Stern Scandal - Final Post
Oliver Lawrence
Binions Casino runs the annual poker tournament billed as "The World
Series of Poker." This year, whispers and rumors of at least one
out-and-out fixed tournament, and many (most?) Binion's approved,
behind closed doors, split-the-money-but-don't-tell-anyone final
table deals, have evolved into verifiable facts. I believe members
of this newgroup should insure these practices are ended.
Why should we do this? Because we care about Poker. Because we
want it to evolve to a higher level. And to do that, Tournament
Poker, and in particular its championships, must be thought of as
squeaky clean. Rigged tournaments, whether for the actual title or
simply the prize-money distribution, cannot be allowed to continue.
How should we do this? The simple expedient of exposure of the
truth.
The facts (see Steve Brecher's excellent post detailing the shameful
events and practices in his "Re: Stern Scandal at WSOP" message as
of (5/9/97) need neither embellishment nor exaggeration, just the
harsh light of publicity. And however harsh that light may be,
Poker will emerge more popular than ever, ready to move the next
level of acceptance.
Below, I've included copies of letters I'm sending to the people who
I believe should be put on notice that we know what happened, and
that it must not happen again.
Although the names I'm sending letters to may be the ones that leap
to mind when you think of Poker's most powerful people, we also have
real power. Because while they can keep, and have kept, secrets
like the charade the WSOP sometimes becomes, we can force things to
change.
For I think that we, the members of this newsgroup, are the people
who can and should help determine the direction of Poker. Not just
the Jack Binion's, the CardPlayer executives, and the ESPN people;
but us, too.
This odd jumbled mix of technology we call the Internet has given
us, the individual, the little guy nobody listens to, a voice with
which to do that. Here we have a public forum unlike any other.
Benjamin Franklin wrote that the power of the press belongs only to
those who own one. The Internet is our printing press, our voice.
And I think that we should use that voice to change the whispers of
what happened at the WSOP to a roar. A roar that cannot be ignored.
You have the power to change things. You have the power to make
things right. Use it.
---------------------------------------------------------
Use these letters however you wish. Agree with me, disagree with
me, whatever; just get involved. I will wait a couple of days
before sending these letters. If you feel they shouldn't be sent,
let me know. [Steve Brecher, if you're still listening to this
long-winded and somewhat self-righteous post, I'd be especially
interested in your thoughts.]
On a personal note, many thanks for the private emails of support.
Until I started receiving them, I was beginning to think that I was
the only one who cared about the entire affair. Happily, your
messages proved otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------
To Jack Binion:
Mr. Binion, you're regarded as the best friend poker has. So why do
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of criticizing your
tournament, the WSOP?
Well, I may be rationalizing, but I actually think that by
criticizing, I'm doing you a favor. Part of what I'm referring to
is the staged ending at the WSOP event that Maria Stern "won." I
know you were upset and embarrassed by the whole affair. And I've
heard that you ordered that a similar mockery never happens again.
Thank you. But that's not enough.
I'm a reader of the poker-oriented Internet newsgroup
(rec.gambling.poker); there I read messages from poker players all
over the world. In it, I learned that Binions gets involved in, and
approves, final table, prize-money distribution deals.
I think this practice should end. You cannot enjoy it. I can
imagine your thoughts when you're forced to pose for publicity
photos that are captioned how "so-and-so won all this money," when
you've signed a check to that person for a completely different
amount. Or when you read your own casino's published prize-money
statistics that are simply -- I must say it -- lies.
Others may have told you that the players want these deals, and that
they will make them anyway. Not really. Would the players make
deals on their own, simply "trusting" the other player(s) to pay
them, and "trusting" that no one would report their unrecorded
earnings to the IRS for the 10% bounty? Of course not. No, only
the Binion's guarantee that the money will be paid as agreed allows
these deals to be made. Please end your involvement in them.
Or you may have been told that dealing making doesn't affect the
integrity of the tournament. If so, that's hogwash. A player
playing for the title AND the money plays very differently from one
playing for the title only. And while players may claim this isn't
true, the reality of the amount of money involved simply isn't
ignored. It is a factor. Or rather, it would be if deals weren't
allowed.
If deals are to be allowed, at least make them public. Bring them
out from the shadows of the closed doors and tell the public that
the prize money distribution has been agreed on, and the remainder
of the tournament will be played for the title and bracelet only. I
don't recommend that, but at least, then, you wouldn't have to
wonder if this will be the year that the practise is exposed.
Frankly, I don't understand why you're involved at all. In the
Poker world, you're the man, and Binions is the place. Why do you
even tolerate this back-room stuff? Just pay the prize money
according to the published schedule. What is the problem in doing
that?
Poker needs leadership. You are one of Poker's leaders. Now is the
time to lead, Mr. Binion.
-------------------
CardPlayer Magazine:
Earlier this year you published an editorial exposing, albeit
without naming names, the Karen Wolfson cheating episode. For that
display of journalistic courage, you deserve kudos.
Kudos because an advertising-supported magazine like yours takes
risks in printing anything your advertisers may find offensive. You
were willing to take that risk. I ask you to take another: Print
the truth behind Event 4 of the WSOP. That play-acting farce must
never happen again.
A trust between Tournament Poker and the public was broken. You can
help restore that trust. Whether your advertisers like it or not,
the truth is going to come out. As I write this letter, thousands
of Internet members all over the world are already aware of what
happened. This will not go away.
It should come out from your magazine. It will come out
somewhere. Your choice.
----------------------
ESPN:
Annually, you record the events at Binion's World Series of Poker.
Up until last year, you broadcast an excerpted version of the final
championship event. You even offered a video tape copy for sale.
The legitimacy of the event is now in question. I belong to an
Internet-based (rec.gambling.poker) group of poker players who
correspond regularly. This year a disturbing series of messages
described how "deals" are made between varying numbers of
participants. The deals involve a pre-arrangement between the
players, and Binions, as to how the prize money will be distributed.
I'm asking that you use your influence to see that this practice is
ended. I care about Poker, and Binions, and I believe that both
would be better off without allowing these "arrangements."
The tournament makes for a good show. I believe it would be even
better if the title -- and the money -- were at risk.
Steve Brecher
"Oliver Lawrence" <oli...@isat.com> wrote:
> [Steve Brecher, if you're still listening to this
> long-winded and somewhat self-righteous post, I'd be especially
> interested in your thoughts.]
OK. Of basically three points at issue (sham play for a pre-arranged
title, allowing money deals, and publicizing nominal rather than actual
money distribution) I disagree on one: I think deals should be allowed.
Oliver's only posted argument against deal-making is in his proposed
letter to Jack Binion:
> Or you may have been told that dealing making doesn't affect the
> integrity of the tournament. If so, that's hogwash. A player
> playing for the title AND the money plays very differently from one
> playing for the title only. And while players may claim this isn't
> true, the reality of the amount of money involved simply isn't
> ignored. It is a factor. Or rather, it would be if deals weren't
> allowed.
My counterarguments are:
(1) The money belongs to the remaining contestants, not to Jack Binion
(the tournament host), and they ought to be able to distribute it amongst
themselves however they wish.
(2) The reason that players make deals is because near the end of a
tournament the blinds/limits become so high that luck dominates poker
skills. That is, the tournament in the sense of a legitimate contest is
essentially over, and the deal simply recognizes that fact. (This is a
fundamental difference between poker tournaments and the athletic contests
which have been occasionally mentioned in this thread.) Tournament
hosts/sponsors don't have the resources to allow a tournament to continue
indefinitely, so blinds/limits increase inexorably as a way of ending the
event. Players don't wish to simply gamble on almost pure luck for large
amounts of money. And I don't understand why anyone would want to
(attempt to) force them to do so.
There may be other ways to structure poker tournaments that would reduce
or eliminate the incentive to deal. However, coming up with an
alternative that is fair, easy for everyone involved to understand, and
still presents the attraction of large prizes may be more difficult than
it first appears.
--
st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
Chris Kevlahan
Steve Brecher (st...@brecher.reno.nv.us) wrote:
: "Oliver Lawrence" <oli...@isat.com> wrote:
:I think deals should be allowed.
: My counterarguments are:
: (1) The money belongs to the remaining contestants, not to Jack Binion
: (the tournament host), and they ought to be able to distribute it amongst
: themselves however they wish.
Counterpoint:
The host of the tournament has an interest in the outcome of the tournament.
Part of it is "goodwill and other valuable consideration". The other part is
the participant pay a fee to play the tournament.
And there's no doubt that the remaining players have equity in the prize pool.
To say that the remaining money belongs to them is too simple. The players
knocked out of the tournament have an interest in seeing the tournament through
to its completetion.
: (2) The reason that players make deals is because near the end of a
: tournament the blinds/limits become so high that luck dominates poker
: skills. That is, the tournament in the sense of a legitimate contest is
: essentially over, and the deal simply recognizes that fact. (This is a
: fundamental difference between poker tournaments and the athletic contests
: which have been occasionally mentioned in this thread.) Tournament
: hosts/sponsors don't have the resources to allow a tournament to continue
: indefinitely, so blinds/limits increase inexorably as a way of ending the
: event. Players don't wish to simply gamble on almost pure luck for large
: amounts of money. And I don't understand why anyone would want to
: (attempt to) force them to do so.
Counterpoint:
Sure the blinds/limits double. And a good portion of luck dominates the end.
But there is still skill involved in getting to the end, and coming out ahead
in the end. That is why we see some of the same players consistently placing
in the money in these major poker tournies.
To mention another athletic contest that is similar in nature .... Golf. Would
golf be as interesting if the top 4 leaders cut a deal going into the final day?
: There may be other ways to structure poker tournaments that would reduce
: or eliminate the incentive to deal. However, coming up with an
: alternative that is fair, easy for everyone involved to understand, and
: still presents the attraction of large prizes may be more difficult than
: it first appears.
Conclusion:
You cannot take away the deals. Because if you did, the deals would simply go
underground. What you can do though is to make all deals public. As they are
made. So when the final table is seated. Everybody knows who has a deal with
everybody else. That in itself will help keep some of the deals down.
Chris K.
Larry Stone
Some people have tried to compare poker tournament deals to making deals
in sports. I personally think that's apples and oranges. Poker, as a
form of gambling, has its results measured in money. Titles that go with
the money are largely secondary.
In most sports (particularly team sports), it's the title that's
important and the money associated with the title is secondary (in many
team sports, the added money for winning is a nit compared to their
regular salary). The extreme case is amateur competitors who compete
only for the title.
Even when looked at strictly from a money point of view, due to
endorsement contracts, appearance fees, etc., a sports competitor
maximizes his or her value by winning the title. Yet for a poker player,
the value of a WSOP title (or any other title) is largely zero. The
money won now is what pays the bills. In short, sports competitors do
not make deals because it is not in their interest to do so. Poker
players do because it is in their interest to do so.
--
Larry Stone
sto...@eisner.decus.org
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be deleted unread.
del...@tccenter.com
st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher) wrote:
>"
>(2) The reason that players make deals is because near the end of a
>tournament the blinds/limits become so high that luck dominates poker
>skills. That is, the tournament in the sense of a legitimate contest is
>essentially over, and the deal simply recognizes that fact. (This is a
>fundamental difference between poker tournaments and the athletic contests
>which have been occasionally mentioned in this thread.) Tournament
>hosts/sponsors don't have the resources to allow a tournament to continue
>indefinitely, so blinds/limits increase inexorably as a way of ending the
>event. Players don't wish to simply gamble on almost pure luck for large
>amounts of money. And I don't understand why anyone would want to
>(attempt to) force them to do so.
>There may be other ways to structure poker tournaments that would reduce
>or eliminate the incentive to deal. However, coming up with an
>alternative that is fair, easy for everyone involved to understand, and
>still presents the attraction of large prizes may be more difficult than
>it first appears.
>--
>st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
This reply does not address any deal at the 7 stud event nor, for that
matter, deals, in general. I would like to comment on Steve's
observation that the structure of limit events is such that luck
dominates poker skills at the high ante/blind phase of the event.
After struggling for 8-12 hours to reach money or the final table,
doubling antes and limits force the few remaining players to commit a
percentage of their stake that looks more like no limit than limit
poker. While this might also favor skill , it is not the same skill
that got the players there. With T50,000, a player faces an all in
situation at the 5000-10000 level. When the total chip count is only
T300,000, this appears to be a game of showdown.
I would suggest that a study be made of restructuring limit events so
that when limits reach a certain percentage of the total chip count,
that the limits be frozen and the event enter a "timed" phase. (No
host can afford a tournament that drags on forever.) The time of this
phase could be long enough at the fixed limit for skill to advance a
player in the standings, say 3-4 hours but that the event would end at
the end of teh time period. Chip position would determine ranking. The
fixed limit would be high enough to assure that a chip leader could
not easily maintain position by folding every hand.
Comments ?
Bart DeLuca (perennial victim of all-in on 4th street at the highest
limits)
Jim Maac
The 1972 $10,000 NLH event was the birth of freeze out tourament poker,
and I feel, the WSOP itself. The format was devised to satisfy the press,
who felt something more decisive was needed than a Poker King who was
crowned by his peers, as Mr. John Moss had been in 1970 & 71. From 1972-77
the $10,000 final event grew from 8 players in 1972, when Amarillo Slim
won, to 33 players when Doyle Brunson won in 1977, and was played as a
winner take all event.ie Doyle won 330,000 that last year. There was so
much complaining that it was decided to pay three places the next year,
but the Champ would get the lion's share.So, when Bobby Baldwin won in
1978, it was split 70,20, & 10. Binion's WSOP continues to this day with
top heavy payouts. Since the players are contributing their own money, you
can't blaim them for wanting to spilt when the blinds and/or limits are
out of line with the money on the table, and play has been relagated to a
crap shoot. However, when the money is split 40,20,10 making a deal
becomes mandatory, with any rational poker player, because of the money
difference between 1,2 & 3 places. Now, if Mr. Jack Benion, would change
the payout like he has done defacto in the $10,000, with its $1,000,000
top, since 1991, and fatting up the other payout places to make for a less
top heavy prize pool,ie 25,20,15, I feel he could , and should eliminate
all deals.
Garrett Choi
>: Steve Brecher
> Chris Kevlahan
>: (1) The money belongs to the remaining contestants, not to Jack Binion
>: (the tournament host), and they ought to be able to distribute it amongst
>: themselves however they wish.
> The host of the tournament has an interest in the outcome of the
> tournament. Part of it is "goodwill and other valuable
> consideration". The other part is the participant pay a fee to play
> the tournament.
Why is it the tournament host's right to receive "goodwill and other
valuable consideration?" Isn't he being paid a fee by the
participants to play? You point this out in your last sentence. And,
given that he's been paid for hosting the tournament, doesn't that end
his interest in the tournament (other than to see that his part of the
contract is held up?)
> And there's no doubt that the remaining players have equity in the
> prize pool. To say that the remaining money belongs to them is too
> simple. The players knocked out of the tournament have an interest
> in seeing the tournament through to its completetion.
Why do the players knocked out have an interest in seeing the
tournament through?
> Sure the blinds/limits double. And a good portion of luck dominates
> the end. But there is still skill involved in getting to the end,
> and coming out ahead in the end.
I don't understand this logic. Unless you're saying that:
1. There is skill involved in getting to the end.
2. At the end, a good portion of who finishes 1st, 2nd, etc.
is attributable to luck.
In which case, this is exactly what Steve said, isn't it?
> To mention another athletic contest that is similar in nature
> .... Golf. Would golf be as interesting if the top 4 leaders cut a
> deal going into the final day?
Golf is dissimilar in that there are no blinds that escalate. And,
golf professionals all being independent contractors, I'd be very
surprised if there weren't behind-the-scenes deals cut.
Kasparov should have made a deal. :)
Garrett.
gc...@cco.caltech.edu
Michael Zimmers
In article
<Pine.HPP.3.95.97051...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 1997, Larry Stone wrote:
> > Some people have tried to compare poker tournament deals to making deals
> > in sports. I personally think that's apples and oranges. Poker, as a
> > form of gambling, has its results measured in money. Titles that go with
> > the money are largely secondary.
> This logic has already been disproven by the deals that have been made
> where people give up large amounts of money to ensure the title.
Good point. How about this: "titles that go with the money are largely
subjective in importance." Were it not for this fact, no deal could have
been made to exchange a bracelet for some money. The bracelet meant
a lot to one person, and apparently less to another person. So they struck
what was for them a "win-win" agreement.
I've been silent on this topic so far, but in truth, I really don't see what
the argument is about. The prize money as a measurement of poker-playing
prowess speaks for itself. Unfortunately, the championship title and its
trappings are another story. People are of course free to impute whatever
they wish into the meaning of a poker championship, but in reality, if it can
be bought or bargained for, it means little. Furthermore, if the people in the
competition *want* to make it something that can be bought or bargained
for, it means little.
The crux of this controversy seems to stem from people's different impressions
of those who are "king of the hill." It's a natural tendency to regard
people who are
at the top of their respective heap as a little larger than life. In many
endeavors,
and especially in the poker world, this isn't necessarily warranted. A lot
goes in in
professional poker, and has gone on for decades, that will never make it
into any
autobiography or add to poker's stature as a game of honor. Everyone is of
course
free to choose their heroes as they wish, but those who choose poker champions
set themselves up for big disappointments should they acquire a little too much
knowledge about their superstars.
--
Michael Zimmers
SoftHelp -- Solutions for Open Systems
Voice: 408 996 1965
Fax: 408 996 1974
Stephen H. Landrum
Garrett Choi wrote:
> Kasparov should have made a deal. :)
He did. He got $400,000 for losing.
--
"Stephen H. Landrum" <slan...@pacbell.net>
Kim Scheinberg
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu>, speaking for Mason Malmuth, writes
>On Mon, 12 May 1997, Larry Stone wrote:
>> Some people have tried to compare poker tournament deals to making deals
>> in sports. I personally think that's apples and oranges. Poker, as a
>> form of gambling, has its results measured in money. Titles that go with
>> the money are largely secondary.
>
> This logic has already been disproven by the deals that have been made
>where people give up large amounts of money to ensure the title.
>world. Look at the cardplayer authors who have won a WSOP title.
>I.E.Linda Johnson, Tom McEvoy. They have a lot of credibility for winning
>a title. Even if they aren't in the poker world, winning a title is a way
>for a poker player to get a little piece of immortality which, in my
It's deeper than this. You know, it's no secret that there is an ongoing
competition of 'Highest Women Money Earners'. I have no idea what being at
the top affords you. For Linda Johnson, it's probably not a byline in Card
Player. But I'll also wager, if a deal was made that Marie would join the
small ranks of women who've won titles, it won't be earning *her* a column
in CP either
I suspect there is is very high level of pride involved in winning an
event. And it's an even tougher field for women so the ego stakes are
higher still. Had I been one of two women to win a title, and then my
"sense of glory" was cut by 17% because 'and then there were three', you
can be sure I'd be very unhappy were I to find out that money, not talent,
cut into my glory
None of this is to speculate as to whether or not anything like this
happened. I don't know. I'm only offering a perspective I haven't seen
mentioned yet. If the rumors are true, I feel very badly for Linda and
Barbara
And if I'd made book on her opponent (as I'm sure many did)?
Please tell me again that this behavior hurts no one
-k.
Jim Tolliver
I sat next to Maria for 6 hours in NL Holdem, the day after she won
the 7-Stud event and overheard her fielding some questions from the
well wishers. Barbara Enright is definitely not upset, she and
Maria are good friends and were chatting constantly. Barbara came over
to complain about her cards threating to play the next J6o. Maria
also said she was unsure of where she is on the womens all time money
list.
She is a good player and also finished in the money in holdem, I doubt
that her win was any more fishy than any other. Any deal was unlikely
to have included more than a few players, I think Tom Mcevoy was also
at the final table, got to be hard to buy him off.
Jim Tolliver
Lee Jones
In article <5le7tm$d...@panix2.panix.com>,
Kim "Chapeaux" Scheinberg <ik...@panix.com> wrote:
>It's deeper than this. You know, it's no secret that there is an ongoing
>competition of 'Highest Women Money Earners'. I have no idea what being at
>the top affords you. For Linda Johnson, it's probably not a byline in Card
>Player. But I'll also wager, if a deal was made that Marie would join the
>small ranks of women who've won titles, it won't be earning *her* a column
>in CP either
A few thoughts on the subject:
1. There are a set of people to whom the value of the title itself is
is what they could get for the gold in the bracelet. There are a set of
people to whom the title has an intangible value. I don't really understand
the first set of people, as I fancy myself a member of the second set.
I'm sure they don't understand me. What I can't imagine is somebody who
would value the title, but would be willing to buy it for money. That is
some third set that is *completely* foreign to me.
2. People have been saying that there's a difference between (e.g.) golf and
poker because the poker tournaments are self-funded and the golf tournaments
are funded by corporate sponsors. The point being that the poker pro's
somehow ought to have more say over how the money is split up at the end
because it's "their" money. I have considered this argument carefully, and
have decided it's specious. When you get down to the final few players
in a golf tournament, the remaining prize money is *theirs*. Where it
came from is immaterial - from AT&T or the other players. If Dan
Harrington and Huck Seed can ethically make a deal, then I think Tiger
Woods and Greg Norman can too.
3. That Binion's is unwilling to publish the real money distribution is of
real concern. They have said, I believe, that doing so would harm their
reputation. This is the most obvious proof that these deals harm
poker's image. Binion's themselves know that those deals harm poker's
image, and so they try to keep them under wraps as much as possible. If
they're no big deal, then why does Binion's keep 'em a secret? I always
get nervous when somebody tells me "We're not telling you what's going on,
but don't worry - it's fine."
4. I don't know when Ron Stanley got the insanely stupid nickname "Carolina
Express". That said, I hope he wins the whole megillah.
Regards, Lee
--
Lee Jones | "I realized that I had just asked *Bruce* *Springsteen*
le...@sgi.com | if he knew 'Gloria'."
415-933-3356 | -Dave Barry, as a Rock Bottom Remainder
John M. Reed
4. I don't know when Ron Stanley got the insanely stupid nickname "Carolina
Express". That said, I hope he wins the whole megillah.
He seems to make sure it's published every time his name is published.
I am guessing he is trying to build a rep on the name so he can market
himself better to the coming corporate sponsors.
But my money is on Stu "The Comeback Kid" Ungar. Longshot pick - Mel Judah.
JR.
--
JR (John Reed)
j...@netcom.com
http://www.nowhere.net/~jrx
Gene Wilson
Stephen H. Landrum <slan...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<337A05...@pacbell.net>...
That match was under extremely unfavorable conditions for a human player.
Almost all big matches in chess are played three games a week! This one IBM
insisted on six games in eight days. C'mon IBM, you may be able to fool the
rest of the world, but us chess players _know_ it was just a farce done for
publicity.
Gene
USCF member
Paul R. Pudaite
In article <5leilu$8...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, le...@diver.asd.sgi.com (Lee
Jones) wrote:
> 1. There are a set of people to whom the value of the title itself is
> is what they could get for the gold in the bracelet. There are a set of
> people to whom the title has an intangible value. I don't really
understand
> the first set of people, as I fancy myself a member of the second set.
> I'm sure they don't understand me. What I can't imagine is somebody who
> would value the title, but would be willing to buy it for money. That is
> some third set that is *completely* foreign to me.
I understand the sentiment, but perhaps due to having a more nefarious
mind than Lee, I can imagine someone valuing the title for more than the
gold in the bracelet, yet still willing to pay money for it. Suppose,
for example, that you could use the status to promote sales of a book.
Or to build a juicy home game.
> 2. People have been saying that there's a difference between (e.g.) golf and
> poker because the poker tournaments are self-funded and the golf
tournaments
> are funded by corporate sponsors. The point being that the poker pro's
> somehow ought to have more say over how the money is split up at the end
> because it's "their" money. I have considered this argument carefully, and
> have decided it's specious. When you get down to the final few players
> in a golf tournament, the remaining prize money is *theirs*. Where it
> came from is immaterial - from AT&T or the other players. If Dan
> Harrington and Huck Seed can ethically make a deal, then I think Tiger
> Woods and Greg Norman can too.
Carefully but not correctly. Heh.
The source of the money does matter. In fact, it is precisely what
matters. It is precisely whether or not the parties that contribute the
prize pool condone deals that determines (sometimes explicitly, but if
not, then implicitly) whether or not deals are ethical.
The sponsors of golf tournaments don't want deals, therefore, no golf
deals. From what I've heard, it seems like they have explicit contracts
forbidding deals. Thus Tiger Woods and Greg Norman making a deal would
be unethical, and quite possibly illegal.
Also note that sponsoring a tournament (including player funding) is
completely voluntary. If the players do not adhere to the desires of
the sponsors, the sponsors are free to discontinue further sponsorship.
Even if there are no explicit rules, it is quite clear that current golf
tourney sponsors would strongly consider withdrawing sponsorship if a
deal-making scandal arose.
But in terms of self-funded poker tournaments, the funding participants
have spoken quite clearly. They want deals. And if you don't like it,
you have complete freedom to choose not to play.
Paul R. Pudaite
pud...@pipeline.com
Lee Jones
In article <pudaite-1505...@ip110.lansing.mi.pub-ip.psi.net>,
Paul R. Pudaite <pud...@pipeline.com> wrote:
[Paul reviews my argument, and says]
>Carefully but not correctly. Heh.
>
>The source of the money does matter. In fact, it is precisely what
>matters. It is precisely whether or not the parties that contribute the
>prize pool condone deals that determines (sometimes explicitly, but if
>not, then implicitly) whether or not deals are ethical.
>
>The sponsors of golf tournaments don't want deals, therefore, no golf
>deals. From what I've heard, it seems like they have explicit contracts
>forbidding deals. Thus Tiger Woods and Greg Norman making a deal would
>be unethical, and quite possibly illegal.
Hmmmm. Paul's right, and I'm wrong. Then I guess the following is true:
As long as players want to make deals, and do so, there will be no
corporate sponsorship. I can't imagine any big sponsor that would want its
name associated with a tournament in which such deal-making takes place (as
Paul astutely points out wrt golf). It's kind of unfortunate, because if
the players were willing to forego the deals, they could probably (with time
patience, and a good PR machine) get to a point where there was big
corporate sponsorship and the bucks that go along with it.
Regards, Lee
--
Lee Jones | "Born at the instant The church bells chime,
le...@sgi.com | And the whole world whispering Born at the right time."
415-933-3356 | -Paul Simon
Dan Kimberg
Lee Jones (le...@diver.asd.sgi.com) wrote:
: What I can't imagine is somebody who
: some third set that is *completely* foreign to me.
In the Stern case, wasn't the allegation that Max did the deal-making
without his wife's knowledge? In which case it would make a little
more sense, as a husband's misguided attempt to please his wife, or
something like that.
One more way to make sense of it: recognizing that the outcome of any
final table is dominated by luck, and recognizing that you may never
make it back to any final table, the value of a bracelet bought in
this way shouldn't be much less than one awarded by almost random
chance. In either case, it's just a token of the fact that you were
good enough (or lucky enough) to be right there at the end. That is,
a purchased bracelet ought to have about as much personal value as an
earned won (I think this is a bogus argument, but I can imagine
someone thinking this way, and I have to assume Stern wouldn't have
done it if he thought she was likely to make many more final table
appearances).
: If Dan
: Harrington and Huck Seed can ethically make a deal, then I think Tiger
: Woods and Greg Norman can too.
Even if it were legal, it's my guess golfers would be unlikely to make
a deal in this position anyway. Here are the rough payouts from this
year's Masters:
Woods $486k
Kite $292k
Tolles $184k
Watson $130k
Obviously there was no need to deal this year, since Woods ran away
with it, but suppose Woods and Kite had been the final pairing,
everyone else had shot in the 80's, and they'd come up to the 18th tee
tied. Why deal? The difference between 1st and 2nd place is only
about $200k. While I'm sure this is getting close to an amount of
money that either golfer would stoop over to pick up, neither would be
so anxious about this tiny bit of variance as to have to consider
making a deal. Among top golfers, there just isn't enough of a gap in
prize money at any of these tournaments for them to get really anxious
about the variance. And there are many more high-paying tournaments
than in poker, which also reduces the error variance somewhat.
Furthermore, top golfers probably earn enough money from endorsements
and such to make the value of winning titles extremely high.
Interestingly, you can imagine more of a need to deal if neither
competitor is as rich as Woods or Norman. But golfers to whom the
prize money is a huge deal have even greater reasons to want to win
the title, namely their exemption status and other special
invitations. It's hard to imagine working a deal that included this
equitably.
Poker players, on the other hand, don't have their salaries
supplemented by endorsement money, and as far as I can tell, in most
cases the prize money can really make a difference in their lives,
bankrolls, etc. There aren't all that many big tournaments, and the
title has little intrinsic value. So most poker players probably
could do without that last bit of variance once they're at the final
table.
Okay, the relevance of this is that if golfers seem like nice folks
because they don't seem to make deals, it's probably just because
they're mostly too rich to care. Between corporate sponsorships,
endorsements, and all the other ways in which the general public's
money gets funneled into the pockets of top golfers, they really have
no reason to worry about $200k worth of variance. Poker players don't
have that luxury.
On the other hand, while I'm here, I wonder if there could be a
reasonable exemption system in poker that would create medium-term
incentive for winning titles. Graduated entry fees? Something like
that might reduce the inventive for deal-making, in that the title
would have intrinsic value that wouldn't be easy to translate into
cash. But it would take some coordination, and sponsorship would
probably have to come first. I've actually worked out a truly
wonderful system that would solve all the problems with tournament
poker, but unfortunately it's too large to fit on this internet.
dan
Mark Rafn
Lee Jones sez:
>>The point being that the poker pros somehow ought to have more say
>>over how the money is split up at the end because it's "their" money.
>>I have considered this argument carefully, and have decided it's
>>specious. When you get down to the final few players
>>in a golf tournament, the remaining prize money is *theirs*. Where it
>>Woods and Greg Norman can too.
Paul R. Pudaite rebuts:
>The sponsors of golf tournaments don't want deals, therefore, no golf
>deals. From what I've heard, it seems like they have explicit contracts
>forbidding deals. Thus Tiger Woods and Greg Norman making a deal would
>be unethical, and quite possibly illegal.
Nope, Lee is right (ethically, that is. The legal contracts that exist
in golf and not poker makes it impossible to compare the games on that
level). AT&T put up the prize money (in exchange for ugly banners) for
some part of a golf payout. Players, including those that have
busted before the final table, put up the prize money (in exchange for a
chance to play). So all players who started the tourney, not just the
final few survivors, should have the same right that AT&T has to ensure
that the payout of the money they contributed is distributed according
to the original (verbal or otherwise) agreement.
If your argument is the legalistic one that AT&T is powerful enough that
the threat of not sponsoring is sufficient to prevent dealmaking (by
contract or threat), that's fine.
Of course the legalistic argument doesn't shed any light on the
issue of whether smaller sponsors (i.e. players, including busted ones)
should have similar expectations of honest publication of what's done
with their money.
This brings up an interesting point. Is there a contract signed when
you pay your $10K to sponsor and play in the big dance? Does it specify
payouts? If there's no contract, can advertising of payouts be
construed to be an implied contract that your $10K is going to get
distributed in a certain way?
I wonder if a player left out of a deal (presumably due to being
busted out) could sue Binions for not adhering to the (written in
advertisements, if not specifically contracted) agreement about prize
distribution. It seems like a powerful argument that everyone who
ponied up the $10K gets some prestige value from participating in a
tourney with a $1M top payout. If it can be proved (by subpoenaing of
the IRS forms) that the payout wasn't $1M to the winner, then the value
of participation was reduced.
--
Mark Rafn da...@halcyon.com <http://www.halcyon.com/dagon/> !G
Lee Jones
>This brings up an interesting point. Is there a contract signed when
>you pay your $10K to sponsor and play in the big dance? Does it specify
>payouts? If there's no contract, can advertising of payouts be
>construed to be an implied contract that your $10K is going to get
>distributed in a certain way?
Heh. Now I'm not so sure I was wrong. I've never been in the big dance,
so I don't know what, if anything, participants sign. But it might not be
a big legal stretch for a judge to decide that Binion's and the participants
had a contract, the gist of which is the (published) payout schedule, and
any deviation from that constitutes a breach, even if the plaintiff had
busted out in the meantime.
russell rosenblum
> 2. People have been saying that there's a difference between (e.g.) golf and
> poker because the poker tournaments are self-funded and the golf
tournaments
> are funded by corporate sponsors. The point being that the poker pro's
> somehow ought to have more say over how the money is split up at the end
> because it's "their" money. I have considered this argument carefully, and
> have decided it's specious. When you get down to the final few players
> in a golf tournament, the remaining prize money is *theirs*. Where it
> came from is immaterial - from AT&T or the other players. If Dan
> Harrington and Huck Seed can ethically make a deal, then I think Tiger
> Woods and Greg Norman can too.
I disagree with your point. In the case of the golf tournament someone
else, in your example AT&T is effectivly paying for performance. For the
fee they are paying, they are entitled to see a tournament winner, and pay
him (or her) as they see fit subject to a predetermined payout schedule.
In the case of a poker tournament nobody is paying this "fee for service"
so nobody is really "entitled" to anything. Also in golf sponsers are
paying a fee for service. Nike pays Tiger a hell of a lot of money to
(amongst other things) be a competitive golfer. The money he wins is not
nearly as relavent as being "the winner". Even if deals were allowed in
PGA golf (I assume they are not), I am quite certain that Tiger would
still not be able to make one because Nike would not allow it in their
contract.
Example: If you and I were playing golf for $50 (fat chance I am really
awful), and five friends choose to watch us, there is nothing that stops
us from skipping the eighteenth, calling it a draw and splitting up the
money. If that disappoints our five friends, that is irrelevant. If our
five friends each put up the money to watch us play, it would be
innappropriate (and probably illegal) to skip the eighteenth and split the
money, becasue those five people have "paid us" to provide a service. In
this case 18 holes of "COMPETITIVE" golf. If we do not provide this
service they are entitled to a refund of their money.
> 3. That Binion's is unwilling to publish the real money distribution is of
> real concern. They have said, I believe, that doing so would harm their
> reputation. This is the most obvious proof that these deals harm
> poker's image. Binion's themselves know that those deals harm poker's
> image, and so they try to keep them under wraps as much as possible. If
> they're no big deal, then why does Binion's keep 'em a secret? I always
> get nervous when somebody tells me "We're not telling you what's going on,
> but don't worry - it's fine."
Yeah, well its kinda hard to disagree with this. I think Binions should
publish "official results" but deal results should be available to anyone
who wants them.
I still think a flater prize distribution would solve both of these
problems. I know the PR value of having a "million dollar first prize"
would be lost, but wouldn't there be pretty good pr value in saying "over
$3,000,000 to be awarded in 1 event." At this point they could probably
gaurantee $2.5 mill and not worry that they would have a hard time getting
250 people to enter anyway.
Paul R. Pudaite
In article <01bc618d$549894e0$692174cf@mike>, "Marty Frasca"
<mb...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Guys, I know nothing about tournament play, let alone big buck tournaments.
> But, I think there is something all of you are missing. IMO, it's not the
> deal making per se. It's the *perception* that deal making creates,
> something akin to politicians making deals behind closed doors. We
> Americans have been raised with the mentality of "May the best man win."
> The *peception* is that deal making takes away from the spirit of honest
> competition.
>
> Just an opinion from an outsider who is not as close to the action.
I don't think we've all overlooked the problem of how deals are
perceived, we just hadn't gotten around to discussing it this time
around. But the specific way Marty has expressed this is pretty
interesting.
The typical deal, at least in principle, doesn't take away from the
spirit of honest competition. It just reduces the stakes to a level the
participants find bearable. The prize disparity in the "nominal" pay
table is imposed by the host, who wants a top heavy payout in order to
publicize how lucrative the tourney is.
But dealing for the title does go directly against Marty's principle of
honest competition.
Paul
Michael Maurer
kim...@universe.digex.net (Dan Kimberg) writes:
> I've actually worked out a truly
> wonderful system that would solve all the problems with tournament
> poker, but unfortunately it's too large to fit on this internet.
Outstanding!
--
Michael Maurer http://www-star.stanford.edu/~maurer
tbill
Lee Jones wrote:
>
> In article <5lfn6n$t99$1...@halcyon.com>, Mark Rafn <da...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
> >This brings up an interesting point. Is there a contract signed when
> >you pay your $10K to sponsor and play in the big dance? Does it specify
> >payouts? If there's no contract, can advertising of payouts be
> >construed to be an implied contract that your $10K is going to get
> >distributed in a certain way?
Let's get real. There is no way anyone can prevent me giving you money
or you giving me money. If I'm head up with you in a winner take all
tournament, for example, stacks are equal, blinds are huge, you're not
an idiot, then rather play the luck game I'm going to say ' Let's split
it'. I don't care what contract was signed in blood, there is no way
anyone can keep me from giving you half the purse or you doing the
same. Q.E.D.
TBill
***************************************************************************************
Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.
***************************************************************************************
Dan Kimberg
Paul R. Pudaite (pud...@pipeline.com) wrote:
: The typical deal, at least in principle, doesn't take away from the
: spirit of honest competition. It just reduces the stakes to a level the
: participants find bearable.
Is this a major difference between big tournaments and small
tournaments? I've never played in any large events (more than about a
$60 buy-in), but in all the small tournaments I've played, the
deal-making effectively ended the event before anyone had all the
chips. In essence, they reduced the stakes to zero.
My impression was that in many cases a similar thing happens in the
big tournaments -- they're not just reducing the stakes to something
comfortable, they're reducing them to something none of the active
participants feel all that strongly about. Even if the title isn't
included in the deal, I get the impression the endgame is at least
sometimes a battle between two people neither of whom really cares
much about the trophy (or bracelet).
dan
Mark Rafn
Steve Brecher <st...@brecher.reno.nv.us> wrote:
>da...@halcyon.com (Mark Rafn) wrote:
>> So all players who started the [poker] tourney, not just the
>> final few survivors, should have the same right that AT&T [w/r golf]
>> has to ensure that the payout of the money they contributed is
>> distributed according to the original (verbal or otherwise) agreement.
>Does the anti-deal argument really come down to diminishment of the
>presige value of the losers' buy-ins?
Not the entire argument. However, the comparison of why deals in other
competitions are unethical (and perhaps illegal) but deals in poker are
just fine and dandy _does_ include the idea of sponsor's rights.
I still think a more compelling ethical argument (which holds no legal
weight) is that when the actual payouts are different to what's
published, then SOMEBODY is being defrauded. This isn't acceptible in
my worldview, and my personal compromise is that I will freely divulge
details of any deal in which I am involved.
>If that's the alleged harm which is a basis for objection by the losers,
>then if the deal is kept secret there is no loss of prestige, hence no
>harm. Thus this is an argument not against deals, but against publicizing
>them. And it applies only to the final WSOP event, not to other WSOP
>events nor to most poker tournaments.
Fair enough. This argument applies to golf as well - as long as the
deals are kept secret, there's no harm to AT&T or anyone, right? For
all I know, this is happenning routinely.
Of course, in poker, deals are NOT kept secret, but only quiet. Binion's
participates by having an official presence at dealmaking and adjusts tax
records based on deals. Most anyone who pays attention knows there was
a deal struck (although we have only speculation as to the actual details,
leaving the game open to allegations of title-purchases).
I have to agree with you that if deals were totally secret, like they
are in other sports, that we would not be having this discussion. Since
they aren't (and can't be if the deals are official and reported to the
IRS) they should be published completely.
Charles Haynes
>I still think a more compelling ethical argument (which holds no legal
>weight) is that when the actual payouts are different to what's
>published, then SOMEBODY is being defrauded.
How so? Any player can trivially guarantee that their actual payout is
what was published simply by never agreeing to a deal. I would only
agree to a deal when I thought it was likely to result in an
improvement over the result I'd get if I declined the deal. That's why
I say deal making is one of the final table skills a good tournament
poker player needs to have. To be able to recognize when a deal gives
them the best of it.
>This isn't acceptible in my worldview, and my personal compromise is
>that I will freely divulge details of any deal in which I am
>involved.
I believe this is a separate issue, and I agree with your position.
-- Charles
russell rosenblum
>
> Poker players are 'edge' players. And it should be obvious that when
> heads up in a hand with a player that you have a deal with ... and neither
> one of you is in the money yet, not putting your deal-partner all-in is
> the smart move.
>
> Chris K.
Wait a second, this is not the same thing. I have not seen anyone on this
group defend two (or more) people making a deal ahead of time to gang up
on a third. That would be collusion, palin and simple. That is one of the
reasons that Binions does monitor all deals. From what I understand all
remaining players must agree before any deal will be allowed. I suppose
you could agree to allow two other people split whatever they get and not
include you, but it would be hard to believe.
Kevlahan
> OK. All the people who object to deals and who started the final WSOP
> event raise their hands. Fine. Now all the people who don't object and
> who started the event raise their hands. Good; thanks.
Although this is *cute*, it is irrelevent. And remeniscent of the times
when a dealer miscalls a hand and a folded players point out the mistake.
Very often I hear from the [now] losing player that it was none of my
business because I wasn't in the hand to the showdown. Even though my pot
equity has been reduced to zero, my interest in the hand has remained the
same.
When I buy into a tournament event, I expect equal equity and odds that
are commensurate with my ability.
I claim that people who make deals decrease their odds of winning by
increasing my odds of winning. And while it is true that an individuals
equity is also decreased when making a deal, the combined total equity of
the people in-the-deal remains the same. So I have lost something when
such deals are made.
Matt Treasure
tbill wrote:
> Let's get real. There is no way anyone can prevent me giving you money
> or you giving me money. If I'm head up with you in a winner take all
> tournament, for example, stacks are equal, blinds are huge, you're not
> an idiot, then rather play the luck game I'm going to say ' Let's split
> it'. I don't care what contract was signed in blood, there is no way
> anyone can keep me from giving you half the purse or you doing the
> same. Q.E.D.
>
> TBill
>
It seems to me that deal making will always be part of
tournament poker. So why not make a real part of the game? Instead
of back room deals , how about public deals? For example , Three
Players left in a tournament agree to to negotiate a deal. This deal and
the disscussion about the deal is made in full view of all spectators
and could just as much fun to watch as the actual final table action.
Since poker is all about money anyway this could legitmize the idea
of making deals. If tournment directors made this part of the rules
then all the secretive and suspcious stuff would be gone.
Matt Treasure
VC61
I finished first in a small weekly tournament recently and the guy I was
head up against wanted (in view of everyone at the rail) to make a deal.
First place paid $1100 and 2nd paid $639 so he wanted to split for
$874.50, a difference to the eventual winner of $225.50. I had the chip
lead by about 2 to 1l at the time so I turned him down. He kept giving me
shots about being cheap, etc. and wouldn't let it go, even after we both
cashed in. Interestingly I (the "cheap" one) toked the dealers $100 ...
close to 10%. He toked them $30 ... less than 5%.
Winning any tournament means more to me for the rush than for the money.
I suggest that the "deal makers" are money players, not poker players.
I'd like to hear other opinions.
Bill Alan
Marty Frasca
Matt Treasure <mtre...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<337E0B...@mail.idt.net>...
> tbill wrote:
>
> It seems to me that deal making will always be part of
> tournament poker. So why not make a real part of the game? Instead
> of back room deals , how about public deals? For example , Three
> Players left in a tournament agree to to negotiate a deal. This deal and
> the disscussion about the deal is made in full view of all spectators
> and could just as much fun to watch as the actual final table action.
> Since poker is all about money anyway this could legitmize the idea
> of making deals. If tournment directors made this part of the rules
> then all the secretive and suspcious stuff would be gone.
Another good aspect of this is that it will attract alot of yuppies to the
game. Their only problem will be making it to the final table to make a
deal.
Marty
tbill
Jim Maac wrote:but the Champ would get the lion's share.So, when Bobby
Baldwin won in
> 1978, it was split 70,20, & 10. Binion's WSOP continues to this day with
> top heavy payouts. Since the players are contributing their own money, you
> can't blaim them for wanting to spilt when the blinds and/or limits are
> out of line with the money on the table, and play has been relagated to a
> crap shoot.
Indeed, but does this not suggest another possible course of action to
remove the necessity of making a deal? How about keep the blinds a
little lower so it DOESN'T become a crap shoot? Then the player who
thinks he is a better player would want to go for the whole enchalada.
(Management would have to weigh the benefit of getting the thing over
with against the benefit of having the title mean something. I
personally think that there is a benefit to management in having a long,
knock down, drag out fight for the crown. The longer it goes, the more
press it generates, the more stories to tell, the more it means to win,
etc)
However, when the money is split 40,20,10 making a deal
> becomes mandatory, with any rational poker player, because of the money
> difference between 1,2 & 3 places. Now, if Mr. Jack Benion, would change
> the payout like he has done defacto in the $10,000, with its $1,000,000
> top, since 1991, and fatting up the other payout places to make for a less
> top heavy prize pool,ie 25,20,15, I feel he could , and should eliminate
> all deals.
Lets get clear on this point. Jack BINION is powerless to stop deals.
He can pay out the money anyway he wants to, but no one can stop the
players from re distributing the money later according to a pre arranged
deal.
TBill
P.S. I'm using Netscape 3 & just noticed that my lines are running
longer than the orriginal poster. Does anyone have a problem reading
this? If you do, let me know, along with how to shorten them. I'm sure
it can be done, I just don't know how at the moment.
tbill
VC61 wrote:
>
> I finished first in a small weekly tournament recently and the guy I was
> head up against wanted (in view of everyone at the rail) to make a deal.
> First place paid $1100 and 2nd paid $639 so he wanted to split for
> $874.50, a difference to the eventual winner of $225.50. I had the chip
> lead by about 2 to 1l at the time so I turned him down. He kept giving me
> shots about being cheap, etc. and wouldn't let it go, even after we both
> cashed in.
He was trying to get you to make a bad deal, then needling you to throw
you off your
game. Both are bad behavior. In my book, if you want a deal, offer a
reasonably fair
one or play on. You might want to give yourself a slight edge for
negociating purposes, but the one he was offering was not worth
considering. You might try telling him "either you think I'm really
stupid enough to go for that deal, or you are
pretty stupid for offering it". If he mentions it again, with the
'cheap' angle, try
'Well, normally I would, but I figure there is no way a stupid, ignorant
SOB like you
can win a tournament!" That might put him on tilt! Then "What!? Give
you money?? I'd
rather burn it!"
Interestingly I (the "cheap" one) toked the dealers $100 ...
> close to 10%. He toked them $30 ... less than 5%.
You were feeling generous. I hope you didn't do it just to show the
jerk up..
>
> Winning any tournament means more to me for the rush than for the money.
> I suggest that the "deal makers" are money players, not poker players.
I object to that characterization. I'm a poker player and I'm there for
the money, not
the rush. Someone, (not me) could say that you are not a poker player,
just a gambler, a thrill seeker, because the money is not important to
you, and money is the object of poker. I don't have the luxury of
treating poker just as a fun game. I'm
a pro who uses the money to pay bills, altho it is not my sole source of
income.
We are both poker players, just approach it differently.
>
TBill
***************************************************************************************
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
***************************************************************************************
tbill
> When I buy into a tournament event, I expect equal equity and odds that
> are commensurate with my ability.
>
> I claim that people who make deals decrease their odds of winning by
> increasing my odds of winning.
So, you want other to make deals, right? ( I don't agree with the
premise tho)
And while it is true that an individuals
> equity is also decreased when making a deal, the combined total equity of
> the people in-the-deal remains the same.
OK...
So I have lost something when
> such deals are made.
?????????????? HOw?
>
> Poker players are 'edge' players. And it should be obvious that when
> heads up in a hand with a player that you have a deal with ... and neither
> one of you is in the money yet, not putting your deal-partner all-in is
> the smart move.
Here you have a good point, but even then it depends on the payout and
at what
point in the tournament you are. Say IF I'm the chip leader, you are
the chip dog, we
are already into the money, 2nd place guy is not a good player, and we
are partners, I could keep you alive long enough for me to finish 2nd
place off, and we would take
1st and 2nd money. However, that's a lot of ifs. Sometimes it may pay
for you to dump
your chips into my stack so I can be the chip leader (an advantage) so I
can pound the
short stacks.
TBill
***************************************************************************************
Puritanism: That haunting fear that someone, somewhere is happy (or
making a deal).
***************************************************************************************>
> Chris K.
tbill
Lee Jones wrote:
>
> In article <pudaite-1505...@ip110.lansing.mi.pub-ip.psi.net>,
> Paul R. Pudaite <pud...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> [Paul reviews my argument, and says]
>
> >Carefully but not correctly. Heh.
> >
> >The source of the money does matter. In fact, it is precisely what
> >matters. It is precisely whether or not the parties that contribute the
> >prize pool condone deals that determines (sometimes explicitly, but if
> >not, then implicitly) whether or not deals are ethical.
> >
> >deals. From what I've heard, it seems like they have explicit contracts
> >forbidding deals. Thus Tiger Woods and Greg Norman making a deal would
> >be unethical, and quite possibly illegal.
>
> As long as players want to make deals, and do so, there will be no
> corporate sponsorship.
This does not follow. If a corportate sponsor wants to put up the
money, and specified no deals, I would be first in line to sign the
contract. If you are going to put up a significant amount of money,
I'll play by your rules, whatever they are.
TBill
I can't imagine any big sponsor that would want its
> name associated with a tournament in which such deal-making takes place (as
> Paul astutely points out wrt golf). It's kind of unfortunate, because if
> the players were willing to forego the deals, they could probably (with time
> patience, and a good PR machine) get to a point where there was big
> corporate sponsorship and the bucks that go along with it.
>
jk...@snet.net
On 1997-05-18 tb...@startext.net said:
>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
>I personally think that there is a benefit to
>management in having a long, knock down, drag out fight for the
>crown. The longer it goes, the more press it generates, the more
>stories to tell, the more it means to win, etc
Hum, this would give an advantage to good players. Poorer players would not
do as well and thusly might stop playing said tournaments.
Never underestimate the element of luck.
J. Koss (jk...@snet.net)
--: enjoy it -- all else follows
Net-Tamer V 1.08 - Test Drive
Dave Horwitz
Paul R. Pudaite (pud...@pipeline.com) wrote:
: The sponsors of golf tournaments don't want deals, therefore, no golf
: deals. From what I've heard, it seems like they have explicit contracts
: forbidding deals. Thus Tiger Woods and Greg Norman making a deal would
: be unethical, and quite possibly illegal.
: Also note that sponsoring a tournament (including player funding) is
: completely voluntary. If the players do not adhere to the desires of
: the sponsors, the sponsors are free to discontinue further sponsorship.
: Even if there are no explicit rules, it is quite clear that current golf
: tourney sponsors would strongly consider withdrawing sponsorship if a
: deal-making scandal arose.
There *are* explicit rules. Everyone seems to have overlooked the regulatory
body called the PGA. Some tournaments have a few spots reserved for the
sponsor to pick the players but for the most part if you don't have your
PGA tour card you don't play. Cut a deal, get caught, you lose your card
(and *then* probably lose your coporate contracts).
-Quick
tbill
jk...@snet.net wrote:
>
> On 1997-05-18 tb...@startext.net said:
> >Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
> >I personally think that there is a benefit to
> >management in having a long, knock down, drag out fight for the
> >crown. The longer it goes, the more press it generates, the more
> >stories to tell, the more it means to win, etc
>
> Hum, this would give an advantage to good players. Poorer players would not
> do as well and thusly might stop playing said tournaments.
>
really is the best, or close to it! So the title means something! Get
it?
And, BTW, the poorer player don't realize they have no chance. That's
why they are poor er players.
TBill
> Never underestimate the element of luck.
There's entirely too much of it floating around, IMHO.
TBill
LetUsAudit
I dont make deals in tournaments ever! It is principal with me. If I am
hearing the story correct, I would feel like a fraud if I bought the
bracelet to tell everyone that I had one it when in fact I had only made
it to the final table. The true Champion is Adam roberts who took his
cash and quietly went his merry way. Adam knew that those who truly know
have no reason to show. Let Maria have her bracelet. She is a fraud and
her peers know it. IF THE STORY I HEARD FROM ADAM IS CORRECT.
She will never get there again, the poker gods will not allow it.
there should be no deals. EVER. tournaments should outlaw them. AMEN.
jk...@snet.net
On 1997-05-19 tb...@startext.net said:
>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
>That's the whole point! To have a tournament where the guy who wins
>really is the best, or close to it! So the title means something!
>Get it?
Real pro's don't give a hoot about titles.
Get it?
If you drive the fish away, you eventualy drive the real pro's away as it
has become a gamble with no overlay.
J. Koss (jk...@snet.net)
--: crossbreeding produces mutation
Ramsey
In article <5li70g$b...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Kevlahan <akev...@IDT.NET>
writes
>
>Poker players are 'edge' players. And it should be obvious that when
>heads up in a hand with a player that you have a deal with ... and neither
>one of you is in the money yet, not putting your deal-partner all-in is
>the smart move.
>
In my view the opposite is true. The small stack should 'pass' their
chips to the large stack. Until you are in the money a small stack is
worth much less than their nominal value.
--
Ramsey
sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk
JLewis7045
This will be the death of all attempts to make the games resoectable.
If you disagree, thinlk of pro football earl 50's, and what would have
happened
if everyone agreed to split the league title's.