Negreanu's latest blog update... - Page 9

Nick B. · #1 11-07-2005, 02:40 PM

What's ESPN going to do next, fake hole cards?

Voltron87 · #2 11-07-2005, 03:33 PM

My main problem with the column is that Negreanu makes way too big a deal of it and made a big mistake by playing the populist angle so big and so badly. If he had just added it quietly "ESPN is now changing from their promised plan to add players they did not say they were going to, in the future this is not good pratice" and didn't overreact, it would be perfectly reasonable.

This is not an outrage. ESPN never signed a contract with the other players, they are not cheating or stealing or anything like that. Saying ESPN lied is going off the deep end. Calm down everybody.

#3 11-07-2005, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My main problem with the column is that Negreanu makes way too big a deal of it and made a big mistake by playing the populist angle so big and so badly. If he had just added it quietly "ESPN is now changing from their promised plan to add players they did not say they were going to, in the future this is not good pratice" and didn't overreact, it would be perfectly reasonable.

This is not an outrage. ESPN never signed a contract with the other players, they are not cheating or stealing or anything like that. Saying ESPN lied is going off the deep end. Calm down everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying they lied is going off the deep end?! That's what they did, I'm stating fact. If that's going off the deep end, then you need to evaluate your definition of that phrase. I can understand being annoyed with Danny's reaction, but it's his opinion, just like your incredible lack of integrity (kidding [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]). The FACT is that the organizers lied. Whether you think thats okay or not is the discussion.

Voltron87 · #4 11-07-2005, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main problem with the column is that Negreanu makes way too big a deal of it and made a big mistake by playing the populist angle so big and so badly. If he had just added it quietly "ESPN is now changing from their promised plan to add players they did not say they were going to, in the future this is not good pratice" and didn't overreact, it would be perfectly reasonable.

This is not an outrage. ESPN never signed a contract with the other players, they are not cheating or stealing or anything like that. Saying ESPN lied is going off the deep end. Calm down everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying they lied is going off the deep end?! That's what they did, I'm stating fact. If that's going off the deep end, then you need to evaluate your definition of that phrase. I can understand being annoyed with Danny's reaction, but it's his opinion, just like your incredible lack of integrity (kidding [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]). The FACT is that the organizers lied. Whether you think thats okay or not is the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are different types of lying. lying in court saying you didn't see your friend kill that hooker when you know he really did is worse than other lies.

its not really even a lie, because espn did not do it with malicious intent. im sure they didnt make their original policy and say "Haha, we are going to flip this on them and [censored] everyone over out of 500$!!". That distinction is huge.

#5 11-07-2005, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main problem with the column is that Negreanu makes way too big a deal of it and made a big mistake by playing the populist angle so big and so badly. If he had just added it quietly "ESPN is now changing from their promised plan to add players they did not say they were going to, in the future this is not good pratice" and didn't overreact, it would be perfectly reasonable.

This is not an outrage. ESPN never signed a contract with the other players, they are not cheating or stealing or anything like that. Saying ESPN lied is going off the deep end. Calm down everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying they lied is going off the deep end?! That's what they did, I'm stating fact. If that's going off the deep end, then you need to evaluate your definition of that phrase. I can understand being annoyed with Danny's reaction, but it's his opinion, just like your incredible lack of integrity (kidding [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]). The FACT is that the organizers lied. Whether you think thats okay or not is the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are different types of lying. lying in court saying you didn't see your friend kill that hooker when you know he really did is worse than other lies.

its not really even a lie, because espn did not do it with malicious intent. im sure they didnt make their original policy and say "Haha, we are going to flip this on them and [censored] everyone over out of 500$!!". That distinction is huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to make this thread a definition of lying, but by any dictionary, they lied.

I'm not even saying it was malicious. It doesn't seem malicious. It looks like they made a decision that went against the original rules. They went back on their word, or lied. It's not a huge deal, everybody lies. I'm just saying it's okay to be disappointed that they lied.

trying2learn · #6 11-07-2005, 04:42 PM

yeah, voltron saying they didn't lie because of intent is silly. it's absolutely a lie. just one that doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as danny is making it out to be.

espn was wrong, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand fully...but it's not that big of a deal either.

Quicksilvre · #7 11-07-2005, 04:01 PM

This seems akin to winning $20,000 in a lottery, showing up to claim the prize, and only getting $19,500.

In itself, doing this is certainly very poor form, but I don't think this is the end of the world. However, I think we have to start contemplating the cumulative effect of the way conglomerate gambling companies are affecting poker. I don't see this happening back in the Binion era.

maxpowers21 · #8 11-07-2005, 05:31 PM

On a side note the equity is most definitely higher then $500 anyways because of the caliber of these 3 players, being taken away from the remaining field.

as it turns out...

http://cardplayer.com/poker-tournaments/...0a07afbd94d02a3

Fairless · #9 11-07-2005, 10:03 PM

This is one of the few things that I agree with ole danny boy with. It is scary to think about corporate poker sponsorship and promotion, ala Harrahs Entertainment, without adequate player based representation.

sirio11 · #10 11-08-2005, 01:10 AM

Does anybody could point a link to the official rules or terms and conditions to see how exactly Harrahs or ESPN lied?

I'm kind of confused, because Daniel talked about 20 entrants per Circuit event and in this page you can see clearly that there were 27 from the Rio event. Was that another change? Are Daniel and Greg complaining about that change also?

Frankly I'm surprised by Daniel's attitude here; and why don't just post the link to the "official" rules to prove without a doubt that they lied?

My guess is that there were no clear rules from this event, much less a PROMISE like Greg and Daniel said, but I could be wrong. But if you said somebody lied, the burden of the proof is on you.