Negreanu's latest blog update... - Page 8

Exitonly · #71 11-07-2005, 02:45 PM

I like what the one guyy said... when Chris Ferguson wins multiple seats in to the freeroll, they have to replace them with someone to keep the #'s the same.. Maybe there were only 3 seats they had to fill.. filling them w/ the 3 most bracelets makes sense.

benkahuna · #72 11-07-2005, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, a couple of you guys nailed my thoughts.

When I began reading the article, I was thinking 'uh-oh! They promised them a 100 player freeroll and they've changed it to just a FT of 9 well-known players like last year.'

Ah, I was wrong, they just lost $500 equity. Who cares? Is it that big of a deal? I'd happily give up this equity to have a decent chance of playing some hands with the legends included. The comedy value of sitting w/ Hellmuth alone would be worth far greater than $500.

And to keep dropping in the names of these amateur players every sentence, WTF was that all about? Who gives a F about Tommy Reed and his mucked pocket tens?

Danny, lighten up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The philosophical difference here is that you have a choice. Step outside your own point of view for a moment and realize that what's right for you isn't right for everyone.

benkahuna · #73 11-07-2005, 02:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Because I've been reading his blog and statements he makes in his forum for nearly a year. It's evident that he cares about moral issues and his fellow man/woman. He talks more about integrity issues than any other poker player I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read his forum consistently, but having read articles from him and others, I have found the same thing.

DonkeyChip · #74 11-07-2005, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's like you take my wallet, put $20000 in it, give it back to me, grab my wallet again and take $500 out of it. Feel free to do this anytime.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not. You EARNED that $20K and it's your money (or at least it should be). Then they skim $500 of YOUR money. I realize we're talking 'equity' here, like there's a difference.

Doesn't matter how fat, ugly, etc. you are when you sit at the felt. Poker isn't a popularity contest nor is it 'judged' (like figure skating, etc.). IMO, arbitrarily adding 3 players to a tourney goes against something very fundamental in poker. To quote Boomer; "That's why they play the games."

Regarding the amount of equity lost, that's certainly not the point is it? Reminds me of the old hooker joke with the punch line; 'We've already established that you're a whore, now we're just haggling over the price'.

People paid to play in tournies and a seat in this tourney was part of the pay structure. They can call it a 'freeroll' all they want but it is NOT a freeroll.

Voltron87 · #75 11-07-2005, 03:33 PM

My main problem with the column is that Negreanu makes way too big a deal of it and made a big mistake by playing the populist angle so big and so badly. If he had just added it quietly "ESPN is now changing from their promised plan to add players they did not say they were going to, in the future this is not good pratice" and didn't overreact, it would be perfectly reasonable.

This is not an outrage. ESPN never signed a contract with the other players, they are not cheating or stealing or anything like that. Saying ESPN lied is going off the deep end. Calm down everybody.

#76 11-07-2005, 03:39 PM

No it isn't like that at all. These players paid money to get a shot at qualifying for the ToC. Three players got in without paying money, thereby reducing the value of what the other players earned.

Imagine you have a job. You get your paycheck, you go to the bank, cash some of it and put it in your wallet. Now imagine that I am standing next to you and take 500 dollars out of your wallet.

That is what it's like.

#77 11-07-2005, 03:42 PM

If Chris wins multiple entries, then either no one gets those seats and Chris is paid the value of those extra seats in cash or credit, or else Chris chooses who gets those seats.

That would be fair.

#78 11-07-2005, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My main problem with the column is that Negreanu makes way too big a deal of it and made a big mistake by playing the populist angle so big and so badly. If he had just added it quietly "ESPN is now changing from their promised plan to add players they did not say they were going to, in the future this is not good pratice" and didn't overreact, it would be perfectly reasonable.

This is not an outrage. ESPN never signed a contract with the other players, they are not cheating or stealing or anything like that. Saying ESPN lied is going off the deep end. Calm down everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying they lied is going off the deep end?! That's what they did, I'm stating fact. If that's going off the deep end, then you need to evaluate your definition of that phrase. I can understand being annoyed with Danny's reaction, but it's his opinion, just like your incredible lack of integrity (kidding [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]). The FACT is that the organizers lied. Whether you think thats okay or not is the discussion.

Quicksilvre · #79 11-07-2005, 04:01 PM

This seems akin to winning $20,000 in a lottery, showing up to claim the prize, and only getting $19,500.

In itself, doing this is certainly very poor form, but I don't think this is the end of the world. However, I think we have to start contemplating the cumulative effect of the way conglomerate gambling companies are affecting poker. I don't see this happening back in the Binion era.

Voltron87 · #80 11-07-2005, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main problem with the column is that Negreanu makes way too big a deal of it and made a big mistake by playing the populist angle so big and so badly. If he had just added it quietly "ESPN is now changing from their promised plan to add players they did not say they were going to, in the future this is not good pratice" and didn't overreact, it would be perfectly reasonable.

This is not an outrage. ESPN never signed a contract with the other players, they are not cheating or stealing or anything like that. Saying ESPN lied is going off the deep end. Calm down everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying they lied is going off the deep end?! That's what they did, I'm stating fact. If that's going off the deep end, then you need to evaluate your definition of that phrase. I can understand being annoyed with Danny's reaction, but it's his opinion, just like your incredible lack of integrity (kidding [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]). The FACT is that the organizers lied. Whether you think thats okay or not is the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are different types of lying. lying in court saying you didn't see your friend kill that hooker when you know he really did is worse than other lies.

its not really even a lie, because espn did not do it with malicious intent. im sure they didnt make their original policy and say "Haha, we are going to flip this on them and [censored] everyone over out of 500$!!". That distinction is huge.