Daniel Responds...

27 views
Skip to first unread message

Danielnegreanu

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:54:27 AM12/5/02
to
>From: "dave keiser" anon...@aol.com

> Daniel has increases his
>list of enemies but I think he's got the talend and guts to not give in
>and become one of the new age poker good old boy.

While it's true that my list of enemies continues to grow, it truly hasn't
phased me. I'm true to myself, and am comfortable with the bed I've made for
myself. I realized full well what I was doing, and the consequences that would
surely come of my actions. I was willing to make that 'sacrifice' (if you can
call it that).

I could easily have been a non political, not controversial yes man in the
poker world, but I have no interest in being a phony (despite what GCA may
think). I could easily have made nice nice with all and help promote myself in
the poker world. That's the safe route for sure... F--- that.

I could have continued to pretend to like people I don't, and continued to
pretend that all is well in the 'lovely, friendly, poker world.'

Peg has been pretty hard on me for being quiet on RGP for good reason, but
she may not understand the EXACT predicament that I have been presented with.

She posted one of my previous posts where I said something to the effect of
'I tell it like it is, and want to clean up the poker world'.

Honesltly, I still feel like I tell it how I see it, but I am no longer
under the falsehood that I could do anything to 'clean up poker'. I simply
don't have that much clout, or that much control in the matter.

I can however decline to be a part of things I find dishonest or shady. I am
not comfortable being put in that position.

I have done my best to explain my dilemma to Peg, and quite frankly I'm
surprised she hasn't fully grasped the difficult dilemma I have been faced
with.

I'm still not going to comment on the whole Aruba/UB deal. I wasn't
invlolved in it, and I just don't want to open up that can of worms for a
number of reasons. Yes, I was offered a free room and flight to Aruba, along
with a seat in the televised Pro tournament... I declined the offer, for
reasons I'm just not going to discuss.


In closing let me just say this: if anyone would like to offer me a freeroll
into a 250 thousand dollar one table tournament in Timbuktu tomorrow, I can
make it to the airport in an hour...

Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com

Robert Ladd

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 10:42:22 AM12/5/02
to
Alright, I'm going to confess, I made a lot of mistakes. For one I
shouldn't have posted Daniel's e-mail. I got myself between Daniel and Russ
because Russ had told me essentially the same thing that Daniel said prior
to Daniel sending me the e-mail, and when I received Daniel's e-mail I sent
it off to Russ to show that there was confirmation from another source that
was credible.

At that point I was stuck. With Russ wanting to post it and Daniel not
wanting it posted identifying him as the source I realized that I had
screwed up. The choice I made to post without confirming or denying who the
source was might not have been the best, but I had foolishly put myself
between a rock and a hard place and I had to move quickly. Daniel contended
later that he didn't want the info posted, although I think he really did.
Russ was dancing because he had an RGP credible source that he could cite.

I don't know absolutely if Daniel's intent was to get the information out,
but whether it was or not was no excuse for me to send it to Russ before
clearing it with Daniel. After I had sent it to Russ, Daniel said he didn't
want Russ to have it. It was already too late.

For that I apologize to you Daniel.

I believed what Daniel sent me in the e-mail. I had and have no reason to
think that his story, which was told to me by Russ G. prior to even Daniel
telling me, and confirmed by yet another person that e-mailed me, was wrong.
Of course it's always possible that all three of these sources were lying,
spreading the same wrong rumor, or as unlikely as it could be, all made up
the same duplicate story.

Still, no matter whether I believed it or not, I should have been more
careful in my wording. I went back through my posts, and see where, in a
few spots, I referred to the UB Aruba situation as a scam. I was careful
in most places to attribute the word "scam" to Daniel's claims or preface my
statement with a qualifier of "If there was a scam". Unfortunately, I was
careless in my frustration with a situation where I was being raked over the
coals as being a liar, and an evil man by Steve Badger and Wayno.. I wasn't
lying about the e-mails coming from a credible source and since I had
additional information that confirmed what Daniel had said, I was pretty
convinced that what I was posting was true. I still think those things
happened the way Daniel and the others said. I talked to Russ Hamilton on
the phone, and didn't feel that he was being totally honest with me, and
nothing he said convinced me that the others were lying.

If and when my assumptions are proven wrong (no, Russ Hamilton's "facts"
aren't proof), I will apologize to Russ Hamilton and UB for those times I
blurted out that it was a scam. But, no matter what, I have a right to
question the situation and I have a right to my opinion. There's no hidden
agenda. I really just want to find out the truth in this.

I have nothing against the WPT and only mentioned them as possible victims,
other than pointing out that if they were victims, then sweeping those
things under the carpet was a bad way to go if corporate sponsors are
desired as a potential in the WPT's future. Steve Badger and Wayno both
tried to spin my statements as an attack on the WPT and that was just the
opposite of what I was trying to achieve. I like the idea of the WPT and
think it's a great idea for promoting poker. I'm pretty sure that Russ G.
thinks just the opposite and has shown his disdain for tournaments and
tournament players. But if poker is ever to approach mainstream America,
then it's going to be tournaments and TV that will make it happen.

Finally, I'd like to say that I think that anyone that hears about something
that has potential to adversely affect other people on RGP and doesn't make
the RGP community aware of the potential, then that person is wrong in
keeping it quiet. Maybe with Daniel posting on RGP again, other credible
people that know what really happened with UB and Aruba will come forward
and explain what they know, no matter which side they are on.

Robert Ladd


William Loughborough

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 11:14:05 AM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:42:22 GMT, "Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote:
> But if poker is ever to approach mainstream America,

"poker" IS mainstream America. There are probably 10 times as many people
who play poker than the total who have ever been in a card room and/or an
online poker site - or read all our posturings herein.

We tend to pretend some proprietorship over "poker" but that's a really
absurd vanity.

If some TV "tour" of tournament poker gets off the ground, it won't have
much effect on the actual game called "poker".

Love.


Mike McClain

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 1:24:28 PM12/5/02
to

"Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote :

>
> Unfortunately, I was
> careless in my frustration with a situation where I was being raked over the
> coals as being a liar, and an evil man by Steve Badger and Wayno.. I wasn't
> lying about the e-mails coming from a credible source and since I had
> additional information that confirmed what Daniel had said, I was pretty
> convinced that what I was posting was true. I still think those things
> happened the way Daniel and the others said. I talked to Russ Hamilton on
> the phone, and didn't feel that he was being totally honest with me, and
> nothing he said convinced me that the others were lying.


If it's any consolation, Robert, I just don't see how any reasonable
person could ever view the Badger/Wayno attacks as anything
but unwarranted and senseless. While I could feel your frustration,
I don't think it reflected poorly on you at all.

Additionally, I don't see how anybody but a complete idiot
would have believed that nothing at all dishonest occurred in Aruba,
even after Russ Hamilton's post.

Let's think about it:

1. An online cardroom decides to have a promotion that features
a tournament in Aruba, and they decide to give away $100k to
their loyal customers, and $250k to a small pool of 'professional'
players.

This just does not make sense. Why would they choose to
give away $250k to that small group of non-customers?


2. Some of the players invited to play in this select group for
the freeroll choose not to participate.

C'mon.... none of them are going to turn down that freeroll.
Lederer was actually there and chose not to play in it?! Does
that make sense?


3. When word of the dishonest representation gets out, not one
person from UB comes forward to deny the allegations, until
Russ H's post about a month later.

Phil Gordon was able to respond promptly to a post about
whether or not he was on 'Blind Date', but he's going to ignore
this accusation? His friend Perry posts daily... he's not going
to speak up to defend his friend?

Annie Duke and Howard Lederer read rgp on a daily basis,
and they are not slow to post their opinions on things. There
is absolutely no way, if this tournament was on the complete
up-and-up, that they would remain silent.

This just doesn't make sense.


4. Russ H.'s note mentioned that the $10k and $4k seat were
thrown in as a 'bonus' for the professional pool.

What the hell ?!? You've given these people a $250k
freeroll, and you decided to throw a bonus in on top of that?
How can this have possibly happened?


The above includes only the blatant discrepancies in attempting
to believe that all of the accusations are a farce. There are
many more minor tells, but the above is damning enough.

As I've said, Badger's and Wayno's attack on Robert have
been comical. If they are able to ignore all of the indicators,
then they are either biased beyond reason, or just very
stupid. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and go
with the former.

Mike.

Peg Smith

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 2:01:16 PM12/5/02
to
In article <20021205075427...@mb-df.aol.com>,
danieln...@aol.com (Danielnegreanu) writes:

>...I have done my best to explain my dilemma to Peg, and quite frankly I'm


>surprised she hasn't fully grasped the difficult dilemma I have been faced

>with...

I DO understand, and it IS a dilemma. So why did open the can of worms by
sending your email to Robert Ladd? You've told several people privately what
went on in Aruba, enough people that the accusations you're making can't
possibly remain a secret. By not posting publicly you're merely stalling, as it
seems inevitable that you'll eventually have to answer for those accusations.

As you know, your only choices now are to tell us all what happened in Aruba;
or stay silent, protect your friends, and hope the issue dies a quiet death.
The problem is that the choice you made earlier of telling several people made
Option #2 above damn near impossible.

Peg

BretONNN

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 2:07:05 PM12/5/02
to
> While it's true that my list of enemies continues to grow, it truly hasn't
>phased me.

Hey, you are ripping off my Schtick.

BTW, Daniel...instead of writing pointless articles about how to play the turn,
you should do a study on the value of money management...it might improve your
game. I personally can't believe anyone claiming to be a professional gambler
would travel across the country only to have your bankroll pickpocketed from
you in the first ring game you could find and then had to go borrowing a grub
stake.
Reminds me of what it's like hitting a jackpot in LA and having every blackcat
in the casino coming up to you asking for $2.

Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 3:01:22 PM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:24:28 -0800, "Mike McClain"
<mmcclain_...@omsoft.com> wrote:

>As I've said, Badger's and Wayno's attack on Robert have
>been comical. If they are able to ignore all of the indicators,
>then they are either biased beyond reason, or just very
>stupid. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and go
>with the former.

Don't know what post you read, but he admitted in his post
doing the things Badger and I were accusing him of. It's all there in
Google, go back and re-read it.


>Mike.

RMITCHCOLL

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 3:15:22 PM12/5/02
to
>
> Don't know what post you read, but he admitted in his post
>doing the things Badger and I were accusing him of. It's all there in
>Google, go back and re-read it.
>

How about the fact that UB might have done the stuff they were accused of? Isnt
the truth a defense?

Randy

Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 3:30:00 PM12/5/02
to


What has changed in this story? If something has changed, tell
me what it is, and I'll address it.

Robert Ladd admits in his post making the mistakes we were
accusing him of making. That's commendable. The only thing that
could have been different, is that if he would have done it sooner, it
would have saved everyone about 300 posts.

I don't know what went on in Aruba-- all I know is that a bunch
of people who probably couldn't find Aruba on a map (and this would
include me) are telling everyone what happened. If someone who was
actually there would like to step forward and make a charge or
accusation against someone else who was actually there, and sign their
real name to this charge or accusation, then I'd be fine with that.
Let the stepping forward and the signing of names commence.

Wayno

Mike McClain

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 3:54:15 PM12/5/02
to

"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote :

No need to re-read, you've been quite repetitive, and the humor
is never as good the second and third time.

I do remember this one:

>
> But Ladd is a fool. He has zero credibility. The minute Russ
> Hamilton showed up it put the lie to everything Ladd has been
> saying for a month (or however long it's been.)
>

As I pointed out, only somebody biased beyond reason or
a very stupid individual could come to this conclusion. It
simply does not match the information we were presented.

Mike.

RMITCHCOLL

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 3:58:12 PM12/5/02
to
> What has changed in this story? If something has changed, tell
>me what it is, and I'll address it.

i guess the main thing that has changed is other people have come forward
confirming Robert/Daniels tale. I also wish they would sign their name and go
public, but they are choosing not to do so. It doesnt make their info any less
valid. Confidential sources have brought down Presidents and CEOs.They are an
accepted part of the American fabric even though everyone wants to know who
Deep Throat was. I find it puzzling that you are not in the least bit concerned
that Russ H may have lied to us. I find it puzzling that you are not the least
bit concerned that a major online site backed by major poker celebs may have
attempted to defraud the poker public. Was anyone hurt by their alleged lies or
misrepresentations? No..the only things hurt were the truth and the reputation
of those involved. I have a TON of respect and admiration for you Wayno. I have
no desire to get into a war of words with a better writer then me :-). I guess
I will just have to respectfully disagree with your take on this topic.

Randy Collack

AlwaysAware

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 4:03:24 PM12/5/02
to
Hey Peg, while Wayno is waiting for someone to confess on his doorstep, you
wanna play me headsup for a million?

If we play NL one of us can be the first woman to ever win a mil at No Limit.

Think we can get UB to sponsor us if we promise that they don't have to pay?
Next Tuesday Ok with you? Oh wait Wayno might want to watch and Tuesdays aren't
good for him.

Joan

Peg Smith

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 4:10:14 PM12/5/02
to
In article <3defb576...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Larr...@charter.net (Larry W.
(Wayno) Phillips) writes:

>I don't know what went on in Aruba-- all I know is that a bunch
>of people who probably couldn't find Aruba on a map (and this would
>include me) are telling everyone what happened. If someone who was
>actually there would like to step forward and make a charge or
>accusation against someone else who was actually there, and sign their
>real name to this charge or accusation, then I'd be fine with that.
>Let the stepping forward and the signing of names commence.

Danny made the accusations, and signed his name to them, in the emails he sent
to Ladd, me and (he says) to Badger. You're saying you'll put no credence in it
unless he posts publicly? How does that make sense?

Peg

Peg Smith

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 4:21:22 PM12/5/02
to
In article <20021205160324...@mb-fi.aol.com>, alway...@aol.com
(AlwaysAware) writes:

>Hey Peg, while Wayno is waiting for someone to confess on his doorstep, you
>wanna play me headsup for a million?
>
>If we play NL one of us can be the first woman to ever win a mil at No Limit.

Sure. Wanna take 50% of each other?

Peg

Acesover

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 4:27:34 PM12/5/02
to
Bret.... what are you referring to? Is this an earlier thread I missed?

acesover

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com


Peg Smith

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 4:29:17 PM12/5/02
to
In article <20021205162122...@mb-cs.aol.com>,
pegsm...@aol.comnocrap (Peg Smith) writes:

I'm thinking, when word gets out about our scam, that UB will make it look good
by actually paying the million. So if we take 50% of each other, we'll both do
pretty well.

Peg

Bennett Niizawa

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 4:39:35 PM12/5/02
to
On Dec 5 2002 1:27PM, Acesover wrote:

> Bret.... what are you referring to? Is this an earlier thread I missed?

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com (as of 12/5/02, anyway...)

AlwaysAware

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 4:38:59 PM12/5/02
to
Girl, I like the way you think! (smile)

Now, how do we convince ourselves that what we are doing is OK? Methinks we
both view the world with lots of black and white and not much else inbetween.
*sigh* there's goes the million.

Joan

Peg Smith

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 5:26:08 PM12/5/02
to
In article <20021205163859...@mb-fi.aol.com>, alway...@aol.com
(AlwaysAware) writes:

>Now, how do we convince ourselves that what we are doing is OK?

That's a tough one. I'll bet if we put a link on Badger's website, though, we
can convince him.

Peg

jim

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 5:38:12 PM12/5/02
to
Daniel we all have faults and no one should be throwing stones without
first unvieling thier own flaws..
I could never and never will invision you as a yes man..Theres much
strength in your character and theres no way in hell your a
follower...
All the best and hold your head high..
hopefully will get down to vegas soon...and be true to yourself

jim grass

danieln...@aol.com (Danielnegreanu) wrote in message news:<20021205075427...@mb-df.aol.com>...

thePokerCroaker

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 5:43:27 PM12/5/02
to
Maybe no specific individual was hurt, but its definitely a black eye for
poker in general. How many times have we read that poker is moving into
the mainstream and all it needs is sponsors for its tournaments? And a lot
of this talk has come from the very people who were involved in this
UB/Aruba scandal.
Steve Badger -you still dont think something smelled fishy? I see the
word "scam" is now being elevated to "fraud". How bout that Larry Wayno
Phillips -you still think this was just a "business agreement"? Were the 8
professionals in on this from the beginning? Did they go to Aruba knowing
that the advertised prize money for the professionals didnt really exist?
What about the WPT trying to promote their poker tour for television?
One of their very first tournaments gets mired up in this mess. This
UB/Uruba thing is going to be a real nice selling point. While Steve
Badger keeps saying "I dont see anything wrong. Wheres my check?"

rrribbiT, Kermit

_________________________________________________________________

RustyJay

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 5:47:39 PM12/5/02
to
Daniel,

Glad you're in poker. Hope to see you at the Taj if you're going (or there).
-RJ

danieln...@aol.com (Danielnegreanu) wrote in message news:<20021205075427...@mb-df.aol.com>...

> >From: "dave keiser" anon...@aol.com
>
> > Daniel has increases his
> >list of enemies but I think he's got the talend and guts to not give in
> >and become one of the new age poker good old boy.
>
> While it's true that my list of enemies continues to grow, it truly hasn't
> phased me. I'm true to myself, and am comfortable with the bed I've made for
> myself. I realized full well what I was doing, and the consequences that would
> surely come of my actions. I was willing to make that 'sacrifice' (if you can
> call it that).
>

<snip>

Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:10:31 PM12/5/02
to
On 05 Dec 2002 (RMITCHCOLL) wrote:

>> What has changed in this story? If something has changed, tell
>>me what it is, and I'll address it.
>
>i guess the main thing that has changed is other people have come forward
>confirming Robert/Daniels tale. I also wish they would sign their name and go
>public, but they are choosing not to do so. It doesnt make their info any less
>valid. Confidential sources have brought down Presidents and CEOs.

True. But at some point in all these instances somebody
eventually stepped forward and made an actual charge and provided
actual evidence of something. This just keeps proceding in the
shadows. If the opposite ever happens, I think that's a fine thing.

>They are an
>accepted part of the American fabric even though everyone wants to know who
>Deep Throat was.

Yes, again, a confidential informant (Deep throat) may have
pointed the way, originally, told where to look, etc, but eventually
somebody-- some real person-- had to step forward into the daylight
and make a charge of some kind. The whispers in the shadows around
here, seem to keep winding up back at whispers in the shadows.

>I find it puzzling that you are not in the least bit concerned
>that Russ H may have lied to us.

I think there's more than one truth going on here, depending on
who is telling the story and from whose perspective it's looked at.
For instance, were the winners paid "promptly"? Some peoples' "truth"
is that they weren't. Other people's "truth" (UB/WPT obviously) is
that they were. It depends who's looking at it and who's perspective
it is.
From what I recall of what Russ Hamilton wrote, I didn't think he
was lying for the reason that certain things would be easy to prove.
For instance, if he wrote that Phil Gordon received $250 K, I assume
Phil Gordon received $250 K. (Because that could be be checked). His
post seemed to be a list of such things (again, going by memory).
There didn't seem to be anything in there that couldn't be "true" from
the perspective of UB/WPT. It's their "truth" in other words, from
their point of view. In that sense, I don't believe Russ H lied to
us, but that's just my opinion.

>I find it puzzling that you are not the least
>bit concerned that a major online site backed by major poker celebs may have
>attempted to defraud the poker public. Was anyone hurt by their alleged lies or
>misrepresentations? No..the only things hurt were the truth and the reputation
>of those involved. I have a TON of respect and admiration for you Wayno.

And likewise, I have a ton of respect and admiration for you
Randy.

>I have
>no desire to get into a war of words with a better writer then me :-).

This sounds highly speculative and based on woozy logic..

>I guess
>I will just have to respectfully disagree with your take on this topic.

I guess. I'm not averse to the facts coming out.

>Randy Collack

Wayno

Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:11:10 PM12/5/02
to

Knock it off, and no they aren't.

>Joan

Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:18:31 PM12/5/02
to
On 05 Dec 2002 21:10:14 GMT, pegsm...@aol.comnocrap (Peg Smith)
wrote:


Daniel wrote a post today (or was it yesterday) saying he
didn't feel like discussing it further. This proves what I said--
and predicted-- a month ago. He doesn't want to discuss it further.
(I also argued that this is an option he retained.) I just think that
if somebody took some words out of that email and used them 50-100
times and made a Hal Wallis production out of them, then after a
certain point this person was doing it on their own steam-- not
Daniel's. This was the point Badger and I were making. Daniel's
recent post saying he doesn't want to discuss it, confirms this to be
true.

Wayno


AlwaysAware

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:17:38 PM12/5/02
to
> Knock it off, and no they aren't.
>

Wayno:

You are missing the point.. Of course they aren't... But is seems that some
don't see the "problem" as no one was "hurt". So, it was a (not so subtle) way
of pointing out a few things... I'll let you figure the rest on your own.

Joan

RMITCHCOLL

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:23:22 PM12/5/02
to
> I think there's more than one truth going on here, depending on
>who is telling the story and from whose perspective it's looked at.
>For instance, were the winners paid "promptly"? Some peoples' "truth"
>is that they weren't. Other people's "truth" (UB/WPT obviously) is
>that they were. It depends who's looking at it and who's perspective
>it is.
> From what I recall of what Russ Hamilton wrote, I didn't think he
>was lying for the reason that certain things would be easy to prove.
>For instance, if he wrote that Phil Gordon received $250 K, I assume
>Phil Gordon received $250 K. (Because that could be be checked). His
>post seemed to be a list of such things (again, going by memory).
>There didn't seem to be anything in there that couldn't be "true" from
>the perspective of UB/WPT. It's their "truth" in other words, from
>their point of view. In that sense, I don't believe Russ H lied to
>us, but that's just my opinion.

Wayno, here is the link to what Russ wrote
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B3B425DA2

You can clearly see in Fact # 1 there is no room for alternate truths. Russ
wrote:
"Fact # 1 -- Phil Gordon got paid $250,000. PERIOD. He was paid promptly as
were all the winners in all the various events in Aruba."

The word promptly is in the sentence with all the other winners. You can bet
all the other winners were paid in Aruba. If I am right and Phil Gordon wasnt
then Russ is lying. If Russ is right and Phil was paid in Aruba then my sources
are lying.

Randy


NWBurbsCouple

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:33:23 PM12/5/02
to
Phil Gordon is quick to post insults online about the woman he was paired with
on Blind Date, but he sure is quiet about this.
But of course Paul Phillips reports Phil told him he saw no "upside" in
posting about this. Hmm...I wonder why? Maybe, like Russ Hamilton, he doesn't
want to engage in "100 Questions." Those questions are always so inconvenient
when a story doesn't add up.

Daniel's post clearly implies there was no 250K freeroll offered for him in
Aruba. I believe him.

AlwaysAware

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:35:04 PM12/5/02
to
Wayno wrote:

>>For instance, if he wrote that Phil Gordon received $250 K, I assume
>>Phil Gordon received $250 K. (Because that could be be checked).

And it could also be checked (with cooperation) of when that check was cashed..
But perhaps Phil is so rich that his preference was to admire it instead of
cashing a quarter of a million dollar check.

Joan

AlwaysAware

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:39:54 PM12/5/02
to
Before someone jumps at me I didn't mean to imply he never received a check,
left out the "right away"..... should have read....instead of cashing a quarter
of million dollar check right away.

Joan

Mike McClain

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 6:48:12 PM12/5/02
to

"AlwaysAware" <alway...@aol.com> wrote :

Even if Phil received a check for $250k, and even if it were issued
on the day of the tournament, it does not indicate the UB was
providing a $250k freeroll. These people might all be 'employees'
or 'investors' in UB. Perhaps this so-called freeroll was a method
in which to pay them wages or profits.

If they are getting paid with money that they have earned, it is
not a freeroll.... it is nine employees/owners buying into a
$25k+ satellite.

It's not even worth considering that UB offered these nine players
a $250k freeroll, no strings attached. It just doesn't make sense.
Anybody who is still clinging to that theory should have their
head examined.

Mike.

Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:05:16 PM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 "Mike McClain" wrote:


>"Mike McClain"wrote:


>>
>> >As I've said, Badger's and Wayno's attack on Robert have
>> >been comical. If they are able to ignore all of the indicators,
>> >then they are either biased beyond reason, or just very
>> >stupid. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and go
>> >with the former.
>>
>> Don't know what post you read, but he admitted in his post
>> doing the things Badger and I were accusing him of. It's all there in
>> Google, go back and re-read it.
>>
>
>No need to re-read, you've been quite repetitive, and the humor
>is never as good the second and third time.
>
>I do remember this one:
>
>>
>> But Ladd is a fool. He has zero credibility. The minute Russ
>> Hamilton showed up it put the lie to everything Ladd has been
>> saying for a month (or however long it's been.)

Yes, that's what I said all right. If you have some proof to
the contrary, that this isn't true, please provide it to a grateful,
waiting nation.

>As I pointed out, only somebody biased beyond reason or
>a very stupid individual could come to this conclusion. It
>simply does not match the information we were presented.


You may not have noticed, but in the last year or two there has
been a problem in this newsgroup of people making unsubstantiated
accusations with no proof or evidence of any kind. Prior to the
particular episode in question (the Aruba Case), you may also not have
observed that for a very long time Robert Ladd had a well-known
history of bending way, way over backwards to interpret any sentence,
statement or rumor that Russ G made favorably and giving credence to
it, no matter what it was, with regard to scams in tournaments or in
general. Going by this alone-- and nothing else-- a well-documented
predilection for seeing shadows behind every tree Russ pointed his
pinkie finger at-- the overwhelming balance of probabilities in this
case would point to Russ Hamilton being the one you would listen to.
But let's go further. We may also weigh in the balance the fact
that Russ Hamilton was there on the premises in Aruba (I'm assuming he
was there), and Robert Ladd wasn't. That Russ Hamilton is a known
quantity to many people (see the list of people who vouched for him)
and that Robert Ladd is completely unknown. That Russ Hamilton also
had some kind of official connection to the event, and Robert Ladd
didn't; that Russ Hamilton was privy to inside information about the
tournament, and Robert Ladd wasn't. And we also have Russ Hamilton's
statement (I just looked it up) which has a lot of straight,
declarative sentences of the type a person would be likely to make who
had just checked things out and was telling the truth-- sentences such
as the following:

>>Fact # 1 -- Phil Gordon got paid $250,000. PERIOD. He was paid promptly as
>were all the winners in all the various events in Aruba.

>>Fact # 2 -- UB never had to guarantee a $350,000 prize pool to be a part of
>>the WPT. Some posts on RGP asserted that UB scammed the WPT because they
>>only gave away $100,000 in prize money while falsely advertising the
>>$250,000 pro prize in order to meet the WPT's prize pool requirements. This
>>is FALSE. It is just not true. First off, Phil Gordon WAS paid $250,000.

Sentences of this type, coming from someone in charge and in a
position to know (again, sorry, I don't know Russ H's exact title),
many of which are "checkable" lend further credence.
I also go by my gut feeling here that from the UB/WPT
point-of-view, this stuff is true-- it is "their" truth. This is just
my opinion, but I add this in too. (See the other discussion about
different conflicting "truths" for different people involved in the
different sides of this, depending on their point of view, and where
they are coming from).

Finally, we also have this (it came later, of course): what Russ G
said about Russ Hamilton:
"Russ H is one of the good guys in poker as far as I am concerned.
I talked to him the other day and he says all that he stated in his
post has been done. I have NO reason to doubt this."
This from Russ G, the big well-known expert on cheating, corruption,
scamming, etc, etc.

So yes, in my view, based on the above information a person would
have to be a fool to have voted the other way-- the way you are
suggesting (and now adopting after the fact). Of course at the time,
you had no viewpoint on this at all that I can remember-- thus proving
again that hindsight is always much clearer, though in this case, not
very much clearer.


Lastly, let me say this. You said that Badger and my charges
against Robert Ladd were "comical". Whether they are or not is an
easy mystery to solve. I could get into Google and see what kind of
charges I was making, and then we could match them up to the list of
mistakes Robert Ladd now admits to making. If these two things
matched up, how comical would the charges be?

>Mike.

Wayno

AlwaysAware

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:05:28 PM12/5/02
to
Mike:

I don't disagree (or for that matter agree, call me Switerland:-) with what you
are saying, my point in a "round about way" was.... Wayno made the statement
that it can be proved if a check was issued or not... my counterstatement was
if the check was "cashed" promptly... Hard to cash a check a day or two after
you return from Aruba if you don't receive said check until weeks later.

Joan


RMITCHCOLL

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:14:15 PM12/5/02
to
>sentence with all the other winners. You can bet >all the

Clarification for fact checkers:
The online players werent actually paid cash in Aruba. They had cash credited
to their accts on UB. Phil Gordon was not paid until well after these transfers
were made. And not before the fact that he wasnt paid broke. I think these
items are smokescreens for the key point anyway. IMHO the key point is that
they never had any intention of paying the 250K. That is dishonest.

Randy

Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:22:29 PM12/5/02
to
On 05 Dec 2002 (RMITCHCOLL) wrote:

>> From what I recall of what Russ Hamilton wrote, I didn't think he
>>was lying for the reason that certain things would be easy to prove.
>>For instance, if he wrote that Phil Gordon received $250 K, I assume
>>Phil Gordon received $250 K. (Because that could be be checked). His
>>post seemed to be a list of such things (again, going by memory).
>>There didn't seem to be anything in there that couldn't be "true" from
>>the perspective of UB/WPT. It's their "truth" in other words, from
>>their point of view. In that sense, I don't believe Russ H lied to
>>us, but that's just my opinion.
>
>Wayno, here is the link to what Russ wrote
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?B3B425DA2

Thanks-- I found it.

>You can clearly see in Fact # 1 there is no room for alternate truths. Russ
>wrote:
>"Fact # 1 -- Phil Gordon got paid $250,000. PERIOD. He was paid promptly as
>were all the winners in all the various events in Aruba."

I guess I don't understand what part Russ H is accused of lying
about. If it's this "promptly" thing, doesn't that come down to the
definition of "promptly"? Maybe they have their own definition of
promptly-- hey, don't laugh, it's their tournment, and their
promotion, and their ball-- they can define "promptly" anyway they
choose to define it. They own the tournament and they also own the
rights to the "time-frame" that they can define it anyway they want.
Isn't the opposite of this argument: We're sorry that we were unable
to pay promptly enough to meet the definition of the word "promptly"
possessed by all the people who weren't there? I'm being facetious,
but you see what I mean-- if the whole thing comes down to the
definition of the word "promptly" I don't see this case going anywhere
but Fizzle City.

>The word promptly is in the sentence with all the other winners. You can bet
>all the other winners were paid in Aruba. If I am right and Phil Gordon wasnt
>then Russ is lying. If Russ is right and Phil was paid in Aruba then my sources
>are lying.

>Randy


Well, I'd love to keep discussing this, endlessly and forever,
but I now must turn my attention to a more pressing problem-- how to
get this Christmas tree into this stupid metal $13.95 Wal-Mart tree
stand.

Wayno

A. Prock

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:26:42 PM12/5/02
to
According to Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips <Larr...@charter.net>:

> You may not have noticed, but in the last year or two there has
>been a problem in this newsgroup of people making unsubstantiated
>accusations with no proof or evidence of any kind.

Wayno, why the on earth do you care so much about this
crap? I have a hard time putting credibility into every
thing that gets posted on RGP, but why do you feel like
you have to sniff out every post that is in some way
attached to Russ? I honestly have no clue.

It's clear that Russ has his own personal agenda. I also
think I understand where it comes from.

But you, Wayno...

You are a mystery. You are like Doug Grant attacking and
attacking without rhyme or reason.

Were you cheated by Russ at some point?
Are you part owner of Card Player?
Is Mike Caro your cousin in-law?

Or is it that you've just got too much time on your
hands?

I really don't know if I care what the answer is, but in
my book you are twice the netkook that Russ will ever be.

- Andrew


--
http://prock.freeshell.org

DaveM

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:49:30 PM12/5/02
to
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 23:18:31 GMT, Larr...@charter.net (Larry W. (Wayno)
Phillips) wrote:

>On 05 Dec 2002 21:10:14 GMT, pegsm...@aol.comnocrap (Peg Smith)

> Daniel wrote a post today (or was it yesterday) saying he


>didn't feel like discussing it further. This proves what I said--
>and predicted-- a month ago. He doesn't want to discuss it further.
>(I also argued that this is an option he retained.) I just think that
>if somebody took some words out of that email and used them 50-100
>times and made a Hal Wallis production out of them, then after a
>certain point this person was doing it on their own steam-- not
>Daniel's. This was the point Badger and I were making. Daniel's
>recent post saying he doesn't want to discuss it, confirms this to be
>true.

This seems to be stretching a bit. I haven't been following this story but
if Daniel isn't commenting on people "quoting" him then either he's happy
with the attribution or he's genuinely keeping mute. There's no logical way
his silence can be interpreted to indicate he feels he's been misquoted.

DaveM

dave keiser

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 8:13:50 PM12/5/02
to
Hey,Wayno do me a big favor, SHUT THE FUCK UP. In case you don't know you
got shit coming out of your eyes,ears, and mouth. This fucking spin we're
getting out of you is giving me and everyone else a fucking headache. I
don't mind when you do it to the Scumbag but there is a genuine interest
here and Russ H tried to pull a fast on and got caught. Get your fucking
dunce cap out and go sit in the corner. Even that dickweed Badger has run
for the hill on this one so STFU.

susan

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 8:16:25 PM12/5/02
to
AMEN

"dave keiser" <anon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:iRSH9.531961$H65....@post-02.news.easynews.com...

Chet

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 8:34:50 PM12/5/02
to
Daniel: I am going to respect your right not to be involved in the
"Aruba/UB deal" (your words). Whether it was 'right' for you or not is your
business, not any one else's.

However, I am disappointed in the fact that you brought up some issues, made
some allegations and provided that information to various parties, whom I
suspect you knew in advance would plaster that information all over
cyberspace, without providing any substantiating FACTS.

Right or wrong, various reputations have been sullied, Ultimate Bet as a
business, the investors in Ultimate Bet, Russ Hamilton, even the World Poker
Tour (WPT) indirectly, etc. Whether your allegations are correct or not, I
believe you had a responsibility, once that information was "made public",
to either provide the supporting facts or disclaim the allegations.

Whether there are legal ramifications to this I don't know, as I am neither
an attorney or a graduate of law school, but from a lay viewpoint, it sure
seems like this falls into a questionable area.

Now that the charges have been leveled and the reputations sullied, you come
forward and basically say that you don't want to discuss it. If that is
truly the way you feel, wouldn't it have been better to keep this out of the
public sector in the first place?

As an on-line player, it is really hard to determine which sites are on the
up-and-up, which can be trusted and which should be avoided. This whole
issue, while having NO DIRECT connection to on-line poker, none the less
certainly works to raise questions about the trustworthyness of UB. Any new
player who reads this forum and particularly the threads related to this
issue, and who did not at least raise an eyebrow probably shouldn't be
playing on-line to begin with.

Personally, I have played at UB since BEFORE they had cash games. I have
never been an investor or worked for them in any way. I have never had ANY
reason to question the trustworthyness of their operation, when I made a
deposit, every cent was credited to my account, when I made a withdrawal
every cent was on the check they mailed me. When I had questions, I ALWAYS
got prompt, straight forward answers from member services. I may not have
liked the answer, but I got one that was prompt and straight forward.

At this time, I think you need to do one of two things:

A. Either provide the FACTS to support the allegations and let the chips
fall where they may, or

B. Issue a public apology to everyone who has been subjected to the various
allegations, etc, and basically set the record straight that this was a
disagreement between you and others over business decisions you personally
did not agree with.

In my "real life" I discuss business decisions with counterparts and
management everyday. I don't always agree with the decisions made or the
course of action decided upon. However, as an employee and a member of
management, it is my obligation to support those decisions, UNLESS those
decisions result in a course of action that involves FRAUD or other illegal
activities. If they do, it is my legal OBLIGATION to bring those issues to
the public AND to provide the FACTS to support those issues.

I believe the same standard applies here.

Chet

"Danielnegreanu" <danieln...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021205075427...@mb-df.aol.com...


> >From: "dave keiser" anon...@aol.com
>
> > Daniel has increases his
> >list of enemies but I think he's got the talend and guts to not give in
> >and become one of the new age poker good old boy.
>
> While it's true that my list of enemies continues to grow, it truly
hasn't
> phased me. I'm true to myself, and am comfortable with the bed I've made
for
> myself. I realized full well what I was doing, and the consequences that
would
> surely come of my actions. I was willing to make that 'sacrifice' (if you
can
> call it that).
>

Mike McClain

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 8:37:21 PM12/5/02
to

"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote :

> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 "Mike McClain" wrote:
>
> >>
> >> But Ladd is a fool. He has zero credibility. The minute Russ
> >> Hamilton showed up it put the lie to everything Ladd has been
> >> saying for a month (or however long it's been.)
>
> Yes, that's what I said all right. If you have some proof to
> the contrary, that this isn't true, please provide it to a grateful,
> waiting nation.

There will be no proof on this newsgroup. I'm simply telling
you how any rational person would interpret the evidence
presented. Your interpretation was not rational.

> Prior to the
> particular episode in question (the Aruba Case), you may also not have
> observed that for a very long time Robert Ladd had a well-known
> history of bending way, way over backwards to interpret any sentence,
> statement or rumor that Russ G made favorably and giving credence to
> it, no matter what it was, with regard to scams in tournaments or in
> general.

You see, this is where you made your mistake. You were
terribly biased in your interpretation, solely based on the fact
that Ladd has agreed with Russ on some things in the past.
So you decided to ignore all common sense -- decided to
ignore the fact that a $250k pro freeroll makes no sense,
ignored the fact that some of them did not participate, ignored
the fact that not a single participant came forth to defend for
a full month, ignored the fact the Russ H's letter left plenty
of room for half-truths -- all because this story was presented
by Robert Ladd.

I've got some news for you.... you've also acted like a buffoon
in the whole Russ situation. So not only did you use your
bias against Ladd to ignore logic, you also have very little
basis to have that bias.

Credibility is only one factor to weigh. You used it as the
only factor, and you didn't even account for the fact that
you might be biased in your measurement of credibility.

> But let's go further. We may also weigh in the balance the fact
> that Russ Hamilton was there on the premises in Aruba (I'm assuming he
> was there), and Robert Ladd wasn't. That Russ Hamilton is a known
> quantity to many people (see the list of people who vouched for him)
> and that Robert Ladd is completely unknown. That Russ Hamilton also
> had some kind of official connection to the event, and Robert Ladd
> didn't; that Russ Hamilton was privy to inside information about the
> tournament, and Robert Ladd wasn't.

Let's ignore, conveniently, the fact the Russ H. is one of the accused,
and therefore has more stake in the situation than Robert. Please
don't act like you were balancing things on a scale. I'm the
person who did that, not you, and I know how it turned out.


> And we also have Russ Hamilton's
> statement (I just looked it up) which has a lot of straight,
> declarative sentences of the type a person would be likely to make who
> had just checked things out and was telling the truth-- sentences such
> as the following:
>
> >>Fact # 1 -- Phil Gordon got paid $250,000. PERIOD. He was paid promptly as
> >were all the winners in all the various events in Aruba.
> >>Fact # 2 -- UB never had to guarantee a $350,000 prize pool to be a part of
> >>the WPT. Some posts on RGP asserted that UB scammed the WPT because they
> >>only gave away $100,000 in prize money while falsely advertising the
> >>$250,000 pro prize in order to meet the WPT's prize pool requirements. This
> >>is FALSE. It is just not true. First off, Phil Gordon WAS paid $250,000.
>

You don't see any problem with the fact that he does not want to
answer any more questions? No problem with why it took a month
for him to come forth? No problem with the fact that Lederer or
Gordon had nothing to say? Doesn't seem at all odd that they
threw in another $14k on top of the $250k? Doesn't seem at all
strange that they gave this money to a group of people that are
not even customers of their site? Not at all bothered by the
fact that Russ H. threw in a million other monetary details that
had nothing to do with the issue at hand? Nothng seems odd here?

Either you are biased, or you are an idiot. I'm only willing to defend
that you might be in the first group for so long.

> Finally, we also have this (it came later, of course): what Russ G
> said about Russ Hamilton:

Oh, this is rich. Are you actually using Russ as a character witness?
Wayno? You are doing that? In the exact same post that you
declared Ladd as having no credibility because he supported
Russ? The very same post!


> So yes, in my view, based on the above information a person would
> have to be a fool to have voted the other way-- the way you are
> suggesting (and now adopting after the fact). Of course at the time,
> you had no viewpoint on this at all that I can remember-- thus proving
> again that hindsight is always much clearer, though in this case, not
> very much clearer.

I can tell you that I had a viewpoint quite sometime ago. Only a
blind person would not have gone in the same direction.

> If these two things
> matched up, how comical would the charges be?
>

Even if the Aruba tourney was completely legit, Badger and you
attacked Ladd's credibility in a senseless and extremely biased
manner. Ladd was very reasonable in his presentation of what
he knew, and the two of you were insane.

I'm not going to spend any more time trying to convince you,
as I've seen enough example of your bullheadedness. I'm
only posting because when I saw Robert apologizing, I wanted
him to know how the fiasco was viewed by the open-minded.

Look at the replies to this thread.... how many people
agree with your 'scale'?

Mike.

Robert Ladd

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 8:47:48 PM12/5/02
to
This is your unfairness towards me coming out again, Wayno. Why do you keep
exaggerating how many times I post on any issue? There is no way in HELL
that I posted 50-100 times about UB/Aruba. If I posted about that subject
25 times I'd be surprised. Actually I posted very few, maybe 2-3 at most
directly about the subject, but had to keep citing the original posts
because you and Badger were twisting it to appear like I was making
relentless attacks on innocent victims. And now this act, like I kept
sending it out in some kind of "Hal Wallis production" is again a complete
and utter mischaracterization. You are so frustrating.

The majority of my posts were in defense of what you and Badger were saying
about me personally and how you both were trying to twist what was going on
and trying to make me look like I was attacking UB and the WPT and all the
professional players that were in Aruba. I wasn't and you both knew that.
I didn't stop defending myself and fighting back then, and I won't stop
fighting back at your attempts to still portray this as me constantly and
relentlessly attacking these entities. That is not and was not the case.

I wanted to find out what was true. Sure, I believed and still believe
that UB didn't pay Phil Gordon the $250,000 immediately, nor had any plans
to pay him until this hit big time. That doesn't mean I know, or even claim
to know it's true. It's my opinion. I am entitled to my opinion. It only
means that I wanted to get to the bottom of it. But you and Badger had to
keep redirecting the whole thing back at me rather than trying to find out
the truth.

If what Daniel and others say is true, then maybe Phil Gordon should give
Daniel a buy-in to some major tournament for getting Phil an extra $200,000.
Or maybe not.

If I had this whole thing to do over, I'm sure I'd do it again, but I'd be a
little more careful with how I worded things and would have hammered harder
on Daniel to come on and tell the story rather than run with it myself. I
learned a good lesson. The word "alleged" would have been prudent.

I still think we all need to keep each other informed about potential
problems that exist online and in B&M.

I hope the attacks on me by you and Badger don't keep other people from
letting us know about things they find out that have the potential for harm
to the rest of us. That would be the bigger shame.

Robert Ladd

"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3defdd40...@news.cis.dfn.de...

Peg Smith

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 9:23:56 PM12/5/02
to
In article <8lTH9.32567$K64.1...@news2.west.cox.net>, "Robert Ladd"
<rl...@cox.net> writes:

>...The majority of my posts were in defense of what you and Badger were saying


>about me personally and how you both were trying to twist what was going on
>and trying to make me look like I was attacking UB and the WPT and all the
>professional players that were in Aruba. I wasn't and you both knew that.
>I didn't stop defending myself and fighting back then, and I won't stop
>fighting back at your attempts to still portray this as me constantly and

>relentlessly attacking these entities. That is not and was not the case...

Wayno, Bob's right. I still believe he's owed apologies for the relentless
harassment directed at him by both you and Badger.

Has anyone else noticed that Badger hasn't uttered a syllable since Randy
posted yesterday?

Peg

Tom Weideman

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 9:41:03 PM12/5/02
to
Larry W. Wayno Phillips wrote:

>>> But Ladd is a fool. He has zero credibility. The minute Russ
>>> Hamilton showed up it put the lie to everything Ladd has been
>>> saying for a month (or however long it's been.)
>
> Yes, that's what I said all right. If you have some proof to
> the contrary, that this isn't true, please provide it to a grateful,
> waiting nation.

I have proof. At least it's proof by a burden to which you seem to
subscribe. To get real proof that Ladd is not a fool and that he is
credible, all we have to do is ask a witness who has first hand knowledge
and will sign his name to his declaration. I call to the witness stand...
Robert Ladd.

This is the logic you used to exonerate UltimateBet. You quoted Russ
Hamilton, saying he should be listened to because as an agent of UB, he has
first hand knowledge.


Tom Weideman

Lee Munzer

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 9:58:58 PM12/5/02
to

You can both take 50% of yourselves, if:
- I can sponsor the event for $2 million (winner take all ensuring the
biggest payoff irrespective of gender or species),
- I am promised free ads in CP and, most importantly,
- I can take 100% of each of you without cost (I'll forward some IRS Form
5754s just in case).

We'll make it a charitable event (feed the badger fund, if okay with Peg),
so I can deduct my gambling winnings of $2M against the charitable
contribution. Now, all I need is President Bush to kill the stupid AMT tax
and we can get rolling.

Lee

Scott N

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 10:10:30 PM12/5/02
to

>
> In closing let me just say this: if anyone would like to offer me a
> freeroll
> into a 250 thousand dollar one table tournament in Timbuktu tomorrow,
> I can make it to the airport in an hour...
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> www.fullcontactpoker.com


Is there really a Timbuktu?

Steve Badger

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 10:48:43 PM12/5/02
to
"thePokerCroaker" <anon...@aol.com> wrote...
> Maybe no specific individual was hurt, but its definitely a black eye for
> poker in general. How many times have we read that poker is moving into
> the mainstream and all it needs is sponsors for its tournaments? And a lot
> of this talk has come from the very people who were involved in this
> UB/Aruba scandal.
> Steve Badger -you still dont think something smelled fishy?

I have no intention of jumping into this sewer, but I'm not going to let
anyone pretend I'm taking a position I haven't taken. I have said many
times I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED IN ARUBA.

Now folks can come on here and make up any garbage they want. That seems to
be what RGP is for these days, but to repeat: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED
IN ARUBA. My posts have addressed the evidence-less personal attacks on UB
and the WPT from people who have NO IDEA at all of what occured. It's
amazing that the idea that "he MIGHT be right" is held up as a defense for
reckless behavior. I'm gonna go take a drive now, and close my eyes while
doing it. If I kill a few dozen innoncent people, that's okay because I
MIGHT end up on the right side of the road.

"Mike McClain" wrote...


> Even if Phil received a check for $250k, and even if it were issued
> on the day of the tournament, it does not indicate the UB was
> providing a $250k freeroll. These people might all be 'employees'
> or 'investors' in UB. Perhaps this so-called freeroll was a method
> in which to pay them wages or profits.

It was not a "freeroll." You and I and anybody else not with a direct
business relationship with UB (with the possible exception of Bonetti, Phil
Hellmuth's best friend) was not invited to play. Can you seriously believe
there weren't massive strings attached?

> If they are getting paid with money that they have earned, it is
> not a freeroll.... it is nine employees/owners buying into a
> $25k+ satellite.

Uh, yeah. I'm not saying it was money they had earned because again I DON'T
KNOW WHAT HAPPENED and don't know individuals compensation schemes. What I
do know is this was a bonus for people *intimately* involved in UltimateBet,
and I would assume that playing and especially winning required a
significant continuing commitment to UltimateBet. Daniel made it clear
awhile ago that he didn't want an ongoing relationship with UltimateBet.

> It's not even worth considering that UB offered these nine players
> a $250k freeroll, no strings attached. It just doesn't make sense.
> Anybody who is still clinging to that theory should have their
> head examined.

The idea this was a freeroll is absurd. Again except for Bonetti, and to a
lesser degree with Scotty Nyguen, these people are very involved with
UltimateBet. I don't know the internal compensation schemes of UB in
dealing with these people, but referring to this as a no-strings "freeroll"
is laughable. There is nothing "free" about making longterm business
commitments.

Now I have no intention of participating in this new direction the various
threads are running, where one person who knows nothing speculates about
this or that and the definition of "promptly" is held up for public
discussion. I'm going to now make my first post... and it is very
uninformed because I WAS NOT IN ARUBA... where I reveal my suspicions of
what did occur there. Me doing this is completely useless babbling because
I have no idea. I HAVE exchanged email with Daniel Negreanu, spoken to Russ
Hamilton and a World Poker Tour representative (who I will not name to keep
from someone throwing slanders that way)....

1) World Poker Tour forms.
2) UB joins the WPT in one of the slots not being "taken" by previously
scheduled b&m casinos, thus has a relatively short time to create an entire
promotion and event. (My memory is they had four months but I could be
wrong about that.)
3) UB comes up with a generous online player freeroll promotion, and
couples it with an unique (for the WPT at least) "David vs. Goliath" final
by pitting the eventual online winner against the winner of a shootout among
UltimateBet-associated individuals. If memory serves, all of these are
professionals to some degree in the poker field, with coincidentally the
exception of Phil Gordon. All are with Ultimate Bet.
4) UB and the WPT agree on a $200,000 price tag for this event.
5) UltimateBet promotes this tournament, and in doing so inflates the
professionals "prize pool" to $250,000, presumably for public relations
purposes. How this money is to be paid (or even if it was to be money as
opposed to shares or compensation manipulation) is discussed between
UltimateBet and the professionals. One, Negreanu, declines to play for a
combination of reasons including wanting to sever relations with UB and,
probably, the non-cold-hard-cash reality of what the $250,000 actually is.
6) UB and WPT converge on Aruba.
7) WPT makes it clear to UB that cold-hard-cash is required, and that no
public relations-hyped compensation package is acceptable.
8) Phil Gordon wins professionals event.
9) UB did not have it conceived this cold-hard-cash way, since they were
never required by the WPT to have such a large prize for the professionals,
but understands that WPT's interpretation is the only one that counts and
agrees they will pay Phil Gordon cash.
10) Phil Gordon is paid. (Note here, under no circumstances would I think
Phil Gordon would be paid $250,000 in cash in Aruba. These are all business
associates and the money will be transferred in a 21st century way and not a
19th century way of lugging a quarter-million dollars worth of greenbacks
through airports and customs.)
11) WPT is fully satisfied with the resolution of its deal with UB, even if
there was a brief point in Aruba where they (WPT) made clear that
compensation for winning the tournament must be paid in full in cash, not by
any other means, nor only partially.

To me, no other explanation makes much sense. I believe the WPT that no
"scam" occurred in actual fact. I believe the WPT that they believe Phil Go
rdon was paid in compliance with the agreement between WPT and UB. I then
also suspect that the pre-tournament publicity around the $250,000 was
largely advertising hype and that this "money" was simply going to be rolled
into other compensation packages. I suspect Negreanu, having no interest in
a longterm deal, was not interested in a non-cold-hard-cash, smoke &
mirrors-ish, non-literal $250,000. I suspect that Negreanu then went much
too far in presuming that the WPT was not effective in enforcing its view of
how compensation must be paid.

Those are my guesses. Except for a few bits of fact, including the WPT's
statement to me that they are fully satisfied, its all guess work. I don't
know. I don't know for sure any more than I know for sure who shot John
Kennedy.

I believe that most of this tempest on RGP, the part not motivated simply by
a desire to hurt people, comes down to a question of when UB's
publicity/compensation ideas were nipped in the bud by the WPT.
Essentially, I believe people can be legitimately po'ed at UB for "attempted
bullshit". I believe it is illegitimate to accuse UB/WPT of "successful
bullshit". Even semantically, if you characterize it most negatively,
"attempted scam" is different than "successful scam". I don't believe
"scam" is at all appropriate since UB was not required by WPT to have this
large prize... they *were* required to pay it once they advertised it
though. I believe "PR-bullshit" is what UB did wrong. It wanted it's
associated professionals event to seem more cool than it was. I believe
this was a mistake in their thinking that was rectified amiably with/by the
WPT.

That is enough useless speculation for one person. I do not know what
happened. Do not assume the above is true. It is my guess, but every bit
of informed statement that I have been told by Daniel, RussH, WPT and a few
other people both at the event and associated with these people points to
the gist of the above being accurate, in my opinion.

Frankly, while PR-bullshit does bother me, and I have stated so in the past
about various cardrooms that advertise on my website, I believe that is the
scope of the "wrong" here. Others may think exaggerated bullshit is "more
bad" than that, but to me this is in the same "bad" category as "so and so
won a million dollars". It's not true, it shouldn't be done, but it does
not merit the term "scam."

I'm going to watch Survivor now. I hope that is more fun. (Note to
O'Malley, is that Flo of Zack and Flo the whiniest creature on the face of
the Earth?)
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com


NWBurbsCouple

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 10:50:28 PM12/5/02
to
> If it's this "promptly" thing, doesn't that come down to the
>definition of "promptly"?

We have so much to thank Bill Clinton for.

NWBurbsCouple

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 10:53:02 PM12/5/02
to
The bet here is that a certain weasely, pedantic, pompous, un-selfaware
loudmouth will not see fit to apologize.

NWBurbsCouple

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 10:56:31 PM12/5/02
to
>Is there really a Timbuktu?

Yes, in Mali. No poker there yet, though. But Russ Hamilton is working on the
golf tournament.

Shawn Nelsen

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 10:59:03 PM12/5/02
to
HAHAHAHA that was funny.

Shawn Nelsen

"dave keiser" <anon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:iRSH9.531961$H65....@post-02.news.easynews.com...

NWBurbsCouple

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 11:03:21 PM12/5/02
to
Congratulations, RGP for exposing the lies, deceptions and half-truths
associated with the Aruba UB promotion.

And congrats to Ladd and Randy C. and especially Daniel N. for having guts and
integrity.

Let others bemoan that "RGP isn't worthwhile anymore." It sure worked here.

Robert Ladd

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 11:34:59 PM12/5/02
to

"Steve Badger" <PlayWinningPoker[REMOVE-THIS]@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:v6VH9.7055$kz2.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>SNIP<

> I believe that most of this tempest on RGP, the part not motivated simply
by
> a desire to hurt people, comes down to a question of when UB's
> publicity/compensation ideas were nipped in the bud by the WPT.

You can't get past it can you Steve? You have to continue to spin this as
me wanting to hurt someone. I have no idea why you keep doing this. I
can't say it any clearer. I can't pound on the keys harder to make it more
effective. I can't sit if front of my screen and scream it any louder. I
DON'T AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY MOTIVES OF HURTING ANYONE. Your characterizing it
this way is absolutely shameful.

I'm not going to stop fighting back every time you do this. Everytime you
mischaracterize my motives I'm going to respond. YOU WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH
IT. I'm not going to sit by and let you portray me as someone getting kicks
out of "a desire to hurt people". I PROMISE, I WILL NOT LET YOU GET AWAY
WITH IT.

Your little attempt to get in the last mischaracterization jab is childish,
but it and any others will be responded to. I'm fed up with it Steve.

Robert Ladd

>Snip<
> > Steve Badger
> snip<
>


Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 12:00:47 AM12/6/02
to
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 01:47:48 GMT, "Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote:

>This is your unfairness towards me coming out again, Wayno. Why do you keep
>exaggerating how many times I post on any issue? There is no way in HELL
>that I posted 50-100 times about UB/Aruba.

I'm taking a guess here. We've been at this for about a month
now, since about early Nov. In a month this wouldn't be an
unreasonable number.

>If I posted about that subject
>25 times I'd be surprised. Actually I posted very few, maybe 2-3 at most
>directly about the subject, but had to keep citing the original posts
>because you and Badger were twisting it to appear like I was making
>relentless attacks on innocent victims. And now this act, like I kept
>sending it out in some kind of "Hal Wallis production" is again a complete
>and utter mischaracterization. You are so frustrating.

If this wasn't a Hal Wallis production, then I must have dreamed
it. You were saying the same thing every day.

>The majority of my posts were in defense of what you and Badger were saying
>about me personally and how you both were trying to twist what was going on
>and trying to make me look like I was attacking UB and the WPT and all the
>professional players that were in Aruba. I wasn't and you both knew that.
>I didn't stop defending myself and fighting back then, and I won't stop
>fighting back at your attempts to still portray this as me constantly and
>relentlessly attacking these entities. That is not and was not the case.
>
> I wanted to find out what was true. Sure, I believed and still believe
>that UB didn't pay Phil Gordon the $250,000 immediately, nor had any plans
>to pay him until this hit big time. That doesn't mean I know, or even claim
>to know it's true. It's my opinion. I am entitled to my opinion. It only
>means that I wanted to get to the bottom of it. But you and Badger had to
>keep redirecting the whole thing back at me rather than trying to find out
>the truth.
>
>If what Daniel and others say is true, then maybe Phil Gordon should give
>Daniel a buy-in to some major tournament for getting Phil an extra $200,000.
>Or maybe not.
>
>If I had this whole thing to do over, I'm sure I'd do it again, but I'd be a
>little more careful with how I worded things and would have hammered harder
>on Daniel to come on and tell the story rather than run with it myself. I
>learned a good lesson. The word "alleged" would have been prudent.

True. Or a one-time use. Which may have been the intent.

Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 12:03:08 AM12/6/02
to

No, he never said he was misquoted. But he also probably didn't
say "Use this over and over"-- at some point the new guy becomes the
guy carrying the ball, rather than the original emailer.

Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 12:25:25 AM12/6/02
to
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 "Mike McClain" wrote:


>> >>Fact # 1 -- Phil Gordon got paid $250,000. PERIOD. He was paid promptly as
>> >were all the winners in all the various events in Aruba.
>> >>Fact # 2 -- UB never had to guarantee a $350,000 prize pool to be a part of
>> >>the WPT. Some posts on RGP asserted that UB scammed the WPT because they
>> >>only gave away $100,000 in prize money while falsely advertising the
>> >>$250,000 pro prize in order to meet the WPT's prize pool requirements. This
>> >>is FALSE. It is just not true. First off, Phil Gordon WAS paid $250,000.
>>
>
>You don't see any problem with the fact that he does not want to
>answer any more questions? No problem with why it took a month
>for him to come forth? No problem with the fact that Lederer or
>Gordon had nothing to say? Doesn't seem at all odd that they
>threw in another $14k on top of the $250k? Doesn't seem at all
>strange that they gave this money to a group of people that are
>not even customers of their site? Not at all bothered by the
>fact that Russ H. threw in a million other monetary details that
>had nothing to do with the issue at hand? Nothng seems odd here?

My views on all this other stuff are well-known, so I'm not going
to bore everyone with them again. But I will say this (in regard to
the above stuff): at some point all you guys are going to have to take
this up with somebody other than me. One of you is going to have to
stand up and accuse somebody of something. If you're bound and
determined to think that Russ Hamilton lied to you then one of you
better stand up and call him a liar. You can call me all the names
you want, and I don't particularly care, because I've got a skin as
thick as a Rhinocerous, and if it makes anybody happy, that's fine--
go ahead-- but arguing with me isn't going to get you anywhere,
because I wasn't there and wasn't on the premises so I can only help
you out so far. Obviously the WPT/UB side of this don't feel they
perpetrated a "scam". My personal opinion of this affair is still as
it was on Day One-- unchanged-- that this was a monetary dispute
between two corporate entities that the two of them evidently resolved
to their satisfaction, and then they both moved on from. I think
that's how they see this. This is their "truth". It might be
tremendously satisfying firing off a hundred popguns at me and like I
said, go ahead if it makes anyone feel any better, but in the long run
it isn't going to really do anything here. You have to do more than
this. So you better all decide what's going to be your next step.

>Even if the Aruba tourney was completely legit, Badger and you
>attacked Ladd's credibility in a senseless and extremely biased
>manner. Ladd was very reasonable in his presentation of what
>he knew, and the two of you were insane.

Ladd wasn't responding to regular arguments. This forced us to
take it to the next level-- insanity.

>I'm not going to spend any more time trying to convince you,
>as I've seen enough example of your bullheadedness. I'm
>only posting because when I saw Robert apologizing, I wanted
>him to know how the fiasco was viewed by the open-minded.

That's fine. I think we have a different view on this.

>Look at the replies to this thread.... how many people
>agree with your 'scale'?
>
>
>Mike.

Wayno


Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 12:33:01 AM12/6/02
to
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 02:41:03 GMT, Tom Weideman <zwi...@attbi.com>
wrote:

>Larry W. Wayno Phillips wrote:
>
>>>> But Ladd is a fool. He has zero credibility. The minute Russ
>>>> Hamilton showed up it put the lie to everything Ladd has been
>>>> saying for a month (or however long it's been.)
>>
>> Yes, that's what I said all right. If you have some proof to
>> the contrary, that this isn't true, please provide it to a grateful,
>> waiting nation.
>
>I have proof. At least it's proof by a burden to which you seem to
>subscribe. To get real proof that Ladd is not a fool and that he is
>credible, all we have to do is ask a witness who has first hand knowledge
>and will sign his name to his declaration. I call to the witness stand...
>Robert Ladd.

Yeah.
I gave my reasons in another post about this. But it's like I
told Mike McClain, if one of you guys wants to call Russ Hamilton a
liar-- if that's the bottom line here-- then one of you better step
forward and get on with it. Suppose I stop I stop posting? Then what
happens? Are you going to have a thread where you all just agree
with each other? I'm not being facetious. In a way you're using me
as the straw man to avoid doing what one of you better do if you all
think this is true.

>This is the logic you used to exonerate UltimateBet. You quoted Russ
>Hamilton, saying he should be listened to because as an agent of UB, he has
>first hand knowledge.
>
>
>Tom Weideman

Wayno


Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 12:34:37 AM12/6/02
to
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 01:13:50 GMT, "dave keiser" wrote:

>Hey,Wayno do me a big favor, SHUT THE FUCK UP. In case you don't know you
>got shit coming out of your eyes,ears, and mouth. This fucking spin we're
>getting out of you is giving me and everyone else a fucking headache. I
>don't mind when you do it to the Scumbag but there is a genuine interest
>here and Russ H tried to pull a fast on and got caught. Get your fucking
>dunce cap out and go sit in the corner. Even that dickweed Badger has run
>for the hill on this one so STFU.

Okay.


Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 12:37:36 AM12/6/02
to
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:03:08 GMT, Larr...@charter.net (Larry W.
(Wayno) Phillips) wrote:

I mean, this was the point of it.

Tom Weideman

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 1:00:20 AM12/6/02