This TOC Thing

[miajag81]

[ 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.

[Miles Ahead]

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.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrah's breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't they have a reputation for this in the poker world?

[juris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrah's breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't they have a reputation for this in the poker world?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the contract expressly permits them to do this, there is no such thing as an implied covenant to the contrary. If there isn't or it's ambiguous, more interesting question.

That's exactly what David said in the op, but I cringe when I see legal jargon used without explanation.

[Miles Ahead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrah's breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't they have a reputation for this in the poker world?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the contract expressly permits them to do this, there is no such thing as an implied covenant to the contrary. If there isn't or it's ambiguous, more interesting question.

That's exactly what David said in the op, but I cringe when I see legal jargon used without explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for making you or anyone else cringe. My post included a brief explanation. As I said, I believe the documents were silent. In a contractual dispute, courts often supply a term to contracts (that isn't actually written in the words on the pages of the contract) requiring the parties to act in "good faith." That's what I meant by the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Without getting into a discussion of whether there was or was not a contract between Harrah's and the players, I think it's safe to say that the argument being made by some is essentially that Harrah's did not act in good faith.

I noticed that someone referenced the WSOP tournament rules, which state that Harrah’s reserves the right to cancel, change or modify the WSOP at any time, for any reason. I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, I was about to ask if WSOP was a defined term.

Setting aside whether there actually was a contract, whether its good to the game and all that, assume for a minute that someone sued Harrah's and a contract violation was found. Anybody think of a good way to prove damages? I'm guessing that diminished equity would be too speculative for a court to make an award based on...anybody with any experience in this area?

Otherwise meritous cases can founder on the damages issue.

--Zetack

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I noticed that someone referenced the WSOP tournament rules, which state that Harrahs' reserves the right to cancel, change or modify the WSOP at any time, for any reason. I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell you just made up this narrowly defined definition to suit your premise. Harrahs' owns the trademark to the WSOP. It makes more sense to presume that the WSOP circuit tournaments fall unders their auspicious and therefore their rules, terms and conditions.

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.

[Easy E]

I would presume that there would have to be specific contract language detailing the exact amount of qualifying tournaments, or any addition of extra qualifiers by Harrah's could be argued as a "change in equity".

If there had been 3 more qualifying tournaments added at the last minute, you have almost the same result (ignoring skill levels).

But I'm already on record as saying "stop whining" about this.

I think we've had enough of this TOC talk and in light of the Paul Phillips/TOC debacle, we should put an end to all discussion immediately and permanently. Dynasty, lock this thread and suspend Mr. Sklansky ASAP!