Negreanu's latest blog update...

[DesertCat]

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 ]
Daniel's point was simple and uncontroversial. He used the lesser known players on the TOC list as a literary device, not as a bleeding-heart tactic. His journal entry could have been more concise but that's no reason to kill the messenger.

There is no winning argument for Harrah's side. It's awful for appearances, a totally half-assed and unfair gesture, and whichever whimsical character at the head offices of the WSOP OK'd this should realize by now that inviting the 3 non-qualifiers to the event was a fairly significant screwup.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it was most likely a sponsor demand last minute, when they saw the list and said "WE DON'T HAVE DOYLE BRUNSON???" and the suits flipped out.

It happens all the time in sponsored events in other fields.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


As someone (rightly) pointed out in Paul Phillips' blog, hopefully they will add Pepsi's 2M to the 2M they had earmarked already. IF they were going to do that AND they asked every person in advance if that was okay, only then would it be even possibly okay to add in the three players out of nowhere.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[r2p]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why there is not more outrage over this.

1) This is not a freeroll. The way this was structured, it's more like an event with a satellite tournament. Everybody buys in for $X, and the top 20 make the tournament. The fact that there was also prize money awarded does not change this. The TOC was part of the prize for reaching a certain place in the event.

2) If poker is a game of small edges, how much edge do you think Joe Schmo loses if an additional 2 percent are added to the 108 player field? How much more edge do you think he loses if those players are Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, and Phil Hellmuth?

3) How would you feel if you were playing your WSOP super-satellite on Party Poker, and after you beat 100 people to win your place in the WSOP satellite, PP management announces that they're going to add Phil Ivey, Fossilman, and Dan Harrington to the pool of contestants?

4) It is not good for either poker or poker players to allow the management sponsoring an event to change the rules/prizes/terms AFTER everyone has bought in and played the event. In poker, you make your decision, you take your knocks, you learn your lesson, you do it differently next time. This is true for calling an EP raiser with A6o, and it should be true for the event sponsors as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears to me that the sponsors are honoring their commitment to the players while at the same time granting the sponsors exemptions option that I would bet is in the contract (standard practice in just about any sport from bowling through golf). It appears more a communication issue than any real damage to the participants.

[chucksim]

[ QUOTE ]

It appears to me that the sponsors are honoring their commitment to the players while at the same time granting the sponsors exemptions option that I would bet is in the contract (standard practice in just about any sport from bowling through golf). It appears more a communication issue than any real damage to the participants.

[/ QUOTE ]

The terms were widely known, with no mention of sponsor exemptions. If there was, there wouldn't be such an uproar. That's been the whole point...golfers, bowlers, etc, go into "exempt" tournaments knowing there may be x sponsor's exemptions.

Here, not only did they say nothing and then let 3 guys in, but they let in 3 of the heaviest hitters in the game. It's not like they went into the Harrah's poker room and grabbed 3 lucky guys playing 4/8 Kill to play in this.

Everyone understands WHY they did it, the problem is HOW they did it. All Harrahs needed is one lawyer at the outset to say "Hey, why don't we say exemptions might by allowed?" and we wouldn't be wasting any keystrokes talking about this.

There's about as much chance of this happening as there is of a hurricane hitting Greenland.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very poor analogy. You're confusing a contractual obligation with something that clearly isnt. Please link me to the document where it shows Harrah's guaranteed in writing any amount of equity to the players in their freeroll.

Its not cool of Harrahs' to do this and I can see the gripe, but you're taking this too far.

Anyone who thinks this is a true freeroll is daft.

I am finding the two discussions on this topic fascinating.

They're both concentrating on the process which is all well and good but really not the major story here.

Clearly it was wrong to change the rules midstream.

Clearly for business reasons doing the wrong thing was the right thing to do.

Clearly they could have handled it better.

Clearly the amount of screwage the players got is fairly small.

The fact that a major mainstream corporation is ponying up two million dollars to sponsor this thing is most decidedly untrivial.

More corporate sponsorship can only be good for poker and I think the players should look at the greater good and moderate their rants about the screwing they got.

But then, I don't play at that level so what do I know?

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel Negreanu spoke out on his site, Greg Raymer agreed in this thread, and now Paul Phillips has said likewise that this was a bogus move.

It's easy for almost all of us to take a stand against this as it isn't directly affecting us -- but those three guys I mentioned could be potentially be blacklisted, so their public stances for what is right is all the more admirable.

Kudos, gentlemen.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]


Oh please ......, Jesus, your sense of "doing what is right" and "admirable" is kind of off man

I'm still waiting Daniel, Greg, Paul, or you to present where Harrahs promised that no players would be included in the freeroll; it's easy to prove your point, just present the terms and conditions of the Circuit tournaments and point out the lie by Harrahs. I'm not saying I agree with Harrahs move, but I'm not sure if I agree with the lying and stealing part. In a nation use to be mislead in much more important matters, it's kind of funny to see the outrage caused by the misleading in this subject.