Negreanu's latest blog update...

[ 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]

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.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
These players paid money to get a shot at qualifying for the ToC. Three players got in without paying money, thereby reducing the value of what the other players earned.

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't pay money for a shot at getting in the TOC, they paid it for a shot at winning a WSOP tournament. The TOC entry they earned is a freebie.

Yes ESPN/Harrah's reduced the value of there entry, but casino's do this all the time by comping people who didn't qualify into slot, blackjack tournament freerolls, etc. Welcome to the gambling business.

[Voltron87]

I hate to do this, but:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


I don't think ESPN did either of those, do you? ESPN slightly altered their plan, in a way which was not a big deal, and totally within their rights.

[maxpowers21]

[ QUOTE ]
Folks, the point here is simple. Please do not continue to promise us one thing, and then do something else. Even here where it is not a critical change, we are not happy that you are again promising us X and then delivering Y.

Oh, and to all of you who posted that this change was no big deal, or such a small thing that it shouldn't matter, please remind me of this fact the next time we meet in person. I'd like to take your wallet, remove $500, and then return it, and see if it's still a minor issue not worth talking about.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

dito. Well said FossilMan.

[Jooka]

Anyone really believe there wasnt some fine print somewhere saying Harrah/ESPN has the right to alter, modify, and/or cancel said event? just because it wasnt advertised to you doesnt mean it wasnt there.

here is the rules for this years events ill assume a similar rule is around for the ToC players to check out.

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/rules.asp
(be sure to check out rule 11)

Im not saying its right but the reality of the situation is its there show and they will run it how they see fit.

[maxpowers21]

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

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to do this, but:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


I don't think ESPN did either of those, do you? ESPN slightly altered their plan, in a way which was not a big deal, and totally within their rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate that you had to do that as well. And I hate to continue on with the semantics game, but:

from Webster:

Main Entry: 4lie
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying

They did 1b and 2. I bet when they made the qualifications, they didn't plan on throwing those 3 legends in there. However, once they added them, their original statements about who qualified becames lies. You know it. Now, if you don't CARE if they lied, that's another thing. But you cannot debate (with any type of logic) that they didn't lie. You could argue that it wasn't deceitful, but a lie doesn't have to be deceitful. Do I believe it was? Sort of. I also believe it was misleading. However, no matter how you cut the cake, they lied.

So are people angry that they lied or angry that those 3 guys are getting to play in the tournament? I mean, if they had said up front that Hellmuth, Chan, and Brunson would be invited, would anyone have a problem with it? At least a few people, including Negreanu, have said that it would be okay if they had just announced it at the beginning.

So they changed their minds, they lied, whatever. It's definitely sort of shady and they deserve to get some heat for it, but in the end, what damage has been done? These were not mere satelites that these guys won to gain entry to the ToC, they were major high-stakes tournaments on their own, which had standard payout structures. These guys were already fairly rewarded for their placement in those tourneys; the fact that they're even eligible for the ToC is a bonus. What happened is that their "free" equity was slightly reduced.

Is there honestly anyone out there who decided to play in one of those events based on the assumption that they would receive $18k in equity with a top 20 finish (on top of the regular prize money), but would not have played if they had known it would only be $17.5k? I really doubt it. Especially among the amateurs that Daniel is supposedly fighting for, were any of them seriously factoring in their equity in the ToC when deciding whether to enter the event? That would be a pretty bold assumption for any amateur (that they would have a top 20 finish in one WSOP event and an average ITM finish in the ToC). I would go so far as to say that 95%+ of the entrants in all of those events couldn't have even told you the average equity of the ToC within $500 when they signed up, and even if it was public knowledge that Hellmuth, Chan, and Brunson were given free entry, they wouldn't have known or cared about that either.

Yeah, they lied. Yeah, they suck. But geez, it's not the end of the world. Everyone still got paid for their top 20 finish, everyone's still getting to play in a $2 million freeroll. I think it's safe to assume that this change isn't causing anyone who made it to the ToC to regret their decision to enter the tournament.

[BarronVangorToth]

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


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com