.
Everyone in the big golf game needs to have a valid USGA handicap. If not, they need to keep track of each other scores EVERYTIME they play together in order to adjust the handicap properly. Ivey had to have known he was playing better than his previous handicap and should have adjusted or at least let his partners know. If he didnt, he did HUSTLE his friends.
QUOTE (Oziumrules @ Monday, April 9th, 2007, 1:04 PM)
Everyone in the big golf game needs to have a valid USGA handicap. If not, they need to keep track of each other scores EVERYTIME they play together in order to adjust the handicap properly. Ivey had to have known he was playing better than his previous handicap and should have adjusted or at least let his partners know. If he didnt, he did HUSTLE his friends.
Virtually none of the high stakes golfers keep track of their handicaps. I can't think of even one high stakes golfer who has a handicap.
Would you have taken the bet from Ivey DN? In other words, did you think it was a fair enough bet that if you were confident enough in your golf game, you would take it?
QUOTE (DanielNegreanu @ Monday, April 9th, 2007, 3:48 PM)
Virtually none of the high stakes golfers keep track of their handicaps. I can't think of even one high stakes golfer who has a handicap.
Then how can you set up a fair game? Almost every golf course can set you up with a Handicap. Ive played in many High Stakes Golf games (high stakes for me are $100/$200 or $200/400 nassaus) and even if they didnt have a valid handicap we asked for there average score, gave him a handicap, then cut him 3 shots. I do agree even if they DO have a vaild handicap they still can be a hustler! If thats the case I always stipulate (for new players in the game) we WILL adjust the handicap on the back 9 if the shoot below there handicap. It seems like Iveys scores improved dramatically between rounds played with you guys and as a friend he should have announced it before the match...unless of course he INTENDED to HUSTLE. Thats why I always stipulate either a valid USGA handicap or adjusting at the turn.
EDIT!!!!
After reading the latest on this issue I dont understand why they continued to play at these stakes for 2 days? If they did indeed feel Ivey was Hustling why didnt they ask for a handicap adjustment after the 1st round? It seems to me now that they are wrong NOT to pay IF they CONTINUED to play for the same stakes OR higher without Ivey adjusting his handicap. I might not have all the facts BUT its there fault for continuing the bet if they felt it was UNFAIR!
Blair Rodman wrote some very insightful posts about it on 2+2, that certainly helped me understand the whole thing a lot better, when the rumor of this bet first came up a few months ago:
and
QUOTE
I’ve been golf gambling for over 20 years. In fact, it’s my favorite form of gambling. I learned early on that there’s a big difference between golfing gamblers and regular golfers.
Golf as played by normal people is a genteel sport set apart from most by its’ traditions of honesty and good sportsmanship. Golf to gamblers is simply another medium in which to try to get an advantage over your opponents. Standard protocols of normal golf have nothing to do with golf gambling. However, there are some protocols that apply to golf gambling.
The first thing I learned about golf gambling is that every experienced golf gambler lies about his abilities. This is part of the game! If you ask a group of golf gamblers how they are playing, virtually every one is going to say he hasn’t been playing, various body parts hurt, his game is off, etc. This is SOP! If you don’t understand this, or refuse to play that game, you are setting yourself up for a big fall. It’s not lying in this context, just as bluffing in poker isn’t lying in the traditional sense. It is within the context of the game. Once all the [censored]is out of the way, you can get down to real negotiations. Often in big money matches the negotiations fall flat and there’s no game. No big deal. I’ve been on the first tee many times when the game falls apart.
If this story is true, Phil simply used an age-old tactic in golf gambling. If you’re playing better than anyone expects and are going to play for serious money, are you going to tell your opponents the truth? Not if you want to survive in the golf-gambling world. How did Phil know his opponents weren’t trying to do the same to him, not that it matters for the scope of this discussion.
The bottom line is that Phil’s opponents are professional gamblers who got involved in a gambling game they seem to know little about. To get involved with someone in a golf match for serious money just on the basis of his word is dumb, and dumb people don’t survive in this milieu.
To quote Marc Goodwin, assuming that post was really from him:
“At the start of the game we said to Phil that as we haven't played for 3 months and he must have improved we need to adjust the handicaps. We could not agree and we were doomed to no game until Ram said "does Eric Lingdren still give you 10 shots" to which Phil replied yes!!On that piece of information we had a game. As we always ***** about handicaps throughout the match Phil suggested that we agree to play 18 holes with no adjustment and then adjust for the next series of games. We agreed
Think about it. They knew Phil was improving rapidly. They were on the verge of not having a match because Phil wouldn’t agree to an adjustment. But, instead of walking away they wanted to play so badly that they believed Phil when he said EDog still gives him shots. Perhaps this is because, as Marc states, they had been getting the best of him in the past and wanted more. Then they agreed to a match for very big money and, to make it worse, agreed to Phil’s stipulation that there’d be no mid-round adjustment. Sorry guys, you lost the negotiation game, which is every bit as important in golf gambling as the playing of the game itself. Pay up, lesson learned.
Golf as played by normal people is a genteel sport set apart from most by its’ traditions of honesty and good sportsmanship. Golf to gamblers is simply another medium in which to try to get an advantage over your opponents. Standard protocols of normal golf have nothing to do with golf gambling. However, there are some protocols that apply to golf gambling.
The first thing I learned about golf gambling is that every experienced golf gambler lies about his abilities. This is part of the game! If you ask a group of golf gamblers how they are playing, virtually every one is going to say he hasn’t been playing, various body parts hurt, his game is off, etc. This is SOP! If you don’t understand this, or refuse to play that game, you are setting yourself up for a big fall. It’s not lying in this context, just as bluffing in poker isn’t lying in the traditional sense. It is within the context of the game. Once all the [censored]is out of the way, you can get down to real negotiations. Often in big money matches the negotiations fall flat and there’s no game. No big deal. I’ve been on the first tee many times when the game falls apart.
If this story is true, Phil simply used an age-old tactic in golf gambling. If you’re playing better than anyone expects and are going to play for serious money, are you going to tell your opponents the truth? Not if you want to survive in the golf-gambling world. How did Phil know his opponents weren’t trying to do the same to him, not that it matters for the scope of this discussion.
The bottom line is that Phil’s opponents are professional gamblers who got involved in a gambling game they seem to know little about. To get involved with someone in a golf match for serious money just on the basis of his word is dumb, and dumb people don’t survive in this milieu.
To quote Marc Goodwin, assuming that post was really from him:
“At the start of the game we said to Phil that as we haven't played for 3 months and he must have improved we need to adjust the handicaps. We could not agree and we were doomed to no game until Ram said "does Eric Lingdren still give you 10 shots" to which Phil replied yes!!On that piece of information we had a game. As we always ***** about handicaps throughout the match Phil suggested that we agree to play 18 holes with no adjustment and then adjust for the next series of games. We agreed
Think about it. They knew Phil was improving rapidly. They were on the verge of not having a match because Phil wouldn’t agree to an adjustment. But, instead of walking away they wanted to play so badly that they believed Phil when he said EDog still gives him shots. Perhaps this is because, as Marc states, they had been getting the best of him in the past and wanted more. Then they agreed to a match for very big money and, to make it worse, agreed to Phil’s stipulation that there’d be no mid-round adjustment. Sorry guys, you lost the negotiation game, which is every bit as important in golf gambling as the playing of the game itself. Pay up, lesson learned.
and
QUOTE
Some more thoughts on golf gambling:
It seems to me that many posters in this thread are confusing golf with golf gambling. I love golf and would play without gambling—if no one would bet with me. However, not many gamblers feel that way. (Russ Hamilton, one of the best golf gamblers ever, told me a few years ago that a guy invited him to Augusta. Most golfers would kill for the chance. I asked when he (we) were going. He said, “I’m not going there with him. He won’t play for anything.) Very few gamblers keep actual handicaps. I keep a legitimate handicap and like to play amateur tournaments. However, that’s where the real cheaters are! There isn’t an understanding in amateur tournaments that sandbagging is part of the game. To keep an illegitimate handicap is cheating, period. This is because there’s no negotiation involved. The players are taken at their word. I lived in Palm Springs a few years ago and couldn’t believe the things I saw. Handicaps are designed so that a player should only play to his handicap about 20% of the time. To shoot 10 strokes below your handicap should happen less than 1 in 50,000 times. Yet, in almost every tournament I played there someone with a 20 handicap would shoot in the ‘70s in the last round. A lot of guys make a living cheating these tournaments. It got so bad that I quit playing them, unless I really wanted to play and then I pretty much accepted that I couldn’t win.
The gamblers system is much more efficient. When I’d meet someone new at a course in Palm Springs, the standard conversation went like this:
Stranger: “What’s your handicap?”
Me: “About a 5.”
Stranger: “Ok I’m a 15, so I’ll take 5 shots a side. Let's go.”
Me; “No problem, unless you want to play for more than $5. Then we need to talk.”
I would never play a stranger for any kind of serious money unless I had some reliable information about their game. I would also never get in a big match with someone who I knew might have improved rapidly unless I knew his story. Among gamblers this information is fairly easy to gather. I’ve never played golf with Ivey, but I know though the grapevine that he’s worked very hard on his game and has improved a lot. I’ve also heard that he was a live one when he first started playing the game, but now he’s almost impossible to match up with. If I had any doubts about someone’s current game, if I played him at all it would be for small stakes until I got a good feel for what I was up against.
I have a fairly large group of players I gamble with. We all know each other’s games pretty well and generally have to resort to a system of adjusting after each match if someone wins or loses a certain amount of bets. For the most part the money goes back and forth and we play those matches because we like the game and the action. (The same thing happens in the big game with Doyle, Chip, Bobby Baldwin, occasionally Michael Jordan and a few others. Their back and forths are just bigger). Big money heads up matches are fairly rare among players who know each other’s games. However, this doesn’t mean there are never any big money decisions. A big part of the skill of golf gambling is handicapping different types of bets. If a game can be devised where both sides think they have an edge, you have the conditions for a big bet. If you sit around B&M poker tables, a lot of the conversation is about golf and setting up matches for the next day. Scrambles are popular these days. For instance, a negotiation might go like this:
“Me and Jeff will scramble Richard, Jack, Greg and Greg. And Greg gets the blue tees.” (Greg and Greg are the same person, but he hits two shots)
“OK but Greg only gets one putt.”
“No, he needs two putts.”
“Then he has to play the black tees.”
“No he gets blue tees and two putts on 9 holes.”
“Ok, I don’t like it but we’ll try it. How much…..”
Often these kinds of matches will be negotiated for an emergency 9 or 18 after the early round of heads up matches.
When poker players get the urge to enter the golf gambling world the pattern is generally the same. They are often very bad players who don’t understand the golf-gambling game and get taken advantage of by experienced gamblers. Eventually they figure out that something isn’t right and smarten up to the fact that they are being hustled. Then they either quit playing, or accept the realities and learn how to negotiate. If they stay in the game, eventually they figure out that they have an opportunity to recoup their losses and then some if they get better without their opponents’ knowledge and get games in which they have a big edge. Sound familiar? Getting this edge is a limited opportunity. The improvement curve in golf is sharp at the beginning but levels out as a player gets better. While it’s fairly easy to go from a 40 handicap to a 20. it’s much harder to go from a 10 to a 5. Even with a system of adjustment the bad player figures to win a lot of money as he improves. The smart gambler won’t fall for this, insisting or major adjustments as his opponent gets better.
I’m not saying that the things I’ve described are good or bad( other than the handicap sandbagging), but they are the realities. I’m also not saying there’s no cheating in golf gambling. The rules of play are established, and breaking them is cheating. Since most gambling golfers don’t know the rules, a bastardized version is often used. The most extreme variation is called “gambler rules”. Under gamblers rules, you can’t touch your ball anywhere before you’re on the green without incurring a penalty. On a sprinkler head—hit it. Cart path—hit it. On top of a golf cart—you guessed it. Many players use grease (Vaseline or something like it) on their club face to straighten out shots. Occasionally this is specifically outlawed. Few players adhere to the 14-club rule. I knew one guy who carried about twelve woods and four putters
There are people who will move balls, drop balls from their pocket, step on your ball, and lots of other things. Never take a partner you don’t trust, as you may get dumped. Just like in any gambling endeavor, you need to have your eyes wide open and your senses acute. The good thing about the gamblers’ system is that cheating players are usually exposed and shunned in games. That is, unless they are so bad that they are still live even with cheating.
So what happens when the game is a fair matchup? That’s when the really talented golf gamblers step up. In my mind there are two kinds of successful golf gamblers (other than cheaters). Some will never play a game where they don’t have an edge off the first tee. Their whole game is in the negotiation and it’s fairly easy to play when there’s little pressure. Games often dry up for these players. The serious ones take to the road looking for new suckers. Read abut Titanic Thompson if you want to see a real hustler in action. The other type of successful player is the one who can play under pressure. Sure, he’ll take a good game if it comes up, but he relies more on his ability to outperform his opponent when it counts. Many players can’t make the shot when it counts. A player who can step up when it counts doesn’t need a lopsided game. In fact, against certain players he can take a bit the worst of the matchup and still be successful.
Sorry this got long, but I love this game!
It seems to me that many posters in this thread are confusing golf with golf gambling. I love golf and would play without gambling—if no one would bet with me. However, not many gamblers feel that way. (Russ Hamilton, one of the best golf gamblers ever, told me a few years ago that a guy invited him to Augusta. Most golfers would kill for the chance. I asked when he (we) were going. He said, “I’m not going there with him. He won’t play for anything.) Very few gamblers keep actual handicaps. I keep a legitimate handicap and like to play amateur tournaments. However, that’s where the real cheaters are! There isn’t an understanding in amateur tournaments that sandbagging is part of the game. To keep an illegitimate handicap is cheating, period. This is because there’s no negotiation involved. The players are taken at their word. I lived in Palm Springs a few years ago and couldn’t believe the things I saw. Handicaps are designed so that a player should only play to his handicap about 20% of the time. To shoot 10 strokes below your handicap should happen less than 1 in 50,000 times. Yet, in almost every tournament I played there someone with a 20 handicap would shoot in the ‘70s in the last round. A lot of guys make a living cheating these tournaments. It got so bad that I quit playing them, unless I really wanted to play and then I pretty much accepted that I couldn’t win.
The gamblers system is much more efficient. When I’d meet someone new at a course in Palm Springs, the standard conversation went like this:
Stranger: “What’s your handicap?”
Me: “About a 5.”
Stranger: “Ok I’m a 15, so I’ll take 5 shots a side. Let's go.”
Me; “No problem, unless you want to play for more than $5. Then we need to talk.”
I would never play a stranger for any kind of serious money unless I had some reliable information about their game. I would also never get in a big match with someone who I knew might have improved rapidly unless I knew his story. Among gamblers this information is fairly easy to gather. I’ve never played golf with Ivey, but I know though the grapevine that he’s worked very hard on his game and has improved a lot. I’ve also heard that he was a live one when he first started playing the game, but now he’s almost impossible to match up with. If I had any doubts about someone’s current game, if I played him at all it would be for small stakes until I got a good feel for what I was up against.
I have a fairly large group of players I gamble with. We all know each other’s games pretty well and generally have to resort to a system of adjusting after each match if someone wins or loses a certain amount of bets. For the most part the money goes back and forth and we play those matches because we like the game and the action. (The same thing happens in the big game with Doyle, Chip, Bobby Baldwin, occasionally Michael Jordan and a few others. Their back and forths are just bigger). Big money heads up matches are fairly rare among players who know each other’s games. However, this doesn’t mean there are never any big money decisions. A big part of the skill of golf gambling is handicapping different types of bets. If a game can be devised where both sides think they have an edge, you have the conditions for a big bet. If you sit around B&M poker tables, a lot of the conversation is about golf and setting up matches for the next day. Scrambles are popular these days. For instance, a negotiation might go like this:
“Me and Jeff will scramble Richard, Jack, Greg and Greg. And Greg gets the blue tees.” (Greg and Greg are the same person, but he hits two shots)
“OK but Greg only gets one putt.”
“No, he needs two putts.”
“Then he has to play the black tees.”
“No he gets blue tees and two putts on 9 holes.”
“Ok, I don’t like it but we’ll try it. How much…..”
Often these kinds of matches will be negotiated for an emergency 9 or 18 after the early round of heads up matches.
When poker players get the urge to enter the golf gambling world the pattern is generally the same. They are often very bad players who don’t understand the golf-gambling game and get taken advantage of by experienced gamblers. Eventually they figure out that something isn’t right and smarten up to the fact that they are being hustled. Then they either quit playing, or accept the realities and learn how to negotiate. If they stay in the game, eventually they figure out that they have an opportunity to recoup their losses and then some if they get better without their opponents’ knowledge and get games in which they have a big edge. Sound familiar? Getting this edge is a limited opportunity. The improvement curve in golf is sharp at the beginning but levels out as a player gets better. While it’s fairly easy to go from a 40 handicap to a 20. it’s much harder to go from a 10 to a 5. Even with a system of adjustment the bad player figures to win a lot of money as he improves. The smart gambler won’t fall for this, insisting or major adjustments as his opponent gets better.
I’m not saying that the things I’ve described are good or bad( other than the handicap sandbagging), but they are the realities. I’m also not saying there’s no cheating in golf gambling. The rules of play are established, and breaking them is cheating. Since most gambling golfers don’t know the rules, a bastardized version is often used. The most extreme variation is called “gambler rules”. Under gamblers rules, you can’t touch your ball anywhere before you’re on the green without incurring a penalty. On a sprinkler head—hit it. Cart path—hit it. On top of a golf cart—you guessed it. Many players use grease (Vaseline or something like it) on their club face to straighten out shots. Occasionally this is specifically outlawed. Few players adhere to the 14-club rule. I knew one guy who carried about twelve woods and four putters
There are people who will move balls, drop balls from their pocket, step on your ball, and lots of other things. Never take a partner you don’t trust, as you may get dumped. Just like in any gambling endeavor, you need to have your eyes wide open and your senses acute. The good thing about the gamblers’ system is that cheating players are usually exposed and shunned in games. That is, unless they are so bad that they are still live even with cheating.
So what happens when the game is a fair matchup? That’s when the really talented golf gamblers step up. In my mind there are two kinds of successful golf gamblers (other than cheaters). Some will never play a game where they don’t have an edge off the first tee. Their whole game is in the negotiation and it’s fairly easy to play when there’s little pressure. Games often dry up for these players. The serious ones take to the road looking for new suckers. Read abut Titanic Thompson if you want to see a real hustler in action. The other type of successful player is the one who can play under pressure. Sure, he’ll take a good game if it comes up, but he relies more on his ability to outperform his opponent when it counts. Many players can’t make the shot when it counts. A player who can step up when it counts doesn’t need a lopsided game. In fact, against certain players he can take a bit the worst of the matchup and still be successful.
Sorry this got long, but I love this game!
QUOTE
There are no established handicaps. In this world they have no significance. If someone were to pull out a forged handicap card, they’d get laughed off the tee. No one would believe them. 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. When my group meets before playing, we all tells our lies, fake our pains, etc, laugh about it and then get on with the real talks. For the most part, our games are already set from previous experience and adjustments. This is a matter of necessity, because otherwise we might never tee off. However, there are usually some team bets or other odd wagers negotiated to make it more interesting. If you are out-negotiated, you accept it and go on.
For big money matches, the negotiation process is more involved, with more involved intelligence gathering. Asking opinions from other players who are respected for their match-handicapping ability is common. Often people not playing in the match will have action on one side or the other and will come out to sweat the match and maybe make more side bets. Watching respected handicappers closely as far as who they want to bet on which side can give clues as to the balance of the match.
-There are established rules and protocols. They are just different from the other golf arenas. Often specific things, such as how to play a ball if it’s hit into the desert, are negotiated. The fact that practices such as using grease (which does help high handicappers, BTW) carrying more than 14 clubs, etc, are verboten in the other golf arenas means nothing. However, the rules that are establishes must be followed. (Occasionally the stipulation will be that actual golf rules are followed). To do differently is cheating, and cheaters will be ostracized. It’s silly to say that shooting someone or even moving a ball when it’s against the rules is fair game. Golf gambling isn’t golf per se. The game is just a means of gambling, just as a deck of cards or a pair of dice. The rules evolve to facilitate the gambling, but the rules of the day must be followed.
This thread is a perfect example of people living in different worlds and not understanding others than their own. I think one of the things that is obvious from this thread is that people from outside the US are more traditional than Americans and have trouble fully comprehending the golf gambling arena as practiced by Americans. It’s possible that Ivey’s non-American victims didn’t fully understand which arena Phil was playing in. But, I think they did. Here’s a quote from Goodwin;
"tomorrow we head off with Phil Ivey and Gus Hanson for a high stakes golf match with my partner in crime Ram Vaswani. One round of golf is worth a year’s winnings on the Europen Tour so, as you can imagine, some serious verbal takes place, with all sides trying to negotiate the best handicap - the reason we win is that Ram is different class at winding up Mr Ivey."
To me it’s obvious that they simply lost the negotiation game. They made a bad game, and then compounded the mistake by agreeing to a no-adjustment stipulation, thereby not leaving themselves an out. To get mad is one thing. To not pay is another. I think they’ll pay. They are gamblers and there’s a code. Whether they’ll play with Phil again is another question.
There is a real question of being able to move seamlessly from world to world without the lines becoming blurred. Very similar to 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. However, if he carried this over to the handicap golf arena, he’d be a liar and a cheat in that world.
The motto of this story—know what game you are playing before you play it.
For big money matches, the negotiation process is more involved, with more involved intelligence gathering. Asking opinions from other players who are respected for their match-handicapping ability is common. Often people not playing in the match will have action on one side or the other and will come out to sweat the match and maybe make more side bets. Watching respected handicappers closely as far as who they want to bet on which side can give clues as to the balance of the match.
-There are established rules and protocols. They are just different from the other golf arenas. Often specific things, such as how to play a ball if it’s hit into the desert, are negotiated. The fact that practices such as using grease (which does help high handicappers, BTW) carrying more than 14 clubs, etc, are verboten in the other golf arenas means nothing. However, the rules that are establishes must be followed. (Occasionally the stipulation will be that actual golf rules are followed). To do differently is cheating, and cheaters will be ostracized. It’s silly to say that shooting someone or even moving a ball when it’s against the rules is fair game. Golf gambling isn’t golf per se. The game is just a means of gambling, just as a deck of cards or a pair of dice. The rules evolve to facilitate the gambling, but the rules of the day must be followed.
This thread is a perfect example of people living in different worlds and not understanding others than their own. I think one of the things that is obvious from this thread is that people from outside the US are more traditional than Americans and have trouble fully comprehending the golf gambling arena as practiced by Americans. It’s possible that Ivey’s non-American victims didn’t fully understand which arena Phil was playing in. But, I think they did. Here’s a quote from Goodwin;
"tomorrow we head off with Phil Ivey and Gus Hanson for a high stakes golf match with my partner in crime Ram Vaswani. One round of golf is worth a year’s winnings on the Europen Tour so, as you can imagine, some serious verbal takes place, with all sides trying to negotiate the best handicap - the reason we win is that Ram is different class at winding up Mr Ivey."
To me it’s obvious that they simply lost the negotiation game. They made a bad game, and then compounded the mistake by agreeing to a no-adjustment stipulation, thereby not leaving themselves an out. To get mad is one thing. To not pay is another. I think they’ll pay. They are gamblers and there’s a code. Whether they’ll play with Phil again is another question.
There is a real question of being able to move seamlessly from world to world without the lines becoming blurred. Very similar to 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. However, if he carried this over to the handicap golf arena, he’d be a liar and a cheat in that world.
The motto of this story—know what game you are playing before you play it.
woulda taken me a day to read that, but that does put it into perspective. (what I read)
They should just pay up and be done with it.
They should just pay up and be done with it.
I agree with Blair's understanding of gambling on golf, you either have a verifiable HDCP or you play for little to no money. Or if you are confident in your own game like the BIG (poker) golf gamblers like Dewey Tomko, there are NO HDCP's and NO SHOTS,and the rules are agreed upon before play, because they dont play USGA rules. "Who's you Caddy" by Rick Reilly showed an incredible look at their type of gambling. They essentially say NO HDCP. Don't want to play fine, there are others that will, but your not going to hustle me with a fake HDCP. Think you good at golf and good under pressure play with no HDCP. Cant complain someone hustled you with their setup. You got outplayed or you outplayed them. Simple.
Golf is a gentlemen's game and honesty espacially with people you call your friends is held to the highest standard.
Phil obviously knew he was better than the bet he was getting into by the question they asked him prior to play. Was that fair? NO, True golf betting should be not +ev or -ev it should be an equal setup. Its not like poker where they have no HDCP's and everyone starts with the same amount of chips.
Did Phil lie to them? NO They asked a question he answered not dishonestly. Like that double negative?
Did they continue to play after knowing their was something up? Obviously unless they are complete golf morons, which shouldnt be betting anyways.
But I think most of all this should be handled by the parties involved in the bet and absolutely NO one else. For one we all are hearing it 2nd hand at best.
BTW i'm ticked off I cant make the FCP golf outing during the beginning of the WSOP. Canceling Disneyworld might cause just a bit of a problem at the homestead. Grrrrrr.
My question for Daniel is, would you have taken the bet that Phil took knowing you were going in way ahead just because you lost last time or because you know you would win this time for an almost certainty?
Golf is a gentlemen's game and honesty espacially with people you call your friends is held to the highest standard.
Phil obviously knew he was better than the bet he was getting into by the question they asked him prior to play. Was that fair? NO, True golf betting should be not +ev or -ev it should be an equal setup. Its not like poker where they have no HDCP's and everyone starts with the same amount of chips.
Did Phil lie to them? NO They asked a question he answered not dishonestly. Like that double negative?
Did they continue to play after knowing their was something up? Obviously unless they are complete golf morons, which shouldnt be betting anyways.
But I think most of all this should be handled by the parties involved in the bet and absolutely NO one else. For one we all are hearing it 2nd hand at best.
BTW i'm ticked off I cant make the FCP golf outing during the beginning of the WSOP. Canceling Disneyworld might cause just a bit of a problem at the homestead. Grrrrrr.
My question for Daniel is, would you have taken the bet that Phil took knowing you were going in way ahead just because you lost last time or because you know you would win this time for an almost certainty?
QUOTE (scgolfer @ Monday, April 9th, 2007, 10:01 PM)
I agree with Blair's understanding of gambling on golf, you either have a verifiable HDCP or you play for little to no money. Or if you are confident in your own game like the BIG (poker) golf gamblers like Dewey Tomko, there are NO HDCP's and NO SHOTS,and the rules are agreed upon before play, because they dont play USGA rules. "Who's you Caddy" by Rick Reilly showed an incredible look at their type of gambling. They essentially say NO HDCP. Don't want to play fine, there are others that will, but your not going to hustle me with a fake HDCP. Think you good at golf and good under pressure play with no HDCP. Cant complain someone hustled you with their setup. You got outplayed or you outplayed them. Simple.
Golf is a gentlemen's game and honesty espacially with people you call your friends is held to the highest standard.
Phil obviously knew he was better than the bet he was getting into by the question they asked him prior to play. Was that fair? NO, True golf betting should be not +ev or -ev it should be an equal setup. Its not like poker where they have no HDCP's and everyone starts with the same amount of chips.
Did Phil lie to them? NO They asked a question he answered not dishonestly. Like that double negative?
Did they continue to play after knowing their was something up? Obviously unless they are complete golf morons, which shouldnt be betting anyways.
But I think most of all this should be handled by the parties involved in the bet and absolutely NO one else. For one we all are hearing it 2nd hand at best.
BTW i'm ticked off I cant make the FCP golf outing during the beginning of the WSOP. Canceling Disneyworld might cause just a bit of a problem at the homestead. Grrrrrr.
My question for Daniel is, would you have taken the bet that Phil took knowing you were going in way ahead just because you lost last time or because you know you would win this time for an almost certainty?
Golf is a gentlemen's game and honesty espacially with people you call your friends is held to the highest standard.
Phil obviously knew he was better than the bet he was getting into by the question they asked him prior to play. Was that fair? NO, True golf betting should be not +ev or -ev it should be an equal setup. Its not like poker where they have no HDCP's and everyone starts with the same amount of chips.
Did Phil lie to them? NO They asked a question he answered not dishonestly. Like that double negative?
Did they continue to play after knowing their was something up? Obviously unless they are complete golf morons, which shouldnt be betting anyways.
But I think most of all this should be handled by the parties involved in the bet and absolutely NO one else. For one we all are hearing it 2nd hand at best.
BTW i'm ticked off I cant make the FCP golf outing during the beginning of the WSOP. Canceling Disneyworld might cause just a bit of a problem at the homestead. Grrrrrr.
My question for Daniel is, would you have taken the bet that Phil took knowing you were going in way ahead just because you lost last time or because you know you would win this time for an almost certainty?
First of all there is such thing as certainty when it comes to golf wagering. However, if I was stuck money to someone, improved my game so that I'd have what I percieved to be an edge, and they agreed to it, of course I'd play. If they are agreeing to play, maybe it's not such a certainty after all? Maybe they've improved to?
If I won the round and they wanted to quit I'd understand. If they wanted to adjust the spot I'd probably do that too, unless I thought what they were asking for was unreasonable, in which case, I'd then say, "Have a nice day."
I don't think Phil did anything wrong by agreeing to play when he felt like he had the best of it, especially when you consider that he'd already lost a substancial amount of money to them. Phil probably thought he had the best of it when he lost too, and he could have lost again the last time.
O.K., time out.
One thing is certain.
There is going to be a new season of Curb your Enthusiasm starting soon!
..."Who's Your Caucasian?!"....
One thing is certain.
There is going to be a new season of Curb your Enthusiasm starting soon!
..."Who's Your Caucasian?!"....
Agreeing to play when you feel you have the best of it and knowing you have the best of it are 2 different things. I can go out and feel I am playing well and play someone thinking I am going to have the best of it. Answering a question knowing the answer will give me the best of it (at least on paper) is a different thing.
But once again we dont know enough info to know the whole story. Did Phil feel like the last time when he lost they "hustled" him or did he just play poorly and lost? If he felt the bet wasnt fair the first time maybe not telling the whole truth isnt such a bad judgement call. If he really felt he lost fair and square the first time, but wanted his money back not telling the whole truth isnt really a great judgement call in my opinion. But once again we dont know all the facts, and continuing to bet even though you feel your getting hustled is just plain stupid, and then not paying is even a worse judgement call in my opinion.
But once again we dont know enough info to know the whole story. Did Phil feel like the last time when he lost they "hustled" him or did he just play poorly and lost? If he felt the bet wasnt fair the first time maybe not telling the whole truth isnt such a bad judgement call. If he really felt he lost fair and square the first time, but wanted his money back not telling the whole truth isnt really a great judgement call in my opinion. But once again we dont know all the facts, and continuing to bet even though you feel your getting hustled is just plain stupid, and then not paying is even a worse judgement call in my opinion.
But like i said before, true golf betting should be not +ev or -ev it should be an equal setup, and play should decide the winner. The GOLFER who plays the best that day or days should win, not the gambler who was able to get the best bet.
But I guess we are confusing 2 way different things, Golf,where the player who plays the best should win and Gambling, where generally the smartest player wins.
But I guess we are confusing 2 way different things, Golf,where the player who plays the best should win and Gambling, where generally the smartest player wins.
Obviously most of us don't know the whole story.. so I have no comment on that in particular.
However, in one of these threads, DN said even if someone lies about their handicap, they should still be paid when they win.
I couldn't disagree more. Lying about your handicap in golf is simply cheating.
Anyone who says that is ok shows a real lack of character and integrity.
However, in one of these threads, DN said even if someone lies about their handicap, they should still be paid when they win.
I couldn't disagree more. Lying about your handicap in golf is simply cheating.
Anyone who says that is ok shows a real lack of character and integrity.
That is true, but if you make a bet, you need to pay up. They should have done their homework and looked into phil's game before wagering that much money. If your prepared to put that much money on a bet, you better be damn sure you know what your getting yourself into. If you don't take the time to figure this out, then your just a sucker
QUOTE (iowahawk09 @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 10:11 AM)
That is true, but if you make a bet, you need to pay up. They should have done their homework and looked into phil's game before wagering that much money. If your prepared to put that much money on a bet, you better be damn sure you know what your getting yourself into. If you don't take the time to figure this out, then your just a sucker
So if I say "let's flip this quarter for $100..."
You say: "Ok.. is it a real, normal quarter?"
I say: "yep! I call heads"
I flip it and it lands on heads. you pick it up and see that both sides are actually heads. are you going to pay me? of course not.
Same scenario...
QUOTE (NoShowJones @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 10:06 AM)
So if I say "let's flip this quarter for $100..."
You say: "Ok.. is it a real, normal quarter?"
I say: "yep! I call heads"
I say: Give me the damn quarter....this is a scam you retard
I then kick you in the balls and steal your money.
Actual scenario...
You say: "Ok.. is it a real, normal quarter?"
I say: "yep! I call heads"
I say: Give me the damn quarter....this is a scam you retard
I then kick you in the balls and steal your money.
Actual scenario...
FYP
Lying about your HCP when entering an amateur tournament is immoral, doing whatever you can to extract the best terms when gambling against other professional gamblers are crucial to your survival imho. Things tend to turn to gray, though, when you are friends with the people you are gambling with.
I think what Daniel has to say carries a lot of weight, since he has been on the wrong end of similar situations recently and payed up without hesitation each time.
I think what Daniel has to say carries a lot of weight, since he has been on the wrong end of similar situations recently and payed up without hesitation each time.
QUOTE (fiezk @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 10:16 AM)
Lying about your HCP when entering an amateur tournament is immoral, doing whatever you can to extract the best terms when gambling against other professional gamblers are crucial to your survival imho. Things tend to turn to gray, though, when you are friends with the people you are gambling with.
I think what Daniel has to say carries a lot of weight, since he has been on the wrong end of similar situations recently and payed up without hesitation each time.
I think what Daniel has to say carries a lot of weight, since he has been on the wrong end of similar situations recently and payed up without hesitation each time.
Isn't this really the same as representing yourself as a fish when you sit down in a cash game and proceed to take everyone's money? How is this different? It's just survival of the fittest here. Sometimes you gotta fib a little to get a lot.
QUOTE (fiezk @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 4:16 PM)
Lying about your HCP when entering an amateur tournament is immoral, doing whatever you can to extract the best terms when gambling against other professional gamblers are crucial to your survival imho. Things tend to turn to gray, though, when you are friends with the people you are gambling with.
I think what Daniel has to say carries a lot of weight, since he has been on the wrong end of similar situations recently and payed up without hesitation each time.
I think what Daniel has to say carries a lot of weight, since he has been on the wrong end of similar situations recently and payed up without hesitation each time.
Daniels opinion counts for Jack **** and he has no business sticking his nose in here. If he wants to recount Phils side of things thats fine, but its not fair of him to start expressing his own strong opinions when he doesn't know the other side of the story. Apparently both sides are meeting in Vegas soon and Daniel is just using his blog (that is read by a wide audience) to get people on Phils side and he shouldn't be doing.
Maybe being dishonest about your true ability and scamming people is the norm in the US, but in the UK its the worst form of cheating possible in golf. If your caught doing it you will be throw out of your golf club and struggle to get a game in your local area if you are known as a cheat.
I've always liked you and enjoyed reading your blog Daniel, but I think you've overstepped the line here mate.
QUOTE (KUPoker5 @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 7:20 AM)
Isn't this really the same as representing yourself as a fish when you sit down in a cash game and proceed to take everyone's money?
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
QUOTE (Andr4w @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 7:40 AM)
Daniels opinion counts for Jack **** and he has no business sticking his nose in here. If he wants to recount Phils side of things thats fine, but its not fair of him to start expressing his own strong opinions when he doesn't know the other side of the story. Apparently both sides are meeting in Vegas soon and Daniel is just using his blog (that is read by a wide audience) to get people on Phils side and he shouldn't be doing.
Maybe being dishonest about your true ability and scamming people is the norm in the US, but in the UK its the worst form of cheating possible in golf. If your caught doing it you will be throw out of your golf club and struggle to get a game in your local area if you are known as a cheat.
I've always liked you and enjoyed reading your blog Daniel, but I think you've overstepped the line here mate.
Maybe being dishonest about your true ability and scamming people is the norm in the US, but in the UK its the worst form of cheating possible in golf. If your caught doing it you will be throw out of your golf club and struggle to get a game in your local area if you are known as a cheat.
I've always liked you and enjoyed reading your blog Daniel, but I think you've overstepped the line here mate.
Does the same thing happen to those who welsh on their bet?
QUOTE (Whiter Sr @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 5:12 PM)
Does the same thing happen to those who welsh on their bet?
Not if your cheated in the first place
QUOTE (Andr4w @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 4:40 PM)
If he wants to recount Phils side of things thats fine, but its not fair of him to start expressing his own strong opinions when he doesn't know the other side of the story. Apparently both sides are meeting in Vegas soon and Daniel is just using his blog (that is read by a wide audience) to get people on Phils side and he shouldn't be doing.
Last time I checked there was still free speech in the US.
And why is Phil not allowed to get his friend to put his side forward? Marc Goodwin has put his out there, and Ram has got Barny Boatman to put his side out there.
QUOTE (bdc30 @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 11:12 AM)
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Nice constructive reply there, think-for-yourself-er.
QUOTE (KUPoker5 @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 8:20 AM)
think-for-yourself-er.
Not sure wtf that is supposed to mean, but your original comment made no sense either.
Telling people you are a donk, then raking up a cash game is neither immoral, nor cheating, and I don't see how it relates to the topic being discussed.
QUOTE (AngloBoy @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 5:17 PM)
Last time I checked there was still free speech in the US.
And why is Phil not allowed to get his friend to put his side forward? Marc Goodwin has put his out there, and Ram has got Barny Boatman to put his side out there.
And why is Phil not allowed to get his friend to put his side forward? Marc Goodwin has put his out there, and Ram has got Barny Boatman to put his side out there.
Barney only replied when he saw DN sticking his nose in in this blog, it would all have been kept quiet otherwise. The whole point is its between Ram, Marc and Phil, its no-one elses business not even DNs. Lets leave them to sort out their own private matter.
End of my posts
QUOTE (Andr4w @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 5:27 PM)
Barney only replied when he saw DN sticking his nose in in this blog, it would all have been kept quiet otherwise. The whole point is its between Ram, Marc and Phil, its no-one elses business not even DNs. Lets leave them to sort out their own private matter.
What the difference??? Daniel wrote his because of Marc, Barny wrote his because of Daniel.
And if it wasn't for Marc it would have just been yet another internet rumour and they could have kept it private.
QUOTE (KUPoker5 @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 7:20 AM)
Isn't this really the same as representing yourself as a fish when you sit down in a cash game and proceed to take everyone's money? How is this different? It's just survival of the fittest here. Sometimes you gotta fib a little to get a lot.
I find it very similar. There are two things that I think makes this seem less moral to many.
1. An experienced poker player has a smaller edge against an amateur. Leaving the "pray" with no chance of winning tend to make people feel sorry for the poor guy.
2. Poker is a hustling game, golf is a gentleman's sport. When viewed from an outside perspective, a poker game is where you expect to be hustled, whereas in golf things like honor and trust are highly regarded. In this case however, it was a match between professional gamblers playing for high stakes -- it doesn't matter if it's poker, golf, a spitting contest or flipping coins.
QUOTE (Andr4w @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 9:27 AM)
Barney only replied when he saw DN sticking his nose in in this blog, it would all have been kept quiet otherwise. The whole point is its between Ram, Marc and Phil, its no-one elses business not even DNs. Lets leave them to sort out their own private matter.
End of my posts
End of my posts
Again it ceased to be a private matter when Goodwin gloated in his Poker Player column about golfing with Phil, and then posting his side of the story on the internet! Had that not been posted, there is no way I would have posted it in my blog. However, it really bothered me that Phil was being painted in the wrong when the otherside has already taken his money, but yet, still haven't paid him back a penny.
QUOTE (Andr4w @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 7:40 AM)
Daniels opinion counts for Jack **** and he has no business sticking his nose in here. If he wants to recount Phils side of things thats fine, but its not fair of him to start expressing his own strong opinions when he doesn't know the other side of the story. Apparently both sides are meeting in Vegas soon and Daniel is just using his blog (that is read by a wide audience) to get people on Phils side and he shouldn't be doing.
Umm...Isn't this just your opinion? So ultimately doesn't it just account for Jack ****?
*shrug* I guess hypocrisy is okay where you're from.
QUOTE (bdc30 @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 11:26 AM)
Telling people you are a donk, then raking up a cash game is neither immoral, nor cheating, and I don't see how it relates to the topic being discussed.
That was my whole freakin' point, genius. Are you always this slow on the uptake?
QUOTE (DanielNegreanu @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 8:42 AM)
Again it ceased to be a private matter when Goodwin gloated in his Poker Player column about golfing with Phil, and then posting his side of the story on the internet! Had that not been posted, there is no way I would have posted it in my blog. However, it really bothered me that Phil was being painted in the wrong when the otherside has already taken his money, but yet, still haven't paid him back a penny.
This is quite an important point imo...
I remember reading that column a while ago, and I have knowledge that Goodwin had been gloating about his new found status (if you can call it that), after the Monte Carlo Millions.
I honestly think that if it had been Vaswani on his own, it would have been sorted out in private, and that he would never have shown the lack of class that Goodwin did, in making it public. Basically, if it wasn't for Goodwin's cocky, yet unjustified, persona, we would never have heard about it. I think that, in trying to make a name for himself, he's dragged Vaswani's previous good image through the muck with his column... and after this is over, Ram (and the Hendon Mob) should not associate with Goodwin anymore.
Hopefully Vaswani can sort this out by paying up, then he can then make up with Ivey et al, and his reputation can remain. From what I know of Vaswani, he's a good guy, and I honestly think there wouldn't have been a problem in sorting this out, if Goodwin wasn't involved.
As for Goodwin, he's just a newcomer who's out of his depth... he's the one who should be shunned from the poker community for his cockiness and lack of class.
Again.. I say this with complete disregard to the Phil Ivey situation...
Saying that it is okay to lie about your handicap just blows my mind.
Where do you draw the line on trying to gain an edge? There's no rule that says you have to stand any certain place while your opponent putts, but would you stand right over him breathing down his neck to gain an edge? Would you jump up and down like a clown to try and distract him? Would you scream right during his backswing? Would you intentionally make spike marks (which under USGA rules cannot be repaired by your opponent) in his putting line?
Saying that it is okay to lie about your handicap just blows my mind.
Where do you draw the line on trying to gain an edge? There's no rule that says you have to stand any certain place while your opponent putts, but would you stand right over him breathing down his neck to gain an edge? Would you jump up and down like a clown to try and distract him? Would you scream right during his backswing? Would you intentionally make spike marks (which under USGA rules cannot be repaired by your opponent) in his putting line?
Remember these are gamblers playing golf
not golfers gambling
So don't invoke the gentleman's game etc into the mix. They gamble because that's what they do. If they took a sucker bet, and don't pay they will still have a hard time getting future games, because that's the way it is. But they will still get games, because that's the way it is.
I'm glad DN is sticking up for Phil, with only one side of the story, I thought maybe Phil had lied to hustle them, but if they continued to play after the hustle, then they are too stupid to have money and deserve to lose.
not golfers gambling
So don't invoke the gentleman's game etc into the mix. They gamble because that's what they do. If they took a sucker bet, and don't pay they will still have a hard time getting future games, because that's the way it is. But they will still get games, because that's the way it is.
I'm glad DN is sticking up for Phil, with only one side of the story, I thought maybe Phil had lied to hustle them, but if they continued to play after the hustle, then they are too stupid to have money and deserve to lose.
Johnny Moss
Anecdotes
One time Moss was playing in Oklahoma when he noticed a peep hole in the ceiling where someone was relaying information about cards to a player at the table. After Moss' threat to shoot the man if the hole wasn't plugged wasn't taken seriously, Moss ended up wounding him. Moss also regularly had to threaten people to get them to remove their clothes when he knew they were using mechanical cheating devices.
Another time, Moss was playing high-stakes golf against a wealthy businessman. Going into the last few holes, Moss had lost over a quarter of a million dollars. The people who were sponsoring the match on Moss' behalf wanted to simply kill his opponent rather than pay, but Moss won the last few holes. The businessman told him, "Moss, you're the luckiest man alive." Moss responded, "No sir, you are."
Lets go back to the OLD DAYS.
Bunch of Bitches.
Anecdotes
One time Moss was playing in Oklahoma when he noticed a peep hole in the ceiling where someone was relaying information about cards to a player at the table. After Moss' threat to shoot the man if the hole wasn't plugged wasn't taken seriously, Moss ended up wounding him. Moss also regularly had to threaten people to get them to remove their clothes when he knew they were using mechanical cheating devices.
Another time, Moss was playing high-stakes golf against a wealthy businessman. Going into the last few holes, Moss had lost over a quarter of a million dollars. The people who were sponsoring the match on Moss' behalf wanted to simply kill his opponent rather than pay, but Moss won the last few holes. The businessman told him, "Moss, you're the luckiest man alive." Moss responded, "No sir, you are."
Lets go back to the OLD DAYS.
Bunch of Bitches.
QUOTE (ImDonaldo @ Monday, April 9th, 2007, 8:06 PM)
Daniel,
The way you portrayed the story certainly points fault at the supposed hustlers. How would your stance change if the story instead went down like this:
1) Initially, the games were played where you were spotted a 1-0 lead, and you won $300,000. This was perceived at slightly disadvantageous to PA, but there were no hard feelings.
2) Nine months later, you and PA decide to play pool again. This time, however, you do not know where to set the line, as you've heard that PA may have been playing every day with a world class coach.
3) It is then brought up that you have both played pool with lets say, Eric Lindgren. You ask PA if he was spotted a 1-0 lead when he played Eric, and he says yes. Based on this knowledge and Eric's perceived skill level, you agree on a fair line.
4) PA then adds another stipulation; that is, he requires that you play a full 7 games and if one is to quit, they would have to pay a $300k penalty.
5) PA crushes you for $1.8 million.
6) Again, no hard feelings, but then you run into your buddy Eric and tell him the story. He then says that when he and PA play, he does not give PA any sort of spot and they play straight up.
This story, which may or may not be true, is more similar to the "other side". The key points to this side, is that "PA" lied about his handicap with another player. If these were indeed true, would you feel it necessary to pay the $1.8 million? If you were to pay it, would you think it was ethical/fair that you were hustled by "PA"?
I'm not sure what side is true, but if the above stipulations were added, I'm curious to see how you would actually respond. Additionally, I have no experience with high stakes golf gambling, if lying about your handicap is typical, then there is no problem. If, however, lying about one's handicap breaks the "honor among thieves", this may be the problem.
The way you portrayed the story certainly points fault at the supposed hustlers. How would your stance change if the story instead went down like this:
1) Initially, the games were played where you were spotted a 1-0 lead, and you won $300,000. This was perceived at slightly disadvantageous to PA, but there were no hard feelings.
2) Nine months later, you and PA decide to play pool again. This time, however, you do not know where to set the line, as you've heard that PA may have been playing every day with a world class coach.
3) It is then brought up that you have both played pool with lets say, Eric Lindgren. You ask PA if he was spotted a 1-0 lead when he played Eric, and he says yes. Based on this knowledge and Eric's perceived skill level, you agree on a fair line.
4) PA then adds another stipulation; that is, he requires that you play a full 7 games and if one is to quit, they would have to pay a $300k penalty.
5) PA crushes you for $1.8 million.
6) Again, no hard feelings, but then you run into your buddy Eric and tell him the story. He then says that when he and PA play, he does not give PA any sort of spot and they play straight up.
This story, which may or may not be true, is more similar to the "other side". The key points to this side, is that "PA" lied about his handicap with another player. If these were indeed true, would you feel it necessary to pay the $1.8 million? If you were to pay it, would you think it was ethical/fair that you were hustled by "PA"?
I'm not sure what side is true, but if the above stipulations were added, I'm curious to see how you would actually respond. Additionally, I have no experience with high stakes golf gambling, if lying about your handicap is typical, then there is no problem. If, however, lying about one's handicap breaks the "honor among thieves", this may be the problem.
I really am quite surprised Daniel has chosen to air one side of a pretty contentious dispute without listening (and airing ) the other. I know the other two involved - and have listened to their side of this misadventure - true I haven't heard Daniel's buddy's side - but in the interest of balance allow me to put their side - as I know it.
True, the guys have been playing golf together for 8 months or so, Daniel's mate and his "coach" against the other two.... they played in Vegas and Europe during the summer of 2006.. and true Daniel's buddy lost most of these encounters. As Daniel knows I'm sure - golf is a game where there is a handicap system - so before each game the protagonists agreed what was considered an equitable handicap for each player and battle commenced.. all of the games were by all accounts fairly close ..
Before Australia this year the guys had NOT played together for months - so when they met up again - handicaps had to be agreed - now as the guys hadn't played together for a while they struggled to get an agreement on this fairly central point...so some questions were asked -- very specific questions of Daniel's buddy.... Like had he played much since last they played -- to which the answer offered was no...... another very specific question was asked -- had Daniels bud played "so and so" recently -- yes was the offered answer..... Ok , so do you still receive 10 strokes (per 18 holes from this guy)? again yes was the proferred answer.... So the friends (for that it what they were) agreed to play with the same handicaps as before... But Daniel's bud insisted upon 36 holes at this handicap (contract) and then they would adjust.... Ok, thought the other two -- we have played "so and so" and therefore know that if he still gives Daniel's bud 10 strokes then the previous handicap is fairly accurate. For those golfers amoung you Daniels Bud had a handicap of c26 The others were about 4 and about 15 ......
So they set off to play - and actually played quite happily for 18 holes .. wherein Daniel's buddy and his partner proceeded to thrash the other two ..... they all finished and were quite amiable -- next day as per contract they continued on the same handicaps - and again Daniel's buddy and his partner thrashed the others -- this time however one of the other guys walked off in disgust - calling foul whilst the other carried on to the bitter end... Ok so a salutory tale for the other 2 guys ... had that been the end of things they would have reluctantly paid -- but would have paid.... Daniel's buddy - shot fairly close to level par for most of the holes (there was one very high number on one hole)
The evening after the second day's golf - the two guys were approached by several senior figures within poker to warn them about an alleged "hustle" that they had suffered... independently - these guys were told how Daniel's bud had been receivng coaching and shooting level par scores on TPC courses in the states and had been winning vast (and I mean vast) quantities of cash from other guys on the golf course.... All of which would be perfectly fine and dandy if not for the following .... The very specific questions that were asked of Daniel's buddy on the 1st tee on the 1st round. "Had he played much since they last played?" Well very clearly he had been working his tail off... and much more damning "Did he still receive 10 strokes from "so and so""? Well actually no he didn't - the last time they had played together they had played off scratch.. no strokes either way -- so a ten stroke difference.... An apparent untruth.... which was later confirmed by "so and so". Further he had taken "so and so" for a few million dollars.....
Golf is a game of honour and self regulation - had a member of a local country club failed to adjust his handicap to such extreme improvements (Daniel's buddy improved by an average of 12 strokes a round) he would be banned not just from that club but from all others... In golf this is regarded as cheating....
Now I can see that in prop betting anything goes and the bettor beware motto applies... golf is different -- golf is a game of honour and self regulation as I said earlier.... I can see Daniel's buddy's side of the story -- but I can also see the other two's side.. and to represent it as Daniel did in his Blog as a "simple" case of welching is incredibly unfair and does the normally smart and fair Daniel absolutely no credit.
QUOTE (Balloon guy @ Tuesday, April 10th, 2007, 11:16 AM)
Remember these are gamblers playing golf
not golfers gambling
So don't invoke the gentleman's game etc into the mix. They gamble because that's what they do. If they took a sucker bet, and don't pay they will still have a hard time getting future games, because that's the way it is. But they will still get games, because that's the way it is.
I'm glad DN is sticking up for Phil, with only one side of the story, I thought maybe Phil had lied to hustle them, but if they continued to play after the hustle, then they are too stupid to have money and deserve to lose.
not golfers gambling
So don't invoke the gentleman's game etc into the mix. They gamble because that's what they do. If they took a sucker bet, and don't pay they will still have a hard time getting future games, because that's the way it is. But they will still get games, because that's the way it is.
I'm glad DN is sticking up for Phil, with only one side of the story, I thought maybe Phil had lied to hustle them, but if they continued to play after the hustle, then they are too stupid to have money and deserve to lose.
QFT
That is about what it boils down to. Phil won the negotiating game, and they were too sure of themselves to realize they've been had to quit. And Daniel is right to point out that something doesn't add up if the losers were indeed doubling the stakes; you don't double the stakes if you can't pay up. Especially if you thought the numbers weren't in your favor. It's that simple.
For those who hadn't read Blair's post, it does add a good perspective.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.