|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: This TOC Thing
Why don't they just ask a little bit to the prize pool to keep equity the same?
I don't think this is a major travesty, but it could have also influenced some decisions in the circuit events themselves near the 20 player bubble. But adding 3 players who did not qualify does not seem right. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: This TOC Thing
"And honestly, its a freeroll. Does ANYONE have a right to complain? Gift horse/mouth..."
That's going too far the other way. That "gift" could have factored into people's decision to play the preliminary events. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: This TOC Thing
[ QUOTE ]
That's going too far the other way. That "gift" could have factored into people's decision to play the preliminary events. [/ QUOTE ] Thats the problem though, is that the $2,000,000 prize pool is a gift. No consideration, no contract. Was there reliance sure, but nobody is denying anyone an entry into the tournament. Goodluck trying to explain to the courts that one should be reimburesed for lost equity on a tournament they lost anyway. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|