Negreanu's latest blog update...

[ QUOTE ]
They screwed up. But its their money. It might be partly derived from tournament juice but they certainly have no absolute obligation to return any of it to the players in the form of this freeroll. And yes it is a freeroll.

Plus, even if this blunder by Harrahs is bad for the players of this years' TOC, landing this big of a sponsorship deal from Pepsi seems great for the game of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not no stinking freeroll(exept for johnny doyle and phill), it's part of the prize you won in a previous tournamount. People who believe it's a freeroll probably believe in the buy one get one free means that you really are getting one free. Harrah's lying to people, I for one am not surprised.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But its their money.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does matter.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It might be partly derived from tournament juice but they certainly have no absolute obligation to return any of it to the players in the form of this freeroll. And yes it is a freeroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't matter either. They are stealing from the players, plain and simple, and if you don't see it, you should think about it until you do.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are accusing them of stealing although its their money in the first place. See how it matters now?

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, so doing something blatantly wrong in the hopes that it perpetuates the greater good... They should put that in their press release.

I'm absolutely shocked that something so obvious has anyone defending the wrongdoers who are stealing from players who support said wrongdoers.

Staggering.

[/ QUOTE ]

The degree of shock and indignation you have on this one is out of proportion.

[DonkeyChip]

Post deleted...but not by Dynasty.
Sorry quadzilla, my reding comprension sux.

[BarronVangorToth]

I consider it stealing if I paid for something and didn't get what I was promised due to the person I'm buying it from outright changing what was offered. If you prefer to call it fraud, I won't debate the semantics.

I call it outright theft, as that's what I believe it is.

As far as my indignation goes, as I said earlier:

Threats to liberties only ever come a few dollars at a time.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[ QUOTE ]
Example. Let's say that a CD manufacturer had an offer that Band X's CD would come packed with $10 . You bought it and found $9. Well, it was their money and you still got something but ... not quite what you were promised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if pre-tournament equity correlates with your example. They lost some slight pre-tournament equity, which is not guaranteed. That is not the same as losing a guaranteed dollar.

Plus it can be argued that any increase in ratings resulting from the appearance of the 3 invited players, will compensate for this slight loss of pre-tournament equity in the form of added tv exposure to all players involved.

Also its a freeroll.

[Wake up CALL]

I chose to reply to you since your position here seems to be both the most ardent and unreasonable (although a man I respect very much was a close 2nd with his taking $500 from your wallet remark).

It is a non-sequitur to consider this stealing. It is akin to standing in line at McDonalds and after making your purchase being handed a coupon good for a free bag of fries if you are willing to show up at another time and place of their choosing and participate in a random drawing between X number of other customers. Now when you arrive at the drawing they have added 3 customers to the drawing.

You still have an opportunity to win all the same prizes your were initially offered after being awarded said coupon. Granted your odds of winning are lowered slightly but this is more than offset by the fact that they will now be able to have many more of these freebie giveaways in the future. So in reality your odss of getting more over the next few years increased hundreds of times more than your minimal loss in this single event.

Complaing about integrity among poker players, casinos and poker tournaments is akin to complaining about the integrity of US Senators, the US Senate and the Senate Rules, assuming the majority of either have any is hilarious. You really should expect things to change and not be either outraged nor surprised when they do.

[J.Copperthite]

What do you think will happen if Phil Hellmuth happens to win this thing, as he is quite close to doing? Personally I think he should distribute the $1 million among all the qualifiers.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I chose to reply to you since your position here seems to be both the most ardent and unreasonable (although a man I respect very much was a close 2nd with his taking $500 from your wallet remark).

[/ 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 ]

It is akin to standing in line at McDonalds and after making your purchase being handed a coupon good for a free bag of fries if you are willing to show up at another time and place of their choosing and participate in a random drawing between X number of other customers. Now when you arrive at the drawing they have added 3 customers to the drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]


This isn't the same thing.


[ QUOTE ]

You still have an opportunity to win all the same prizes your were initially offered after being awarded said coupon. Granted your odds of winning are lowered slightly but this is more than offset by the fact that they will now be able to have many more of these freebie giveaways in the future.

[/ 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 ]

You really should expect things to change and not be either outraged nor surprised when they do.

[/ QUOTE ]


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

Injustice is injustice, even if expected.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

Plus it can be argued that any increase in ratings resulting from the appearance of the 3 invited players, will compensate for this slight loss of pre-tournament equity in the form of added tv exposure to all players involved.

Also its a freeroll.

[/ QUOTE ]



Again, even if you assume this is a true freeroll, it doesn't matter.

And figuring out whether outside variables make up for the equity is akin to me ordering a shirt through the mail for $35 and them sending me various items that I didn't order that may or may not end up being worth $35.

I ordered a shirt ... not a lot of other things. Not to mention, when one of those other things is "exposure" and having more big names gives less exposure to other potential people.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think will happen if Phil Hellmuth happens to win this thing, as he is quite close to doing?

[/ QUOTE ]

He will take out a full page ad in the new york times announcing that he is now among the ten bracelet winners. He doesn't seem to mind including the season one aruba sham in his WPT final table count, so it's no stretch.

(I don't know if there is a bracelet for this event, but what a shame if there is.)