[tipperdog]

[ 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.