Negreanu's latest blog update...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
quote deleted by Dynasty

[/ QUOTE ]

Use a little imagination. While this doesn't affect him directly, it is representative of a class of problems that can come up with the WPT, WSOP etc.; that is to say, management making decisions that promote their bottom line at the expense of poker players in the event. This change is clearly much more minor than some, but if such a thing becomes acceptable then there might be problems. In this way, it's quite similar to his complaint about the 2006 WSOP schedule, or other objections (not necessarily by Negreanu) that have been raised before about forbidding deals, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to be a trend with both the WPT and the WSOP to do things like this, instead of filming and showing a TRUE final table, or event where all the players EARNED their spots at the table.

At least however, with the 2005 WPT Ladies Night III event, while the audiance at large most likely did NOT have a clue, those who participated did.

That is, it was rigged in a sense, the deck stacked for the 'name brand' Female poker players, with the exception of the Lone woman, London Galager, who waded through a field of almost 600 women, to win her place at that final table.

The other ladies at the final table, did NOT have to do so .. since they were 'invited' to that final table. To add insult to injury at least to MY way of thinking (and I'm only speaking for myself here of course), London didn't finish up winning her place at that final table, until 5:30 am in the morning of the SAME day that she was to play at that final table, a mere 7 hours later at 12 noon that day.

Plus, she had to be there at 10 or 11 am for interviews as well. I suspect she was lucky to get but a few hours sleep. Yet, while she was up until the wee hours working her butt off to win her seat at that final table, the other 5 ladies, assured that there seats would be there for them, were safe and sound in bed, getting needed rest for the final table.

All in the cause of ratings, and because some suit things, if you don't have name brand players at the final table, you won't get any ratings. So, they rig it in some way, so that regardless of how good a given 'name brand' is playing at a given time, they are assured a seat at that final table, much as with the WPT and the 2005 Ladies Night III episode.

I agree with Daniel ... what the did just isn't right, and no disrespect to Doyle or the other players who were added who didn't win there way there.

[ QUOTE ]
So what happened to Harrah's own money? Did Harrah's pocket it? Giving three select players a free-roll into a tourney everyone else had to qualify to freeroll into is a dick move but a minor one in the grand scheme of things. Once Harrah's found the sponsor, they should have had a huge party and given a huge bonus to the executives that made it happen since they JUST SAVED 2 MILLION DOLLARS .

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks this is a true freeroll is daft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freeroll definition: A qualification of some sort is often required but normally no or a minimal (minimal to the point of being nearly zero) entry fee is required.

please enlighten us all as to how this is not a freeroll? You may not use the fact that they had to play in some other specified events to qualify since all three of the extra participants did as well.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
This actually may be worse than it's being made out to be. Didn't Harrah's take $2M from player entry fees at all the other events to fund the TOC. Only later did Pepsi show up and offer to contribute $2M.

So what happened to the player's contributions? Did Harrah's pocket it? Giving three select players a free-roll into a tourney everyone else had to pay and play to qualify is just adding insult to injury. Once Harrah's found the sponsor, they should have used the sponsors money to increase the prize pool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrahs offered up their profit from hosting some of these events for the freeroll. Nowhere was it indicated on the entry fee forms that a portion of the prior entry fees were being set aside fir the freeroll. Suppose Harrahs in some monumental momemt of stupidity actually found a way to lose money on the prior events. Do you think they would have had the 2 million dollar freeroll without outside sponsordhip? Do you really think that the players believed that a percentage of their ebtry fees were being set aside seperately to fund this freeroll? Even if they did think this I am sure it was never written as a binding contract.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks this is a true freeroll is daft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freeroll definition: A qualification of some sort is often required but normally no or a minimal (minimal to the point of being nearly zero) entry fee is required.

please enlighten us all as to how this is not a freeroll? You may not use the fact that they had to play in some other specified events to qualify since all three of the extra participants did as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's no different than playing in a satelite situation.

Forget who the players are here, and think about this.

How would YOU like it, if you knew you were getting LESS money, because 3 people who'd been knocked out of the satelites that everyone was told they'd have to win in, in order to qualify for the biggie, were suddenly allowed to play in the big event?

These men, while they are wonderful poker players, and such, are still MEN. They are NOT Gods, and IMO, they shouldn't be treated as such either.

If you would get ticked off if an average Joe/Jane was allowed in under these conditions, then it should honk you off just as much even though it's 3 famous players being allowed to be given exceptions after the fact (that is after everyone had played, and the original rules of how to get into the biggie event, were told to all).

Ghato is absolutely correct. 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.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Greg's remark was quite good, except I'd equate it as more than $500 as most hopefully won't think Hellmuth, Chan, and Brunson are equal in ability to the other qualifiers.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I suppose that if Greg said that when his aces get cracked in a tournament by a donk playing any two cards blind it is like taking money from his wallet in this one time event? It is no different than him saying that and I can't imagoine you would agree with him then. Greg has used a poor analogy. Now if he had offered you a chance at pulling an envelope from his pocket that contained one million dollars or less in the same increments as will be paid out during the TOC after he had taken your $500 then it would have been much more accurate.


My McDonalds example is exactly the same thing, wht is not the same thing is your shirt or CD examples. Why you cannot understand the Difference I wll never understand.

[ QUOTE ]
I consider this as much of an offset as saying to someone that you shot in the leg that you could've shot them in the head.


[/ QUOTE ]

More misdirection from someone who doesn't understand utility or equity. If you must use a physical attack it is much closer to me cutting your hair too short and doing it for free not shooting you in the leg. In three days your hair will grow back and a week later you will still need another trim.


[ QUOTE ]
The fact that it's not surprising doesn't mean it doesn't warrant outrage.


[/ QUOTE ]

I somewhat agree with you here except the only people who have any right at all are the players who qualified for the TOC. Not any other player nor spectator with no financial interest in the outcome of the event.

[Miggo]

I don't know if these are valid points or not, but out of my own curiosity, I'm gonna throw these out there.

Does this only matter if someone says, "#$%&, if I knew they were going to go and add three people to this 100 or so man freeroll at the end of the year, I wouldn't have even entered any of the WSOP events in the first place if they were going to screw me out of 3% equity."

And second, doesn't 2 million being added, add another 20 thousand dollars in equity to the players in it, which should more than make up for any equity lost by the three people that were added.

I'm not trying to be a smart @$$, I was just curious if these things were valid points to the discussion.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks this is a true freeroll is daft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freeroll definition: A qualification of some sort is often required but normally no or a minimal (minimal to the point of being nearly zero) entry fee is required.

please enlighten us all as to how this is not a freeroll? You may not use the fact that they had to play in some other specified events to qualify since all three of the extra participants did as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's no different than playing in a satelite situation.

Forget who the players are here, and think about this.

How would YOU like it, if you knew you were getting LESS money, because 3 people who'd been knocked out of the satelites that everyone was told they'd have to win in, in order to qualify for the biggie, were suddenly allowed to play in the big event?

These men, while they are wonderful poker players, and such, are still MEN. They are NOT Gods, and IMO, they shouldn't be treated as such either.

If you would get ticked off if an average Joe/Jane was allowed in under these conditions, then it should honk you off just as much even though it's 3 famous players being allowed to be given exceptions after the fact (that is after everyone had played, and the original rules of how to get into the biggie event, were told to all).

[/ QUOTE ]

If the three added players had been women I would feel this way, since they were all men I have no problem with it.

Now that you have your feminine feathers ruffled I'll give you a real answer.

No one in the tournament is guaranteed to be getting less money. Are you telling me that if the first player to get knocked out gets his pocket aces cracked by someone other than the BIG THREE he made less money that he would have if they had not been in the tourney? Hint: If your answer is anything other than a resounding no then you do not understand poker or math. Since the correct answer is obviously no then your post was a waste of your effort.

Keep in mind before your head begins to hurt that your aces would have been cracked or not been depending on thousands of other factors totally unrelated to three additional players in the same tournament.

Since I have established above that at least that single player's results were not changed by the number of players entered in the event we must establish some criteria as to who would be hurt. My main point is that no one who is not invited or qualified to play in the TOC has been effected hence their outrage is uncalled for. I can empathize with those who may be effected but that still does not make it -EV long term for them either. They are being short sighted and results oriented, neither characteristic normally associated with world class players when not on tilt.

[ QUOTE ]


If the three added players had been women I would feel this way, since they were all men I have no problem with it.

Now that you have your feminine feathers ruffled I'll give you a real answer.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe .. NO feathers ruffled here, great response! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

As for the Aces Cracked anology .. think of it this way.

With 3 extra players in the event, who otherwise wouldn't be there, this means that the seat you had drawn, would of been different, you most likely would NOT of gotten the aces, let alone get them cracked, simply because you wouldn't of been seated in the same place you were, with 3 extra players.

In other words, the whole dynamic is changed for the whole (final) tournament that you qualified into.

Think of it this way....

I don't know if ANY of this was put into writing or not, and put out there during the circuit events or not.

However, if it was ... rut roo ... can we say 'false advertising'??

Someone who got sour grapes at not making it into the money for this tournament, could if they wanted to (since the US is a lawsuit happy nation), file a class action suit against TPTB of this tournament, and just might win it.

This is because they ADVERTISED that the top 20 from the aforementioned circuit events, and those top 20 alone, would qualify into the big tournament later.

Harrah's in effect, used this promise to the players, as a way to get them in and to play in the circuit events.

Now, I don't know if it applies to poker, but there ARE laws in most states, that forbid 'bait and switch' tactics to get people to 'buy' something, then once they get there, switch them to something else, by saying what first brought them in there, is no longer available, and that they have to accept a substitute intead.

In many ways, this is like a 'Bait and Switch' here if you really thought about it.