Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Televised Poker

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-10-2005, 12:01 AM
coleco coleco is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Denver , Co
Posts: 12
Default Re: This TOC Thing

big deal

lol
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-10-2005, 03:40 PM
Miles Ahead Miles Ahead is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 72
Default Re: Isn\'t this a redundant statement?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for making you or anyone else cringe. My post included a brief explanation. As I said, I believe the documents were silent. In a contractual dispute, courts often supply a term to contracts (that isn't actually written in the words on the pages of the contract) requiring the parties to act in "good faith." That's what I meant by the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Without getting into a discussion of whether there was or was not a contract between Harrah's and the players, I think it's safe to say that the argument being made by some is essentially that Harrah's did not act in good faith.

I noticed that someone referenced the WSOP tournament rules, which state that Harrah’s reserves the right to cancel, change or modify the WSOP at any time, for any reason. I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-10-2005, 04:22 PM
Zetack Zetack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 656
Default Re: Isn\'t this a redundant statement?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, I was about to ask if WSOP was a defined term.

Setting aside whether there actually was a contract, whether its good to the game and all that, assume for a minute that someone sued Harrah's and a contract violation was found. Anybody think of a good way to prove damages? I'm guessing that diminished equity would be too speculative for a court to make an award based on...anybody with any experience in this area?

Otherwise meritous cases can founder on the damages issue.

--Zetack
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-10-2005, 06:41 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Isn\'t this a redundant statement?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, I was about to ask if WSOP was a defined term.

Setting aside whether there actually was a contract, whether its good to the game and all that, assume for a minute that someone sued Harrah's and a contract violation was found. Anybody think of a good way to prove damages? I'm guessing that diminished equity would be too speculative for a court to make an award based on...anybody with any experience in this area?

Otherwise meritous cases can founder on the damages issue.

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually thought about this some as well, Zetack. I couldn't come up with any concrete damages (detrimental reliance damages seem a hopeless stretch), particularly when you lump in the fact that those who made it to the TOC (other than the three invitees) were awarded additional prizes simply for their place of finish in the various circuit events (and Main Event). I think it's a somewhat different case if the ONLY prize awarded in the circuit events had been entry to this event, in which case the diminished equity is more material to the overall prize awarded. Short of showing fraud (which, as you know, is always exceedingly difficult), I don't see a case here. Now, if some client would foot the billables for me to do actual research on this, maybe I could dig something up... lol.

Regards, Craig
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-10-2005, 06:53 PM
FakeKramer FakeKramer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 34
Default Re: This TOC Thing

[ QUOTE ]
But adding only the three superstars probably increases most of the players down the road poker EV by more than the thousand it costs them in the short run.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm confused how you reached this conclusion. Could you expand upon this?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-10-2005, 07:22 PM
HiatusOver HiatusOver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 122
Default Re: This TOC Thing

I played in the TOC...I came in 14th in the San Diego Rincon event. The bubble in that event was HUGE, 19K for 18th place plus a free seat in the TOC which was understood by everyone to be a 2 Million dollar free-roll with at most 109 runners (I asked a floor person during the tournament and he confirmed the #'s). I can think of atleast 3 hands where this monstorous bubble factored in to decisions I made when there were 3 tables yet. Sure adding these 3 superstars took away "only $1000" dollars of EV from me, but I think the principle is the issue here. We were lied to, who knows how far it could have gone. The fact is that we were lied to and were never given an explanation. Also, everyone hates Phi Hellmuth. That certainly has something to do with the public outcry
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-10-2005, 07:22 PM
Wake up CALL Wake up CALL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,591
Default Re: This TOC Thing

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But adding only the three superstars probably increases most of the players down the road poker EV by more than the thousand it costs them in the short run.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm confused how you reached this conclusion. Could you expand upon this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having a major sponsor sponsor like Pepsi throw two million dollars into a poker prize pool is +EV for all future events. This is a first and not a small fist at that. How do you think golf generates such large prize pools without entry fees?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-10-2005, 07:26 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: This TOC Thing

[ QUOTE ]


Having a major sponsor sponsor like Pepsi throw two million dollars into a poker prize pool is +EV for all future events. This is a first and not a small fist at that. How do you think golf generates such large prize pools without entry fees?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely correct, and as a business model for the future of poker as a televised sport, golf is a pretty good one. Michelle Wie, who got a sponsor's exemption to gain entry to a PGA event created much more interest in an event that was otherwise pedestrian. If sponsors are willing to pony up prize money to allow players to reduce or eliminate their entry fee, then giving them the right to name a few entrants to the event is a small sacrifice.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-10-2005, 07:29 PM
HiatusOver HiatusOver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 122
Default Re: This TOC Thing

"But adding only the three superstars probably increases most of the players down the road poker EV by more than the thousand it costs them in the short run."

I do not see why this is true, care to elaborate or are u waiting for others to explain?

Also u realize that only the final table was televised, so it was probably less than 50/50 that any of these three would get any airtime anyways.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-10-2005, 07:35 PM
Wake up CALL Wake up CALL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,591
Default Re: This TOC Thing

[ QUOTE ]
"But adding only the three superstars probably increases most of the players down the road poker EV by more than the thousand it costs them in the short run."

I do not see why this is true, care to elaborate or are u waiting for others to explain?

Also u realize that only the final table was televised, so it was probably less than 50/50 that any of these three would get any airtime anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you not read the two responses below the last time you asked this very same question?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.