Negreanu\'s latest blog update...
 

....is here.

I am going to bed now, but will post my thoughts in the morning. In the meantime, discuss amongst yourselves.

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

in a sense negreanu is right. if that is how the rules were set up that is how it should be. allowing espn 5 or so exemptions would not really be a bad thing especially for tv ratings but they should have put that in the rules in advance

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

Here is the full link.

My opinion is that it really isn't that big of a modification to add three players to the event. Yes, you cost people $500 in equity. That isn't chump change, but its not grand larceny either. When I first started reading the blog entry, I figured they cancelled the tournament. DN's sense of outrage was totally over the top.

Obviously, this is just amateur psychoanalysis, but it seems possible that Daniel's take may have something to do with not being added himself.

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

If I were Bob Hume, Harry Cullen Jr., Corey Bierra, Jonathan Schecter, Don Mullis, or any of the several others, I would pull out of the $2M freeroll in protest.

Plus, the never of Harrah's not inviting the defending champion, the player's player, Annie Duke. When will the injustice end.

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

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

[ QUOTE ]
in a sense negreanu is right. if that is how the rules were set up that is how it should be. allowing espn 5 or so exemptions would not really be a bad thing especially for tv ratings but they should have put that in the rules in advance

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2006 TOC will have 6 ESPN exemptions (as well as the 12 WSOPC ME winners + WSOP ME final table) for a total of 27 players.

I like how Negreanu mentions the "lesser" players by name, not bothering to mention Lederer, Ivey, Ferguson, Matusow, etc. also lose their $500 in equity. Will Negreanu and his poker agent be be the ones leading the effort to "unionize" the poker players?

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

bfd. he's just jealous he wasn't invited.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the full link.

My opinion is that it really isn't that big of a modification to add three players to the event. Yes, you cost people $500 in equity. That isn't chump change, but its not grand larceny either. When I first started reading the blog entry, I figured they cancelled the tournament. DN's sense of outrage was totally over the top.

Obviously, this is just amateur psychoanalysis, but it seems possible that Daniel's take may have something to do with not being added himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is angry because its not just a 500 loss in equity, but these players arent exactly going to just show up and give up their chips. Its not like they added 3 amateurs.

All 3 of these guys have a real shot at winning and if one were to win, it would be specially annoying because he wasnt supposed to be in the damn tourney in the first place. Thats why his anger is justified.

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

Post deleted by Dynasty

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

[ QUOTE ]
quote deleted by Dynasty

[/ QUOTE ]

Use a little imagination. While this doesn't affect him directly, it is representative of a class of problems that can come up with the WPT, WSOP etc.; that is to say, management making decisions that promote their bottom line at the expense of poker players in the event. This change is clearly much more minor than some, but if such a thing becomes acceptable then there might be problems. In this way, it's quite similar to his complaint about the 2006 WSOP schedule, or other objections (not necessarily by Negreanu) that have been raised before about forbidding deals, etc.

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

[ QUOTE ]
in a sense negreanu is right. if that is how the rules were set up that is how it should be. allowing espn 5 or so exemptions would not really be a bad thing especially for tv ratings but they should have put that in the rules in advance

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to bet Harrah's and ESPN have some pretty good lawyers, made sure the Ts were crossed and the Is were dotted, and gave themselves the right to add exemptions if they so choose.

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

let me get this straight: ESPN told everyone that if you finished in the top 20 of one of the circuit events or got to the final table of the main event you would qualify for the TOC 2,000,000 freeroll. Then ESPN adds 3 superstar players, which cuts into the 109 original players' equity, and this is a really really big deal? I'm not impressed Danny. He does not seem that intelligent from his writings, and his attempt to play the populist angle is just plain ugly. What exactly is the big deal here?

edit- It also sounds like Danny wishes he was one of the invites. He looooves the publicity.

also, dynasty, a little explanation on the deletions? the posts you deleted probably deserved to be deleted, but how can anyone know if you just delete them and everything else people say asking about it?

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

[ QUOTE ]

also, dynasty, a little explanation on the deletions? the posts you deleted probably deserved to be deleted, but how can anyone know if you just delete them and everything else people say asking about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I delete something, it is inappropriate material (usally, an uncalled for insult of a player or poster).

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

Maybe Daniel will invite the players over to his house for some Golden Tee. Seems a bit odd to be sticking up for the "little people" and then go off and play 4/8k and win/lose 6 figures every session.

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

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

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

I think he is right, but also feels slighted at not being invited

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

He is whining just like the pro golfers that whine about exemptions to thier tournaments.

Are the exemptions fair to the players who earned their way in? Tough sh*t. The $2 million payout has to come from somewhere, and if the sponsers think 3 big names will boost ratings, well that's the way it is.

I've always thought that pro golfers were the most spoiled whiners of all pro sports. Poker players may give them a run for the title.

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

Why am I not surprised that many posters don't seem to understand that someone could take a position on an issue based not on narrow self-interest, but rather on principle.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, this is just amateur psychoanalysis, but it seems possible that Daniel's take may have something to do with not being added himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my first thought as well.

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

[ QUOTE ]
let me get this straight: ESPN told everyone that if you finished in the top 20 of one of the circuit events or got to the final table of the main event you would qualify for the TOC 2,000,000 freeroll. Then ESPN adds 3 superstar players, which cuts into the 109 original players' equity, and this is a really really big deal? I'm not impressed Danny. He does not seem that intelligent from his writings, and his attempt to play the populist angle is just plain ugly. What exactly is the big deal here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The big deal is that the 2005 TOC was presented as a "no invite" tourney the whole time. There was no basis for adding three players to the tournament, and no criteria for picking those 3 players. Even if you wanted to make a case for Doyle and Johnny's inclusion--since they did both win a history-making 10th bracelet yada yada--how do you justify Phill's invitation?

No matter how you slice it, it's not cool to randomly invite 3 superstars at the last minute just because you feel like it. Danny's right, this isn't Kosher.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Why am I not surprised that many posters don't seem to understand that someone could take a position on an issue based not on narrow self-interest, but rather on principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about if they take an issue on principle AND a narrow self-interest? Was adding in Hellmuth, Chan and Brunson the wrong thing to do, yes it was. However, just because he decides to mention a few of the lesser known participants in his blog doesn't mean he really cares about them. Maybe he should put his money where his mouth is, boycott the WSOP/WPT and create his own series of tournaments if he cares so much about poker.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
let me get this straight: ESPN told everyone that if you finished in the top 20 of one of the circuit events or got to the final table of the main event you would qualify for the TOC 2,000,000 freeroll. Then ESPN adds 3 superstar players, which cuts into the 109 original players' equity, and this is a really really big deal? I'm not impressed Danny. He does not seem that intelligent from his writings, and his attempt to play the populist angle is just plain ugly. What exactly is the big deal here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The big deal is that the 2005 TOC was presented as a "no invite" tourney the whole time. There was no basis for adding three players to the tournament, and no criteria for picking those 3 players. Even if you wanted to make a case for Doyle and Johnny's inclusion--since they did both win a history-making 10th bracelet yada yada--how do you justify Phill's invitation?

No matter how you slice it, it's not cool to randomly invite 3 superstars at the last minute just because you feel like it. Danny's right, this isn't Kosher.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really up on the specifics of this, so I don't know the details. Even if ESPN changed around their rules a bit, which they clearly have, they are not taking away any entries from qualfiers. At first I thought they kicked 3 amateurs out so the superstars could get in, and I thought "That's really, really [censored] up" but that's not what happened.

Sure, it isn't kosher and ESPN aren't following the terms they set out 100%. But I just don't see where much damage was done here, they are running a freeroll on their terms anyway.

Danny's writing really is poor, the whole populism bit is not good at all. It's corny and you can't invoke it on such a small slight,

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

Someone asked him this in the general forum of FCP and his answer was that he wouldn't and added: "I like to sleep at night".

Believe him or not as you wish. I'm not saying Negreanu doesn't have a hypocritical bone in his body - none of us are perfect in this regard. But I think Daniel is much more sensitive to issues of right and wrong than the large majority of poker players.

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

Sometimes narrow self-interest and principle conflict. I believe this is an instance where, for Daniel, they do. I don't believe he would have accepted an invitation into this event if asked.

And Daniel has been very vocal on various issues of concern to poker players in the past. I think he is trying to move things forward, but without most of the other top players joining in, any initiative would be doomed to failure.

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

I think it's pretty [censored] that Mark Seif isn't playing, he won two bracelets for god's sakes! And what about Dan Druff who won Player of the Year but no one has heard [censored] about that yet!

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

[ QUOTE ]

No matter how you slice it, it's not cool to randomly invite 3 superstars at the last minute just because you feel like it. Danny's right, this isn't Kosher.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No matter how you slice it, it's not cool to randomly invite 3 superstars at the last minute just because you feel like it. Danny's right, this isn't Kosher.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with you if it weren't a freeroll.

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

Daniel's point was simple and uncontroversial. He used the lesser known players on the TOC list as a literary device, not as a bleeding-heart tactic. His journal entry could have been more concise but that's no reason to kill the messenger.

There is no winning argument for Harrah's side. It's awful for appearances, a totally half-assed and unfair gesture, and whichever whimsical character at the head offices of the WSOP OK'd this should realize by now that inviting the 3 non-qualifiers to the event was a fairly significant screwup.

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

[ QUOTE ]
....promised them $18,350 in equity, but that at the last minute you took about $500 out of their pocket and only give them $17, 850 in equity?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is an outrage. if i were Bob Hume, Harry Cullen Jr., Corey Bierria, Jonathan Schecter, or Don Mullis, i wouldn't even bother to show up. lol

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

[ QUOTE ]
I would agree with you if it weren't a freeroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

This wasn't a freeroll, it was a Tournament of Champions. The players who made the cut EARNED it. You might not have liked the criteria for this year's TOC, but that's how it was presented and that's what they should stick to.

If they had said "Top 20 players from every Circuit Tour event get a seat....plus some last minute, surprise special invite-only guests" there would be no issue.

Someone, please make a cogent argument for why adding 3 pros last minute, at whim, to the lineup, is fair to either the qualifiers from the CTs or for other top pros and WSOP 2005-accomplished individuals who aren't lucky enough to be as markettable as Johnny Doyle Hellmuth.

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

[ QUOTE ]

Someone, please make a cogent argument for why adding 3 pros last minute, at whim, to the lineup, is fair to either the qualifiers from the CTs or for other top pros and WSOP 2005-accomplished individuals who aren't lucky enough to be as markettable as Johnny Doyle Hellmuth.

[/ 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.

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)