Negreanu's latest blog update...

Good creative thinking, but it's a losing case Cincy that no decent lawyer would touch for a number of reasons. All entrants to WSOP events (circuit or otherwise) are required to agree to abide by the WSOP rules, which are posted on the WSOP website. Rule I.25 says "Harrah’s reserves the right to cancel, change or modify the WSOP at any time, for any reason, subject to all applicable regulatory approval, provided that such modification shall not, as of the date of such modification, materially alter or change any participant’s prize already awarded." It could be argued that the WSOP is, in fact, altering a "prize already awarded" since the entry to the freeroll was part of the prize package for finishing in the top 20 of a Circuit Event. But the word "materially" is a legal term of art, and a $500 change in tournament equity (when factored in with the prize money already earned for the top 20 finish as well as the starting equity of over $18,000) would not be considered "material". This eliminates any breach of contract claim (or fraud claim, for that matter) right off the bat. The WSOP is allowed to change its rules without notifying the players.

In any case, there are no measurable damages. In contract law, there is no such thing as punitive damages. You are only allowed to be awarded the amount of actual damages suffered due to the breach. Given that equity in a tournament is not actual dollars earned, there is no measurable amount of actual damages here.

I don't think litigation is the answer. Better communication between tournament directors and the players is. The players have voiced their displeasure, and Harrah's has taken note. As Steve Rosenbloom wrote in his column on the incident:

"From a strictly competitive standpoint, Harrah's sounds like it knows this is not the way to do things. But from a long-term financial view, this is an error that could be a jackpot for both the company and the game.

And just so there are no surprises at next year's TOC, Harrah's has already said it reserves the right to offer six sponsor's exemptions."

Where did you get your definition of a freeroll, because that's not free. Any entry fee, however minimal, means it's not a freeroll.

[Wake up CALL]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Even after I specifically told you, and partially explained why it was irrelevant you still responded in this manner, unbelieveable. Hint #2: The cards have no memory, they do not know how many players are in the tournament. Hint #3: Even if the cards knew the number of entrants (and for some reason they cared) what if three players came in late and therefore on this first hand of the tourney you were eliminated. It would be just as if the original tournament had the same number of entrants. What if the cards were cut differently by the dealer. What if the guy to your left spilled coffee on the cards prior to the first deal and a new deck had to be used? You see why all these other independent events have no bearing on that hypothetical players aces being cracked? Just like the three additional players have no direct impact.

He's not championing the common man, he's pointing out the class system that exists. Every player in the tourney, famous or not, took an equity hit when Chan, Brunson, and Hellmuth were given a free pass into the event. We all know damn well that if Chan, Brunson, and Hellmuth had already qualified for this event that Harrah's would not have invited three of those lesser known players to play. They would have invited someone else.

Perhaps if a player such as Chris Ferguson had not qualified, he could have been invited anyway because of his status. Any famous pro could have been one of those lucky three. You never know. But name recognition is the real reason the three were invited, and it's why others such as the players DN mentioned HAD to finish in the top 20.

Whatever happened to the motto "Anyone can win?" If you pay the entry, you should have just as much chance as anyone else, no more or less. Now anyone can still win, but if you're famous you get extra opportunities.

And stop it with the word "freeroll" already. It's not a freeroll! It's a shootout tourney, where the circuit events paid out partly in money and partly with an entry to the next round of the shootout, called the Tournament of Champions. All but 3 players earned what they got, it wasn't free.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did you get your definition of a freeroll, because that's not free. Any entry fee, however minimal, means it's not a freeroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were so easy to trap, please offer a better challenge in the future. The TOC has no entry fee at all so it must be a freeroll. Thanks for playing, come again soon.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

If there were only two players in the whole tournament, and it was winner-take-all, you could also get knocked on the first hand and walk away with nothing. Does that mean your equity is the same whether there are two or 2000 players in a tournament? Your examples suggest that it is *you* that has very little understanding of poker or math.

[tipperdog]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's really no question that Harrah's has gone back on its word. However, that does not mean that they've violated a contract.

The original PR Materials released clearly set up the "qualifier" system as an improved alternative to the 2004 system.
[ QUOTE ]

The 2004 Tournament of Champions — a winner-take-all, invitation-only tournament — was established by Harrah’s to determine the world’s best poker player. Participants in the 2004 World Series of Poker were asked to name the top no-limit Texas Hold ‘Em players in the world. The top 10 vote-getters qualified for the Tournament of Champions.

The 2005 version of the Tournament of Champions will be held November 6-8 at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, and will match the top 20 point earners from each Circuit Tournament, as well as the final table from Event 42 of the 2005 World Series of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Subsequent releases described players as "eligible to participate:"
[ QUOTE ]

Among those eligible to participate in the TOC are top-ranked professional players such as Phil Ivey, Howard Lederer, Antonio Esfandiari, Jennifer Harman, T.J. Cloutier, Chris Ferguson, Robert Williamson, Russ Hamilton, Yosh Nakano, Michael Mizrachi, Tony Le, Eric Cloutier, and Mimi Tran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's quite clear what's gone on.

At the same time, I'm 1,000% sure that the agreement included a generic, "Harrah's reserves the right to make rules changes..." clause, which gives the itthe right to do whatever they want. I'm certainly not suggest that Harrah's committed fraud in a legal sense, but they certainly went back on their word, and in so doing, took value from the qualifiers. I think that's wrong.

Should 2+2ers get so exercised about greater wrongs in other spheres? Perhaps, but that's an entirely different question.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
The original PR Materials released clearly set up the "qualifier" system as an improved alternative to the 2004 system.
[ QUOTE ]
Participants in the 2004 World Series of Poker were asked to name the top no-limit Texas Hold ‘Em players in the world. The top 10 vote-getters qualified for the Tournament of Champions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, those were the top ten vote-getters.

o/~ One of these kids is not like the other... one of these kids is doing his (or her) own thing... another of these kids was added at the last minute... o/~

It's a little soon to be so grossly revisionist, isn't it? But then, they seem to feel entitled to lie.

[LesJ]

I realize it is extremely EASY for me to say this being a marginal (at-best) internet player, but I truly believe if I were in the shoes of Brunson, Chan or Hellmuth I would have turned down the invitation to particpate, citing the fact that I did not go thru the proper steps to qualify to play in the tournament. It would have been the magnanimous (and correct) thing to do.
That being said, if the cardplayer updates online are any indication, it appears as if the final table WILL be interesting to watch, from a personality perspective, with both Hellmuth and Mike the Mouth still involved.
Les

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The original PR Materials released clearly set up the "qualifier" system as an improved alternative to the 2004 system.
[ QUOTE ]
Participants in the 2004 World Series of Poker were asked to name the top no-limit Texas Hold ‘Em players in the world. The top 10 vote-getters qualified for the Tournament of Champions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, those were the top ten vote-getters.

o/~ One of these kids is not like the other... one of these kids is doing his (or her) own thing... another of these kids was added at the last minute... o/~

It's a little soon to be so grossly revisionist, isn't it? But then, they seem to feel entitled to lie.

[/ QUOTE ]



wah wahwah, maybe they should ban all you "pros" for being a "morality god". Ive read your complaints and outside of the atention you are getting there is nothing, everyonre knows the rules pre tourney and its happens they can change hoe it works at harrah's whim. Got a problem with it? Boycott them. stop playin there tournaments. dont turn your maorality on me, Poker=money. you got money and a high horse? get the [censored] out of the way and sit on the couch.