Million debt of Phil Ivey? What the events of this week really mean?
Too many messages to FT case these days by the German Poker unfiltered media passed. Consider the messages to Phil Ivey.
Ivey’s missing millions
Referring to a well-informed American side, the accounts reported by Ivey at Full Tilt movements, subtitled German sides in the style of “Ivey Full Tilt owes millions”. What really happened?
Noah Stephens-Davidowitz, editor Subject: Poker and moderator in the 2 +2 forum, described in an article in the transfers and transfers that have occurred since mid-2009 when the two team professionals. After a series of as “rent” and “refund” the author calculates movements marked a decrease of $ 6,125,000. Does this mean that Ivey is on FT with six million in debt, as reported in this country? No.
Stephens admits that they had no information about the period before June 2009. The transfers were made without any special labeling, and from player to player, even missing entirely. As a result, we have no reliable picture of what actually expired on Ivey’s account.
Facts instead of echoes
As well might you represent the comments of Mike Matusow as fact when he interviewed with quad jacks says that Tom Dwan one million U.S. dollars has on his FT account and Daniel Cates equal to six, that Howard is fighting Lederer with depression and with the first payments the FT-players certainly might be expected this weekend.
In addition, strangely enough, no one asked why secret data came just over the account from Phil Ivey to the public, the player who a few weeks before his own sponsor wanted to go to court.
One need only recall the unspeakable press release, The FT after the announcement of Ivey’s complaint published, and in the larger of the sum mentioned was the fault of the players the poker room said.
About the reliability of sources Stephens should not be speculating here – it is a serous side of the market – but the motivation of the sensor tip has to be an issue. If anyone here can only make important or deliberately harming the reputation of Phil Ivey? Perhaps the company has an interest in seeing confirmed his accusations against Ivey? Or is this just part of the delaying tactics (which was already evident at the hearing in London) in order to delay the payments to players on?
Why a transfer to Ivey as a “loan” is marked if it has gained as the fall of 2009 just five million dollars?
So far there are no reliable answers to these questions. Just as the certainty that Phil Ivey FT owes a lot of money or not. Everything else lacks the necessary foundations.




