Negreanu's latest blog update... - Page 11

sirio11 · #**101** 11-08-2005, 01:10 AM

Does anybody could point a link to the official rules or terms and conditions to see how exactly Harrahs or ESPN lied?

I'm kind of confused, because Daniel talked about 20 entrants per Circuit event and in this page you can see clearly that there were 27 from the Rio event. Was that another change? Are Daniel and Greg complaining about that change also?

Frankly I'm surprised by Daniel's attitude here; and why don't just post the link to the "official" rules to prove without a doubt that they lied?

My guess is that there were no clear rules from this event, much less a PROMISE like Greg and Daniel said, but I could be wrong. But if you said somebody lied, the burden of the proof is on you.

beset7 · #**102** 11-08-2005, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

...after you give me 18k. Then, you come up and take 500 out of my wallet. Is that a weak move? Yes. I'm still happy with the 17.5k. Yup.

Yes they "earned" that equity. But it was in the form of an overlay on a tournament prize pool. Somehow that makes me shed less tears for the tourney pros. Then, DN lists all the overheads costs associated with playing big tournaments. Sounds like a good argument to stick to cash games, not a justification for why you should get added equity on your entree fee dollar.

I predict more grumbling as people realize how much expensive and futile it is for most players to play big tournaments long-term.

shaniac · #**103** 11-08-2005, 02:29 AM

Sirio,

I think there was an anomally at the Rio that caused some points-ties and 7 extra qualifiers.

The whole TOC-system this year was kind of goofy. They did a complete 180 with this year's TOC, changing it from an elite 1-table tourney to a somewhat amazing opportunity for Circuit Tour players to get a bite of this freeroll. The promotion was definetely responsible for higher attendance at the CT events and I know that some pros made appearances at the events because of the overlay that the TOC-requirements were offering.

I don't have a copy of the rules handy, but I assure you it was made CLEAR that there would be no invites to the WSOP TOC 2005. A lot of great players and rookies alike came out to play the CT events and those who made the final two tables were the only ones who deserved a seat at Caesar's.

There are no ifs, ands or maybes related to the issue and I'm somewhat stupified that we are still talking about it. Harrah's messed up by inviting those three individuals randomly and the messed-up nature of the situation has snowballed with Hellmuth at the final table.

BarronVangorToth · #**104** 11-08-2005, 09:24 AM

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

Kevmath · #**105** 11-08-2005, 10:26 AM

August 25 PR announcing TOC dates.

Nov. 1 PR for TOC, includes Brunson, Chan and Hellmuth.

List of TOC qualifiers

WSOP Circuit Points system
Making it 20 for each Circuit event would cause some problems, with 27 players qualified from the Rio because there were 8 players who had the same amount of points (10,000 for finishing 19-27). Standings after Day 2 at the Rio circuit event. Why they have an extra 100 points added to them I have no idea.

Regarding New Orleans, Brandon Adams somehow sneaks in there, because he's not listed on the list at the WSOP website. He finished 21st in the circuit ME, and must have had a placing that earned points in one of the other NO events but didn't cash. Joe Liebman had a 2nd in a 1k event, Dennis Perry already had a final table from the Rio.

Quite a mess Harrah's got itself into, maybe in year 3 they'll finally get it right: 12 WSOPC ME winners, WSOP ME final table, plus sponsor exemptions to create a field of 27.

#**106** 11-08-2005, 12:33 PM

They screwed up. But its their money. It might be partly derived from tournament juice but they certainly have no absolute obligation to return any of it to the players in the form of this freeroll. And yes it is a freeroll.

Plus, even if this blunder by Harrahs is bad for the players of this years' TOC, landing this big of a sponsorship deal from Pepsi seems great for the game of poker.

BarronVangorToth · #**107** 11-08-2005, 12:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They screwed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. Hopefully the rest of your post doesn't take away from this fine point.

[ QUOTE ]

But its their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't matter.

[ QUOTE ]

It might be partly derived from tournament juice but they certainly have no absolute obligation to return any of it to the players in the form of this freeroll. And yes it is a freeroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't matter either. They are stealing from the players, plain and simple, and if you don't see it, you should think about it until you do.

[ QUOTE ]

Plus, even if this blunder by Harrahs is bad for the players of this years' TOC, landing this big of a sponsorship deal from Pepsi seems great for the game of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so doing something blatantly wrong in the hopes that it perpetuates the greater good... They should put that in their press release.

I'm absolutely shocked that something so obvious has anyone defending the wrongdoers who are stealing from players who support said wrongdoers.

Staggering.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Drac · #**108** 11-08-2005, 01:02 PM

If the offer had been to add $500 (or any other amount) to the players instead of the TOC spot would it be OK for them to come back later and say they weren't going to do it? After all, it's Harrah's money and if they don't want to stick to their word they don't have to, right?

Is it the end of the world that they added players after saying they wouldn't? Nope. But where does it end? How far are they allowed to alter the rules before it becomes an issue?

#**109** 11-08-2005, 01:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But its their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this does matter. At least it does if your going to go on to make the argument that they're not just liars (bad enough) but are actually stealing said money from the players.

BarronVangorToth · #**110** 11-08-2005, 01:15 PM

It doesn't matter.

Example. Let's say that a CD manufacturer had an offer that Band X's CD would come packed with $10. You bought it and found $9. Well, it was their money and you still got something but ... not quite what you were promised.

It doesn't matter if it's their money / money they got from juice / money they got from Pepsi.

People were promised something, people spent their time and money to get something, and then the something they got isn't what they were promised.

That is wrong.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com