MyTheory

I know that Caesar's is owned by Harrah's. I work for Harrah's. I also know that Binion's is NOT owned by Harrah's anymore. It was sold last year to a small corporation that took over the operations. That's why the final table isn't held there anymore, not to mention that Harrah's thought it was a "logistical nightmare" to move the final day there. As far as "why aren't other casinos having televised tournaments?" I can tell you that it would hardly be a conspiracy. None of the casinos here NEED to have a televised tournament to bring in revenues but, I'm sure they would welcome it. Ho

Greg Raymer is actually a patent attorney. It's one of the few actual types of law that you can "specialize" in. So much a specialty, in fact, it has it's own bar exam.

As far as other casinos are concerned...Here in Vegas, the WPT isn't locking up a complete market by having contracts with specifically MGM/Mirage Properties just as Harrah's isn't locking up the market by only having WSOP events at Harrah's properties (although Caesar's hosted the heads-up championship this year). The players can argue that in court but it will only really apply to other parts of the country, where the casinos/riverboats and the like are fewer and farther between. Here, you have far too many properties that are very very famous and are open venues for large tournaments albe

if they're holding the wpt event in an area with only one casino then it could be considered monopolizing but here in vegas the monopoly probably won't hold because we have so many casinos here. they might get into some kind of trouble for their apparent rules against casinos they have contracts with not "competing." We won't really know what is going to happen until they even decide whether to settle or to go to court. All anyone knows for sure is that Steve Lipscomb is an attorney who undoubtedly, with a team of other attorneys, drafted all the contracts before they were put out there to

I agree with you as it is very hard to determine the outcome of any lawsuit...Especially when there are so many little factors to be taken into account.

For the people who think the players have grounds for an anti-trust suit...you have no idea what you're talking about. You can only have anti-trust if it hinders competition but, since MGM/Mirage isn't the only major gaming corporation there can be no anti-trust. Just because MGM/Mirage signed an exclusive contract doesn't mean they're violating any anti-trust statute. For those of you who don't know, there CAN be "noncompetition"clauses in a contract. These clauses are not illegal and can be written into any contract and agreed upon by the signing party. As I said in my last thread and i

These seven players have absolutely no chance to win this case against the WPT. The civil suit they're filing because of the release or the anti-trust suit. The reason is simple...in order to have a suit, you have to have damages. In order to have damages you have to PROVE loss of some type. Since none of these players can prove that they would win money in these events they have no grounds for damages. Also, since participation in these tournaments is "at will" or "elective" they have no grounds for damages. They're not forced to play in these tournaments. It's a choice and because of