Negreanu's latest blog update...

[Yeti]

....is here.

I am going to bed now, but will post my thoughts in the morning. In the meantime, discuss amongst yourselves.

in a sense negreanu is right. if that is how the rules were set up that is how it should be. allowing espn 5 or so exemptions would not really be a bad thing especially for tv ratings but they should have put that in the rules in advance

[Kevmath]

[ QUOTE ]
in a sense negreanu is right. if that is how the rules were set up that is how it should be. allowing espn 5 or so exemptions would not really be a bad thing especially for tv ratings but they should have put that in the rules in advance

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2006 TOC will have 6 ESPN exemptions (as well as the 12 WSOPC ME winners + WSOP ME final table) for a total of 27 players.

I like how Negreanu mentions the "lesser" players by name, not bothering to mention Lederer, Ivey, Ferguson, Matusow, etc. also lose their $500 in equity. Will Negreanu and his poker agent be be the ones leading the effort to "unionize" the poker players?

[ QUOTE ]
....promised them $18,350 in equity, but that at the last minute you took about $500 out of their pocket and only give them $17, 850 in equity?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is an outrage. if i were Bob Hume, Harry Cullen Jr., Corey Bierria, Jonathan Schecter, or Don Mullis, i wouldn't even bother to show up. lol

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
in a sense negreanu is right. if that is how the rules were set up that is how it should be. allowing espn 5 or so exemptions would not really be a bad thing especially for tv ratings but they should have put that in the rules in advance

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to bet Harrah's and ESPN have some pretty good lawyers, made sure the Ts were crossed and the Is were dotted, and gave themselves the right to add exemptions if they so choose.

[sam h]

Here is the full link.

My opinion is that it really isn't that big of a modification to add three players to the event. Yes, you cost people $500 in equity. That isn't chump change, but its not grand larceny either. When I first started reading the blog entry, I figured they cancelled the tournament. DN's sense of outrage was totally over the top.

Obviously, this is just amateur psychoanalysis, but it seems possible that Daniel's take may have something to do with not being added himself.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the full link.

My opinion is that it really isn't that big of a modification to add three players to the event. Yes, you cost people $500 in equity. That isn't chump change, but its not grand larceny either. When I first started reading the blog entry, I figured they cancelled the tournament. DN's sense of outrage was totally over the top.

Obviously, this is just amateur psychoanalysis, but it seems possible that Daniel's take may have something to do with not being added himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is angry because its not just a 500 loss in equity, but these players arent exactly going to just show up and give up their chips. Its not like they added 3 amateurs.

All 3 of these guys have a real shot at winning and if one were to win, it would be specially annoying because he wasnt supposed to be in the damn tourney in the first place. Thats why his anger is justified.

[roundest]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, this is just amateur psychoanalysis, but it seems possible that Daniel's take may have something to do with not being added himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my first thought as well.

[BS Yee]

If I were Bob Hume, Harry Cullen Jr., Corey Bierra, Jonathan Schecter, Don Mullis, or any of the several others, I would pull out of the $2M freeroll in protest.

Plus, the never of Harrah's not inviting the defending champion, the player's player, Annie Duke. When will the injustice end.

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[lighterjobs]

bfd. he's just jealous he wasn't invited.