deals banned at the WPT
Paul Phillips
Linda Johnson <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote:
>>What, exactly, is the WPT policy?
>
>No deals are allowed.
For those who haven't heard, the WPT is officially going to ban all deals
at WPT events. This is a direct result of the sports illustrated article
that reported the deal between mel judah and me. (Every time I am quoted
in the media about poker, something extreme seems to happen... hopefully
I won't get barred from the WPT as I was from binion's.) Since the WPT's
policy has been to ignore deals and report the "official" prize money to
the viewing audience, they know this leaves them looking rather untrustworthy
when another media source reports the truth.
The WPT wants poker to be a sport, and they want to appeal to a world
full of sports fans who will not (at first) understand deals. Deals are
counter to everyone's idea of a good competition; of course the excitement
is dramatically reduced when mel and I are suddenly playing for 25K at the
end of the tournament instead of 300K. So I understand their motives.
But poker is not a sport. Poker is gambling.
I do not concede the WPT's right to ban deals, nor do I think they
will have any luck doing so. We are poker players, NOT paid entertainers.
And the money we are playing for at that stage is ALREADY ours. The WPT
adds ZERO money to the prize pool. It has certainly attracted new
players to the game, and that has been good for everyone, including the
WPT. But I say there is a real limit to how much they can dictate terms
to the players when we are taking ALL of the risk.
Deals are not harmful to the integrity of the game when they are
discussed openly and honestly. By driving all dealmaking underground,
there are a whole slew of ugly side effects. First of all, large
swaps will become more common, since players cannot hedge their risk
at the end of a tournament. Large swaps are a FAR, FAR greater risk to
the integrity of the game than dealmaking is. They almost guarantee
collusive behavior, even among people who try to avoid it.
Next, a ban on deals, like all totally unenforceable rules and laws,
only punishes honest players. Those who are inclined to deal will still
deal, they'll just keep it to themselves. In the meantime, those of
us who have a problem signing a form saying we won't do something and
then doing it anyway are the only ones excluded from the process.
I see two reasonable answers to the issue. One is for the WPT to add
significant money to the prize pool. As soon as we're playing poker on
someone else's dime like real sports stars, then they can start
dictating the terms under which we play. Unfortunately this does not
entirely avoid the problem; people will still want to deal for the same
reasons they do now.
The second is to glamorize the deal. This would require a massive
attitude change on the part of many people, but the eternal optimist
within me says it's possible. Stop trying to pretend it doesn't
happen and stop trying to push it underground. Film a segment with
Shania Hyatt explaining the WHY and HOW of dealmaking, and let the
players talk about it on camera. I think they can make dealmaking
interesting to watch. Who's going to fold under the pressure? Who
wants to deal and who doesn't? Who's going to take a bad deal? And
they'll always play for at least the seat. 25K isn't chump change.
I firmly believe the WPT will end up regretting this policy. I do not
offer that as any sort of threat, only as an observation. Dealmaking is
too important to too many poker players for them to wish it away. The
WPT says they are covering poker as a sport, that they don't want it to
be a staged "reality TV" game show. If that is truly their desire, they
must not ban deals. Because deals are the reality.
--
Paul Phillips | People who make little glass houses in their souls
In Theory | shouldn't throw tombstones.
Empiricist |
pal, i pill push |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Debbie in Ohio
In other words, you can make a deal for the money, ONLY, but still have to
play on for the title.
Perhaps one thing they could then do, is as part of winning the title, you
get a free seat to next years event, plus the seat for the championship
event. In the case of the Championship event, why not make part of the
title, a $10,000 freeroll seat to the WSOP? I know it's a competing event,
but it would add something to it as well.
That little extra thing, over and above the money, would still make it quite
competitive indeed, at the end, even if there were deals made, in regards to
the money.
Paul Phillips <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:bkq9jm$5f0$1...@spoon.improving.org...
Patrick B. OMalley
out by the people involved. It will be interesting to see the end result.
PBO
>Subject: deals banned at the WPT
>From: Paul Phillips rgp...@improving.org
>Date: 9/23/2003 1:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bkq9jm$5f0$1...@spoon.improving.org>
Ken M
A lot of us poker players think making a deal is dishonest.
Ken M
newgroup, so I'm just going to say:
Many of those of us who are poker players think deal-making is fundamentally
dishonest. I agree with the WPT.
Paul Phillips
Ken M <kr...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>It has been said before on this newsgroup, but I will say it one more time.
>
>A lot of us poker players think making a deal is dishonest.
Think that if you like, but I don't think you know what dishonest means.
Dishonesty requires deception.
--
Paul Phillips | These are the climbs that try men's soles.
Moral Alien |
Empiricist |
slap pi uphill! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
BIG RAY
take over or was it just a handshake with witnesses? because the casino
can say that they will not acknowledge the deal? then if you are signing
for the big prize , the tax implications almost make it not worth the
hassle. this would in effect put an end to deal making at the big
tournaments.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
wrote:
>In article <20030923154354...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
>Linda Johnson <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>What, exactly, is the WPT policy?
>>
>>No deals are allowed.
>
>For those who haven't heard, the WPT is officially going to ban all
deals
>at WPT events.
This is the same organization that filmed a bunch of players making
phoney prop bets on the golf course?
greg pittman
PGA tour for years. How can they stop it?
Paul Phillips
BIG RAY <anon...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>question for you paul. at that level did the bike acknowledge the deal and
>take over or was it just a handshake with witnesses? because the casino
>can say that they will not acknowledge the deal? then if you are signing
>for the big prize , the tax implications almost make it not worth the
>hassle. this would in effect put an end to deal making at the big
>tournaments.
Some casinos acknowledge deals and some don't. The Bike does, and we
received paperwork that accurately reported our wins. The Borgata does
not (by new jersey law, apparently) so I received a nice tax bite with a
64K W2 but only 57K in cash for the $500 NLH tournament I won.
I knew going into the atlantic city WPT event that deals would be
very unlikely, because the casino would not offer alternate paperwork.
And my impression from speaking with steve lipscomb is that they're
going to require all the host casinos to do that from now on; which,
you are correct, is going to make deals a much bigger hassle as people
have to wriggle through all the tax implications.
There is another, little-considered aspect of all this. Citizens of
many other countries pay no taxes on their gambling winnings in the US.
Mel Judah, for example, lives in London. He and I had 300K at stake.
If I took first I was going to have to give up about HALF of it in tax
(yes, california gets their 10% too, even though I live in nevada.)
But if he were to win, he would get to keep all of it.
That means there is 150K of temptation for he and I to make a secret
deal and then for me to throw the heads-up battle. 150K. That's more
money than some people make in several years. What do you think, are
all poker players going to be able to resist that level of temptation?
It's a huge problem.
--
Paul Phillips | Go ahead, wreck your life. That might be good.
Imperfectionist | -- TMBG
Empiricist |
ha! spill, pupil |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
BIG RAY
who are they dishonest to
_________________________________________________________________
Randy Hudson
Paul Phillips <rgp...@improving.org> wrote:
> For those who haven't heard, the WPT is officially going to ban all deals
> at WPT events.
By what authority? They aren't paying us, why do they get to make rules
that hurt us for some presumed benefit to themselves?
I've played in WPT events, and have not signed any agreement with them. And
any such agreement should be unenforceable against the player, due to lack
of consideration; that is, it's not a contract because they aren't giving me
anything to match what I'm giving them.
> The WPT says they are covering poker as a sport, that they don't want it
> to be a staged "reality TV" game show. If that is truly their desire,
> they must not ban deals. Because deals are the reality.
Are deals sport? As two golfers tied for the lead after 72 holes walk back
to start the playoff, is it wrong for one to offer to trade a 20% save? It
is quite common in horseracing for the jockeys involved in a photo finish to
save part of the difference between 1st- and 2nd-place rider shares, so deals
are part of some sports, at least.
What about reverse saves? Would the WPT bar a deal that made the heads-up
portion winner-take-all? Or are they only concerned with preventing
variance-lowering deals?
And what about backers? Are backed players prohibited? Because a backed
player also keeps only a small portion of his winnings, just as does a
player who makes a deal. If backed players are allowed, what prevents
backers from making the deals that players are fordidden to make? What
paper does a backer sign, other than directly with his horses?
--
Randy Hudson
Nia
> In article <20030923154354...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
> Linda Johnson <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>What, exactly, is the WPT policy?
> >
> >No deals are allowed.
Good.
>
> For those who haven't heard, the WPT is officially going to ban all deals
> at WPT events. This is a direct result of the sports illustrated article
> that reported the deal between mel judah and me. (Every time I am quoted
> in the media about poker, something extreme seems to happen... hopefully
> I won't get barred from the WPT as I was from binion's.) Since the WPT's
> policy has been to ignore deals and report the "official" prize money to
> the viewing audience, they know this leaves them looking rather untrustworthy
> when another media source reports the truth.
>
> The WPT wants poker to be a sport, and they want to appeal to a world
> full of sports fans who will not (at first) understand deals. Deals are
> counter to everyone's idea of a good competition; of course the excitement
> is dramatically reduced when mel and I are suddenly playing for 25K at the
> end of the tournament instead of 300K. So I understand their motives.
> But poker is not a sport. Poker is gambling.
Attitudes like this are the reason poker has been frowned upon until just
recently. You should be banned for your obvious indifference on this
matter. Poker has been given a new life and people are watching.....why
can't you see that?
>
> I do not concede the WPT's right to ban deals, nor do I think they
> will have any luck doing so. We are poker players, NOT paid entertainers.
If it wasn't for ESPN and the WPT you'd be playing for half the money
against only the best poker players in the world. You have some nerve.
> And the money we are playing for at that stage is ALREADY ours. The WPT
> adds ZERO money to the prize pool.
Again, you have no clue.
It has certainly attracted new
> players to the game, and that has been good for everyone, including the
> WPT. But I say there is a real limit to how much they can dictate terms
> to the players when we are taking ALL of the risk.
And the WPT takes no risk that guys like you won't tarnish what they have
built in terms of credibility and audience? Wake up!
>
> Deals are not harmful to the integrity of the game when they are
> discussed openly and honestly.
Hysterical! Let me try to educate your very limited mind. Analogy: 2 great
fighters decide to fight, winner gets 80% loser gets 20%. Do you think the
promoters and public would appreciate hearing that the 2 fighters openly
discussed a deal and they would split the money before the fight?
> I see two reasonable answers to the issue. One is for the WPT to add
> significant money to the prize pool. As soon as we're playing poker on
> someone else's dime like real sports stars, then they can start
> dictating the terms under which we play. Unfortunately this does not
> entirely avoid the problem; people will still want to deal for the same
> reasons they do now.
Guys like you would still do it and you know it.
> The second is to glamorize the deal. This would require a massive
> attitude change on the part of many people, but the eternal optimist
> within me says it's possible. Stop trying to pretend it doesn't
> happen and stop trying to push it underground. Film a segment with
> Shania Hyatt explaining the WHY and HOW of dealmaking, and let the
> players talk about it on camera.
Shana..."Players that don't want to actually play for the championship can
go come over here on camera and discuss just how much money they think
each should get and then the deal is struck.In fact heres Phil Ivy to tell
us more on this matter."
...... Phil Ivy..."We made a deal folks,but we'll play it out so you
suckers that tuned in won't be too disappointed. But we already know who's
getting what...hehehe."
I think they can make dealmaking
> interesting to watch. Who's going to fold under the pressure? Who
> wants to deal and who doesn't? Who's going to take a bad deal? And
> they'll always play for at least the seat. 25K isn't chump change.
PATHETIC.
>
> I firmly believe the WPT will end up regretting this policy. I do not
> offer that as any sort of threat, only as an observation. Dealmaking is
> too important to too many poker players for them to wish it away. The
> WPT says they are covering poker as a sport, that they don't want it to
> be a staged "reality TV" game show. If that is truly their desire, they
> must not ban deals. Because deals are the reality.
>Paul Phillips
Mr Phillips....I'm sure you do not speak for the majority of Pro Poker
players , but shame on you for what you have said today.
NIA
Nia
> In article <20030923154354...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
> Linda Johnson <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>What, exactly, is the WPT policy?
> >
> >No deals are allowed.
Good.
>
> For those who haven't heard, the WPT is officially going to ban all deals
> at WPT events. This is a direct result of the sports illustrated article
> that reported the deal between mel judah and me. (Every time I am quoted
> in the media about poker, something extreme seems to happen... hopefully
> I won't get barred from the WPT as I was from binion's.) Since the WPT's
> policy has been to ignore deals and report the "official" prize money to
> the viewing audience, they know this leaves them looking rather untrustworthy
> when another media source reports the truth.
>
> The WPT wants poker to be a sport, and they want to appeal to a world
> full of sports fans who will not (at first) understand deals. Deals are
> counter to everyone's idea of a good competition; of course the excitement
> is dramatically reduced when mel and I are suddenly playing for 25K at the
> end of the tournament instead of 300K. So I understand their motives.
> But poker is not a sport. Poker is gambling.
Attitudes like this are the reason poker has been frowned upon until just
recently. You should be banned for your obvious indifference on this
matter. Poker has been given a new life and people are watching.....why
can't you see that?
>
> I do not concede the WPT's right to ban deals, nor do I think they
> will have any luck doing so. We are poker players, NOT paid entertainers.
If it wasn't for ESPN and the WPT you'd be playing for half the money
against only the best poker players in the world. You have some nerve.
> And the money we are playing for at that stage is ALREADY ours. The WPT
> adds ZERO money to the prize pool.
Again, you have no clue.
It has certainly attracted new
> players to the game, and that has been good for everyone, including the
> WPT. But I say there is a real limit to how much they can dictate terms
> to the players when we are taking ALL of the risk.
And the WPT takes no risk that guys like you won't tarnish what they have
built in terms of credibility and audience? Wake up!
>
> Deals are not harmful to the integrity of the game when they are
> discussed openly and honestly.
Hysterical! Let me try to educate your very limited mind. Analogy: 2 great
fighters decide to fight, winner gets 80% loser gets 20%. Do you think the
promoters and public would appreciate hearing that the 2 fighters openly
discussed a deal and they would split the money before the fight?
> I see two reasonable answers to the issue. One is for the WPT to add
> significant money to the prize pool. As soon as we're playing poker on
> someone else's dime like real sports stars, then they can start
> dictating the terms under which we play. Unfortunately this does not
> entirely avoid the problem; people will still want to deal for the same
> reasons they do now.
Guys like you would still do it and you know it.
> The second is to glamorize the deal. This would require a massive
> attitude change on the part of many people, but the eternal optimist
> within me says it's possible. Stop trying to pretend it doesn't
> happen and stop trying to push it underground. Film a segment with
> Shania Hyatt explaining the WHY and HOW of dealmaking, and let the
> players talk about it on camera.
Shana..."Players that don't want to actually play for the championship can
go come over here on camera and discuss just how much money they think
each should get and then the deal is struck.In fact heres Phil Ivy to tell
us more on this matter."
...... Phil Ivy..."We made a deal folks,but we'll play it out so you
suckers that tuned in won't be too disappointed. But we already know who's
getting what...hehehe."
I think they can make dealmaking
> interesting to watch. Who's going to fold under the pressure? Who
> wants to deal and who doesn't? Who's going to take a bad deal? And
> they'll always play for at least the seat. 25K isn't chump change.
PATHETIC.
>
> I firmly believe the WPT will end up regretting this policy. I do not
> offer that as any sort of threat, only as an observation. Dealmaking is
> too important to too many poker players for them to wish it away. The
> WPT says they are covering poker as a sport, that they don't want it to
> be a staged "reality TV" game show. If that is truly their desire, they
> must not ban deals. Because deals are the reality.
Randy Hudson
greg pittman <gregory...@webtv.net> wrote:
> I don't see what the big deal is. They have been doing the same on the
> PGA tour for years.
For the PGA, it's required that PGA members not make deals, I believe. But
since virtually every player is sponsored -- backed -- the sponsors are
allowed to deal as they see fit. By keeping the players out of that loop,
the PGA avoids the appearance of impropriety, as in a player tanking after a
deal is made.
--
Randy Hudson
Sasha Branch
The winner should get no more than 18% of the pool (like in golf).
Although this would make 1st prize less "awe inspiring", having 7th place
pay out a big number would encourage amateurs to play more than they would
if only the top 3 make any reasonable money for their risk.
_________________________________________________________________
BIG RAY
taxes on u.s earnings. the u.s has agreements on income with approximately
50 countries of which england is one.
_________________________________________________________________
JasonFP
mind when they did everything they could to bring in new ones......
and boxers don't put up the money that will be the prize pool, if WPT and
ESPN created the prize pool then I imagine it'd be different.
Shame on him for expressing an opinion?
-Jason
> ....... Phil Ivy..."We made a deal folks,but we'll play it out so you
Paul Phillips
Randy Hudson <i...@panix.com> wrote:
>I've played in WPT events, and have not signed any agreement with them.
You haven't signed any agreement, or any agreement regarding deals?
They have always required a signed release to play. But the deal aspect
is new. I skimmed the release it on saturday looking for anything about
deals and couldn't find it, but I was exhausted and probably missed it.
>What about reverse saves? Would the WPT bar a deal that made the heads-up
>portion winner-take-all? Or are they only concerned with preventing
>variance-lowering deals?
Heh, good question. I think you'd get some head scratching on that one,
and then they'd go with "no deals" for consistency.
>And what about backers? Are backed players prohibited? Because a backed
>player also keeps only a small portion of his winnings, just as does a
>player who makes a deal. If backed players are allowed, what prevents
>backers from making the deals that players are fordidden to make?
Nothing. This too will become common. The whole "deal infrastructure"
will simply complicate to route around the prohibition.
A backer with several horses could make some money routing winnings
into the hands of people with significant gambling losses and vice versa
to battle the constant sucking sound emanating from the IRS. I really
shudder to think about what the major backers might be doing these days
when they land multiple horses at the final table.
--
Paul Phillips | Name an animal you might see at the zoo - A dog
Everyman | -- heard on Family Feud
Randy Hudson
BIG RAY <anon...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> paul i do not think you are correct about british citizens not paying
> taxes on u.s earnings. the u.s has agreements on income with approximately
> 50 countries of which england is one.
The key is "gambling income." The UK does not tax its citizens on gambling
income, and its tax treaty with the US specifies that the US may not tax
gambling income won by its citizens within US jurisdiction.
However, a professional gambler is subject to taxes on his net gambling
winnings, as business income. So, while in the US we have IRS auditors
ignoring Supreme Court decisions and refusing to recognize certain players
as professional gamblers, in the UK, Inland Revenue seeks to show that
certain players are professional, so that taxes will be owed.
--
Randy Hudson
Siam
>From: "Nia" anon...@aol.com
>Date: 9/23/2003 1:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3f70b43f$0$51881$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
>
<snip>
>
>Mr Phillips....I'm sure you do not speak for the majority of Pro Poker
>players , but shame on you for what you have said today.
>
>NIA
>
here.
Shame on you.
There is nothing wrong with deal making if it is out in the open. Which means
that the prize money structure should still be much flatter. The PGA Tour uses
a 18%-12%-9.5% structure I believe.
And screw the WPT. They should be adding money to the pot. Highest rated show
on Travel Channel's history.
Deals are prudent and it is too bad people like you are unable to see that.
Cheers
>_________
Paul Phillips
BIG RAY <anon...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>paul i do not think you are correct about british citizens not paying
>taxes on u.s earnings. the u.s has agreements on income with approximately
>50 countries of which england is one.
I'd be stunned to find out I'm not correct about that. Certainly every
british and canadian poker player I've ever spoken with is under the
impression that their gambling winnings are tax-free regardless of where
they are won. I would presume the US tax agreements are that everyone
gets to pay tax according to their native laws, regardless of where the
money is obtained. That means US citizens in the UK get the pleasure of
paying tax on their winnings, but not the other way around.
Anyone who knows with complete certainty is invited to chime in.
--
Paul Phillips | Never does the human soul appear so strong as when
Moral Alien | it forgoes revenge, and dares forgive an injury.
Empiricist | -- E.H. Chapin
pp: i haul pills |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
BIG RAY
_________________________________________________________________
RMITCHCOLL
>PGA tour for years. How can they stop it?
are you saying golfers are making deals off camera on PGA televised events? I
have never heard this before...
Randy
Marge Registration is Open at
http://www.conjelco.com/marge.html
November 6-8, 2003 Biloxi, Miss
Dave Scharf
When I put my money down and sign up to play a WPT event, when am I informed
of the rules?
I am told that only certain colours of clothing are permitted for WPT final
tables. Not to mention that I have to wear a microphone, show my cards to
the camera etc. If, prior to putting up my money, the rules are made
apparent to me (including the no deal rule) then they are probably
enforceable. If they are not, then I am going to want some consideration
before I start showing my cards to a camera on the rail.
Comment
Like another poster, though, I have some serious concerns about
"consideration." The WPT gives me NOTHING. 100% of the prize pool is player
funded. To me, the player, the difference between a WPT event and a non-WPT
event is nil. The WPT, on the other hand, gets my "talent" and they get to
make a television show. How you make rules for an event that you only TAKE
from and do not give to puzzles me.
When a tournament gets heads up there are only two players who own ANY stake
in the prize pool -- the two combatants. The reaon they own it is because
the assumed the risk. Unless there is added prize money I cannot fathom
someone dictating to me what I will do with MY money.
For the WPT to start covering poker like it is a sport... it needs to be
"like a sport." That means the players are competing for a the prize, but
the prize has been supplied. Otherwise, all you are filming is the playing
out of a bet among friends and who are you to tell them how they will play
out the bet?
All that having been said... at present, the WPT is the future of poker. I
applaud the show and the producers. The show is great. The poker is great.
The resultant promotion of the game has been awesome.
Regards,
Dave Scharf
www.canadianpoker.com
Stephen M. Adams
Why? If it's out in the open and everybody knows what the deal is?
It's all about risk management. If, and it's a big if, poker players
were backed like professional golfers, then, by all means, ban deals.
Continue the golf analogy - you play well, someone will step up and
underwrite your play for a portion of your winnings. Your expenses
are covered, you have a "paycheck" and the money you need to travel
to and enter golf tournaments.
Compare to poker - the pro is paying all his expenses, and putting up
his own money to play. His goal, in addition to winning, is to pay
his bills, put food on the table and earn enough of a bankroll to
make the entry fees of the major tournaments, and to play in side
games along the way.
The golfer can be sure when he starts out the year that if he has
a string of bad outings, he has the necessary fees and expenses to
comlete the season. The poker player has no such guarantee. If by
makeing a deal, he can assure himself of the funding to make it
through the "season" what's the issue?
Deals do begin to look dishonest when they are hidden or covered-up.
So, let things be out in the open.
OR, let's go to a system where top players have backing, and yield
a percentage of their winnings to their backers, like pro golfers.
-Stephen
Randy Hudson
Paul Phillips <rgp...@improving.org> wrote:
> In article <bkqbuv$sdg$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Randy Hudson <i...@panix.com> wrote:
>> I've played in WPT events, and have not signed any agreement with them.
>
> You haven't signed any agreement, or any agreement regarding deals?
Any agreement, period. I was in via supersatellite, though, if that makes a
difference.
> They have always required a signed release to play. But the deal aspect
> is new. I skimmed the release it on saturday looking for anything about
> deals and couldn't find it, but I was exhausted and probably missed it.
It would have to be pretty carefully written to prohibit deals made during
the course of play but not affect existing arrangements, including backers,
last-longers, and saves. If their intent is to block all of those, they're
going to lose some of the better-known players, who only play with backers
(Mike Sexton, the WPT color commentator, himself used to play for a backer,
for example.)
> A backer with several horses could make some money routing winnings
> into the hands of people with significant gambling losses and vice versa
> to battle the constant sucking sound emanating from the IRS.
That's already a possibility, though; and "routing winnings" implies players
intentionally losing, which I would view as cheating with or without the
reported WPT no-deals rule.
--
Randy Hudson
Paul Phillips
>> You haven't signed any agreement, or any agreement regarding deals?
>
>Any agreement, period. I was in via supersatellite, though, if that makes a
>difference.
It was an oversight. They require all players to sign the release, or
they will not allow you to play.
>It would have to be pretty carefully written to prohibit deals made during
>the course of play but not affect existing arrangements, including backers,
>last-longers, and saves. If their intent is to block all of those, they're
>going to lose some of the better-known players, who only play with backers
I have recently been somewhat surprised to find out how few people play
completely for themselves. Of course, they wouldn't lose anyone, they would
just make liars out of them. Poker players who need backers to play are
not going to stop playing just because the WPT doesn't like it.
>That's already a possibility, though; and "routing winnings" implies players
>intentionally losing, which I would view as cheating with or without the
>reported WPT no-deals rule.
Of course. I'm just observing a few of the many forces that give people
large financial incentives to do things in certain ways, not suggesting that
it's acceptable to do them.
Banning deals will create an atmosphere where people are used to the rules
being broken, and I see that as contributing to people losing sight of the
line between "honest rule breaking" (that is, sensibly lowering variance
without colluding) and "dishonest rule breaking."
Lowering your variance should not be against the rules.
--
Paul Phillips | Only Alex Chiu has the solution to a unified world,
In Theory | unless you can think of a better one.
Empiricist | -- Alex Chiu <www.alexchiu.com>
i'll ship a pulp |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
TexMo
really playing heads up for the $2.5 Million and the WSOP Title. If there is
a deal made then the show is a fake and it will not be as exciting as
playing for $100k (or whatever)
Deals should not be made if poker is going to get bigger. At the same time,
sponsors SHOULD add more money to the prize pool, the Travel Channel is
making tons of Cash off this, they should put some back into it for those
that are making it huge! Party Poker, Poker Stars ETC could easily get there
name more recognition by adding $50k.
Anyone thought about making a league? Like Golf or Tennis... If this was a
little more organized then I could see this becoming something huge rather
than just a fad.
TexMo
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:bkqb6j$6bd$1...@spoon.improving.org...
BIG RAY
STILL RESPONSIBLE TO DECLARE IT ON THEIR TAXES.
_________________________________________________________________
Gary Carson
>
>Lowering your variance should not be against the rules.
>
>--
Why not?
That makes about as much sense as saying that increasing your EV
Stephen M. Adams
>I knew going into the atlantic city WPT event that deals would be
>very unlikely, because the casino would not offer alternate paperwork.
>And my impression from speaking with steve lipscomb is that they're
>going to require all the host casinos to do that from now on; which,
>you are correct, is going to make deals a much bigger hassle as people
>have to wriggle through all the tax implications.
Hmm. I'd talk to a lawyer and see if I could incorporate, and then enter
as the corporate entity. If that would work, it could alleviate some of
the tax problems involved. But, since IANAL, I can't say if this scheme
would work.
-Stephen
Stephen M. Adams
>On Sep 23 2003 5:14PM, Paul Phillips wrote:
<snip>
>> Deals are not harmful to the integrity of the game when they are
>> discussed openly and honestly.
>
>Hysterical! Let me try to educate your very limited mind. Analogy: 2 great
>fighters decide to fight, winner gets 80% loser gets 20%. Do you think the
>promoters and public would appreciate hearing that the 2 fighters openly
>discussed a deal and they would split the money before the fight?
It depends. If you get a better fight because of it, why not? In
other words, take the money out of the picture and have them fight
for the title alone. I'd actually rather see smaller winner's shares
in these competitions. Make money a non-issue.
<snip>
>> The second is to glamorize the deal. This would require a massive
>> attitude change on the part of many people, but the eternal optimist
>> within me says it's possible. Stop trying to pretend it doesn't
>> happen and stop trying to push it underground. Film a segment with
>> Shania Hyatt explaining the WHY and HOW of dealmaking, and let the
>> players talk about it on camera.
>
>Shana..."Players that don't want to actually play for the championship can
>go come over here on camera and discuss just how much money they think
>each should get and then the deal is struck.In fact heres Phil Ivy to tell
>us more on this matter."
>...... Phil Ivy..."We made a deal folks,but we'll play it out so you
>suckers that tuned in won't be too disappointed. But we already know who's
>getting what...hehehe."
Do we care how much they win? Or do we care *who* wins? If they agree
to even the payout and then play great, entertaining poker, haven't we
come out better?
<snip>
>Mr Phillips....I'm sure you do not speak for the majority of Pro Poker
>players , but shame on you for what you have said today.
Shame for what? For expressing an opinion?
Let me say again - when poker players are backed like pro golfers, and
don't have to worry about their meals, expenses, entry fees, etc, etc,
it's different. Right now, they are employing risk management, and
trying to maximize their gains. I just don't see anything wrong with
it, so long as it's done in the open. They are, after all, still playing
for a title.
Look at pro sports - the winners vs. losers share isn't what they are playing
for - it's the title! How many people have a WSOP bracelet? THAT's
what makes it worth playing for, in the end, at least IMHO. Sure, I'd love
$2.5Mil, but after good ol' uncle Sam got done with me, along with state
taxes, cose to $1mil is already gone. But, I have that bracelett to wear
at every poker game I'm in. :-)
-Stephen
TexMo
Deals should be banned at WPT or WSOP events, it should be known ahead of
time. If you do not like it then there will be another tournament the next
weekend somewhere else with no cameras.
No "Rake" should be taken on WPT or WSOP events.
Sponsors should add prize money to the mix at WPT or WSOP events but the
Final Table SHOULD be where all the money is, thats what makes it exciting
now. No reason to drop first place to 18% (or any other rediculously low
number) there is no excitement in that.
That would make it a sport worth watching :)
TexMo
John Harkness
wrote:
>In article <3f70b65a$0$51867$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
>BIG RAY <anon...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>>paul i do not think you are correct about british citizens not paying
>>taxes on u.s earnings. the u.s has agreements on income with approximately
>>50 countries of which england is one.
>
>I'd be stunned to find out I'm not correct about that. Certainly every
>british and canadian poker player I've ever spoken with is under the
>impression that their gambling winnings are tax-free regardless of where
>they are won. I would presume the US tax agreements are that everyone
>gets to pay tax according to their native laws, regardless of where the
>money is obtained. That means US citizens in the UK get the pleasure of
>paying tax on their winnings, but not the other way around.
>
>Anyone who knows with complete certainty is invited to chime in.
Canada doesn't have a tax treaty with the US on gambling income, which
means that if you cash more than $600 in a tournament, the casino
withholds 30% ON THE PAYOUT, not on the NET.
And it takes months to get it back
John Harkness
>It has been said before on this newsgroup, but I will say it one more time.
>
>A lot of us poker players think making a deal is dishonest.
And a lot of us disagree with you.
John Harkness
A. Prock
>
>Canada doesn't have a tax treaty with the US on gambling income, which
>means that if you cash more than $600 in a tournament, the casino
>withholds 30% ON THE PAYOUT, not on the NET.
>
>And it takes months to get it back
How do you get it back if there is no treaty?
- Andrew
--
http://www.pokerstove.com
John Harkness
>I don't want to get deeply into a subject that has been talked to death on this
>newgroup, so I'm just going to say:
>
>Many of those of us who are poker players think deal-making is fundamentally
>dishonest. I agree with the WPT.
The WPT isn't banning deals because they're dishonest. They're banning
deals because they're bad TV.
John Harkness
NWBurbsCouple
don't like those rules.
I can understand the logic behind the WPT making a rule against deals; I can
also understand those who oppose it.
But as for Paul P.'s comment that people can easily break that rules -- well,
there will always be unethical players who break any rules that are made. That
shouldn't stop the rulemakes from establishing those they think are in the best
interest of the game.
John Harkness
>On Sep 23 2003 5:14PM, Paul Phillips wrote:
>
LOL.
The WPT, as Paul has pointed out, adds no money to the prize pool.
And if you think the big tournaments are populated only by the best
players in the world, even before the WPT went on TV, then you know
little to nothing about big time tournament play.
John Harkness
Paul Phillips
TexMo <rby...@comcast.com> wrote:
>Deals should be banned at WPT or WSOP events, it should be known ahead of
>time. If you do not like it then there will be another tournament the next
>weekend somewhere else with no cameras.
It is not that simple. Yes, you can say "don't play if you don't like
it." But as I already said, that will only affect the players that accept
the legitimacy of the rule and are willing to follow it. I know the
players well enough -- most of them view the money in the prize pool as
belonging to them. And no wonder, since they provided all of it. They
will view strong-arm techniques to stop deals only as a reason to keep
quiet about what deals they are making.
Also, you are wrong about there being other options. If you want to
play big money tournaments, they are all filmed now, and I suspect we
can look forward to everyone attempting to ban deals.
--
Paul Phillips | Wacky calculator fun for kids: enter your current
Vivid | age. Now add 1. The result is the age you will be
Empiricist | when you die.
Paul Phillips
NWBurbsCouple <nwburb...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
>But as for Paul P.'s comment that people can easily break that rules --
>well, there will always be unethical players who break any rules that are
>made. That shouldn't stop the rulemakes from establishing those they
>think are in the best interest of the game.
The WPT does not have an interest in what rules are in the best interest
of the game. They have an interest in what rules are in the best interest
of television ratings. If the best interest of the game were served by
banning deals, why would we have needed the WPT to come along to realize it?
And just to reiterate, it is my position that banning deals is
specifically NOT in the best interest of the game -- that it will be
actively harmful to the integrity of the game, for a variety of
reasons that I have already discussed. It's not clear to me in this case
that players who made a private non-collusive deal would be behaving
unethically, because I consider the rule unfair, unjust, and wrong.
I know plenty of you are reading into this that I would continue to
make private deals in the face of the rule, but I'm not saying that.
I'm saying: it's a bad rule partly because it's unenforceable.
--
Paul Phillips | Never does the human soul appear so strong as when
Imperfectionist | it forgoes revenge, and dares forgive an injury.
Empiricist | -- E.H. Chapin
i pull his palp! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
minus200
IT IS THEIR MONEY - it does not belong to anyone else - as a condition of contest
THEY have already won the money - It should be theirs do do with as they please.
I guess someone should be able to tell them how to spend it or that they must
play next year or next tournament
Paul Phillips wrote:
> In article <20030923154354...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
> Linda Johnson <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>What, exactly, is the WPT policy?
> >
> >No deals are allowed.
>
> For those who haven't heard, the WPT is officially going to ban all deals
> at WPT events. This is a direct result of the sports illustrated article
> that reported the deal between mel judah and me. (Every time I am quoted
> in the media about poker, something extreme seems to happen... hopefully
> I won't get barred from the WPT as I was from binion's.) Since the WPT's
> policy has been to ignore deals and report the "official" prize money to
> the viewing audience, they know this leaves them looking rather untrustworthy
> when another media source reports the truth.
>
> The WPT wants poker to be a sport, and they want to appeal to a world
> full of sports fans who will not (at first) understand deals. Deals are
> counter to everyone's idea of a good competition; of course the excitement
> is dramatically reduced when mel and I are suddenly playing for 25K at the
> end of the tournament instead of 300K. So I understand their motives.
> But poker is not a sport. Poker is gambling.
>
> I do not concede the WPT's right to ban deals, nor do I think they
> will have any luck doing so. We are poker players, NOT paid entertainers.
> And the money we are playing for at that stage is ALREADY ours. The WPT
> adds ZERO money to the prize pool. It has certainly attracted new
> players to the game, and that has been good for everyone, including the
> WPT. But I say there is a real limit to how much they can dictate terms
> to the players when we are taking ALL of the risk.
>
> Deals are not harmful to the integrity of the game when they are
> discussed openly and honestly. By driving all dealmaking underground,
> there are a whole slew of ugly side effects. First of all, large
> swaps will become more common, since players cannot hedge their risk
> at the end of a tournament. Large swaps are a FAR, FAR greater risk to
> the integrity of the game than dealmaking is. They almost guarantee
> collusive behavior, even among people who try to avoid it.
>
> Next, a ban on deals, like all totally unenforceable rules and laws,
> only punishes honest players. Those who are inclined to deal will still
> deal, they'll just keep it to themselves. In the meantime, those of
> us who have a problem signing a form saying we won't do something and
> then doing it anyway are the only ones excluded from the process.
>
> I see two reasonable answers to the issue. One is for the WPT to add
> significant money to the prize pool. As soon as we're playing poker on
> someone else's dime like real sports stars, then they can start
> dictating the terms under which we play. Unfortunately this does not
> entirely avoid the problem; people will still want to deal for the same
> reasons they do now.
>
> The second is to glamorize the deal. This would require a massive
> attitude change on the part of many people, but the eternal optimist
> within me says it's possible. Stop trying to pretend it doesn't
> happen and stop trying to push it underground. Film a segment with
> Shania Hyatt explaining the WHY and HOW of dealmaking, and let the
> players talk about it on camera. I think they can make dealmaking
> interesting to watch. Who's going to fold under the pressure? Who
> wants to deal and who doesn't? Who's going to take a bad deal? And
> they'll always play for at least the seat. 25K isn't chump change.
>
> I firmly believe the WPT will end up regretting this policy. I do not
> offer that as any sort of threat, only as an observation. Dealmaking is
> too important to too many poker players for them to wish it away. The
> WPT says they are covering poker as a sport, that they don't want it to
> be a staged "reality TV" game show. If that is truly their desire, they
> must not ban deals. Because deals are the reality.
>
> --
> Paul Phillips | People who make little glass houses in their souls
> In Theory | shouldn't throw tombstones.
> Empiricist |
> pal, i pill push |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Russell Fox
> In article <3f70b65a$0$51867$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> BIG RAY <anon...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >paul i do not think you are correct about british citizens not paying
> >taxes on u.s earnings. the u.s has agreements on income with
approximately
> >50 countries of which england is one.
>
> I'd be stunned to find out I'm not correct about that. Certainly every
> british and canadian poker player I've ever spoken with is under the
> impression that their gambling winnings are tax-free regardless of where
> they are won. I would presume the US tax agreements are that everyone
> gets to pay tax according to their native laws, regardless of where the
> money is obtained. That means US citizens in the UK get the pleasure of
> paying tax on their winnings, but not the other way around.
>
> Anyone who knows with complete certainty is invited to chime in.
>
The US has tax treaties with ~50 countries, including the UK and Canada. As
Randy Hudson mentioned,
"The key is 'gambling income.' The UK does not tax its citizens on gambling
income, and its tax treaty with the US specifies that the US may not tax
gambling income won by its citizens within US jurisdiction."
I know that the treaty with Ireland is similar to the UK treaty. However,
each treaty is different and has to be researched.
The treaty with Canada, as John Harkness stated, says nothing about gambling
winnings (which are **not** taxed in Canada). So if you're lucky (or
unlucky) enough to win a tournament where a W-2G is given out and you're a
Canadian citizen, 30% of your gross winnings will be withheld. You can get
some (to all) of the money back by filing a 1040-NR with the IRS. But as
John correctly said, this is not a particularly quick process.
-- Russ Fox
DanielRentzer
deal with Gus. He seemed like he was going to make a deal with me until he
found out that we had to play for a significant amount of money. since he
already had a seat into the main event and I was now guaranteed a seat for
25K there was not really any significant amount to play for, so he said
no. If we could have just made a deal and then ended the tournament I
would have made a lot more money. I understand they dont want people to
get heads up and then just move all-in every hand because they dont care,
but making deals is part of the game, and I agree with what Paul says.
Until poker is sponsored where the prize pools are more money than just
that of the players money, then I can understand the no deals policy. as
it stands now the difference in prize money from first to second and third
is so significant, i dont see how deals wont be made. It would be bad for
players to make deals under the table sort of speak.
I like Pauls idea stating that deals should be in the open. People would
be saying things like "I cant believe he would not take that deal he was
offered, now he just lost 100,000 because he did not take that deal". I
thing it could make for good T.V.
_________________________________________________________________
Mike McClain
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote :
> In article <bkqbuv$sdg$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Randy Hudson <i...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >What about reverse saves? Would the WPT bar a deal that made the heads-up
> >portion winner-take-all? Or are they only concerned with preventing
> >variance-lowering deals?
>
> Heh, good question. I think you'd get some head scratching on that one,
> and then they'd go with "no deals" for consistency.
>
Do they also ban side bets? What if, for example, I wagered $50k to your
$100k that I would beat you in the headsup portion, when my stack was twice
as big as yours and the difference between 1st and 2nd was $150k?
Maybe instead of having Fergusom available to help work out the deal,
he can be there to help create the side bets.
Mike
Paul Phillips
DanielRentzer <anon...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>I like Pauls idea stating that deals should be in the open. People would
>be saying things like "I cant believe he would not take that deal he was
>offered, now he just lost 100,000 because he did not take that deal".
Exactly! It's be like "who wants to be a millionaire."
"I WANT TO GO FOR IT, REGIS! OOPS."
There are enough players who don't deal that a deal taking place
would not be foreordained. It'd be fun.
And just imagine a scene like when scotty offered to give hellmuth back
enough chips to make them even and then play winner-take-all! They don't
even KNOW what great television that'd make.
--
Paul Phillips | These pages look best if you come over and view them on
Caged Spirit | my monitor.
Empiricist | -- the essence of the modern web
Russell Fox
>
> The WPT does not have an interest in what rules are in the best interest
> of the game. They have an interest in what rules are in the best interest
> of television ratings. If the best interest of the game were served by
> banning deals, why would we have needed the WPT to come along to realize
it?
>
> And just to reiterate, it is my position that banning deals is
> specifically NOT in the best interest of the game -- that it will be
> actively harmful to the integrity of the game, for a variety of
> reasons that I have already discussed. It's not clear to me in this case
> that players who made a private non-collusive deal would be behaving
> unethically, because I consider the rule unfair, unjust, and wrong.
>
> I know plenty of you are reading into this that I would continue to
> make private deals in the face of the rule, but I'm not saying that.
> I'm saying: it's a bad rule partly because it's unenforceable.
>
of play at the end of tourneys. In the thread where Paul discussed his deal
with Mel Judah, he stated (when asked why he made the deal)
[http://tinyurl.com/ofcr]: "Because I didn't see any reason for Mel Judah
and I to sit down and play a $300K freezeout with huge blinds that neither
of us wanted to play."
This is a bigger factor than you might realize. In reading a recent thread
(I don't remember if it was the same thread or not from above) that the WPT
wants its events to end in 4.5 hours. That may make good television, but if
the players have large stacks (which is the norm in a big money event), and
it takes a while to get heads up (which can happen), that can mean that,
say, player 1 has T1 Million and player 2 has T700,000 with blinds of
200,000/400,000 (that would ensure a quick end to the tourney!). Yes, I'm
probably exaggerating -- but I've been at final tables with ridiculous
blind/limit structures.
As to the WPT preventing deals, let's assume that two players want to deal
because of such a situation. Obviously, they would have to talk before the
tournament began about it. But A could say to B, "If we're heads up and the
blinds are ridiculous, do you want to make a deal/save/etc.?" (Or perhaps
during a rest room break.)
Even a tax situation (such as New Jersey not allowing for a change on the
W-2G's) can be worked around. Player A, who gets the 'excess money', would
have to send a 1099 to Player B (and file a 1096 at the end of the year) for
the excess money.
Personally, until the WPT (or other sponsors) is providing a large portion
of the prize money, deals **will** continue to happen. They just won't be
publicized.
-- Russ Fox
Jon Eaton
you get barred from Binion's?
Jon
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:bkq9jm$5f0$1...@spoon.improving.org...
greg pittman
Yes deals are made on Golf courses, not all of them do it, but a lot of
them do. Sometimes when it comes down to the final two, they might be
tied, they will offer to split the total 1st and 2nd place winnings. I
guess that could be why they look so relaxed.
As mentioned before, Jockeys do this all the time, especially in big
races, when they are in a photo finish and neither one knows who won,
they will make deals while jogging out the horses and waiting for the
film to develop.
Steve Bortnyck
Hmm, where do I start? Well, for starters, it is not the contestant's
money after they pony up the entry fee. Period!! You buy your way into a
tournament, give your money and your rights up according to their aggreement
(and later the courts if you so choose) and they may give it back to you.
IF and only IF they determine that you have met the requirements!! That
means if the TD disqualifies you, you lose! If the decision stinks, oh
well. Take them to court! You lose! It is not, I repeat NOT YOUR MONEY,
until they GIVE, and I do mean GIVE it back.
Now, as to whether deal making is good or bad? Well, it depends on who you
ask. So, the people who make the rules get to decide. And who would that
be Paul? Want to play in the WSOP? Guess we know who makes the rules huh?
Not to be mean, but when a tournament decides to film, and they do it with
the required paperwork, that is pretty much it! If you think they have not
done that, don't play! Or sue them! But whining is not the way to get them
to change. Perhaps organize the players would be more appropriate?
As to whether WPT has the moral right to do this "to" you or the rest?
Hmmm, not sure about that one. How about you take a poll of all the good
pros? Ask them "Pre WPT or Post WPT, which is better for you?" want to
take a guess on the answer?
So....kill the golden goose if you like, or get another one, and call it the
Universal Poker Tour, or Trump Tour! Get some good players to join you, do
it like many others (football? Basketball?) have already done. Or not!
But make no mistake about it Paul, I am in total agreement with those that
say that deals are not what America buys into! Legal? Probably for now?
Ethical? Not if the "Appearance of impropiety is something to be avoided"
strikes a chord. And no matter what the "poker community" thinks, it won't
change what "America" thinks.
Steve
Alan Mudd
Your original assumption was right Paul, the UK is one of many countries
that has reciprocal agreements with the US regarding tax, if a UK resident
wins money in the US the US govt allow them to take the whole amount on the
understanding it will be dealt with by UK taxation laws.
In the UK gambling is not taxed as an income, according to my accountant the
reason behind this is they would have to allow losses if they were to tax
profit, and seeing as more people lose than win, they would be out of
pocket.
I'd like to see it stay this way...I think the US system is appalling where
they tax profit but you can only offset losses up to won amounts....now
there's a system that begs to defrauded.
On to the original point of this post, when you entered the WPT did you have
a contract or agreement which mentioned deal making at all?
I won a seat in the Poker Million here last year and we had to agree to an 8
page contract, part of which was that no deals whatsoever were to be
entertained. (this document was one of the main reasons many of the big US
names that were down to play never bothered to make the trip.
For what it's worth I kind of agree with your point here, unless they add to
the money they should have no control over deals infact I think they should
make it transparent and make it part of the event all the time explaining to
the public why it's going on.
Alan Mudd
Dave Scharf
gambling is taxed then the tax treaty kicks in and the U.S. says, "OK, we
will let this money be taxed in your home country." If you come from a
country that does NOT tax gambling (eg. Canada) the the U.S. says, "Well, if
you are not going to tax that money then we are."
In the case of Canadian players, the casino will withhold 30%. It is a tax
withholding. To get that money back a Canadian player has to file a U.S. tax
return and reduce his/her taxable income sufficiently that no tax is owning.
Then, you get a tax refund and Uncle Sam gives you back the 30%.
Regards,
Dave Scharf
www.canadianpoker.com
Paul Phillips
Jon Eaton <convales...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Hey, not sure if it's a touchy subject or was already addressed...
>how'd you get barred from Binion's?
A lot has happened since then, but the end result of everything was
that you won't be seeing me there again.
--
Paul Phillips | If you're not standing on the ledge,
Stickler | you're taking up too much hope.
Empiricist |
aaron
Paul Phillips wrote:
> In article <3f70cfa5$0$51848$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> DanielRentzer <anon...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
>>I like Pauls idea stating that deals should be in the open. People would
>>be saying things like "I cant believe he would not take that deal he was
>>offered, now he just lost 100,000 because he did not take that deal".
>
>
> Exactly! It's be like "who wants to be a millionaire."
>
> "I WANT TO GO FOR IT, REGIS! OOPS."
>
> There are enough players who don't deal that a deal taking place
> would not be foreordained. It'd be fun.
>
> And just imagine a scene like when scotty offered to give hellmuth back
> enough chips to make them even and then play winner-take-all! They don't
> even KNOW what great television that'd make.
>
i agree on this point. have you seen the railbirds go at it online when
the two remaining players are negotiating a deal. everyone has an
opinion. the problem is that the unsophisticated poker audience isn't
likely to buy into that excitement.
--
(signature here)
STEVE NISSMAN
> The deception is to the Televised Audience that believes the players are
really playing heads up for the $2.5 Million and the WSOP Title. If there is
a deal made then the show is a fake and it will not be as exciting as
playing for $100k (or whatever) >
What deception? The audience is watching an entertainment program. The
Travel Channel is not paying us to be on the show. The Travel Channel is
not supplying the prize money, we are. The Travel Channel is not sharing
their revenues with the players. Well, we did get a nifty watch though. Oh
wait, that was from the Bike, never mind.
It is our money and and the final players should be allowed to decide what
to do with our money since it now belongs to them. As long as they all
agree to a deal openly and with no coersion (which is the policy at every
poker club where I've played in a tournament), nobody is being deceived and
nobody is being cheated.
Listen to what Paul said, ban all deals and what goes on behind their backs
between the players/backers/horses is
going to be scary.
If we're going to talk about deception towards an audience, maybe we need to
talk about "Reality" programming, game shows, certain sporting events, etc.
You really don't think the programmers keep a bit of information from their
audience in order to make for better television? Come on.
Steve N
Mike McClain
"Mike McClain" <mmcclain_...@omsoft.com> wrote :
>
> Do they also ban side bets? What if, for example, I wagered $50k to your
> $100k that I would beat you in the headsup portion, when my stack was twice
> as big as yours and the difference between 1st and 2nd was $150k?
>
I don't think I quite got that right.
Mike.
John Harkness
wrote:
Basically, I go to my tax guy, he fills out whatever forms needs to be
filled out, I sign hem.
I have no fucking idea on the mechanics of the thing. I pay a guy to
know that.
John Harkness
greg pittman
turned him down?
John Harkness
<bort...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Hmm, where do I start? Well, for starters, it is not the contestant's
>money after they pony up the entry fee.
Oh yes it is. The people running the tournament are, in essence,
holding the money for the players. And taking a small cut as the entry
fee.
John Harkness
Ken Lovering
they grasp it..........
Ken
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:bkq9jm$5f0$1...@spoon.improving.org...
> In article <20030923154354...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
> Linda Johnson <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>What, exactly, is the WPT policy?
> >
> >No deals are allowed.
>
> For those who haven't heard, the WPT is officially going to ban all deals
> at WPT events. This is a direct result of the sports illustrated article
> that reported the deal between mel judah and me. (Every time I am quoted
Jim Geary
"Mike McClain" <mmcclain_...@omsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6uycncqX1oE...@omsoft.com...
MrBob
"Russell Fox" <rc...@claytonservices.com> wrote:
SNiP
> I know that the treaty with Ireland is similar to the UK treaty. However,
> each treaty is different and has to be researched.
>
> The treaty with Canada, as John Harkness stated, says nothing about gambling
> winnings (which are **not** taxed in Canada). So if you're lucky (or
> unlucky) enough to win a tournament where a W-2G is given out and you're a
> Canadian citizen, 30% of your gross winnings will be withheld. You can get
> some (to all) of the money back by filing a 1040-NR with the IRS. But as
> John correctly said, this is not a particularly quick process.
>
> -- Russ Fox
So how was the CA tax test?
Tournament tax question - if someone were to present an Irish passport
as ID after a big tournament win, would the casino withold / report
anything?
If you're not certain, do you know where I night find out?
Thanks,
MrBob
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Ken M
professional gambler ethic and I'm sure most people feel the same. Obviously
you know it all. I said I wasn't going to beat it to death, I'm done.
>From: Paul Phillips rgp...@improving.org wrote:
>
>Think that if you like, but I don't think you know what dishonest means.
Rzitup
"Nia" <anon...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> Mr Phillips....I'm sure you do not speak for the majority of Pro Poker
> players ,
I would lay 2-1 that his opinions is shared by a majority of "Pro Poker
players".
>but shame on you for what you have said today.
>
> NIA
>
And shame on your for shaming him. And shame on me too because I agree with
Paul.
Howard Treesong
under-the-table deals that they do make. When I've made deals in the
past, both parties tell the floor, who enforces them by distributing
money in accord with the deal. The WPT policy will prevent the casino
from so doing, which in turn forces a greater degree of trust on the
players involved. Good enough, as far as it goes; but I shudder to
think what will happen when some rotten apple makes an under-the-table
deal, wins, and refuses to pay his share of a big payout. I've been
at final tables with players I think are dishonest and with whom I
would NOT make a deal without some trustworthy enforcement mechanism.
There aren't very many I'd put in this category, but there are some.
Has anyone ever heard of a player walking away from a big deal like
this?
Query on the actual effect of Paul's idea that some of us (Paul
included) will now stop making deals in WPT events because of the
policy. I'm in the same category, but, apparently like Paul, I'm not
backed and don't need poker money to pay my mortage or feed my kids.
I'm guessing the rule-followers are somewhere between ten and twenty
per cent of the field, but that's not much more than a SWAG. Remember
that affecting 20% of the players has a larger impact than that,
because for a deal to go down, both parties have to agree.
-Howard
AJohn808
>the problem is that the unsophisticated poker audience isn't
>likely to buy into that excitement.
and thats the bottom line. i, the viewer, will not be interested in
watching if a deal is made. where is the excitement and drama? i am only tuning
in to see the big money actually go one way or the other. i dont care if its a
crap shoot at the end. you're supposed to be the big time gamblers and thats
what the basis of the show is about. you can have your deals but i wont
be watching and the people who are producing the wpt wont be happy about me
switching to "The Andy Griffith Show'. (actually, i might watch that anyway.
that Barney cracks me up)
and as far as deals made secretly. make secret deals against the rules with
the penalty being severe. fines/forfeiture of prize money? banishment from
being on the propoker tour?. players will get the message.
i'm not against deals. just dont expect me to watch tv to see an anticlimatic
finish.
jarrett40
want to make deals also want the operators to help them with their
bookeeping and taxes...that is to say they want the piece of paper to
present to the IRS stating what they really wound up with after the
deal[not what the public thinks they won].They could make their deals
in the restroom like they did in the old days but their tax situation
would be messed up without that piece of paper.That's why it's so
important to them that the operators sanction the deals.
jarrett40
minus200 <minu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3F70CF96...@comcast.net>...
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
>
>On Sep 23 2003 5:14PM, Paul Phillips wrote:
>
>> In article <20030923154354...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
>> Linda Johnson <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>What, exactly, is the WPT policy?
>> >
>> >No deals are allowed.
>
>>
>> For those who haven't heard, the WPT is officially going to ban all deals
>> at WPT events. This is a direct result of the sports illustrated article
>> that reported the deal between mel judah and me. (Every time I am quoted
>> in the media about poker, something extreme seems to happen... hopefully
>> I won't get barred from the WPT as I was from binion's.) Since the WPT's
>> policy has been to ignore deals and report the "official" prize money to
>> the viewing audience, they know this leaves them looking rather untrustworthy
>> when another media source reports the truth.
>>
>> The WPT wants poker to be a sport, and they want to appeal to a world
>> full of sports fans who will not (at first) understand deals. Deals are
>> counter to everyone's idea of a good competition; of course the excitement
>> is dramatically reduced when mel and I are suddenly playing for 25K at the
>> end of the tournament instead of 300K. So I understand their motives.
>> But poker is not a sport. Poker is gambling.
>
>recently. You should be banned for your obvious indifference on this
>matter...
i should just say nothing and let Paul answer for himself, but this really takes
the cake, and i cant resist.
"...banned for your obvious indifference on this matter..."??
what kind of stupidity is that?
firstly, Paul isnt indifferent, he has a definite viewpoint.
secondly, his viewpoint is a very common viewpoint, amongst the players who are
actually playing in these tournaments.
and finally, i for one think Paul has been banned enough already for what
amounts to no reason.
>...Poker has been given a new life and people are watching.....why
>can't you see that?
>>
>> I do not concede the WPT's right to ban deals, nor do I think they
>> will have any luck doing so. We are poker players, NOT paid entertainers.
>
>If it wasn't for ESPN and the WPT you'd be playing for half the money
>against only the best poker players in the world. You have some nerve....
from where did you come up with this bit of info?
you clearly and obviously know little/nothing about the actual tournaments that
are played.
>> And the money we are playing for at that stage is ALREADY ours. The WPT
>> adds ZERO money to the prize pool.
>
>Again, you have no clue.
> It has certainly attracted new
>> players to the game, and that has been good for everyone, including the
>> WPT. But I say there is a real limit to how much they can dictate terms
>> to the players when we are taking ALL of the risk.
>
>And the WPT takes no risk that guys like you won't tarnish what they have
>built in terms of credibility and audience? Wake up!...
what the WPT has built? LOL.
look, i respect and appreciate what Lyle Berman and others at the WPT have done
for poker, but they didnt build anything. the entertainment that is the WPT
tournaments was there long before the WPT was created, that organization just
came along and used it to their benefit.
to think that the WPT or ESPN built up the franchise is to no nothing about the
recent history of poker tournaments.
>>
>> Deals are not harmful to the integrity of the game when they are
>> discussed openly and honestly.
>
>Hysterical! Let me try to educate your very limited mind. Analogy: 2 great
>fighters decide to fight, winner gets 80% loser gets 20%. Do you think the
>promoters and public would appreciate hearing that the 2 fighters openly
>discussed a deal and they would split the money before the fight?...
its hilarious you should pick boxing as an example, since, in most big fights,
the prize money is separated and allocated before the fight even begins. if i
understand the way pro boxing works (most especially championship matches) the
champ will get the lion's share of the prize money, and the challenger will get
the minor share, no matter who actually wins the bout.
>
>> I see two reasonable answers to the issue. One is for the WPT to add
>> significant money to the prize pool. As soon as we're playing poker on
>> someone else's dime like real sports stars, then they can start
>> dictating the terms under which we play. Unfortunately this does not
>> entirely avoid the problem; people will still want to deal for the same
>> reasons they do now.
>
>Guys like you would still do it and you know it.
"guys like you"?
dont make me laugh so much, my stomach hurts.
in this scenario, i am betting Paul is one of the few people who would follow
the letter of the rule, whatever rules they come up with.
you make this post too easy when you pick on the obvious good guy in this way.
>
>
>> The second is to glamorize the deal. This would require a massive
>> attitude change on the part of many people, but the eternal optimist
>> within me says it's possible. Stop trying to pretend it doesn't
>> happen and stop trying to push it underground. Film a segment with
>> Shania Hyatt explaining the WHY and HOW of dealmaking, and let the
>> players talk about it on camera.
>
>Shana..."Players that don't want to actually play for the championship can
>go come over here on camera and discuss just how much money they think
>each should get and then the deal is struck.In fact heres Phil Ivy to tell
>us more on this matter."
>...... Phil Ivy..."We made a deal folks,but we'll play it out so you
>suckers that tuned in won't be too disappointed. But we already know who's
>getting what...hehehe."
>
>
> I think they can make dealmaking
>> interesting to watch. Who's going to fold under the pressure? Who
>> wants to deal and who doesn't? Who's going to take a bad deal? And
>> they'll always play for at least the seat. 25K isn't chump change.
>
>PATHETIC.
>>
>> I firmly believe the WPT will end up regretting this policy. I do not
>> offer that as any sort of threat, only as an observation. Dealmaking is
>> too important to too many poker players for them to wish it away. The
>> WPT says they are covering poker as a sport, that they don't want it to
>> be a staged "reality TV" game show. If that is truly their desire, they
>> must not ban deals. Because deals are the reality.
>
>
>>Paul Phillips
>
>Mr Phillips....I'm sure you do not speak for the majority of Pro Poker
>players , but shame on you for what you have said today.
>
>NIA
your level of certainty is so far off from reality, i figure you have never even
played in a real live poker tournament, right?
i am sure that Paul's position DOES speak for the majority, and the overwhelming
majority at that.
shame?
what does shame have to do with espousing a viewpoint, and one that is realistic
and held by the overwhelming majority of participants to boot?
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are....
Howard Treesong
> In article <20030923182229...@mb-m03.aol.com>,
> NWBurbsCouple <nwburb...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
> >But as for Paul P.'s comment that people can easily break that rules --
> >well, there will always be unethical players who break any rules that are
> >made. That shouldn't stop the rulemakes from establishing those they
> >think are in the best interest of the game.
>
> The WPT does not have an interest in what rules are in the best interest
> of the game. They have an interest in what rules are in the best interest
> of television ratings. If the best interest of the game were served by
> banning deals, why would we have needed the WPT to come along to realize it?
>
> And just to reiterate, it is my position that banning deals is
> specifically NOT in the best interest of the game -- that it will be
> actively harmful to the integrity of the game, for a variety of
> reasons that I have already discussed. It's not clear to me in this case
> that players who made a private non-collusive deal would be behaving
> unethically, because I consider the rule unfair, unjust, and wrong.
>
> I know plenty of you are reading into this that I would continue to
> make private deals in the face of the rule, but I'm not saying that.
> I'm saying: it's a bad rule partly because it's unenforceable.
Paul is right. It's a bad rule. So is the rule against smoking dope
-- and truth be told, while I violate that once in a great while, I'd
smoke much more dope if there weren't a rule against it. As for the
WPT rule, I wouldn't violate it. I do think players who make deals in
violation of the rule are unethical, although I don't consider it a
serious breach: rather more of a traffic ticket than anything else.
Paul, unusually, doesn't quite take a position on this issue.
As far as the WPT's authority to make rules for tourneys it
broadcasts, I believe it sets rules with the active cooperation of the
host casino. I found this out at the recent Bike tourney when I asked
the floor if I could use a earphones. The response was "sure, so long
as the WPT folks don't say otherwise." I don't think there's any
question that the Bike will go along with the rules the WPT sets, and
so as a practical matter, the WPT can do pretty much what it wants.
However unlikely it may be, a casino COULD do some things to try to
enforce the rule. Typically, deals aren't made until the field is cut
to three or sometimes even four, but it wouldn't be difficult to
sequester the players on breaks after the field gets that low. I
can't see how a casino could easily prevent backer-backer deals.
Howard
Cganzer1096
I do not concede the WPT's right to ban deals, nor do I think they
Of course, if you don't want deals, the sensible solution is to reduce reasons
for players to make deals. A flatter payout structure, for example.
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
>
>>From: aaron
>
>>the problem is that the unsophisticated poker audience isn't
>>likely to buy into that excitement.
>
> and thats the bottom line. i, the viewer, will not be interested in
>watching if a deal is made. where is the excitement and drama? i am only tuning
>in to see the big money actually go one way or the other. i dont care if its a
>crap shoot at the end. you're supposed to be the big time gamblers and thats
>what the basis of the show is about. you can have your deals but i wont
who knows what the people will be watching?
ESPN fabricated a number of facts in their programming, and no one would have
been the wiser if some actual participants hadnt commented about it publicly.
so if the deals are done privately (which i dont advocate, but nonetheless), how
is the audience to know?
Jonathan
>...and the people who are producing the wpt wont be happy about me
>switching to "The Andy Griffith Show'. (actually, i might watch that anyway.
>that Barney cracks me up)
> and as far as deals made secretly. make secret deals against the rules with
>the penalty being severe. fines/forfeiture of prize money? banishment from
>being on the propoker tour?. players will get the message.
> i'm not against deals. just dont expect me to watch tv to see an anticlimatic
>finish.
no matter where you go, there you are....
rAilz
"John Harkness" <jXXha...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> Canada doesn't have a tax treaty with the US on gambling income, which
> means that if you cash more than $600 in a tournament, the casino
> withholds 30% ON THE PAYOUT, not on the NET.
>
> And it takes months to get it back
I am English and I won a small tourney in Vegas back in '95, and had to pay
30% tax on my NET WINNINGS. I think it was about $200.
Things might have changed since then, but I was always under the impression
that if you cashed out more than $600, you were liable for US tax as well as
UK tax?
rAilz
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:bkq9jm$5f0$1...@spoon.improving.org...
> Since the WPT's
> policy has been to ignore deals and report the "official" prize money to
> the viewing audience, they know this leaves them looking rather
untrustworthy
> when another media source reports the truth.
I think we all know why this is happening, and it's nothing to do with
integrity or such - it's about TV ratings. If it later comes out that there
was a deal made, it makes them look bad since they never mentioned it (much
like the PPM where the przie money was split but never mentioned).
I too believe that they will end up regretting this policy. If you and I are
heads-up and we agree to split before they film the heads-up portion, the
game is probably going to be even better for TV than before. With the
absence of the money, the play will be a little looser and more exciting for
the TV audience.
I'm all for deals involving huge swings in money (i.e. the difference
between 1st and 2nd) or for saves, such as Phil Gordon's 1% WSOP save for
charity.
As for the request, I'll be in Vegas in Jan for a few trade shows -
wondering if we could have a few beers one night and chat about your
experiences? It's on me.
Railz
Brandon
> The deception is to the Televised Audience that believes the players are
> really playing heads up for the $2.5 Million and the WSOP Title. If there is
> a deal made then the show is a fake and it will not be as exciting as
> playing for $100k (or whatever)
Ah... now we get to the heart of it. If that is the deception, who is
being deceitful? The players? Or the producers?
Brandon
Russell Fox
"MrBob" <bobm...@dontspamonme.nwuDOTTedu.dontspamonme> wrote in message
news:bobmaher-19D555...@news1.uncensored-news.com...
>
> Tournament tax question - if someone were to present an Irish passport
> as ID after a big tournament win, would the casino withold / report
> anything?
>
> If you're not certain, do you know where I night find out?
>
> Thanks,
>
> MrBob
You can find tax treaties on the IRS' website (www.irs.gov) by doing a
search. From the technical explanation of the US - Ireland tax treaty (page
62):
"Article 22 generally assigns taxing jurisdiction over income not dealt with
in the other Articles (Articles 6 through 20) of the Convention to the State
of residence of the beneficial owner of the income and defines the terms
necessary to apply the article. An item of income is "dealt with" in another
Article if it is the type of income described in the Article and it has its
source in a Contracting State. For example, all royalty income that arises
in a Contracting State and that is beneficially owned by a resident of the
other Contracting State is "dealt with" in Article 12 (Royalties).
"Examples of items of income covered by Article 22 include income from
gambling....The general rule of Article 22 is contained in paragraph 1.
Items of income not dealt with in other articles and beneficially owned by a
resident of a Contracting State will be taxable only in the State of
residence. This exclusive right of taxation applies whether or not the
residence State exercises its right to tax the income covered by the
Article."
A literal reading of this means that gambling income of an Irish citizen is
not taxable in the US but may be taxable in Ireland. Somewhere I remember
reading that Ireland does not tax gambling winnings, but I'm not positive of
this.
Thus, an Irish citizen should not have anything withheld for US income
taxes. If I were an Irish citizen (and playing in a big tournament), I'd
probably keep a copy of the treaty with me. Most of the major Las Vegas
casinos are aware of the tax regulations/treaties relating to most major
countries but it is likely that some of the smaller rooms are not.
The full text of the technical explanation of the treaty can be found at
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/iretech.pdf
-- Russ Fox
A. Prock
>>>
>>>Canada doesn't have a tax treaty with the US on gambling income, which
>>>means that if you cash more than $600 in a tournament, the casino
>>>withholds 30% ON THE PAYOUT, not on the NET.
>>>And it takes months to get it back
>>
>>How do you get it back if there is no treaty?
>
>filled out, I sign hem.
>
>I have no fucking idea on the mechanics of the thing. I pay a guy to
>know that.
I'm still confused. Why would the IRS return your
money if there were no treaty?
- Andrew
AJohn808
>who knows what the people will be watching?
>so if the deals are done privately (which i dont advocate, but nonetheless),
>how
>is the audience to know?
>
so youre saying the deals would be approved by the WPT, just not revealed to
the tv viewer. i think the WPT may have learned their lesson along that line in
Aruba. such action could appear shady to the public if it got out, so now they
are just trying to nip it in the bud and keep everything on the up and up..
but, i agree, the great majority of viewers probably wouldnt catch on in that
case (unless they had inside info like from rgp or knew the players)
Russell Fox
"A. Prock" <proc...@pokerstove.com> wrote in message
news:3f711d3b$0$2842$8026...@spool.cs.wisc.edu...
>
> I'm still confused. Why would the IRS return your
> money if there were no treaty?
>
> - Andrew
Most foreign citizens who have money withheld do not go through the trouble
of filing a tax return to get some (to all) of their money back.
If you're a citizen of a foreign country, such as Canada, and you have money
withheld, usually the amount withheld is greater than the actual amount of
tax that's due. (The withholding is at 30%; the effective tax rate would be
~15%, for example). The foreign citizen can fill out IRS form 1040-NR,
submit it with appropriate information, and in 90 or so days get a refund.
The form is available on the IRS' webiste (www.irs.gov) and from any
competent tax preparer.
-- Russ Fox
Jon Eaton
BTW, nice article in SI.
Jon
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:bkql83$csb$1...@spoon.improving.org...
> In article <ds4cb.557494$YN5.377196@sccrnsc01>,
> Jon Eaton <convales...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Hey, not sure if it's a touchy subject or was already addressed...
> >how'd you get barred from Binion's?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/offk
>
> A lot has happened since then, but the end result of everything was
> that you won't be seeing me there again.
>
> --
> Paul Phillips | If you're not standing on the ledge,
> Stickler | you're taking up too much hope.
> Empiricist |
> ha! spill, pupil |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/
*----------
kevin
the WPT and them not putting money into the pot. Hope you enjoy.
-Kevin
From: "Jimmy Sommerfeld" <jimmyso...@earthlink.net>
To: "kevin" <kevin....@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:06:58 -0500
Subject: Re: WPT and WSOP on ESPN... what's in it for the players?
Actually, We have to pay wpt 10,000 dollars to tape the event. the
contract
between wpt and travel channel i know nothing about.As far as the 200
dollars go....I can tell you in Tunica at w.p.o for the first 3
yearswe
charged no fees for the final event.We lost Money.Some of the other
events
we charge 50 to 100 dollars. We feed you just about any time you want
something to eat ...we ask for 1or 2?..this adds up to 20 or 30
dollars a
day.we offer a gold and diamond bracelet to the winner of each event
...retail $2500.00. we pay dealers salaries (no Drop in
tournaments)(only
entry fees)Rent of convention hall.Most hotels would run you $99 a
nite
...We charge $39...We rent out 5 Projection T.V. for convenience of
players.
State and federal gaming taxes for us to run this tournament.AND LAST
BUT
NOT LEAST....We do not report any winnings to irs......etc etc....
Hope this answered a fewquestins for you. BTW....I dont see why we
have to
pay $10,000 to W.P.T. to tape our tournament either........ Thanks
,
Jimmy Sommerfeld
foldem
>Anyone thought about making a league? Like Golf or Tennis
Golf and tennis pay between 35% and 100% of the participants. Until
poker pros are willing to insist on flattening the payout structure or
changing the payout methodology (ala Andy Bloch's suggestions) we will
continue to have deals. Too much money is at stake on the turn of a
card or two, regardless of skill.
Best,
Peter
"There are no strangers at BARGE, just friends we haven't met yet"
Gary Carson
a cheat.
His ethic is that he won't steal from you or cheat you unless he
thinks he can get away with it.
Paul Phillips
Jonathan Kaplan <NutNoPair@aol<spam> wrote:
>i should just say nothing and let Paul answer for himself
That's OK; I don't have anything to say to someone whose idea of a
convincing retort is "Let me try to educate your very limited mind."
He's all yours!
--
Paul Phillips | A watched boil never pops.
Caged Spirit |
Empiricist |
i'll ship a pulp |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
John Harkness
wrote:
Probably because I have virtually no American income, and I've never
cashed enough in a tournament for it to really be an issue.
John Harkness
Steve Badger
> A lot has happened since then, but the end result of everything was
> that you won't be seeing me there again.
Suppose Harrah's finishes their acquisition of the Binion's named
properties...........
Something to hope for.
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com
Steve Badger
> What deception? The audience is watching an entertainment program. The
> Travel Channel is not paying us to be on the show. The Travel Channel is
> not supplying the prize money, we are. The Travel Channel is not sharing
> their revenues with the players. Well, we did get a nifty watch though.
Oh
> wait, that was from the Bike, never mind.
>
> It is our money and and the final players should be allowed to decide what
> to do with our money since it now belongs to them. As long as they all
> agree to a deal openly and with no coersion (which is the policy at every
> poker club where I've played in a tournament), nobody is being deceived
and
> nobody is being cheated.
The point being overlooked so far is that this is not World Poker Tour's
decision. They can't "ban deals".
People aren't playing in World Poker Tour venues. They are playing in
casinos. This issue is up to casinos... whom I assume will go along with
whatever the World Poker Tour requires, but still we as players make
financial transactions with the casinos.
The other point being overlooked I think is that this is inevitable. The
casinos and TV folks liking big first prize numbers requiring goofball
payout structures; the eventual cheating scandal; the eventual backlash
against the goofball payout structures; the eventual player demand for some
of that loot that the Travel Channel (and casinos) are paying to the World
Poker Tour because looney poker players happen to make good drama when you
can see their cards; the eventual TV competition from ESPN or someone else
where players are offered invitational or added prize money; etc.
All this has been basically talked about, speculated on and anticipated for
years. This is just one step down the road, and it has its utterly
predictable dumb aspects. It certainly should surprise no one.
Randy Hudson
Steve Bortnyck <bort...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hmm, where do I start? Well, for starters, it is not the contestant's
> money after they pony up the entry fee. Period!! You buy your way into a
> tournament, give your money and your rights up according to their aggreement
> (and later the courts if you so choose) and they may give it back to you.
> IF and only IF they determine that you have met the requirements!!
I think that's an oversimplification; there are plenty of lawyers who could
contribute more on the subject, but it's probably a constructive trust. And
while you're correct that the terms are indicated by the agreement, it's not
clear just what that agreement is. An "agreement" unsupported by
consideration -- a quid pro quo -- is not binding. "Allowing you to play in
this tournament" probably is consideration. Added rules after the player
has already entered the tournament -- such as by winning a satellite, or
winning a championship entry -- seem to lack consideration. And if
last-longer bets are allowed, then last-shorter bets must also be allowed,
and it's fairly simple to set up a last-shorter bet that effectively deals
away most of the risk in a heads-up endgame.
> That means if the TD disqualifies you, you lose! If the decision stinks,
> oh well. Take them to court! You lose! It is not, I repeat NOT YOUR
> MONEY, until they GIVE, and I do mean GIVE it back.
No. The cardroom is the stakeholder for a wagering pool. Anywhere that is
legal, the stakeholder is required to pay the money to the winner. If the
rules allow a TD to DQ somebody, the law will still allow that DQ to be
challenged as "arbitrary or capricious." Within Nevada, state regulations
also give the Gaming Control Board authority to order the casino to correct
"unfairness," and/or fine the casino, and the GCB can interpret it however
they want to. Consider Englehart and the Hitler birthday party allegations;
the GCB fined his casino a cool million, back when that was real money,
without any specific wrongdoing.
> Now, as to whether deal making is good or bad? Well, it depends on who you
> ask. So, the people who make the rules get to decide. And who would that
> be Paul? Want to play in the WSOP? Guess we know who makes the rules huh?
The rules are made by agreement among the participants. Paul is pointing
out that the WPT is trying to add a rule harmful to most players, so that we
who play in the WPT can oppose it; he also is pointing out how that rule
will disproportionately hurt honest players, which makes opposing it both
more crucial and more likely to succeed.
> Not to be mean, but when a tournament decides to film, and they do it with
> the required paperwork, that is pretty much it! If you think they have not
> done that, don't play! Or sue them! But whining is not the way to get them
> to change. Perhaps organize the players would be more appropriate?
Most players don't read RGP, but discussing it here is a pretty good start.
Somebody respected on the 2+2 board should probably mention it there, and
a few letters to Card Player are also appropriate. Perhaps a columnist or
editor there will take an interest and discuss it.
> As to whether WPT has the moral right to do this "to" you or the rest?
> Hmmm, not sure about that one. How about you take a poll of all the good
> pros? Ask them "Pre WPT or Post WPT, which is better for you?" want to
> take a guess on the answer?
Well, just because I'm better off in a world that knows how to make a fire
doesn't mean I shouldn't object to someone shooting a flamethrower at me.
We can hope enough reasonable people are involved with WPT to adopt rules
which are less damaging to honest players.
> So....kill the golden goose if you like, or get another one, and call it the
> Universal Poker Tour, or Trump Tour! Get some good players to join you, do
> it like many others (football? Basketball?) have already done. Or not!
How does opposing rules that encourage secret partnerships amount to killing
the golden goose?
> But make no mistake about it Paul, I am in total agreement with those that
> say that deals are not what America buys into!
But America isn't the one taking the risks.
Suppose there was a boxing tournament. No prize money, just for bragging
rights. And a producer comes along and wants to televise it, but not
contribute anything to the fighters. The fighters say OK, it's good for the
sport. Then the producers say, Oh, by the way, we insist that you fight
bare-knuckle; the public doesn't understand about gloves. Shouldn't the
fighters object? If the producers are putting up a prize fund, fine, but
they're not; WPT entrants pay a full buyin, a fairly steep entry fee, and
allow a big bite to be taken from the prize money for dealer and staff
services, as well as a forced buyin for a $25K future tournament they may
not even be around to play in.
> Ethical? Not if the "Appearance of impropiety is something to be avoided"
> strikes a chord.
Then open, disclosed deals should be encouraged, rather than secret backroom
deals.
> And no matter what the "poker community" thinks, it won't change what
> "America" thinks.
Why not? Because they are ignorant, and incapable of being educated? Or
because it's inconceivable that the majority might disagree with Steve
Bortnyck?
--
Randy Hudson
pete_flex
> In article <20030923154354...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
> Linda Johnson <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>What, exactly, is the WPT policy?
> >
> >No deals are allowed.
>
> For those who haven't heard, the WPT is officially going to ban all deals
> at WPT events. This is a direct result of the sports illustrated article
> that reported the deal between mel judah and me. (Every time I am quoted
> in the media about poker, something extreme seems to happen... hopefully
> I won't get barred from the WPT as I was from binion's.) Since the WPT's
> policy has been to ignore deals and report the "official" prize money to
> the viewing audience, they know this leaves them looking rather untrustworthy
> when another media source reports the truth.
>
> The WPT wants poker to be a sport, and they want to appeal to a world
> full of sports fans who will not (at first) understand deals. Deals are
> counter to everyone's idea of a good competition; of course the excitement
> is dramatically reduced when mel and I are suddenly playing for 25K at the
> end of the tournament instead of 300K. So I understand their motives.
> But poker is not a sport. Poker is gambling.
>
> I do not concede the WPT's right to ban deals, nor do I think they
> will have any luck doing so. We are poker players, NOT paid entertainers.
> And the money we are playing for at that stage is ALREADY ours. The WPT
> adds ZERO money to the prize pool. It has certainly attracted new
> players to the game, and that has been good for everyone, including the
> WPT. But I say there is a real limit to how much they can dictate terms
> to the players when we are taking ALL of the risk.
>
> Deals are not harmful to the integrity of the game when they are
> discussed openly and honestly. By driving all dealmaking underground,
> there are a whole slew of ugly side effects. First of all, large
> swaps will become more common, since players cannot hedge their risk
> at the end of a tournament. Large swaps are a FAR, FAR greater risk to
> the integrity of the game than dealmaking is. They almost guarantee
> collusive behavior, even among people who try to avoid it.
>
> Next, a ban on deals, like all totally unenforceable rules and laws,
> only punishes honest players. Those who are inclined to deal will still
> deal, they'll just keep it to themselves. In the meantime, those of
> us who have a problem signing a form saying we won't do something and
> then doing it anyway are the only ones excluded from the process.
>
> I see two reasonable answers to the issue. One is for the WPT to add
> significant money to the prize pool. As soon as we're playing poker on
> someone else's dime like real sports stars, then they can start
> dictating the terms under which we play. Unfortunately this does not
> entirely avoid the problem; people will still want to deal for the same
> reasons they do now.
>
> The second is to glamorize the deal. This would require a massive
> attitude change on the part of many people, but the eternal optimist
> within me says it's possible. Stop trying to pretend it doesn't
> happen and stop trying to push it underground. Film a segment with
> Shania Hyatt explaining the WHY and HOW of dealmaking, and let the
> players talk about it on camera. I think they can make dealmaking
> interesting to watch. Who's going to fold under the pressure? Who
> wants to deal and who doesn't? Who's going to take a bad deal? And
> they'll always play for at least the seat. 25K isn't chump change.
>
> I firmly believe the WPT will end up regretting this policy. I do not
> offer that as any sort of threat, only as an observation. Dealmaking is
> too important to too many poker players for them to wish it away. The
> WPT says they are covering poker as a sport, that they don't want it to
> be a staged "reality TV" game show. If that is truly their desire, they
> must not ban deals. Because deals are the reality.
>
> --
> Paul Phillips | People who make little glass houses in their souls
> In Theory | shouldn't throw tombstones.
> Empiricist |
> pal, i pill push |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Wow, that sounds "Whacked" Paul!!
What the hell do they care if we deal as long as the integrity of the
game is upheld and know what, even that isnt thier resposibility as I
think about it! They have a right to an opinion and can come to the
players and "ASK" that nobody makes deals on the tour but as you have
already stated all that will do is make guys do it in secret and NOW it
will look shady. I hope they realize that this has been a part of
tournament poker since its inception and they a.- wont have control over
this anyway and B.-Again as you have stated they dont have a vested
interest in this in the first place and it can only serve to hurt the
players who are thier bread and butter.
Looks like the WPT has just become the newest Monster on the block and
soon to be "Big Brother" in the making! : )
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
MVentolo
>
>The deception is to the Televised Audience that believes the players are
>really playing heads up for the $2.5 Million and the WSOP Title.
Why should the players *care* what the televised audience wants? They're not
paying the players at the point a heads-up deal come into play. Neither is
the WPT.
It's the WPT's fault for not being on the level with the viewers from the
beginning.
If they explained this was a normal practice, people would accept it. Now,
they've turned something that is normal into a scandal. (Well, as big a
scandal can be considering)
>If there is
>a deal made then the show is a fake and it will not be as exciting as
>playing for $100k (or whatever)
The shows are contrived in the first place. How can it be exciting at all when
it's spoiled on the internet months in advance? Also, don't forget, it's a
2-hour show. Guess what, if there's 15 minutes left in the show and someone's
a 10 to 1 short stack... they ain't coming back! There is little or no drama
involved in these shows. It can be interesting to watch a particular player
over the course of a show, but excitement, sorry, I don't see it.
> At the same time,
>sponsors SHOULD add more money to the prize pool, the Travel Channel is
>making tons of Cash off this, they should put some back into it for those
>that are making it huge!
LOL. Not at the idea, but if you think the WPT or the Travel Channel is going
to sweeten the pot, you're naive. They've got a sweet deal going. They get
to bleed the players for ratings, and then they get to bleed the casinos for
the "right" to film the final table and televise it. I wonder what the new
additions this year had to pay?
Dont Know My Name
"Ken M" <kr...@aol.comnospam> wrote
> I don't want to get deeply into a subject that has been talked to death on this
> newgroup, so I'm just going to say:
>
> Many of those of us who are poker players think deal-making is fundamentally
> dishonest. I agree with the WPT.
============================
Are you a newbie poker player, never been in a B&M cardroom before?
Who is going to give a rat's ass what your opinion is when you post comments
linking A. Slim with integrity & ethics? You don't know the difference between
a Texas gypsy and a Rube.
Dont Know My Name
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote
> There is another, little-considered aspect of all this. Citizens of
> many other countries pay no taxes on their gambling winnings in the US.
> Mel Judah, for example, lives in London. He and I had 300K at stake.
> If I took first I was going to have to give up about HALF of it in tax
> (yes, california gets their 10% too, even though I live in nevada.)
> But if he were to win, he would get to keep all of it.
>
> That means there is 150K of temptation for he and I to make a secret
> deal and then for me to throw the heads-up battle. 150K. That's more
> money than some people make in several years. What do you think, are
> all poker players going to be able to resist that level of temptation?
>
-------------------
This is incorrect Paul. None US Citizens are subject to a 30% withholding
on their cashouts, no minimum (buyin is not deductible). There is a US/
Canadian agreement that allows them to file for a partial refund of
monies withheld if they can document their losses.
I know of no other similar agreements with other Countries.
MVentolo
Just curious, you've posted about the Borgata on numerous occasions... I've
gotten the impression you're an employee.
Is that so?
If so, your tact is dispicable. Everything Paul Phillips says is relevant.
I could understand if you don't agree with it, fine. But going into insult
mode just makes you come across as an ass. And actually, with a couple of the
statements you make, an uninformed ass at that.
Poker did not start with the WPT.
Poker will outlive the WPT.
>And the WPT takes no risk that guys like you won't tarnish what they have
>built in terms of credibility and audience? Wake up!
I said this in another post, but I'll say it again to make my point.
*DEALS ARE A PART OF TOURNAMENT POKER*
Now, if the WPT decided not to make this known from their first introduction
show, it's *their* problem when a deal is made and it comes back to bite them
on the ass. It isn't Paul Phillips or Mel Judah that is responsible for
tarnishing WPT's credibility.
It's on WPT for being sloppy and lazy about explaining things. They could
have had an ironclad ban on day 1, but apparently, they didn't. So, they
didn't say "No, there can't be a deal." or, "OK, viewers, deals are normal
and a part of tournament poker. But the players are still playing for
something significant and the Championship." They just waited for something to
happen and react.
>Analogy: 2 great
>fighters decide to fight, winner gets 80% loser gets 20%
This doesn't happen. Fighters are smart enough to negotiate a set percentage
before the fight based on leverage from their position of power. If there was
a prize pool in boxing, all you'd see is great fighters against tomato cans...
why would you take the risk?
>25K isn't chump change.
>
>PATHETIC.
What's pathetic is that WPT doesn't finance the seats and just takes them out
of the prize pool. Now, I understand they are still upstart, but they should
be able to pay off a % of it themselves. At least Foxwoods adds money to the
pool to offset that somewhat. In a $5,000 tournament, 5 entries get sucked
down a black hole to be given out as a seat.
>Mr Phillips....I'm sure you do not speak for the majority of Pro Poker
>players , but shame on you for what you have said today.
Shame on him for stating his opinion that alot of people agree with?
If you're an employee, shame on *you*.
Dont Know My Name
"Randy Hudson" <i...@panix.com> wrote
> > paul i do not think you are correct about british citizens not paying
> > taxes on u.s earnings. the u.s has agreements on income with approximately
> > 50 countries of which england is one.
>
> The key is "gambling income." The UK does not tax its citizens on gambling
> income, and its tax treaty with the US specifies that the US may not tax
> gambling income won by its citizens within US jurisdiction.
>
> Randy Hudson
=====================
Gambling winnings in the United States by UK citizens are taxed at a flat 30% rate--
no allowances for loss deductions or "business expenses" (by a professional gambler)
Paul Phillips
Dont Know My Name <DONT...@myname.com> wrote:
>This is incorrect Paul. None US Citizens are subject to a 30% withholding
>on their cashouts, no minimum (buyin is not deductible).
It's been stated elsewhere in this thread that I am correct. I did
live in London for several months and played a lot of cards with British
poker players. They were all of the belief that their winnings were
not taxed, regardless of where they were won. Not to mention that Mel
specifically told me that his winnings are not taxed.
I have to think the guys actually collecting the money would know best.
Dont Know My Name
"John Harkness" <jXXha...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Canada doesn't have a tax treaty with the US on gambling income, which
> means that if you cash more than $600 in a tournament, the casino
> withholds 30% ON THE PAYOUT, not on the NET.
>
============
Two things...
Where did you get the $600 figure from John? The casinos along the US/Canadian
border all have signs announcing <to Canadians> that they are subject to the
30% withholding ** hint, hint** Ask an American to cash out your chips...
I've also seen the same signs posted in Las Vegas Casino Cashiers Cages.
We deduct the 30% on amounts of $50.00US or more, treating smaller amounts
as 'making change' transactions.
#2. Your post above contradicts itself when it claims there is no tax treaty between
US & Canada, but goes on to say (correctly) that there is a mechanism for the
Canadians to get a partial refund (deducting losses).
Dont Know My Name
"Dave Scharf" <daves...@sasktel.net> wrote
> The U.S. taxes winnings. If you come from a country (i.e. the UK) where
> gambling is taxed then the tax treaty kicks in and the U.S. says, "OK, we
> will let this money be taxed in your home country." If you come from a
> country that does NOT tax gambling (eg. Canada) the the U.S. says, "Well, if
> you are not going to tax that money then we are."
>
> In the case of Canadian players, the casino will withhold 30%. It is a tax
> withholding. To get that money back a Canadian player has to file a U.S. tax
> return and reduce his/her taxable income sufficiently that no tax is owning.
> Then, you get a tax refund and Uncle Sam gives you back the 30%.
>
> Regards,
> Dave Scharf
> www.canadianpoker.com
=====================
This too is incorrect Dave. ALL gambling winnings, won in the USA are subject
to the 30% tax. It doesn't matter if you're the first visitor from outer space, just
dropping in to visit your brother Bob Stupak, or you're a Canadian.
Canada is the only country with the tax treaty you correctly describe.
Dont Know My Name
> > I'm still confused. Why would the IRS return your
> > money if there were no treaty?
> >
> > - Andrew
================
"Russell Fox" <rc...@claytonservices.com> wrote
> Most foreign citizens who have money withheld do not go through the trouble
> of filing a tax return to get some (to all) of their money back.
>
> If you're a citizen of a foreign country, such as Canada, and you have money
> withheld, usually the amount withheld is greater than the actual amount of
> tax that's due. (The withholding is at 30%; the effective tax rate would be
> ~15%, for example). The foreign citizen can fill out IRS form 1040-NR,
> submit it with appropriate information, and in 90 or so days get a refund.
> The form is available on the IRS' webiste (www.irs.gov) and from any
> competent tax preparer.
>
> -- Russ Fox
==================
The IRS form 1040-NR is for reporting earned income, not gambling winnings.
Where in the world did you get the 15% tax rate from, your imagination?
So far, the only person in this thread who is not confused or mislead is Andrew,
when he asked, "I'm still confused. Why would the IRS return your money if there
were no treaty?"
ANS: They (IRS) wouldn't refund any money if no treaty <w/Canada> existed.
Dont Know My Name
"rAilz" <rai...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote
>
> I am English and I won a small tourney in Vegas back in '95, and had to pay
> 30% tax on my NET WINNINGS. I think it was about $200.
>
> Things might have changed since then, but I was always under the impression
> that if you cashed out more than $600, you were liable for US tax as well as
> UK tax?
========================
No change in IRS code (on this subject) since then.
Please verify for this group whether or not gambling winnings
(won in the UK by UK citizen) are taxable?
Dont Know My Name
"Russell Fox" <rc...@claytonservices.com> wrote
>
> "The key is 'gambling income.' The UK does not tax its citizens on gambling
> income, and its tax treaty with the US specifies that the US may not tax
> gambling income won by its citizens within US jurisdiction."
I just read the treaty and found no mention " the US may not tax
gambling income won by its citizens within US jurisdiction"
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p901.pdf
>
> I know that the treaty with Ireland is similar to the UK treaty. However,
> each treaty is different and has to be researched.
Almost all the ~50 treaties are exactly the same. I didn't find any that
exempted gambling winnings from taxation by the IRS.
http://www.irs.gov/faqs/page/0,,id=15934,00.html
This one applying only to Canadians, agrees with Russ Fox that
the IRS form 1040-NR can be used to report winnings (and
deduct losses?) Quoting the IRS site:
"Generally, you must file a tax return to claim a refund of withholding. Gambling winnings by nonresidents of the U.S. are taxed at
a flat 30% tax rate. However, under the U.S./Canada Tax Treaty, residents of Canada may claim gambling losses, but only to the
extent of gambling winnings. You should report both your total gambling winnings and your total gambling losses on page 4 of Form
1040NR (PDF), U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return on the dotted portion of line 79. If you have net gambling winnings (after
offsetting your total losses against your total winnings), you should include this net amount on line 79, column (d) of the Form
1040NR. You should also attach a copy of the Form 1042-S, Foreign Person's U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding, showing the
taxes withheld to your Form 1040NR."
>
> The treaty with Canada, as John Harkness stated, says nothing about gambling
> winnings (which are **not** taxed in Canada). So if you're lucky (or
> unlucky) enough to win a tournament where a W-2G is given out and you're a
> Canadian citizen, 30% of your gross winnings will be withheld. You can get
> some (to all) of the money back by filing a 1040-NR with the IRS. But as
> John correctly said, this is not a particularly quick process.
>
> -- Russ Fox