Harrah's screws up again on the TOC!

[Easy E]

Harrah's is going to "make it up to the players"

Here's the promo blurb, before you get into the article:

"Last week, Steve Rosenbloom reported the exemptions for the Tournament of Champions came directly from the sponsor. However, Jeffrey Pollack, the Vice President of sports and entertainment marketing for Harrah's spoke to Rosenbloom to discuss what really happened at the Tournament of Champions. <font color="blue">Although the whole issue was due to a lack of communication, Pollack and Harrahs are ready to make things right with the players and fans." </font>

Maybe I can't read, but I didn't find one thing that Harrah's is planning on doing to "make things right" with anyone except themselves.

Now, while I agree with Pollack that the "missing $2M" is a joke (what does getting a sponsor's money have to do with "substituting" cash? I've never understood the source of this argument since this started), the responses from Harrah's are just classic corporate CYA.

[GambleAB]

Thanks for getting my hopes up. I read your blue type, went off and read the article, got all pissed with the way Pollack came off, and then came back and read your last statement, lol.

Couple of points, if I may make them:

- The TOC wasn't really a "nice thing to do for the players". That makes it seem like it was an afterthought. The TOC was created before the first circuit event ever started, as a way to yes thank players who played and did well, but also to drive players to the tournaments.

- The big joke at the first circuit event was taking over/under bets on how many people Harrahs was going to invite that didn't "make it". We were assured countless times that noone would be allowed to play who didn't qualify through the preset standards. This led me to belived that there WAS something in writing and they WERE going to abide by it.

- Ok, so we see where someone (Harrahs? ESPN? I don't know exactly where the blame should fall) didn't follow the rules. Thats half of the equation. The other half is more trickey, because it involves concepts that aren't always exact. HOW did these 3 players being allowed in the game affect the other players? I can't answer that. He is what I know though: I played in the TOC for 13 hours, and busted in 17th place. For those 13 hours, I'd say that between 6-7 of them were spent at a table with at least one of the three special invities. I feel that AN ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE that were those 3 players not in that tournament, I would have finished signifigantly better, and quite possibly would have made some good money from the tournament (not to mention more TV time, which helps me financially in other aspects). Of course we can't really put a figure on this, because if THEY are gone, then technically every hand I was dealt would have been different, blah blah blah, BUT I think that my overall play was solid enough to say that were those 3 players not there, I had a very good chance of being one of the top 9 finishers on Tuesday.

I'm very interested to see how they "make it up to the players". Lets face it. There were some players whose heads simply weren't there, and still would have busted on Day 1 if Hellmuth, Chan, and Brunson weren't there. BUT, there were also players who were playing at the top of their game, and for them the argument could be made very easily (and very convincingly) that them making the final table was a very real possibility, were the original rules followed and not broken to allow three new players into the game. People like myself, Yosh, Lonnie, Grinder, and more I'm sure that I wasn't able to play with and witness their game first hand.

I'm very interested to see how this turns out....

[Jedster]

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

I agree with you completely! Harrahs could of handled this better, however; the long term impact is very good for the players.

[GambleAB]

[ 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 ]
[ 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.

[TimTimSalabim]

Not only does he think it's not unethical to screw poker players out of their equity, but he thinks they're stupid enough to buy into a golfing analogy that doesn't bear any resemblance to how poker tournaments work.

[GambleAB]

[ 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?

[benkahuna]

Didn't you see the part about bigger potential drawings?

I mean, potential man!!! The future might be better!

[GambleAB]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't you see the part about bigger potential drawings?

I mean, potential man!!! The future might be better!

[/ QUOTE ]


The boat is a boat, but the box could be anything....EVEN A BOAT!

....and you know how we always wanted one of those.