|
|
#12
11-09-2005, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: This TOC Thing
I would presume that there would have to be specific contract language detailing the exact amount of qualifying tournaments, or any addition of extra qualifiers by Harrah's could be argued as a "change in equity".
If there had been 3 more qualifying tournaments added at the last minute, you have almost the same result (ignoring skill levels). But I'm already on record as saying "stop whining" about this. 
|
|
#13
11-09-2005, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This TOC Thing
"And honestly, its a freeroll. Does ANYONE have a right to complain? Gift horse/mouth..."
That's going too far the other way. That "gift" could have factored into people's decision to play the preliminary events.
|
|
#14
11-09-2005, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This TOC Thing
[ QUOTE ]
That's going too far the other way. That "gift" could have factored into people's decision to play the preliminary events. [/ QUOTE ] Thats the problem though, is that the $2,000,000 prize pool is a gift. No consideration, no contract. Was there reliance sure, but nobody is denying anyone an entry into the tournament. Goodluck trying to explain to the courts that one should be reimburesed for lost equity on a tournament they lost anyway.
|
|
#15
11-09-2005, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This TOC Thing
It is not a gift it is a promotion to sell the WSOP and tournament seats. The prize money is offset by advertising, television, and entry revenues. The players who qualified contributed to it, and at the very least are correct to think Harrah's was lame.
|
|
#16
11-09-2005, 09:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This TOC Thing
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a gift it is a promotion to sell the WSOP and tournament seats. The prize money is offset by advertising, television, and entry revenues. The players who qualified contributed to it, and at the very least are correct to think Harrah's was lame. [/ QUOTE ] I understand the argument. I just don't think they'll buy it, when nobody is actually being denied entry into the tournament. Ofcourse, I don't even know the details, so for the most part, my comment is nothing more than a hunch.
|
|
#17
11-09-2005, 10:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This TOC Thing
Why don't they just ask a little bit to the prize pool to keep equity the same?
I don't think this is a major travesty, but it could have also influenced some decisions in the circuit events themselves near the 20 player bubble. But adding 3 players who did not qualify does not seem right.
|
|
#18
11-09-2005, 11:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This TOC Thing
I think we've had enough of this TOC talk and in light of the Paul Phillips/TOC debacle, we should put an end to all discussion immediately and permanently. Dynasty, lock this thread and suspend Mr. Sklansky ASAP!
|
|
#19
11-09-2005, 11:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Isn\'t this a redundant statement?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Harrah's breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. [/ QUOTE ] Don't they have a reputation for this in the poker world? [/ QUOTE ] If the contract expressly permits them to do this, there is no such thing as an implied covenant to the contrary. If there isn't or it's ambiguous, more interesting question. That's exactly what David said in the op, but I cringe when I see legal jargon used without explanation.
|
|
#20
11-09-2005, 11:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This TOC Thing
I suppose the next time I change my mind on something and a friend gets mad I can just ask them whether or not they got my statement in writing.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
