Poker Reporting Monopolies

[Lynbrook 0]

I read how Daniel was upset that cardplayer and Bluff bought exclusive rights to the WPT and WSOP. I couldn't agree more. All his reasons why it's bad for poker are spot on, but he left out a few. 1) Jobs. Obviously many people will lose their jobs because of this, but it also means that these jobs will probably pay less than they already do. If 1,000 people are fighting for 5 jobs, they can pay as little as they want. 2) Accuracy. When I worked for cardplayer during the 2006 WSOP, twice my "boss" (I use the quotes because calling this person a boss makes me laugh, he was so incompitent) told me to lie. Once during the first day of training during the WSOP TOC. Mike Matusow cursed and the dealer was about to call the floor. Matusow talked his way out of the penalty and asked the other players if he cursed or not. He did. But all the players backed him up (the curse was not mean spirited at all) including Hellmuth and the dealer backed off. When I went to write it, my "boss" said since he's Matusow's agent as well as John D'Agistino that we should never write anything remotely negative about them.Then when Clonie Gowen had $6,000 chips in a later tournament, she busted a guy who had 2K. We had to always promote Full-Tilt so he told me to write she doubled up. I told him she didn't double up. He told me just to write it anyways. I told him no. Then I said I'd write Clonie Gowen a member of Full-Tilt just busted another player and has added to her chip lead. He agreed. But with no other competiton, no one will know but the players involved in the hand. And we the poker fans will miss out on the truth. Great blog.

[KenP 0]

I'll start with a disclaimer: I blog for a site owned by PokerNews, http://pokerworks.com/blogs/jkprevo/My opinion, FWIF, is that we've not compromised our coverage or our integrity in garnering exclusive rights. We played the game by the rules provided. I have no controls from the company on what I can or cannot say. From the start, that was made clear to me. I've a broad idea of the expense they've gone to to try to provide the best tournament coverage they can. The moneys spent to get exclusivity and for a large payroll are a lost leader. It is done to try to increase page views and strengthen the overall site. So, please don't include the PokerNew sites in your complaints. There was a bit of a brouhaha over this years WSOP between Tony G. and Cardplayer:http://tonyg.pokerworks.com/2007/06/cardpl...ng-from-me.htmlAnd, in fairness, you can move a couple of blogs up from there and see it was resolved amiabily. You do seem, from old posts, to be consistently grinding an axe against Cardplayer. That's certainly a right and I'm sure you're comfortable with what you espouse. But, business is business and many will shoot an angle to succeed. That extends across the media and shouldn't come as a shock. If you think poker is bad, go visit the political sites.The media isn't the goat for this one though. You can lay that at Harrahs feet. They monetized media coverage. It is their right. It isn't bettter or worse than a lot of their other decisions that Daniel and others -- including myself -- have riled against. People make good and bad decision in the business world every day that we have to live with.Daniel is also as media savvy as they come and has monetized that. That also benefits his readers and the poker business. He is a public person and gives up to get. At what point does the media, fan, casino exceed what can reasonably be expected from that? It does happen. And, the closer the final table or the more important the action, the more his space is invaded. It is a constant work around.We're all angle shooters. There's respectable angle shooting we try to pull off at every table. But, there is also that which goes beyond the bounds of propriety. The business of poker is no different from the game. I shoot an angle every time I post a referral link. I believe I do it in a forthright manner and have nothing to be ashamed of but I have a good friend (Felicia Lee) who disagrees strongly. I'm comfortable with my position and she is too.Whether it is the New York Times or poker media, there is a line between editorial and columnist formats and reporting. I agree that what you mention goes too far in graying the line. Occasionally, that is inadvertent. And, other times, it can be an egregious flouting of the guidelines. This happened everywhere and every day. It is unfortunate but very human. I am sure Daniel could detail various misrepresentations about his activities. Sadly, it is all part of the mix. And exclusive rights can magnify that. Just something to learn to live with at this point while working to improve it as Daniel does.Poker has grown exponentially. Just like the Internet bubble in the stock market, that attracts people who will seek a profit operating outside the norms. Time for all to understand the facts; but, neither can we paint with too broad a brush.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I read how Daniel was upset that cardplayer and Bluff bought exclusive rights to the WPT and WSOP. I couldn't agree more. All his reasons why it's bad for poker are spot on, but he left out a few. 1) Jobs. Obviously many people will lose their jobs because of this, but it also means that these jobs will probably pay less than they already do. If 1,000 people are fighting for 5 jobs, they can pay as little as they want. 2) Accuracy. When I worked for cardplayer during the 2006 WSOP, twice my "boss" (I use the quotes because calling this person a boss makes me laugh, he was so incompitent) told me to lie. Once during the first day of training during the WSOP TOC. Mike Matusow cursed and the dealer was about to call the floor. Matusow talked his way out of the penalty and asked the other players if he cursed or not. He did. But all the players backed him up (the curse was not mean spirited at all) including Hellmuth and the dealer backed off. When I went to write it, my "boss" said since he's Matusow's agent as well as John D'Agistino that we should never write anything remotely negative about them.Then when Clonie Gowen had $6,000 chips in a later tournament, she busted a guy who had 2K. We had to always promote Full-Tilt so he told me to write she doubled up. I told him she didn't double up. He told me just to write it anyways. I told him no. Then I said I'd write Clonie Gowen a member of Full-Tilt just busted another player and has added to her chip lead. He agreed. But with no other competiton, no one will know but the players involved in the hand. And we the poker fans will miss out on the truth. Great blog.

Self contradictory.I'm busy this AM, so see if you can find it for yourself.

[Lynbrook 0]

I'll start with a disclaimer: I blog for a site owned by PokerNews, http://pokerworks.com/blogs/jkprevo/My opinion, FWIF, is that we've not compromised our coverage or our integrity in garnering exclusive rights. We played the game by the rules provided. I have no controls from the company on what I can or cannot say. From the start, that was made clear to me. You do seem, from old posts, to be consistently grinding an axe against Cardplayer. That's certainly a right and I'm sure you're comfortable with what you espouse. But, business is business and many will shoot an angle to succeed. That extends across the media and shouldn't come as a shock. If you think poker is bad, go visit the political sites.The media isn't the goat for this one though. You can lay that at Harrahs feet. They monetized media coverage. It is their right. It isn't bettter or worse than a lot of their other decisions that Daniel and others -- including myself -- have riled against. Hey Ken. My point is when only one media outlet covers an event, it cant possibly be covered as thorough as if 10 outlets covered the same event. Stories will be missed, details can be washed under the carpet, and there is no sense of lets kill this because if you dont, you're still better than the guy who isn't here. And yes, I do not like cardplayer. I never made any bones about that. I don't know if they've improved since I left Vegas, but I do know that I saw very laughable mistakes in every magazine that I would get for free while playing at a casino. Just check the Clonie Gowen profile they wrote up at last years WSOP for a reference. Or check the HORSE story on Chip. They had two people coming in 4th place. That's not a typo, its a huge mistake. Reporters make mistakes. Editors find them. But if the reporter re-read his story, that mistake wouldn't be made. Every once in awhile I go to their site and almost always find a mistake on their reports. But the shulmans have no problem with this, because it doesn't negatively affect them. There's no competition. They bought it out. Just like Bluff did at the WSOP. I have nothing against Bluff...but I feel poker cant truly grow where it could with just one company covering these events live.I dont blame cardplayer or Bluff for this either. They did what they deemed a smart business decision (allbeit short sighted). I blame the WPT and Harras.

[KenP 0]

Well, I guess quantity brings a variety of views and that can be damaged with exclusivity.As I said, Harrahs made the decision to monetize the process with exclusive rights. What brought that about? I think it was because they saw LasVegasVegas.com create the firestorm of following the WSOP with cardcounts and info -- start to finish. He did it with his Dad as photographer and an unknown blogger named Paul McGuire. The hits on the site were massive. I'll admit I was on of those hitting the reload button that drove their pageviews through the roof. A lot of that info was shared info between reporters that shared and it appears that will not happen again.Frankly, I thought the one man coverage was superior to the following year's work by CardPlayer. Although, they did introduce interesting variation with video interviews that were a nice plus. I'll add that I don't know if Pauly could have provided the type of coverage he did two years in a row. But, the comparable says that quantity doesn't really provide the definative criteria.Pokernews didn't stint on the coverage. I think I'd put that lot up against any writing staff. I know none of the on a personal basis but I am aware of their credentials and they are impressive.I frankly would like to see coverage at the WSOP and now the WPT open up the coverage to give me more views and provide competition. I think the actions of WPTE and Harrahs is a selfish implementation of their brand from a short term profit angle. It would be better for the entire poker community where it to be liberal.Another reason that I think they've gone this route is to try to exert control of what is reported. I recall one critical view on Cardplayer that was only up for a bit. It appears it was pulled under pressure. Maybe it worked out that way in 2006. If you look at PokerNews coverage, you may have been as surprised as I was that they got the coverage. Although, it was backdoored through Bluff. They'd broke the extra million in chips that caused the state to investigate which certainly wasn't what Harrahs wanted. This year they pulled no punches when Harrahs backroom operation again showed inept policies and procedures in the registration and payout areas. Yes, you are right that controlled coverage is a negative. Hell, if you want to call it un-American, I'll drink to that. But, lets put on record that Pokernews didn't do anybody a disservice by covering the WSOP in the exclusive manner required. And, if they didn't have to pay to play, they might even be able to do a better job. But, that isn't an option and doesn't look like it will be one in the future.

[Lynbrook 0]

Well, I guess quantity brings a variety of views and that can be damaged with exclusivity.As I said, Harrahs made the decision to monetize the process with exclusive rights. What brought that about? I think it was because they saw LasVegasVegas.com create the firestorm of following the WSOP with cardcounts and info -- start to finish. He did it with his Dad as photographer and an unknown blogger named Paul McGuire. The hits on the site were massive. I'll admit I was on of those hitting the reload button that drove their pageviews through the roof. A lot of that info was shared info between reporters that shared and it appears that will not happen again.Frankly, I thought the one man coverage was superior to the following year's work by CardPlayer. Although, they did introduce interesting variation with video interviews that were a nice plus. I'll add that I don't know if Pauly could have provided the type of coverage he did two years in a row. But, the comparable says that quantity doesn't really provide the definative criteria.Pokernews didn't stint on the coverage. I think I'd put that lot up against any writing staff. I know none of the on a personal basis but I am aware of their credentials and they are impressive.I frankly would like to see coverage at the WSOP and now the WPT open up the coverage to give me more views and provide competition. I think the actions of WPTE and Harrahs is a selfish implementation of their brand from a short term profit angle. It would be better for the entire poker community where it to be liberal.Another reason that I think they've gone this route is to try to exert control of what is reported. I recall one critical view on Cardplayer that was only up for a bit. It appears it was pulled under pressure. Maybe it worked out that way in 2006. If you look at PokerNews coverage, you may have been as surprised as I was that they got the coverage. Although, it was backdoored through Bluff. They'd broke the extra million in chips that caused the state to investigate which certainly wasn't what Harrahs wanted. This year they pulled no punches when Harrahs backroom operation again showed inept policies and procedures in the registration and payout areas. Yes, you are right that controlled coverage is a negative. Hell, if you want to call it un-American, I'll drink to that. But, lets put on record that Pokernews didn't do anybody a disservice by covering the WSOP in the exclusive manner required. And, if they didn't have to pay to play, they might even be able to do a better job. But, that isn't an option and doesn't look like it will be one in the future.

I am pretty unaware of any poker reporting pre WSOP 2006. But it couldn't have been worse than the disaster of that summer. Speaking of pulling punches, there was a dealer strike during the WSOP that year. I know because I broke it. At least I think I was the first reporter to find out. We got in, saw no dealers and I asked one of the tournament directors what was going on. He gave me a detailed answer about the dealer strike. I then saw a dealer I had befriended and he invited me into the tent for an exclusive. I said I'd be right there but went to my 24 year old boss. He told me not to do anything and to sit and wait and do nothing. I was amazed as other poker outlets reported on the strike but we said nothing. Journalism 101. The reason??? We were bedded with Harras. Imagine ESPN not reporting on Pacman Jones, Tank Johnson, or the Buffalo Bills player that just got nearly paralyzed? Imagine ESPN not reporting on Bill Buckners error? This is how poker reporting rolls with monopolies. Or at least cardplayer in 2006.