Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
There won't be a 2006 TOC Freeroll if a bunch of Bob Hume, Harry Cullen Jr., Corey Bierria, Jonathan Schecter, Don Mullis final table this event.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if no name-pros make the final table of TOC 2005, televized poker as we know it might evaporate. And yeah, it's hard to imagine why Joe Viewer would want to see a guy just like himself (i.e. Don Mullis et al) playing for 1M in free money. Those ESPN execs must have panicked when they realized that there was no chance of Doyle, Phil OR Johnny making that tv table.

Perhaps for next year's WSOP ME we should let the top pros (or at least those with DVD's out) start with 20,000 chips, since that will ensure more glitz at the featured and final tables.

If the 2005 TOC fails, Harrah's can do whatever it wants to the 2006 TOC structure to create a better event/show. But it's totally, completely, inarguably MESSED UP to change the well-established rules of the 2005 TOC at the very last minute to cater to three (3) already-overfed TV pros.

Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

just checked out the qualifier's list. thought it was a bunch of no-namers, turns out there's a truck load of professionals on it. guess this final table wouldn't turn out like the ME final table after all. i'm not really looking forward to watching that final table. that is all.

Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

negreanu becomes more of a wacko everyday. talk about a mountain out of a molehill. in the whole scheme of freerolls this is hardly the largest "injustice" that unknown players suffer from, when compared to the opportunities famous pros get. the amount of equity lost here is miniscule.

Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

Yep, a couple of you guys nailed my thoughts.

When I began reading the article, I was thinking 'uh-oh! They promised them a 100 player freeroll and they've changed it to just a FT of 9 well-known players like last year.'

Ah, I was wrong, they just lost $500 equity. Who cares? Is it that big of a deal? I'd happily give up this equity to have a decent chance of playing some hands with the legends included. The comedy value of sitting w/ Hellmuth alone would be worth far greater than $500.

And to keep dropping in the names of these amateur players every sentence, WTF was that all about? Who gives a F about Tommy Reed and his mucked pocket tens?

Danny, lighten up.

Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've always thought that pro golfers were the most spoiled whiners of all pro sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Ever heard of the NFL, MLB, or NBA?

Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

I agree about the principle. While this specific instance isn't a big deal (who would begrudge Doyle and Johnny the chance to be in TOC after getting their 10th bracelets).

But what if next year it is not only 3 players they want to add? What if ESPN insists on adding the autistic epileptic that made so powerful TV along with a dozen other characters from the shows? What is someone in charge decide to put a bunch of his well known poker pro friends in it (there is always a reason that can be invented for doing so)? Afterall, everyone quietly accepted the sudden adding of players last year.

If they want the TOC to have an exclusive extra prize, they should not dilute the prize on a whim.

I don't mind either of these three on the show as a viewer though. Hopefully Phil Hellmuth pops a vein or something.

Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
(who would begrudge Doyle and Johnny the chance to be in TOC after getting their 10th bracelets).

[/ QUOTE ]


No one would; in fact, no one should complain if they gave passes to dozens of "name" players...

...if they advertised it as such IN ADVANCE, which is Daniel's main point, and he is 100% correct.

Do whatever ... but stick to what you initially advertise. Don't say X and then make it Y.

People are looking for ulterior motives from him saying this when his reason for saying this should be 100% transparent: in this day and age where people do not do as they say they are going to do, he would like people to stand by their word.

He should be commended for making a stand for what is right.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If Daniel had been approached and offered an exemption would he have refused for the reasons he mentioned? Seems very unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(who would begrudge Doyle and Johnny the chance to be in TOC after getting their 10th bracelets).

[/ QUOTE ]


No one would; in fact, no one should complain if they gave passes to dozens of "name" players...

...if they advertised it as such IN ADVANCE, which is Daniel's main point, and he is 100% correct.

Do whatever ... but stick to what you initially advertise. Don't say X and then make it Y.

People are looking for ulterior motives from him saying this when his reason for saying this should be 100% transparent: in this day and age where people do not do as they say they are going to do, he would like people to stand by their word.

He should be commended for making a stand for what is right.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

In addition, some people have asked what the big deal is about the players losing $500 in equity. Well, the $500 isn't that big of a deal, true, BUT...

...the three late entrants are bound to win chips from the other players and quite probably knock a couple of players out. Is that fair? I know if I made the TOC (which I never would in a million years), I'd be a bit peeved if someone who didn't actually qualify knocked me out of the tournament.

As to the comment that Negreanu should start his own tour or something if he's unhappy with the WSOP, well that's unrealistic. He may have some gripes, but that would be cutting off his nose to spite his face.

Bottom line: don't make rules if you don't intend to live by them.

Re: Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

Folks, the point here is simple. Please do not continue to promise us one thing, and then do something else. Even here where it is not a critical change, we are not happy that you are again promising us X and then delivering Y.

Oh, and to all of you who posted that this change was no big deal, or such a small thing that it shouldn't matter, please remind me of this fact the next time we meet in person. I'd like to take your wallet, remove $500, and then return it, and see if it's still a minor issue not worth talking about.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)