Roy Cooke - An open letter to Doyle

[ipp147]

The whole artical is at this link

Cooke to Doyle (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14793&m_id=65565)

I think he speaks alot of sense in this article, but will it ever happen and is Doyle the right man?

Here is a snippet,

[ QUOTE ]
Unless and until we have some kind of national poker association, our own NBA or NFL, we will be chump change in the world of media and sponsorships. We will fight among ourselves for an ever-shrinking pool of funds. We will have no power in Congress and the state legislatures. We will continue to operate in incredibly inefficient ways that cost everybody in the industry money — really big money! Without someone to bring us together, we are destined to continue fighting over the pie until there are only scraps left.

[/ QUOTE ]

[-Skeme-]

Link does not work.

[Turning Stone Pro]

What the hell is Cooke talking about. The great thing about poker is it is NOT set up like the NFL, NBA and those other ridiculous entities.

Cooke sucks, I would drop him like third period french in any type of short-handed affair.

TSP

[sexypanda]

I do think there should be a unified tournament players union. It's really unfair how all these tournament players foot 10K entry fees for these televised tournaments. They're characters in a show and see no revenue from that. WSOP and WPT producers are making tons of money off these personalities and they don't see a dime of that. I either think there should be a players union, or subsidized fees for players in televised events.

Also, 1 poker entity would wield much more power as far as getting sponserships, etc. I wouldn't compare it to the NFL or NBA, but more like boxing in its early days, with multiple titles and events.

[glen]

Who would benefit from any kind of association anyways? Imagine the headlining poker news being some goofpuck like Hellmuth's contract dispute with the wpt. . . or the introduction of a new line of the legendary Ron Rose's rimless spectacles?

[glen]

how owuld you determine who gets into a player's union? All the famous guys now have been player tourneys for years and years and have built up nice resumes as a result; however, being a relatively new sport, it's hard t determine who should be sponsored and who shouldn't. Would players get paid just for a tv appearance? or would there be like a min. amount of cashing per tourney ratio like qualifying for the batting title?

[Your Mom]

I found this article extremely gay.

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
how owuld you determine who gets into a player's union? All the famous guys now have been player tourneys for years and years and have built up nice resumes as a result; however, being a relatively new sport, it's hard t determine who should be sponsored and who shouldn't. Would players get paid just for a tv appearance? or would there be like a min. amount of cashing per tourney ratio like qualifying for the batting title?

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a thread yesterday that had a link to this:

http://www.tourney.com/tournament-poker-rankings.php

I think perhaps the top 50-100 players would qualify for the "union". I honestly don't have any formal thoughts on this, but I find it odd that these players that are bring in the ratings aren't seeing anything from it. Sure the players at the final tables win huge cash prizes at the end, but that's a direct result of the buy-in, they don't see any of the other profits. If there was a unified poker entity and player representation, this wouldn't be the case.

[tomdemaine]

They're seeing huge huge quantities of dead money in every tounament they play thanks solely to TV coverage.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I do think there should be a unified tournament players union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumbest idea ever.

[sexypanda]

Maybe not a player's union, but I think the prize pools should be at least inflated for televised events. I think the top players lend to the ratings of the show, but don't see anything directly from it. Also, these players are giving away strategy each episode. There should be compensation for this, though I haven't the slightest idea what the ideal situation would be. Think about this though, if you were on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, or Jeopardy, you have a chance at making money at no cost to you, and this is payed for by the revenue from the show. The cast of major sitcoms make upwards of a million dollars per episode. Why do poker players who create the same ratings have to not only put up their own money, but also pay a fee to enter these tournaments? I do understand that the TV aspect does bring in alot of dead money, but I still wonder what's better for the players.

What if a major network created a poker league that gave a freeroll to the top 50-100 players in the world with a prize pool of a few million? I'd definitely watch that. This would be similar to golf or tennis in a way. As long as you stay on top of the rankings, you keep playing. There would be 4-5 of these "majors" a year, and to qualify for them, you'd need to play and accumulate points in other tounaments. This would be great tv, because you would only be watching the best, and the players would see a cut of the revenues from the show. I also believe the production costs would be much lower than your average sitcom, so the networks would still be making a profit.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not a player's union, but I think the prize pools should be at least inflated for televised events

[/ QUOTE ]

WPT needs to let guys go Nascar! Ads all over their shirts and hats. Now they make them cover any hat insignia. Let the final table TV players get some endorsements. The players are forced into playing in public on television but unable to reap the sponsorship benefits of this. At least on WPT, I don't think ESPN has such restrictions.

[Kevmath]

That's why the WPT created the PPT to let people wear logos. The problem is that most of the sponsors (to start) would be online poker rooms that are technically illegal. ESPN allows logos, but for .net online sites only and with a size restriction of the logo.

Kevin...

[trying2learn]

anybody else think this article read like william wallace speaking to the scots?

freeeeeeeeeeeedooooooomm!

[Mikey]

"I would drop him like third period french"

Oceans 11

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
the players are forced into playing in public on television

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they've really got to stop forcing players at gunpoint to buy into and participate in tournaments. Somebody get Amnesty International on this, post haste.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
they've really got to stop forcing players at gunpoint to buy into and participate in tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point is if you make the final table you're gonna be on TV like it or not. And they are gonna make money off of your image and you have no way to profit from it other than tournament winnings which are the same whether it's on TV or not.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Point is if you make the final table you're gonna be on TV like it or not. And they are gonna make money off of your image and you have no way to profit from it other than tournament winnings which are the same whether it's on TV or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would submit that the point really is that all of that is stipulated in the contract you either willingly sign when you register for the tournament or willingly do not sign by not registering for the tournament. You don't want to be on TV, then don't sign the contract. If you signed the contract, then we can directly conclude from this that while you may have a slight aversion or annoyance at being on television and having your image used to sell things ("...and all i got was this lousy t-shirt....and $250,000 for third place."), you do not find it intolerable (if you did, you wouldn't have signed the contract).

The total amount of tournament winnings is not the same without TV coverage as it is with TV coverage, because of all the newfound dead money involved, the increased likelihood of casinos holding big poker tournaments to get their properties in the public eye (not to mention the 3 minute "minfomercial" that the WPT gives the host casino each episode), and the chance that you can parlay TV appearances into lucrative opportunities (do you think anyone would've bought Matt Matros's book if he hadn't been on the WPT? It probably wouldn't have even been published in the first place).

So form or join a union if you want - that's your choice - but don't go whining about how you're a victim of these Big Bad Corporations that have oppressed you for years by helping to increase the popularity of poker to the point where the prize pools dwarf anything the game has ever seen before.

[Jax_Grinder]

Oh, how I love the entitlement crowd.

[ QUOTE ]
They're characters in a show and see no revenue from that. WSOP and WPT producers are making tons of money off these personalities and they don't see a dime of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do all of these things have in common?

1. I don't like the work environment at that business.
2. I don't like that TV show.
3. I don't like that radio program.
4. I don't like McDonald's food.
5. I don't like flying.
6. I don't like the way the WPT runs their program.

Need a hint?

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, how I love the entitlement crowd.

[ QUOTE ]
They're characters in a show and see no revenue from that. WSOP and WPT producers are making tons of money off these personalities and they don't see a dime of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do all of these things have in common?

1. I don't like the work environment at that business.
2. I don't like that TV show.
3. I don't like that radio program.
4. I don't like McDonald's food.
5. I don't like flying.
6. I don't like the way the WPT runs their program.

Need a hint?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point completely, I watch the WPT every week, and enjoy it. I was just pointing out that Roy Cooke does have a point when he says, "We will fight among ourselves for an ever-shrinking pool of funds. We will have no power in Congress and the state legislatures. We will continue to operate in incredibly inefficient ways that cost everybody in the industry money — really big money! Without someone to bring us together, we are destined to continue fighting over the pie until there are only scraps left."

I don't plan on playing a 10K event, or being on TV, but I was just expressing my opinion on alternative approaches that would be more profitable to players. There's a big difference between saying "I don't like McDonalds food" and "I think McDonalds is mistreating its employees".

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Point is if you make the final table you're gonna be on TV like it or not. And they are gonna make money off of your image and you have no way to profit from it other than tournament winnings which are the same whether it's on TV or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

No-one is making money off the players. Look up the WPT's financials. It's been a money loser from day one, with only intermittent profitability. If you ignored all of it's historical losses, and put the profits from it's few profitable quarters into all of the prize pools, I doubt it would add more than 5%.

So what can the players negotiate for? There isn't any big pool of money out there. And no company is going to broadcast their tournaments unless it can make some kind of profit on it.

Poker needs better ratings and WSOP/WPT need better contracts with their networks before there will be much money to fight over. Assuming the boom doesn't end before then.

[Jax_Grinder]

The point was freedom of choice. If the players are offended by this, then they don't have to play in WPT or other televised events.

[ QUOTE ]
"I think McDonalds is mistreating its employees".

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh. The players are not employees.

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
The point was freedom of choice. If the players are offended by this, then they don't have to play in WPT or other televised events.

[ QUOTE ]
"I think McDonalds is mistreating its employees".

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh. The players are not employees.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the WPT and WSOP events are seeing revenue from their broadcasts, then they are employees in a way. As DesertCat pointed out though, this may not be the case. Obviously the players aren't offended by this, but why not look for ways to make poker more profitable for everyone. The boom in the past few years has affected the game in many ways. I think it's time to think outside the box and see what we can make of it.

[jacksup]

[ QUOTE ]
do you think anyone would've bought Matt Matros's book if he hadn't been on the WPT? It probably wouldn't have even been published in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I signed the book contract and received my advance about a year and a half before I made a WPT final table.

Matt

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you think anyone would've bought Matt Matros's book if he hadn't been on the WPT? It probably wouldn't have even been published in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I signed the book contract and received my advance about a year and a half before I made a WPT final table.

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Wow. I was not aware of that.

Nevertheless, I think my point still stands that the WPT appearance probably helped your sales at least a tad /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jordan:

[ QUOTE ]
do you think anyone would've bought Matt Matros's book if he hadn't been on the WPT?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can answer this question better than perhaps anyone else. If the book is no good, it won't sell no matter what the author's reputation might be as a player. For example, on Amazon.com, Johnny Chan's book has a sales rank of 144,000 and that means it's not selling at all.

On the other hand, if the book is good, because of the Internet and particularly our site, the book can sell well. For example, King Yao's book now has a sales rank of 789 which means it's selling fairly well (but not great). Somehow I think that Chan is better known than Yao.

As for getting it published, poker is a very hot area right now in the world pf publishing. Not only are an avalanche of poker books hitting the market, but most of them are from people I never heard of. It seems like there are publishers out there who want to cash in and are willing to take a chance on anything that crosses their desk. Of course, most of this stuff won't sell at all.

By the way, when a great book by a great player with super name recognition comes along, such as the Harrington books, then sales can be terrific. For example, at this moment the Amazon rankings are 54 and 35 respectively for VolumeI and Volume II.

best wishes,
Mason

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless and until we have some kind of national poker association, our own NBA or NFL, we will be chump change in the world of media and sponsorships. We will fight among ourselves for an ever-shrinking pool of funds. We will have no power in Congress and the state legislatures.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those of us who give a **** about the law (Federal and more importantly right now, Sate), is there not a point here? Unless there is some kind of momentum generated from players, not only will it CONTINUE to be illegal to play online poker in every state minus Kentucky (and D.C., but not a state) but Congress will eventually pass a bill making it illegal Nationwide. Of course, the plea from Cooke has little to do w/ Internet Poker, but it is at least an attempt at some kind of momentum seeking national recognition and perhaps the creation of a forum to sway our Government's perspective of poker in general (which is only helpful for Internet Poker). Putting it on the same level as Major League sports is probably the greatest chance at accomplishing such influence.

Discuss please.

[RedManPlus]

Why is a man who ballons to 600 pounds...
(That's about 43 stone)...
The Chosen One...
To lead Millionaire Poker Pros INTO bondage?

And why is the offshore poker world...
Which under the Patriot Act...
Is ILLEGAL for any US financial institution to do business with...
Viewed by Mr.Cooke as just another "sport"...
Run by "just folks" like himself?

Me thinks...
That Roy's brain expands and occupies...
Some kind of parallel universe.

rm+

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I can answer this question better than perhaps anyone else. If the book is no good, it won't sell no matter what the author's reputation might be as a player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, although I don't think that's true 100% of the time. Lots of people will buy a crummy book if it's advertised enough, or if Oprah Winfrey recommends it or whatever. 2+2'ers are pretty much conoisseurs of poker books, so they know not to waste time or money on something like "Play Poker Like the Pros". But generally speaking, if someone wants to find out about poker, if he doesn't know anything about it beforehand, often times he's going to buy what he saw or heard mentioned on the TV.

I didn't mean to give off the impression that Matt's book wasn't good - I think it's great, and I have a copy of it about five feet away from me at this moment - I just used it as an example, and I didn't see how mentioning that I personally enjoyed the book was relevant to the topic at hand.

In any event, aside from the unfortunate example I chose to reinforce my argument, my point was and still is that the statement "Poker players on TV = Poker players being exploited" is not necessarily true; imho, it seems that an appeareance on the WPT or ESPN can lead to various lucrative opportunities, despite what purveyors of the "Endangered Exploited Poker Pro" argument say.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jordan:

While you were certainly correct, I'm not sure that's the case anymore.

For example, Hellmuth sold a great many books. But that's because when the poker boom began there was actually a shortage of poker books, he was getting featured on TV, and the price was cheap.

If his book was to come out today, I believe it would be a flop.

best wishes,
Mason

[andyfox]

But is Doyle the right man for the job? My sense is that he is not (although I don't know Doyle, perhaps I'm wrong). To get done what Cooke wants done, a person who has a business background and experience in getting things done is what's needed. When the major league baseball players wanted to do the same thing, they didn't call on a famous player, but rather a labor lawyer with a proven track record of success (Marvin Miller). That Doyle is (arguably) the biggest name in poker does not make him qualified to affect the things Roy thinks should be done.

[snakehead]

doyle isn't a bad choice. he formed his own company to publish his books, and he has other business interests. he would be a great frontman. behind the scenes, lyle berman and steve lipscomb would be excellent.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do think there should be a unified tournament players union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumbest idea ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a great idea. Everything would be based on union seniority. Players would bid for tournament entries based on seniority. The old pros would get to play in the big money tournaments, and the new guys would have to play in the crappy games on the third shift. And the more seniority, the more chips you start with.

Bad beat? Rule dispute? Call the union steward. If management doesn't go along, he can call a walk-out.

Actually, some pros made a stab at this recently, and it bombed. A bunch of people tried to get together to get more money out of Superstars Invitational II. If they didn't get what they wanted, they would boycott the show. You may notice the absence of some big names on that show. (Daniel N. discusses this on his site, explaining why he is not on the show. To his apparent regret.)

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
But is Doyle the right man for the job? My sense is that he is not (although I don't know Doyle, perhaps I'm wrong). To get done what Cooke wants done, a person who has a business background and experience in getting things done is what's needed. When the major league baseball players wanted to do the same thing, they didn't call on a famous player, but rather a labor lawyer with a proven track record of success (Marvin Miller). That Doyle is (arguably) the biggest name in poker does not make him qualified to affect the things Roy thinks should be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Doyle probably is one of the better options as the spokesperson for this kind of job. I am trying to think of another player of his stature that the rest of the poker world would look up to and respect as they do/would with Doyle.

There have already been many offers from the lawyers, etc. that you speak of. These people would be of obvious importance, but I see that Cooke's plea to Doyle is simply to be the spokesperson that will have the greatest potential for rallying the players.

My major argument for such an organization, remember, is for legislative purposes (Federal and State). I am not opposed to someone other than Doyle if there is one who is qualified. I'm just saying that I think I see Cooke's point in choosing Doyle.

JR

[DDC67]

I understand the concern in Roy's letter but poker is truly the only venue left where a regular joe has a chance to seriously change their lifestyle/future by cashing in one of these big tournaments. Look at Moneymaker. A book, commercials, print ads, poker advice on the "Rounders" DVD, etc.
For the televised tournaments, maybe someday the network who owns the rights will sweeten the pot proportionately where both sides prosper. Therefore, the "pro's" who should be winning these tournements get paid for there appearance. Or better yet, pay large bounty's for knocking the pro's out of the tourneys with the television money.
Why should all the top pro's get a freeroll into these tournaments? The regular guy is already at a disadvantage going into these tourney's anyway. It's like someone said, "you don't play golf against a pro for money without a handicap but in poker, people will play against the pro's on a even playing field without a spot/edge. It's the dead money.
I like watching the WSOP and WPT for the same reasons everyone here (i.e.- twoplustwo, etc.) watches. One reason I like watching is to see if a regular guy makes the final table and how well they play against the pro's. If the pro's win tournaments (and they usually do), they get name recognition and their value goes up. If the individual player has any entrepreneurial instinct, then the player can really parlay their exposure from t.v. and cash.
The professional poker player's today are becoming household names and celebrities. Ride the wave and take the dead money while you can and be thankful for this great opportunity to prosper. Look at how much more money there is in these tournaments today then from just three years ago. Grab the bull by the horns and go and get yours and don't wait for some committee to form and unify the profession of poker. What will be next, group medical and dental insurance, retirement accounts, retirement homes for the older players?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not a player's union, but I think the prize pools should be at least inflated for televised events.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this idea much better. At the very least, the house should forgo taking a cut of entry fees for televised events.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a great idea. Everything would be based on union seniority. Players would bid for tournament entries based on seniority. The old pros would get to play in the big money tournaments, and the new guys would have to play in the crappy games on the third shift. And the more seniority, the more chips you start with.

Bad beat? Rule dispute? Call the union steward. If management doesn't go along, he can call a walk-out.

Actually, some pros made a stab at this recently, and it bombed. A bunch of people tried to get together to get more money out of Superstars Invitational II. If they didn't get what they wanted, they would boycott the show. You may notice the absence of some big names on that show. (Daniel N. discusses this on his site, explaining why he is not on the show. To his apparent regret.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an example of why you're one of my favorite posters. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

I like this idea much better. At the very least, the house should forgo taking a cut of entry fees for televised events.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? They have to pay more to run a televised tournament (being featured on the WPT isn't free), and what would they get in return for not taking a cut? A most likely quickly-forgotten pat on the back from players, and a bit of red ink on the books because they have to pay their dealers and other staff, after all.

Again, if the players don't like it, they can boycott - vote with your dollar. The fact that people still buy into these events tells you much more about what they find tolerable and what they do not than their grumbling ever will.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? They have to pay more to run a televised tournament (being featured on the WPT isn't free), and what would they get in return for not taking a cut? A most likely quickly-forgotten pat on the back from players, and a bit of red ink on the books because they have to pay their dealers and other staff, after all.

Again, if the players don't like it, they can boycott - vote with your dollar. The fact that people still buy into these events tells you much more about what they find tolerable and what they do not than their grumbling ever will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what they make off the WPT. I don't recall exactly what ESPN is paying for the WSOP rights, but I assume WPT pays something. If nothing else, the casinos are getting a hell of a lot of advertising out of it. And I don't know why it sould be any more expensive to runa televised tournament. The casino doesn't pay for that. The production people do, whther it's ESPN or WPT.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall exactly what ESPN is paying for the WSOP rights, but I assume WPT pays something. If nothing else, the casinos are getting a hell of a lot of advertising out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, according to Michael Craig's book, the WPT charges the casinos for the exposure.

"The new venture, World Poker Tour LLC, would charge each venue $50,000 per tournament to have its property featured." p.142

[BluffTHIS!]

I think that the vast majority of players who make a living or side income from poker do so in cash games and not tournaments, and thus that is what I care about. Sure it would be nice to have some clout in Congress and the state legislatures to shape legislation favorable to making poker in any form legal anywhere, but the fact is that the majority of the public who are recreational poker players in home games and casinos just don't have the interest that we do in this issue, regardless of how much they love to watch WPT on TV or love playing in their weekly home game. That being said, it is certainly true that it has been televised tournament poker that has driven the poker boom, and thus it should be helped as well. Another fact however, is that legal casinos in any jurisdiction and with lots of dough to spend on lobbying, have every interest in erecting and maintaining barriers to entry for legalized cardrooms/online poker anywhere, and often covertly would find themselves allied with those who oppose any expansion of legalized gambling including poker. While I would support any such effort Roy Cooke might be successful in getting someone to spearhead as long as it had the goal not just in promoting tournaments but also legalized cardrooms/online poker, I doubt that by itself it could achieve any clout. The only chance that I see to make an impact is not only to form such an organization, but also to ally with other initiatives such as the Right To Wager campaign being pushed by sports bettors.