tournament of champions blog entry

[DeadMoneyCrasher 0]

Danile, your blog entry today was very well written. Coming from someone like yourself, it has to carry some weight within the poker community. Cheers!

[HarryDemetriou 0]

I just noticed that Phil Helmuth was in the list of players and suspected that he wasn't qualified and as such definitely resent him being allowed to participate. This is pure and simply because the rules have subsequently been altered to allow him (along with Doyle Brunson and Johnny Chan) to take part. The late additions may well be worthy inclusions in that they are big names and an increased TV draw (not to mention the winningmost players in wsop history) but to put it simply this is just not right and yet another slap in the face for players like myself and others who played in the circuit events without qualifying. It may well be a good idea to allow all previous champions of the main event (as well as any bracelet holder for that matter) to participate but this selective addition of players is just not on. They stipulated the criteria for qualifying at the start of the circuit events and this type of bending of the rules is totally unacceptable imo.I'm glad to see Daniel highlighting this but I too was under the impression that the only players would be the top 20 (plus ties) point earners from the circuit events along with the final table from this years event but why not also the top 20 point earners from all events collectively? (would have included me I hasten to add but thats not the point).Had I qualified for this event I personally would not have been available to play (they kept changing the dates for this tournament and announced the finalised date late) but take this as a personal insult.Makes me wonder why I went out of my way to play in two of these circuit events at great personal expense to myself only to be rewarded with a kick in the nuts.My opinion of the WSOP was never high to begin with after this years mistreatment at The Rio but amazingly they have found new ways to sink to new lows.I only wish I could mobilize enough players to boycott their events but am realistic enough to accept that this is unlikely to ever happen:-(

[GoldenTee 0]

Harry, is that really you? Me old mucka!

[HarryDemetriou 0]

Harry, is that really you? Me old mucka!

Don't know of any other Harry Demetriou's in the poker world.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I'm so glad you agree with me Harry. I realized I'd get a lot of flack for my opinions with people feeling like I'm "bitter" which isn't the case at akk. I was happy to finally see a level playing field for entry into the TOC after last year's insulting selection process that had a guy like John Juanda on the rail. In the end, it wasn't level at all. They went ahead and screwed up something that LOOKED like they finally had right. It's shameful.

[ddudley 0]

I'm so glad you agree with me Harry. I realized I'd get a lot of flack for my opinions with people feeling like I'm "bitter" which isn't the case at akk. I was happy to finally see a level playing field for entry into the TOC after last year's insulting selection process that had a guy like John Juanda on the rail. In the end, it wasn't level at all. They went ahead and screwed up something that LOOKED like they finally had right. It's shameful.

Daniel - Instead of complaining about the corporations ruining poker maybe you should be doing something to level the playing field? What have you done to help form a good poker players association? You have money, influence, friends in the right places, and an agent with insight from the golf world that, im sure, poker can learn from... If not you, who? If not now, when?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I'm so glad you agree with me Harry. I realized I'd get a lot of flack for my opinions with people feeling like I'm "bitter" which isn't the case at akk. I was happy to finally see a level playing field for entry into the TOC after last year's insulting selection process that had a guy like John Juanda on the rail. In the end, it wasn't level at all. They went ahead and screwed up something that LOOKED like they finally had right. It's shameful.

Daniel - Instead of complaining about the corporations ruining poker maybe you should be doing something to level the playing field? What have you done to help form a good poker players association? You have money, influence, friends in the right places, and an agent with insight from the golf world that, im sure, poker can learn from... If not you, who? If not now, when?

We are trying, and things are happening... at a snail's pace, but they are happening.

[GoldenTee 0]

Daniel Negreanu = the next Steve Lipscomb :wink:

[ddudley 0]

We are trying, and things are happening... at a snail's pace, but they are happening.

I'm willing to donate my time to help get things done. I'd be willing to pay all my travel cost, phone costs, etc. Just say the word and I'll be in Vegas to meet with you and the Biz-team. Sounds like someone needs to work on this full-time to keep things moving.PM if you are interested.PS - I need a reason to turn down the "real" job that I interview for today.

[BDPoolie 0]

I certainly agree with Daniel and the others about the TOC issue. And I also read Harry's entry about the WSOP which I agree with. But I was curious about the comment that Harry made that said he resented Phil for being able to participate. I also assume he resented Doyle and Johnny as well, even though it wasn't said.Why the resentment? True, they should not have been asked...but they were. It's not their fault. If you ("you" not being just Harry, but anyone out there) could honestly say that you would say "NO" to being asked to play in a tournament worth that amount, and had to pay no entry fee, then you are a better person than I. These players did nothing wrong and there is no reason to resent any of them for accepting. And to single out Hellmuth and not mention contempt for the others was even worse.

[chrozzo 19]

WHy not just Doyle and Chan because of the 10 bracelets? I know, because PHil acting like an idiot makes for good television.

[HarryDemetriou 0]

I certainly agree with Daniel and the others about the TOC issue. And I also read Harry's entry about the WSOP which I agree with. But I was curious about the comment that Harry made that said he resented Phil for being able to participate. I also assume he resented Doyle and Johnny as well, even though it wasn't said.Why the resentment? True, they should not have been asked...but they were. It's not their fault. If you ("you" not being just Harry, but anyone out there) could honestly say that you would say "NO" to being asked to play in a tournament worth that amount, and had to pay no entry fee, then you are a better person than I. These players did nothing wrong and there is no reason to resent any of them for accepting. And to single out Hellmuth and not mention contempt for the others was even worse.

I have already explained elsewhere what I believe in all honesty I would have done if invited.As for the resentment I hate all forms of discrimination and in this case it rears it's ugly head in the form of favouritiem being shown to all three of these players by allowing them in when they haven't qualfied according to the original rules and on merit which the other players did.If they are allowed in with no points from these qualifying events then everyone who played in any of them should allowed in IMHO,

[BDPoolie 0]

I certainly agree with Daniel and the others about the TOC issue. And I also read Harry's entry about the WSOP which I agree with. But I was curious about the comment that Harry made that said he resented Phil for being able to participate. I also assume he resented Doyle and Johnny as well, even though it wasn't said.Why the resentment? True, they should not have been asked...but they were. It's not their fault. If you ("you" not being just Harry, but anyone out there) could honestly say that you would say "NO" to being asked to play in a tournament worth that amount, and had to pay no entry fee, then you are a better person than I. These players did nothing wrong and there is no reason to resent any of them for accepting. And to single out Hellmuth and not mention contempt for the others was even worse.

I have already explained elsewhere what I believe in all honesty I would have done if invited.As for the resentment I hate all forms of discrimination and in this case it rears it's ugly head in the form of favouritiem being shown to all three of these players by allowing them in when they haven't qualfied according to the original rules and on merit which the other players did.If they are allowed in with no points from these qualifying events then everyone who played in any of them should allowed in IMHO,

I am sorry, I have not seen your post where you have explained what you would do in this situation. I would very much be interested in reading that post if you could point me to it.As for the resentment, maybe I misinterpreted your post. I also am not in favor or any form of discrimination or favoritism. And I certainly agree that the three players should not have been asked to participate. My only point (which wasn't really addressed in this previous response) was that I don't believe there is any reason to be resentful or mad at Hellmuth, Brunson, or Chan. They didn't do anything wrong. Should they have declined the invitation? I guess that's a judgement call, and I certainly respect yours or anyone else's opinion that differs from mine. It's just my personal opinion that they did nothing wrong and do not deserve any ill will.Do I think that the TOC should have abided with the rules and/or stipulations that they advertised before the event. Ceertainly.Jumping subjects to your other posts about the WSOP, I applaud the time and thought you put into those letters, and I hope that something will come of it. I'm not a "pro" or anything of that manner. I'm just a guy who loves the game and plays when I can. I will most likely never be able to afford to play in the WSOP, and don't even to pretend to be in the same league as guys like you. But I am happy that there are guys like you out there to put the time and the heart into making it better for all of us.Please don't take the last paragraph as me "kissing butt" to lessen any response you may have to my earlier paragraphs. I can certainly respect a difference of opinion, but also wanted to show my support in other areas.

[HarryDemetriou 0]

I really can't remember where all my follow up posts are as there are too many disjointed threads on this subject but I also pointed out that it is not necessarily the players faults and that sponsored players may actually have an obligation to play regardless of their own views on this subject. (there is another side to the coin and I certainly can see it).

[pokergeekinaz 0]

To me, the additions of Doyle and Johnny may have been more for their bracelet wins this year and Phil for pure entertainment value (btw, Phil's the big stack at the final table beginning tomorrow, Doyle busted on the bubble and Chan busted in 13th). Either way, this just screams to me that ESPN pulled these strings. Frankly, I was surprised that they didn't invite all bracelet winners from this year to the TOC. Allan Cunningham was the player of the year. Mark Seif won 2 bracelets. Where are they? Not at Caesars.Daniel and Harry are both right on this. The WSOP dropped the ball on this and have a ton of explaining to do. Maybe the ghost of Benny Binion should come down and scare them straight. Just a thought.

[Gods Balls 0]

I've got to say, I'm impressed. A couple weeks ago, I say that "because D.Neg. has money in card player, he won't open up against WSOP. "All I can say is, good job. That means a lot to me when people don't go totally soulless once they're on top. So, while you're definitely pretty foo-foo at times, with your $500 shirts and $1000 loafers, at least you'll still complain when necessary, and that's the most important thing.I just hope you will try and organize a cutthroat tourney that takes a couple weeks away from the summer WSOP. They deserve it. It's great that people want to put money into poker, but poker itself does not need to be a commodity that is just for sale, to the highest bidder.

[demo_ 0]

While I do agree with you overall, Daniel, I don't think it's really that big of a deal, or entirely unexpected. Assuming that this tournament is going to be aired on TV, which I'm sure it will be, it's obvious that this tournament was created for the purpose of attracting a big audience for their show. No offense to any player that has qualified, as I'm sure they're great players and deserve it, but their goal is to get viewers and so the invitations being extended to the most well known and (generally regarded as such) best players is no surprise at all to me. And it is true that the players are being robbed of some equity, but it's not a particularly large amount and it's a freeroll anyway. Obviously it's not going to please any player there, having to deal with extra players, much less players of the calibur of Chan/Brunson/etc., but I just think that you kind of stretched the importance a little bit. No offense meant Daniel. I respect you as a player and I understand your point and it's a valid one, but it just doesn't seem worth the worry to me. Just my thoughts though.P.S. Now that I think about it, didn't Doyle win a circuit event this year in Hold 'Em? I might be wrong about the event type or the rules for entry, but, just wondering.

[blueodum 0]

No, he won a WPT event.Once again, a poster is completely missing the point that the rules were changed at the last minute.And if it's not a lot of equity lost, Greg Raymer would like to meet with you and take 500 dollars out of your wallet and give the wallet back to you.

[SomethingWicked 0]

I think this needs to change. I have experienced 'player preference' first hand and been on the perfered side of things. Not in the WSOP. But I have noticed this in smaller tournements as well, having been let into a tourney for free by the director of the tourney and placed in the money. If anyone has checked on the results yet, you'll notice several names among the leader board that may be familiar. Hellmuth in first after day one, Chan in seventh and I believe Doyle has just been eliminated. It seems to be a disturbing trend in poker to place someone with a distinct advantage into a field of players, whether they are Bracelet winners or not. I believe some sort of a "Players Union" would help this and I applaud DN for any effort in creating one. Having been in a similar situation I think that the players themselves should not have taken this invatation to play in this freeroll and should of self-policed on this issue... But having been in a similar situation its hard to turn down a good opportunity at free money. At the time of my incident I was broke and could not afford the tourney but should still not of taken the invatation and would not have now. Just a bit of honesty and observation from an amateur.I have also wondered since if any other players have been put in the same situation?

[pokergeekinaz 0]

I have to admit an error in my previous post. ESPN did NOT request Doyle, Johnny, and Phil be given free rides into the event. According to a poker columnist at ESPN.com, Pepsi put up the money for the event and asked for some sponsor exceptions, sort of like golf. Those 3 got in via that request. It seems that Harrah's knows they committed a short term error, but it's one that could provide long term benefits in terms of major companies sponsoring poker touraments. Big sponsors should equal more money for players (yeah, right).story linkbTW, the story also contains an email from Phil Laak announceing his win in a major tournament in England, netting him over $250k. To quote the Unabomber, "The horseshoe is still firmly lodged up his [expletive]. " Good for a few laughs.

[SomethingWicked 0]

I have to admit an error in my previous post. ESPN did NOT request Doyle, Johnny, and Phil be given free rides into the event. According to a poker columnist at ESPN.com, Pepsi put up the money for the event and asked for some sponsor exceptions, sort of like golf. Those 3 got in via that request. It seems that Harrah's knows they committed a short term error, but it's one that could provide long term benefits in terms of major companies sponsoring poker touraments. Big sponsors should equal more money for players (yeah, right).story linkbTW, the story also contains an email from Phil Laak announceing his win in a major tournament in England, netting him over $250k. To quote the Unabomber, "The horseshoe is still firmly lodged up his [expletive]. " Good for a few laughs.

Bah, fools we are. Of course its the work of an evil corporation! Good Job Pepsi, Bravo. Thanks for the link, the Phil Laak e-mail was hilarious.

[Balloon guy 158]

Sounds like growing pains for the Poker WorldVegas has been able to do what they want till now, and now they are scrutinized closer because of a larger crowd willing to listen to the squeeky wheels.Keep standing up for the right thing, and things will get better.

[Jonbonwolf 0]

While I do agree with you overall, Daniel, I don't think it's really that big of a deal, or entirely unexpected. Assuming that this tournament is going to be aired on TV, which I'm sure it will be, it's obvious that this tournament was created for the purpose of attracting a big audience for their show. No offense to any player that has qualified, as I'm sure they're great players and deserve it, but their goal is to get viewers and so the invitations being extended to the most well known and (generally regarded as such) best players is no surprise at all to me.  And it is true that the players are being robbed of some equity, but it's not a particularly large amount and it's a freeroll anyway. Obviously it's not going to please any player there, having to deal with extra players, much less players of the calibur of Chan/Brunson/etc., but I just think that you kind of stretched the importance a little bit.  No offense meant Daniel. I respect you as a player and I understand your point and it's a valid one, but it just doesn't seem worth the worry to me. Just my thoughts though.P.S. Now that I think about it, didn't Doyle win a circuit event this year in Hold 'Em? I might be wrong about the event type or the rules for entry, but, just wondering.

Ok, lets say they let in 10 more people? Or say 100 more? The very fact that they can change what they had offered at the start, is the point, as far as I can see. Yes it is free, but you had to spend some cash to get this free tourney.They could have avoided this by simply saying, "we reserve the right to add players, or modify this tournament as we see fit" after all it is a free roll.Are they a bunch of 10th graders running this thing?

[Speed Limit 0]

No, they can't be tenth graders. They would have done a better job, must have been 6th graders.

[demo_ 0]

Ok, lets say they let in 10 more people? Or say 100 more? The very fact that they can change what they had offered at the start, is the point, as far as I can see. Yes it is free, but you had to spend some cash to get this free tourney.They could have avoided this by simply saying, "we reserve the right to add players, or modify this tournament as we see fit" after all it is a free roll.Are they a bunch of 10th graders running this thing?

Yes, obviously it's a different situation when they start letting in more than 3 people, and then it would be a problem. And I would expect for them to be able to change what they'd offered, it's a freeroll on an invitation basis. They invite the people that qualified, and they also chose to invite a few people that didn't. It's not some army of players. Now I can see Daniel's concern that this might continue and grow, that would be a problem. But do you honestly think they'd just decide to double the field without any prior announcement?And I'm not sure, but I would imagine that it probably does say that they reserve the right to change the rules or add players, otherwise they could be in some trouble.