My Original Eviction From Shootout Posts

[HarryDemetriou 0]

Just a very quick update on the facts surrounding this. After play had started all tables were made 6 handed. I was VERY vociferous in my objections and insisted that a high ranking official (tournament director or Jeffrey Pollack) came down to deal with this blatant and significant change in format for an event that was expected to be a full ring game shootout. I WAS NOT given any warning or a 30 in penalty (and at no time did I use the F word or any foul language but was definitely screaming and shouting about the unfairness of it all). I asked for a full refund despite having more chips than I started with and despite feeling that I was better suited to a short handed game than most others and highlighted how unfair this was to the ordinary player. The floor person then told me to shut up and that I could have no refund and that I was now disqualified and called security to evict me from the room. I then asked again for a senior official to appeal the decision to evict me and to explain the radical change of format. The tournament staff then claimed they were too busy to deal with my objection at that time but fortunately one of the security guards went and got a high ranking official to see me from the corporate offices around 40 mins later. I was then refunded my entry fee so at least I got that back but was also offered the chance to be reinstated but felt that it would be unethical for me to support the event in the changed format. More about this will no doubt follow.Lets get something else straight. Whilst I feel that I have some valid grievances over this and other incidents and treatment of myself and the other players, I do absolutely NOBODY any favours by having childish ranting outbursts. I am a 47 year old and should know better and outbursts such as this negate and obscure my arguments rather than help them. A controlled response would have been MUCH better but my only excuse is that I had just had a bad 24 hours and a number of things may have contributed to this type of response. The censorship/removal of live reports on this at CardPlayer and PokerWire, however, is also possibly of greater or at least equal concern.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Harry, you have a new fan. Well done on your good points and having the integrity to admit your shortcomings.

[76clubs 0]

Harry's story

I don't think I could have handled it any better than you did Harry. This tournament just keeps getting worse and worse.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Harry, you have a new fan. Well done on your good points and having the integrity to admit your shortcomings.

big 2nd here.I don't know how they think they can change the rules on a whim like that. I really screws up the integrity of the entire WSOP.I think you guys should file a complaint with the gaming commission.Good luck, lets hope for you and DN heads-up at the final table!

[socalpoker_j 1]

To do what you did is much better than to be silent and go along with something you wholeheartedly disagree with. Well done.

[Foote9 0]

ANd it gets worst with the Debacle to be the Pot Limit Omaha Tounry now being rebuy......I think they Flip a coin in the Morning Heads we piss players off Tails we change nothing today.....becoming a bit of a joke!!

[mr_english 0]

Thanks for bringing us up to date, Harry. I think you played it right and I am disgusted with how they are running things.For what it is worth I did send cardplayer an email slamming them for not reporting on any of the problems they are having at this years WSOP.If anyone else wants to take a shot at them, the email iscpdaily@cardplayer.com

[schnoodle_C 0]

Harry,Do consider going to the gaming commission about this. My guess is Daniel will opt out of that approuch for several reasons but it should be done. There is definitly a need for tighter regulation around poker tournaments. The TD has way too much power to change rules in mid-stream and players are way too accepting of this power. Good luck.

[fckthis 0]

Ye, just got another fan here too.

[Rated-R 0]

Harry you are a man of principle and I admire that. Well done.

[Mercury69 3]

I was already a fan. This is serious BS from the WSOP people. The asshat that turfed you and called security should be removed from his position. Clearly, he was a low ranked official who was on a power trip. Rulings of this magnitude should be handed down by a top official, while play is suspended AND there should be an appropraite withdrawal method, should a player decide to pull out of the tourney. Very, very poorly handled by the WSOP official(s).As for the outburst, while I don't necessarily condone it, I would, most likely, have responded in the same manner, given the circumstances. A lot of pressure is on the player and, in my minde, the player comes first, in accordance with regulations, of course, but I seriously doubt that WSOP officials would have been able to come up with something documented to back up their flagrant attempt to bully people into a situation in which the player, as a PAYING CUSTOMER, should have some kind of choice in the matter.

[fleung22 1]

Bravo Harry...bravo.Your complaint was valid and your acknowledgement of the over-the-top shouting is very commendable.

[AcesOnFire 0]

Harry, you have a new fan. Well done on your good points and having the integrity to admit your shortcomings.

Seconded.

[FOOSE1 0]

Harry . . . you are a true gentleman. I have great respect for your skills at the table . . . and even more respect for your attitude away from the table.

[Kain8 0]

Your outburst could very well be the catalyst needed to ensure that debacles like this don't happen again at the WSOP. I'm sure a lot of the players were much too shy to speak up about it and decided to "go with the flow." But that's not what you pay good money for. You wanted to play in an event with specific rules with said money. (I'm sure this was your thought process so I don't mean to sound redundant.) When those rules changed, your money is not being used in the way you intended. I'm sure the majority of players would agree with you in this situation, regardless of the way you tried to get your point across. We at FCP got your back Harry!

[Mercury69 3]

We'll just have to pray that Harry doesn't become known as the male Annie Duke.

[fleung22 1]

...male Annie Duke.

Isn't that redundant?

[brvheart 1,752]

Just a very quick update on the facts surrounding this. After play had started all tables were made 6 handed. I was VERY vociferous in my objections and insisted that a high ranking official (tournament director or Jeffrey Pollack) came down to deal with this blatant and significant change in format for an event that was expected to be a full ring game shootout. I WAS NOT given any warning or a 30 in penalty (and at no time did I use the F word or any foul language but was definitely screaming and shouting about the unfairness of it all). I asked for a full refund despite having more chips than I started with and despite feeling that I was better suited to a short handed game than most others and highlighted how unfair this was to the ordinary player. The floor person then told me to shut up and that I could have no refund and that I was now disqualified and called security to evict me from the room. I then asked again for a senior official to appeal the decision to evict me and to explain the radical change of format. The tournament staff then claimed they were too busy to deal with my objection at that time but fortunately one of the security guards went and got a high ranking official to see me from the corporate offices around 40 mins later. I was then refunded my entry fee so at least I got that back but was also offered the chance to be reinstated but felt that it would be unethical for me to support the event in the changed format. More about this will no doubt follow.Lets get something else straight. Whilst I feel that I have some valid grievances over this and other incidents and treatment of myself and the other players, I do absolutely NOBODY any favours by having childish ranting outbursts. I am a 47 year old and should know better and outbursts such as this negate and obscure my arguments rather than help them. A controlled response would have been MUCH better but my only excuse is that I had just had a bad 24 hours and a number of things may have contributed to this type of response. The censorship/removal of live reports on this at CardPlayer and PokerWire, however, is also possibly of greater or at least equal concern.

This post makes me want to divorce my wife... Harry are you available?

[wsox8 10]

I think you did the right thing and I wish more people would have done the same.

[1sickpuppyx 0]

We'll just have to pray that Harry doesn't become known as the male Annie Duke.

I think we have our answer:

Your complaint was valid and your acknowledgement of the over-the-top shouting is very commendable.

Night and day.Keep up the good work Harry!

[MrNiceGuy 0]

The event flyer reads(Link is from the WSOP site):http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/structur...nt/Event25.html---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS IS A NEW EVENT FOR THE 2006 WSOP2005 Event was a $1,500 Buy-In 789 EntriesWINNER ANTHONY REATEGUI $269,100General Rules * Tournament is limited to 100 tables, (11 Handed Max). * Players will be seated randomly. Some tables on Day 1 may have 11 players per table. * Players will begin with $2,000 in Tournament Chips. * All levels of play will last 60 minutes. * There will be a 15 minute break every 2 Levels. There will be a dinner break at the end of Level 6 each day. * Play will continue on Day 1 until a winner is declared at each table. Play will resume on Day 2 at 2:00 PM, July 17, 2006. * Players (100) on Day 2 will start with $20,000 in Chips. * Play will continue on Day 2 until a winner is declared at each table. * The Final Table (10 Players) will resume on Day 3, July 18, 2006 at 2 PM. * Players will start with $200,000 in Tournament Chips. * 9% of the total entry pool with be withheld-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It appears to me that the organizers set up the event to divide the field up evenly among 100 tables for the first round, but that they didn't do a very good job explaining that this is how they were going to structure it (the parenthetical 100 on the seventh bullet provides the only hint).And when they mention last year's $1500 event, that would certainly suggest that the format would be the same as in previous years. (As DN stated, it hardly makes sense to start with shorthanded tables.)Certainly the floorperson who evicted Harry from the tournament overreacted badly, and I'm glad to see that Harry's buy-in was ultimately refunded.I could see Harrah's having a tougher time refunding Daniel's money, because it would be somewhat unfair to the other participants if his share was removed from the prizepool essentially because he did not arrive on time (I'm not suggesting that Daniel "screwed up" or that he does not deserve to get a refund, but I'm saying that other participants might have a legitimate beef if his buy-in were refunded, when they cannot expect to have been afforded the same treatment (of course, DN's absence certainly improved everyone else's chances)).Perhaps a fair compromise would be for Harrah's to refund a portion of DN's buy-in (whatever he could have expected to have had left when he arrived, had the first round not been played shorthanded), or else for them to refund it on their own, without disturbing the prizepool (probably won't happen, but it would seem like their best chance of avoiding any serious blowback from the gaming commission and/or the poker community).

[Golden 2]

I think you did the right thing and I wish more people would have done the same.

Seconded. Wholeheartedly.

[caeslinger 0]

After doing some research, I tend to have to agree with MrNiceGuy on this. Although day 1 was a change from the previous format of starting with 10 person tables, they decided to start 6-handed and have full 10 person tables on the second day. Previous day 2's were 6-handed play. Last year was not even a true shootout because of that, as they started day 3 with 13 people and played until down to 10.Now I can easily see where they came up with that decision, not saying that it's right or anything. However great of an idea that this might have been (They were obviously thinking that with 780 entrants last year, they wouldn't have this issue of 6-handed first day play), they should have done a much, much better job of letting the players know.But, as MrNiceGuy showed in his post, this was always their intention to play the first day with 100 tables. They just simply did not foresee getting any fewer participants than last year.