Re: This TOC Thing
 

Bahh I'm confused.

Wake Up Call
 

I had not read that response, but I had also never asked that question before. Please tell me where I asked that question more than once, or stop being an [censored] just because u are a miserable person.

Re: Isn\'t this a redundant statement?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I noticed that someone referenced the WSOP tournament rules, which state that Harrahs' reserves the right to cancel, change or modify the WSOP at any time, for any reason. I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell you just made up this narrowly defined definition to suit your premise. Harrahs' owns the trademark to the WSOP. It makes more sense to presume that the WSOP circuit tournaments fall unders their auspicious and therefore their rules, terms and conditions.

Re: Isn\'t this a redundant statement?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Harrahs' owns the trademark to the WSOP. It makes more sense to presume that the WSOP circuit tournaments fall unders their auspicious and therefore their rules, terms and conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

Re: This TOC Thing
 

[ QUOTE ]
If sponsors are willing to pony up prize money to allow players to reduce or eliminate their entry fee, then giving them the right to name a few entrants to the event is a small sacrifice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but in this particular case, the only "player" whose "entry fee" was reduced was Harrah's, who got to keep the original $2 million they'd set aside for the prize pool.

-- M. Ruff

Re: This TOC Thing
 

That's what I don't think is right. Legally they can do whatever they want, but I think it reflects poorly on Harrah's. In effect they made $2 million for just adding 3 people, and taking away EV from the players who legitamately qualified according to their original rules.

I think changing the rules as the game goes on just because they're your marbles is ethically wrong.

I think they could've at least tried to appear less greedy by taking part of the $2 million that was equal to $2,000,000 / 100(or however many people qualified) * the 3 people that were added to at least keep the players equity (not sure if that's the correct term) the same.

Re: This TOC Thing
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does anybody know whether there was anything written, even in fine print, that Harrahs had the right to add players? If so then there is really nothing to argue about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this "does anybody know" comment directed at Daniel Negreanu? Sounds like it to me.

Re: Isn\'t this a redundant statement?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I noticed that someone referenced the WSOP tournament rules, which state that Harrahs' reserves the right to cancel, change or modify the WSOP at any time, for any reason. I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell you just made up this narrowly defined definition to suit your premise. Harrahs' owns the trademark to the WSOP. It makes more sense to presume that the WSOP circuit tournaments fall unders their auspicious and therefore their rules, terms and conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with you?

Instead of "presuming" and acting like a (censored), just read the definition yourself.

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/rules.asp

The "narrow" language you think I "made up to suit [my] premise" was copied and pasted from paragraph 2.

Re: Isn\'t this a redundant statement?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I noticed that someone referenced the WSOP tournament rules, which state that Harrahs' reserves the right to cancel, change or modify the WSOP at any time, for any reason. I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell you just made up this narrowly defined definition to suit your premise. Harrahs' owns the trademark to the WSOP. It makes more sense to presume that the WSOP circuit tournaments fall unders their auspicious and therefore their rules, terms and conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with you?

Instead of "presuming" and acting like a (censored), just read the definition yourself.

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/rules.asp

The "narrow" language you think I "made up to suit [my] premise" was copied and pasted from paragraph 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably shouldn't enter this fray but using your link that would mean there was no WSOP in 2004,2003,2002,2001 and so on. You get the drift I hope.

Allow me to quote from your link both paragraphs one and two:

1. As used herein, “Harrah’s” means Rio Properties, Inc. and/or HHLV Management Company, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company.
2. Entry into the World Series of Poker (herein “WSOP” refers to all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites) is limited to players 21 years of age or older with valid proof of age.


It is pretty obvious that the use of the word herein only applies to the 2005 timeframe outlined in paragraph two. It is also obvious that you edited the portion of paragraph two to suit your position.

You also chose to ignore "and its related satellites" which can easily be construed to include the Circuit events since many satellites are held months before the dates you listed above.

This leads back to the OP's position that the tradmark owned by Harrahs allows them complete and total control of any event associated with the WSOP name.

In short if you are going to post innacurate proof you should at least be smart enough not to post a link that refutes your own position.

Re: This TOC Thing
 

[ QUOTE ]
But adding only the three superstars probably increases most of the players down the road poker EV by more than the thousand it costs them in the short run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted, I'm wading into this at a late point, and just as quickly as I'm wading in, I'm about to wade out.

But why is it that in a cursory review of the posts I've read that more people cannot look at the long-term (EDIT: as DS clearly does above)?

Yes, Harrah's made a decision that hurt the immediate EV of the players in the tournament. No, this did not violate the law -- as has been pointed out, they covered their legal arse.

But isn't it incredibly obvious that the fact that there was a $2m corporate sponsorship of the event leaps and bounds more interesting to the long run health of poker?

Harrah's could easily have fixed the immediate problem by adding a premium onto the pool to make up for the immediate term EV loss. Or they could have given each player $500. Even better, offered a 5 night room comp or something, which would be valued at more but cost them less. Whatever. It's not really that big of a deal if you look at some of the things businesses do.

And don't forget, poker is a business. While Harrah's may have made some mistakes in how they did what they did, it's hard to see to see how poker is not enormously better off in the long run with a $2 million corporate free-roll.

There are kinks to be worked out as in any emerging business. But the amount of freaking out by some people about an immediate short-term decision that really only affects about 100 people seems pretty silly to me. There are much better things to get indignant about, especially when it is so obvious that the underlyind story is incredibly positive for tournament poker.