This TOC Thing
 

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. The fact that the players were verbally promised that there would be no additons doesn't mean much if those promises were made by underlings who didn't have the authority to make such promises.

I would reverse the above comments if there had been massive additions. 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.

However if there was written guarantees that there would be no additons, that would be a different story.

Re: This TOC Thing
 

Does the fact that Hellmuth did well at the event have any bearing on the situation? I would think that only gives the gripers more to gripe about.?

Apologies if this response isn't on topic...I figure it kind of is...

-Solo

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. The fact that the players were verbally promised that there would be no additons doesn't mean much if those promises were made by underlings who didn't have the authority to make such promises.

I would reverse the above comments if there had been massive additions. 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.

However if there was written guarantees that there would be no additons, that would be a different story.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between a legal "right" to change rules mid-promotion (which, presumably, includes adding players) and an unethical action.

In this case, WSOP touted the strict 2005 qualification requirements as an improvement over its 2004 system. It said repeatedly that you must meet the requirements "to be eligible" for the TOC.

That fine print on the players' agreeement gets them out of legal jeopardy isn't the point (or, at least, it isn't my point). The TOC misled the players, and that's simply wrong.

Re: This TOC Thing
 

"That fine print on the players' agreeement gets them out of legal jeopardy isn't the point (or, at least, it isn't my point). The TOC misled the players, and that's simply wrong."

I would agree if the transgression was severe. But they really only committed a technical violation. And if you want to get angry over technicalities, you can't deny them a techical counterargument. They basically cancel each other out.

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? However if there was written guarantees that there would be no additons, that would be a different story.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a legal difference between a clause allowing Harrah's to add players, a clause specifically stating they aren't allowed to add players, and the absence of either clause, right? Where's Otis when she can actually be useful?

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 ]

Exactly. I don't see why people are flipping out over this so much.

Re: This TOC Thing
 

Of course there's a difference, and I think the documents were silent (they neither explicity permitted nor explicitly prohibited additional players).

I think the players' gripe is really that Harrah's breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Re: This TOC Thing
 

David:

All entrants to WSOP events (circuit or otherwise) are required to agree to abide by the WSOP rules, which are posted on the WSOP website. Section I.25 says "Harrah’s reserves the right to cancel, change or modify the WSOP at any time, for any reason, subject to all applicable regulatory approval, provided that such modification shall not, as of the date of such modification, materially alter or change any participant’s prize already awarded." It could be argued that the WSOP is, in fact, altering a "prize already awarded" since the entry to the freeroll was part of the prize package for finishing in the top 20 of a Circuit Event. But the word "materially" is a legal term of art, and a $500 change in tournament equity (when factored in with the prize money already earned for the top 20 finish as well as the starting equity of over $18,000) would not be considered "material". This eliminates any breach of contract claim (or fraud claim, for that matter) right off the bat. Harrah's is allowed to change its rules without notifying the players.

There is not, nor has there ever been, any contractual obligation on the part of Harrah's or ESPN requiring them to hold to a certain number of participants. In fact, if Harrah's decided to scrap the entire tournament, they could have done so (giving the players zero equity). If I were a player, would I be annoyed that the additional players were added? Absolutely. But I would also have to look at the big picture. Pepsi, an entity that is very conscious of image and has an enormous advertising and promotional budget, is throwing their support to the tune of $2 million behind a poker tournament, and will use additional resources to publicize and promote it. That is, in and of itself, an impressive step forward for a game that for years existed on the fringe of the sports and gaming world. It is no surpise that Pepsi would have some conditions before signing on, in this case to include three players who Pepsi has previous signed to do promotional work. If this had happened soon enough that the published rules could have incorporated the sponsors' exemption, nobody would be complaining. It was the timing that was bad. I think on a going forward basis Harrah's and ESPN will be more careful (they have already announced there will be 6 sponsor's exemption spots next year) not to irritate the players, but in this case the money came in late and they had to sacrifice some ruffled feathers to do something that has a long-term +EV effect on poker as a whole.

Re: This TOC Thing
 

I think the big question is: have you ever seen a set of rules that doesnt include some clause about being subject to change?

And honestly, its a freeroll. Does ANYONE have a right to complain? Gift horse/mouth...

Re: This TOC Thing
 

You're correct, Steve. Clauses in rules allowing the sponsor/director/governing body to make rules changes how and when they want are standard. It's how they implement the clause that really matters (i.e. is it in a fair manner?). Here, I think the long-term benefits far outweigh the short-term annoyance that the players had. Harrah's (among others) is trying to grow a sport and to get more mainstream sponsors into the mix. There is always give and take in the process. No one should forget that the players are the stars (and the main draw), so upsetting the players continuously is not good for the game. But the players need to realize that they should be somewhat flexible when it comes to things that are, in th long run, good for their game and their collective future as players.