Inside the Tuesday Money Matches with Phil Mickelson

[mvmac]

http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2015/02/the-best-phil-mickelson-gambli.html

Quote:

In the most recent issue of ESPN The Magazine, GolfDigest.com contributor Shane Ryan takes a deep-dive into the money-match culture on tour. It's a great piece and definitely worth reading in its entirety, not least for the various Phil Mickelson anecdotes:

Mickelson, the larger-than-life patriarch of today's money games, is a gambler's gambler. He's won huge sums on the Super Bowl and the World Series in the past, and he was actually reprimanded by the PGA Tour in 2001 after winning $500 from Mike Weir in the players lounge at the NEC Invitational when he predicted that Jim Furyk would hole a bunker shot. (Mickelson declined to speak to us for this story.)

So while money matches, on the whole, are less common on tour today than ever before, it's Mickelson's manic energy that has kept the games afloat, and his exploits in them are as fabled in golf circles as his five major championships: like the time he predicted his ball would hit the flag on the famed par-3 12th at Augusta National a split second after he made contact. Or the time he holed a big money putt after Azinger taunted him with a cocky "Putt it, bitch !"

More than anything, Mickelson demands his marks match his reckless courage, and not everybody is keen to spend that kind of intensity on a Tuesday. In 2010, Nick Watney joined Mickelson and Dustin Johnson for a practice round at the British Open. There were only the three of them, so Phil proposed a simple stroke-play match, with the highest score paying the winner $1,000 and the middle man walking away scot-free. Watney, knowing the amount could easily increase with presses or novelty bets, told them he preferred to play for less. "They started calling me names that shouldn't be in print," he says. "So I gave in to peer pressure."

Watney lost -- it was his first time playing St. Andrews -- and Mickelson won. On the 18th green, Watney counted out $1,000 and handed it over with a word of congratulations. Mickelson grabbed the stack of cash, gave it a quick glance and handed it right back. "This is Britain," he told Watney. "I need pounds."

Watney stared at him, hoping it was a joke. It wasn't. He had no choice but to pay Mickelson $1,700 to satisfy the currency exchange. "They've asked me to play again," Watney says with a slight smile. "And now I just say 'f--- you' and walk away."

[chris3putt]

Quote:

Watney lost -- it was his first time playing St. Andrews -- and Mickelson won. On the 18th green, Watney counted out $1,000 and handed it over with a word of congratulations. Mickelson grabbed the stack of cash, gave it a quick glance and handed it right back. "This is Britain," he told Watney. "I need pounds."

Watney stared at him, hoping it was a joke. It wasn't. He had no choice but to pay Mickelson $1,700 to satisfy the currency exchange. "They've asked me to play again," Watney says with a slight smile. "And now I just say 'f--- you' and walk away."

I've heard that Phil isn't the most popular guy on tour. Wonder why?

[MrFlipper]

There were only the three of them, so Phil proposed a simple stroke-play match, with the highest score paying the winner $1,000 and the middle man walking away scot-free. Watney, knowing the amount could easily increase with presses or novelty bets, told them he preferred to play for less. "They started calling me names that shouldn't be in print," he says. "So I gave in to peer pressure."

Watney lost -- it was his first time playing St. Andrews -- and Mickelson won. On the 18th green, Watney counted out $1,000 and handed it over with a word of congratulations. Mickelson grabbed the stack of cash, gave it a quick glance and handed it right back. "This is Britain," he told Watney. "I need pounds."

Watney stared at him, hoping it was a joke. It wasn't. He had no choice but to pay Mickelson $1,700 to satisfy the currency exchange. "They've asked me to play again," Watney says with a slight smile. "And now I just say 'f--- you' and walk away."

What? This makes no sense. It doesn't take $1700 to buy $1000 worth of pounds. It takes $1000 plus the exchange fees. It clearly says they weren't playing for 1000 pounds.

If he was that pissed he coulda given Phil the wad of $1000 back and told him to go to the bank and get his own effing pounds

[iacas]

What? This makes no sense. It doesn't take $1700 to buy $1000 worth of pounds. It takes $1000 plus the exchange fees. It clearly says they weren't playing for 1000 pounds.

If he was that pissed he coulda given Phil the wad of $1000 back and told him to go to the bank and get his own effing pounds

Maybe he said "we're playing for a thousand" and didn't say "dollars."

But yeah, if he says dollars (or nickels, or whatever), then the units are set.

[mvmac]

Mickelson finished T48th and Watney finished T7, so he made the 1,700 back

[Hammer 4]

Mickelson finished T48th and Watney finished T7, so he made the 1,700 back

All I gota say is.........

[turtleback]

Maybe he said "we're playing for a thousand" and didn't say "dollars."

But yeah, if he says dollars (or nickels, or whatever), then the units are set.

Yeah, I'm guessing that is what happened.

But since that is the obvious point of the story, how Mickelson sharked him by just saying thousands, and NOT specifying units, the writer kind of blew it by putting $ 1000 instead of just 1,000.  I mean really, isn't Mickelson's little currency switch game the whole point of the story??

[Aguirre]

I could definitely see Mickelson being a cocky pain in the ass but I've no sympathy for Watney.  Just say you're not playing for money or insist on less.  I go through this all the time.  Some of the guys I play with want to play for amounts that with presses could amount to hundreds.  And I simply tell them no.  If they give me shit I tell them that I had sex with their ***** wives.

[Ernest Jones]

I could definitely see Mickelson being a cocky pain in the ass but I've no sympathy for Watney.  Just say you're not playing for money or insist on less.  I go through this all the time.  Some of the guys I play with want to play for amounts that with presses could amount to hundreds.  And I simply tell them no.  If they give me shit I tell them that I had sex with their ***** wives.

Well that is pleasant.

[Aguirre]

Well that is pleasant.

No less pleasant than being called a "pu***" because I don't want to play for hundreds of dollars.  I'm always more concerned about my score than the result of friendly matches.  Simply because others choose to turn a golf day into a night at the casino shouldn't mean I have to.

[turtleback]

No less pleasant than being called a "pu***" because I don't want to play for hundreds of dollars.  I'm always more concerned about my score than the result of friendly matches.  Simply because others choose to turn a golf day into a night at the casino shouldn't mean I have to.

I dunno.  If it was me I would just not play with people who want to gamble, if I didn't want to gamble.  I'm not understanding either side of the unpleasantness you describe.  Why would you subject yourself to such an unpleasant environment?

[phan52]

I dunno.  If it was me I would just not play with people who want to gamble, if I didn't want to gamble.  I'm not understanding either side of the unpleasantness you describe.  Why would you subject yourself to such an unpleasant environment?

Like Phil, I do like a little juice when I play. But I also know going in what the stakes will be, dependent on with whom I am playing. I know who the gamblers are and what the stakes will be in certain groups. Sometimes I am outnumbered and have to step it up, and I do so without complaint. And other times we end up with a guy who, like Phil, is insistent on higher stakes, and we tell him he doesn't have to play with us. They usually will, and like it. Action is action.

I will say one other thing, no matter the stakes, presses are universally automatic at our club.

[saevel25]

Number 1 rule of betting, make sure you know the exact stakes for the match.

Though it is a bit tacky for Phil to pull the old switch game on Watney. That might have been common place for Phil and his years of money games. He's probably got hit with that same trick when he was younger and just accepts it as something common. Still, come on Phil take the high road.

[newtogolf]

When I started out playing golf, I didn't get the gambling part either.  As I've improved I see how it makes the game more interesting and forces you to stay a bit more focused than you might if you were just playing for fun.  I avoid the big money games and keep it to  <$100 total range.

[iacas]

I tend to avoid situations where the gambling is complex.

Too often, the more complex it gets, the more likely someone who plays well for a few holes can even up or even surge ahead despite losing over-all.

For example, even the simple idea of a press, or an automatic press for being two-down.

You're two-up playing the 9th and 18th holes, so a press is automatic. The opponent wins the 9th and 18th. You win the Nassau 1 up, 1 up, and 2 up. Yet you only win $50 of a $50 Nassau because you effectively "lost" two one-hole "matches."

Lame.

I've done it and it feels just as weird to "win" those presses, too.

P.S. It's even worse when the presses aren't automatic at two-up. You could be 7-up through seven and the guy presses then… and you lose the 8th and tie the 9th and the front half is a wash? Please.

[phan52]

I tend to avoid situations where the gambling is complex.

Too often, the more complex it gets, the more likely someone who plays well for a few holes can even up or even surge ahead despite losing over-all.

For example, even the simple idea of a press, or an automatic press for being two-down.

You're two-up playing the 9th and 18th holes, so a press is automatic. The opponent wins the 9th and 18th. You win the Nassau 1 up, 1 up, and 2 up. Yet you only win $50 of a $50 Nassau because you effectively "lost" two one-hole "matches."

Lame.

I've done it and it feels just as weird to "win" those presses, too.

P.S. It's even worse when the presses aren't automatic at two-up. You could be 7-up through seven and the guy presses then… and you lose the 8th and tie the 9th and the front half is a wash? Please.

We have taken care of that circumstance at our club. Instead of playing, for instance, $5 four ways (1 front, 1 back, 2 overall) we play $5 six ways (2 front, 2 back, 2 overall). That way, a press (1 way) is never as much as the primary bet. The overall base bet is for $30 instead of $20 but nobody gets hurt and it is a fair way to handle the presses.

[9iron]

I tend to avoid situations where the gambling is complex.

Too often, the more complex it gets, the more likely someone who plays well for a few holes can even up or even surge ahead despite losing over-all.

For example, even the simple idea of a press, or an automatic press for being two-down.

You're two-up playing the 9th and 18th holes, so a press is automatic. The opponent wins the 9th and 18th. You win the Nassau 1 up, 1 up, and 2 up. Yet you only win $50 of a $50 Nassau because you effectively "lost" two one-hole "matches."

Lame.

I've done it and it feels just as weird to "win" those presses, too.

P.S. It's even worse when the presses aren't automatic at two-up. You could be 7-up through seven and the guy presses then… and you lose the 8th and tie the 9th and the front half is a wash? Please.

We are in total 100% agreement on this subject. I always limit the ability of my opponent to press. They typically hate it, but I'm not going to win most of the holes and not get paid for it.

[phan52]

We are in total 100% agreement on this subject. I always limit the ability of my opponent to press. They typically hate it, but I'm not going to win most of the holes and not get paid for it.

Play $10-$10-$10 with $5 presses. Or $10-$10-$15 if you want the overall to be worth more than a side.