So wait, people call for sponsored pros to pay players back with the money they made from the sites, but when Hellmuth has UB use his money to pay players back, it's because he was guilty? Makes sense.

He should tell us why he allowed them to his 30%, even though "he had nothing to do with it."

yea just said this fact to a table of poker players before realizing it sounds pretty dumb... he should have parted with the company immediately!

That would be a pretty easy question to answer for Hellmuth. He'd simply say he was trying to do right by the players (which he's already said even though it wasn't an answer to this particular question).

From a purely financial point of view him giving up 30% is a no brainer if not giving it up means the company folds or drops in value. I'm pretty sure the arrangement would have been something like "give us 30% now and when the time's right we'll do right by you". Either way, I'm certain Phil had all the bases covered.

I hope someone grills him at the WSOP this year. That'd be some great table talk for tv.

I think the very first thing I ever read about Russ Hamilton was Daniel Negreanu calling him out as a golf cheat and for his role in the UB/Aruba thing in back in 2002 over on rec.gambling.poker.

I seem to recall Russ Georgiev vouching for Hamilton as 'one of the good guys'. That alone was prima facie evidence that the guy was a scumbag.

just got done listening to the 2+2 podcast featuring ElevenGrover ...

ppl need to understand that Phil was a founding investor in ub ... he helped get $$$ from Ted Forrest and others to launch the business.

the WSOP should ban Phil for life, Phil shouldn't be allowed to be involved with any U.S. facing gaming business and someone needs to get a class-action lawsuit started going after funds we know exist (i.e. Pierson's, Hellmuth's, et al's bank accts).

has been tried before, floor ruled its not allowed to criticize PH at a televised table

Ohh yes! Spot on.

All losing poker players should be refunded money by the winning players because, well you know, because the losing players thought they were better than the winning players so it wasn't very nice when they lost all their money. Many winning players pretend they aren't as good as the losing players to entice them to play. Not very moral. If winning players did give the money they won back to the losers, even though they aren't legally required to, well then everyone would feel good and the players who gave back the money would gain reputations as nice guys. This would really matter to the winning players and make them feel good and happy inside. Morally I mean.

Everyone would be winnar!

I disagree here. Cheating at poker, in any form , is immoral. Pretending you aren't very good at poker is practicing deception, which is fine.

Does all this mean I should stop wearing my PH hat in public? (note: it's a vintage "12" version)

EDIT: I lost a lot of good hats when UB went down. Don't want to lose more.

analogy derailment deleted.

It looks like Godwin's Law is now being replaced by Sandusky's Law...........Meh

Future Endorsement Deals Gone Bye Bye?

Prior to this latest news exploding, Mike Johnson made the point (on last week's Pokercast) that Phil Hellmuth had a major endorsement deal in the works. (The rumor I keep reading is that Hellmuth is [or was] being considered as the "official spokesperson" for the WSOP.com web site.) Unless Ceasar's Entertainment wants to be tied in with another cheating scandal and risk losing their internet poker license, they would have to be nuts to even consider hiring Hellmuth or Annie Duke.

Strictly from a business standpoint, I doubt if any of the major B&M operators, once they do obtain internet licenses, are going to bother with hiring any of these "pros" as paid [compensated] endorsers. Since it will all be "legal" in the states where they obtain a license, they'll use the money instead to advertise on radio, television, and billboards. There'll be no need to dick around with "pros" who have questionable backgrounds.

Phil and Annie may think they're worth millions, but I have a feeling their stock price is in free fall.

I was on the TV table with Phil Hellmuth at the WSOP Main Event in 2009.

Here was my bustout hand, which was televised because I lost a set with a short stack to Phil's Q2hh UTG flush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4WVLD4DW6c

I was very short-stacked coming into the day, so I knew I would have to be quick about calling out Phil on TV because I wasn't likely to last long.

On the very first hand dealt, Phil opened, another player 3-bet, and I was last to act on the BB.

I said to Phil, "Going after my blind, Phil? Can you see my cards? Oh wait, I forgot we're not on UB. I guess you can't." I then folded my hand. The other players laughed, but Phil didn't say anything back at the moment.

After the hand was over, Phil said I was "being a jerk". I told him that I was not being a jerk, but was simply frustrated that he continues to promote a company that steals from its players. He responded with something like, "So just because a few employees did some bad things, that means the whole company is bad?"

Just as I started to rebut that ridiculous statement, the floor approached me and told me I would get a 20-minute penalty if I continued bothering Phil about UB. A 20-minute penalty would have busted my stack. I went quiet, and predictably, none of this made TV -- not even my initial comment during the first hand. (ESPN showed my hand quickly, then cut away from me, with the announcer saying, "Witteles folds".)

The floorman gave Phil a brofist as he walked by, after threatening me with the penalty. Seriously, you can't make this crap up.

I was pissed at Phil at the time, but when he busted me, I shook his hand because I knew the exchange wouldn't make TV, and I didn't want to make it look like I refused a handshake because he busted me.

First of all, I enjoy all of your posts.

In terms of licensed U.S. companies no longer needing to hire "name pros" to represent their sites, I'm not so sure. Just because the business is legal and available for mainstream advertising does not mean there won't be a market for endorsements. After all, companies continually bring on top athletes to endorse their apparel, equipment, watches, food, etc. If anything, TV/print ads provide the very impetus for hiring celebrity endorsements.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we see the poker sites bring in well-known amateur players. Are there any figures that show how well Stars has done with figures like Boris Becker and Rafa Nadal wearing the spade?

As for being reluctant to hire Hellmuth or Duke, I completely agree with you in principle in that I hope to never see either as the face of a poker site again. For me, I would likely avoid any future site that would hire Hellmuth or Duke as spokespersons. Not because I would question the security of the site, mind you, but rather as a personal "voting with my dollars" type of protest.

At this point, I feel like we're dealing with two (mostly) mutually exclusive subsets of the potential poker market. People who follow poker closely enough to know its dirty underbelly are not the types to be lured to a site because of any given pro player's endorsement. And people who DO flock to a site because of a name pro are not the types who follow the industry closely enough to know about transgressions like UB.

Thank you sir. You've made me feel like the "Shakespeare of Poker." (Ha! Ha!) I keep wondering when Mason (or Card Player) is going to offer me a lucrative writing contract ... (I specialize in skewering ego maniacs who are in great need of being skewered.)

I am glad Phil came out and acknowledged his participation in the scandal. In my views he is completely redeemed. I will continue buying his poker books and PH merchandise, and I will wear this merchandise when I play live.

Players going to a site because of a name pro are more likely to be fish. So you would rather go to a site without Hellmuth full of knowledgeable people, rather than a site with him where you could potentially profit more? Of course, it's all conjecture.

As for Hellmuth, I still didn't hear anything proving he is guilty of anything more than trusting the wrong people. Even the encounter with Kilowatt is still pointing in that direction, as Hellmuth thought a few people were cheating and the site was safe.

Did he profit from it? Sure. Did he decide to believe what he was told so he can keep his lucrative job? Yes. But if he didn't do anything himself or didn't know anything that big was going on, then he is not guilty.

I don't understand the argument that even if Hellmuth wasn't in the knowing, he attracted people to the site and therefore should pay back. My question is, should people doing the advertising for McDonald's or Coke be responsible for the obesity of some consumers? Should stockholders be?

It was well known that people at UB had cheated like it is well known that Coke is bad for your health, how does it make sense to say : "Well Hellmuth made people come back to the site and he is responsible for their losses."
It's true that most people should be protected from themselves and companies should be held to higher standards, but, while I find his attitude disappointing, I don't think he or Coke are guilty of anything unless we change the law to say that companies and employees have a social responsibility first.

You have the right to dislike him though. I still like him personally, because I really think he was being gullible and not ill-intentioned. I really think he thought he was doing the right thing, even though he was wrong. I think he was more lying to himself than to others. Maybe I'm also wrong, but I will stick with innocent until proven guilty, an important principle in our society.

I have been a Phil fan for many years. He is a spoiled, bratty, brainy, and outspoken guy with a kid's heart and is as honest as the day is long. He made the mistake of trusting people. Who hasn't? He earned his money, let him keep it.

phil is the best, go phil!

Nice



Sent from Motorola Star Tac

Read my mind.

if you steal a credit card and charge to a poker site and then just go to a table and dump the chips off when its discovered ur account and the players u played with will be froze and they will have to prove they didnt know anything and they will have to pay it back
just becuz ur paid with stolen funds and dont know it doesnt meen ur not at fault to pay it back
but it was a site that really didnt have any regulation
he may actually be angry about the theft and didnt know it but hes still involved in it
he became way richer from the stolen funds and what he has today came from there or most of it did
how many poker sites will tell you that the guy who just dumped 20k to was using stolen credit card money but its ok u can keep it cuzz u say u didnt know it