Harrah's screws up again on the TOC!

[Bartman387]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't anybody seem to get that the long-term relevant issue is that for the previous two WSOPs there has been $4 million in sponsored freerolls?

Let me say that again: $4 million in sponsored freerolls.

One more time: $4 million in sponsored freerolls.

Yes, players in this year's TOC felt like they got screwed. Probably they lost about $500 to $1,500 in tournament EV. Well, that sucks.

But how can any serious, rational person think that it is more important to dwell on this dubious sponsor exemptions "scandal" than to focus on the incredible opportunities for sponsored poker. This isn't getting a few bucks for wearing a Full Tilt jersey. This the second of potentially many more events with multi-million dollar sponsorships.

Think about what things could be like for poker in five years if every year there is $10 or $20 million in sponsored poker tournaments? Imagine how many people will play circuit events. And so what if there are six or ten or twenty sponsor exemptions? Yes, they should disclose the full story ahead of time.

But this is business. In business you have to be flexible. And anybody who thinks that turning down an offer to sponsor a $2 million freeroll is a good way to build the business of poker is absolutely and totally clueless.

Sure, Harrah's could have stuck to the original plan and told Pepsi to come back next year. But it is far, far, far more valuable for the long run health of sponsored tournament poker that Pepsi did what they did. It's not even close. It's not even close to being close.

- Jedster

[/ QUOTE ]


That "I'm just greatful to be here" mentality is what will allow companies to pull stuff like this, and potentially worse transgressions in the future, over and over and over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an "I'm just happy to be here" thing, it's a "Regardless of who screwed whom, how does this impact poker as a whole" thing.

Yes the players got screwed and Harrahs acted improperly but increased sponsorship can only be a good thing.

Where does the money come from? With sponsorship everyone's expected value goes up.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if you won a drawing in a store for $500 that was held only for frequent customers, and then as you go up to collect it, the store manager said "yeah, well, we decided to only give you $350, your welcome", you would shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, at least I got something!" You wouldn't be indignant over the $150 that was taken away because of murky reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, forgive me I haven't paid much attention to the TOC coverage, but did you (or another player) win the thing and then Dolly, Chan and Hellmuth walked in and said, "not so fast, you must now defeat us!"

GambleAB, that is an incredibly bad strawman argument. What they did may have been wrong, but I think most players were giving away a small amount of EV in the TOC for a larger amount +EV in the long term.

Except for the whole playing for 13 hours and winning nothing part...

That was a promotional effort to get people into the circuit events (along with player of the year points in the WSOP). It was clearly designed to make at least some of it back in the additional entries in the circuit events.
Then to have the sponsor fill in the 2 mil for them they made pure profit on that tournament (despite the having to pay dealers they're going to get the free advertising which cost wise makes up for it)

That article was 100% BS. Very well done. Golf isn't a fair analogy because the prize pool/entry fee ratio is different there than in poker. (also, neither is blaming poor communication for the fact there was no communication--entirely his fault and he obviously was very reluctant to accept any blame for)

Then again, I'm not a pro tournament circuit player; but I'm even really ticked off at that apparent attitude and I wasn't even involved.

I also enjoyed the whole "your accounting was wrong" then COMPLETELY DODGES when asked to actually explain it.

I'll translate that into regular speak for everyone here.

We pocketed it--screw you.
Second fav line "I don't know if there was or wasn't" (referencing communication)

Gee--did you tell them or not? It's not that hard to remember is it? Since you're not sure--obviously that's a heck no.

I actually believe the long term impact is bad for the players as a group. The corporations are getting to do whatever they want at any time without saying a word to anyone and then exploit whomever they want at any time. All the freerolls mean is that several poker players can play a few more major tournaments every year. That doesn't mean a whole lot in the big picture. They got what they deserved here and that article hopefully won't fool anyone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't anybody seem to get that the long-term relevant issue is that for the previous two WSOPs there has been $4 million in sponsored freerolls?

Let me say that again: $4 million in sponsored freerolls.

One more time: $4 million in sponsored freerolls.

Yes, players in this year's TOC felt like they got screwed. Probably they lost about $500 to $1,500 in tournament EV. Well, that sucks.

But how can any serious, rational person think that it is more important to dwell on this dubious sponsor exemptions "scandal" than to focus on the incredible opportunities for sponsored poker. This isn't getting a few bucks for wearing a Full Tilt jersey. This the second of potentially many more events with multi-million dollar sponsorships.

Think about what things could be like for poker in five years if every year there is $10 or $20 million in sponsored poker tournaments? Imagine how many people will play circuit events. And so what if there are six or ten or twenty sponsor exemptions? Yes, they should disclose the full story ahead of time.

But this is business. In business you have to be flexible. And anybody who thinks that turning down an offer to sponsor a $2 million freeroll is a good way to build the business of poker is absolutely and totally clueless.

Sure, Harrah's could have stuck to the original plan and told Pepsi to come back next year. But it is far, far, far more valuable for the long run health of sponsored tournament poker that Pepsi did what they did. It's not even close. It's not even close to being close.

- Jedster

[/ QUOTE ]


That "I'm just greatful to be here" mentality is what will allow companies to pull stuff like this, and potentially worse transgressions in the future, over and over and over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an "I'm just happy to be here" thing, it's a "Regardless of who screwed whom, how does this impact poker as a whole" thing.

Yes the players got screwed and Harrahs acted improperly but increased sponsorship can only be a good thing.

Where does the money come from? With sponsorship everyone's expected value goes up.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if you won a drawing in a store for $500 that was held only for frequent customers, and then as you go up to collect it, the store manager said "yeah, well, we decided to only give you $350, your welcome", you would shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, at least I got something!" You wouldn't be indignant over the $150 that was taken away because of murky reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me where I said the players shouldn't be upset, please.

[ QUOTE ]
I actually believe the long term impact is bad for the players as a group. The corporations are getting to do whatever they want at any time without saying a word to anyone and then exploit whomever they want at any time. All the freerolls mean is that several poker players can play a few more major tournaments every year. That doesn't mean a whole lot in the big picture. They got what they deserved here and that article hopefully won't fool anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would appreciate it if someone who is all up in arms about this could answer a few questions.

1) Do you think the fact that there was to be a TOC actually induced someone to play who wasn't going to otherwise?

2) Do you think anyone who played would have not played if Harrah's had said beforehand that they were reserving a half dozen seats for sponsor's exemptions?

I don't think anyone played because of the TOC and I don't believe there is anyone who would have refused to play if they had known about the sponsorship exemptions.

What Harrah's did wrong was not tell people ahead of time that there might be exemptions. That's obviously not a good thing but it completely and utterly pales in comparison to the importance of bringing in sponsorship money.

in the circuit events yes I think that was the case for at least somebody. I can't think of a poker player who would pass up a chance for 1 million even if he doesn't like the situation.

I don't think there is a need for a freeroll to bring in sponsorship money.
With the obvious age range of poker these days advertisers would be really stupid not to be in the game. Sponsoring poker has to be a no brainer even for major corporations. *if of course they are targeting that age range*

edit But if sponsorships would actually put prize pool money in then it would be good for the long run--but harrah's did promise 2 mil that they never gave. And I think it would be a lot more likely that they would sponsor certain players rather than individual tournaments (since they don't have to put any money in the pool now to officially sponsor tourns)

[GambleAB]

[ QUOTE ]


I would appreciate it if someone who is all up in arms about this could answer a few questions.

1) Do you think the fact that there was to be a TOC actually induced someone to play who wasn't going to otherwise?

2) Do you think anyone who played would have not played if Harrah's had said beforehand that they were reserving a half dozen seats for sponsor's exemptions?

I don't think anyone played because of the TOC and I don't believe there is anyone who would have refused to play if they had known about the sponsorship exemptions.

What Harrah's did wrong was not tell people ahead of time that there might be exemptions. That's obviously not a good thing but it completely and utterly pales in comparison to the importance of bringing in sponsorship money.

[/ QUOTE ]


See, now you are just showing your ignorance. I know for a fact that there were players that flew across the country (some twice) in order to play in circuit events BECAUSE of the TOC freeroll that they could qualify into. YES there are people who, if sponsorship information was made public ahead of time, wouldn't have gone to the circuit events and would have played the 10k events that were going on at the same time closer to where they lived, and would have gone to Harrahs/ESPN/Pepsi/whomever and asked to be one of the exemptions.

We obviously ALL want sponsored tournaments, more TV coverage, ect ect. But that doesn't mean that we will just lay down and let the people bringing that to us walk all over us. We as players have a voice, and we need to use it to get sponsored tournaments, yes, AND ALSO to have them run the right way. Harrahs is doing a good job, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out the bad parts also. Noone is "up in arms" and noone is saying this is the end of the world, there are just some of us who appreciate the gesture VERY VERY much, yet would like to see it done more consistantly and without flaws, and some of us who are just happy to be here.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Do you think the fact that there was to be a TOC actually induced someone to play who wasn't going to otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Harrah's is not stupid. They promoted the TOC freeroll in order to generate interest and participation in their circuit events.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Do you think anyone who played would have not played if Harrah's had said beforehand that they were reserving a half dozen seats for sponsor's exemptions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose Pepsi decides to set up a million dollar free throw shooting contest for 100 lucky people who find a special bottlecap. Let's say you decided to buy a lot of Pepsi products that month (you're tired of Coke, or maybe you're one of the 10% that has no preference of colas anyway), and you get really lucky and find one of the bottlecaps. Does it make any difference to you if at the last minute they decide to also allow the 3 best NBA freethrow shooters to compete for the million?

[wins_pot]

The room comp was sick, no???
Harrah's comped all rooms on an extremely busy weekend.
That made amends in my mind. --brandon adams

[ QUOTE ]
I know for a fact that there were players that flew across the country (some twice) in order to play in circuit events BECAUSE of the TOC freeroll that they could qualify into. YES there are people who, if sponsorship information was made public ahead of time, wouldn't have gone to the circuit events and would have played the 10k events that were going on at the same time closer to where they lived, and would have gone to Harrahs/ESPN/Pepsi/whomever and asked to be one of the exemptions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can see some high profile players asking for exemptions rather than play. I have a very hard time believing someone is dumb enough to travel across the country because of the TOC. I guess I'll believe you but how many could there possibly be? I mean christ, take the equity of the players in the TOC and divide that into the entire player pool for the circuit events. Someone here determined the equity to be $50. I don't swear by that but it has to be in the right neighborhood. The *only* way the TOC would be a deciding factor is if you had already played some circuit events and all you needed to guarantee your TOC seat was to play another.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know for a fact that there were players that flew across the country (some twice) in order to play in circuit events BECAUSE of the TOC freeroll that they could qualify into. YES there are people who, if sponsorship information was made public ahead of time, wouldn't have gone to the circuit events and would have played the 10k events that were going on at the same time closer to where they lived, and would have gone to Harrahs/ESPN/Pepsi/whomever and asked to be one of the exemptions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can see some high profile players asking for exemptions rather than play. I have a very hard time believing someone is dumb enough to travel across the country because of the TOC. I guess I'll believe you but how many could there possibly be? I mean christ, take the equity of the players in the TOC and divide that into the entire player pool for the circuit events. Someone here determined the equity to be $50. I don't swear by that but it has to be in the right neighborhood. The *only* way the TOC would be a deciding factor is if you had already played some circuit events and all you needed to guarantee your TOC seat was to play another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the equity in the TOC that you'd get by entering a circuit event was about $1,800 and was reduced by $50 to $1,750 by Harrah's decision.

The point I was trying to make was that the TOC was overall incredibly good for poker players who play in smaller $10k events because right off the top they were given nearly $2k equity in a free-roll, which far outweighs the juice. It was probably enough to make playing in a circuit event positive EV for some players who would otherwise have been negative EV and it probably boosted good player's EV by 20% or so.

Whatever the case, $50 wouldn't and shouldn't impact anybody's decision.

Yes, what Harrah's did was inelegant, certainly somewhat misleading, and possibly even wrong in some moral sense, but in a business sense, it will only strengthen poker, both by increasing the exposure of the "amateur versus pro" battle and by increasing participation in corporate sponsored poker.