Daniel Responds...

34 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