[Jedster]

[ 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.