Shootout Event

[aggie 0]

Daniel,I've been reading/watching you're blog for a long time now and although i disagree with some of what you say i think you seem like a good and interesting guy. But you're last blog was inaccurate and slightly unfair to Harrahs (I hate what harrahs has done to the WSOP by the way)First of all, there IS precedent for 6-max tables in a shootout event scheduled to be played 10-handed. The second round of last years $1500 NLHE shootout event consisted of 13 6-max tables (this was NOT a shorthanded event).Second, Harrah's decision to stick with 100 tables, while not the best solution, did make some logistical sense. That way they have 10 10-handed tables in the second table and 1 10-handed final table. They need to have shorthanded tables at some point in the tournament. I agree with you that they should have stuck with a 10-handed format in the 1st round.Third, it would be absolutely rediculous and unfair for harrahs to refund you you're money for that event (even after making a mistake in judgement). You were given chips and somebody else won them. The fact that they were blinded off is irrelevant. Harrahs reserves the rights to alter any tournament at their own discrestion (it's at the bottom of the info sheet).....Yea it sucks you got blinded off but giving you you're money back would be completely unfair to anybody who was there on time and busted out. The only fair solution to harrah's misjudgement would be for harrahs to refund the entry fees to the entire field which obviously won't happen.I'm not saying you don't have a right to be mad because you made some valid points in your v-blog....But you're asking for the wrong recourse as it would be completley unfair to every other noname player.

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

i agree with a slight few of your views but will keep them to myself incase daniel yells at me lol

[DanielNegreanu 141]

There is a big difference between me getting a refund and the others getting a refund. The others ACCEPTED the structure change and continued to play. I never took a hand. I never bought into the event that they held. Never in history, whether it be online or live, has there EVER been a shootout event that started short handed. The WSOP makes it very clear when they hold a short handed event. Please read Mike O'Malley's take on the tournament:$2,000 NL Hold’em Shootout eventWhen they made the announcement that the tournament was starting, we only had three players at the table. The rule at the WSOP is that no table can start dealing until there are at least four players present. Within a minute a fourth player showed up, followed shortly by two more players; we were six handed and playing, although all 10 stacks were being dealt in. During the first hand, the player to my left commented that not only were we six handed, but so were all of the other tables. Many players do show up late, but as I looked around I also noticed that not a single table had more than six players. It was impossible that was a coincidence. I called a floorperson over and asked him why there were so many seats open, and he responded that “all of the seats are sold, we are playing 10 handed”. I had a weird feeling that they had screwed up the computer seat assignment draw. Within a few hands it was apparent that many of the tables were wondering the same thing that we were. There was just no way that many people hadn’t shown up, and all tables were missing exactly four players. Then an announcement was made for all dealers to put the chip stacks for seats 3, 5, 7 and 9 into the well; we were playing six handed. You could hear the roar roll through the room; every table started talking about it. Why would they change the format of a tournament after it had already started? Nowhere had this tournament been advertised as a ‘Short Handed/6 per table’ event, a distinction that they give to the other tournaments that start with less than 9/10 players per table. It was immediately obvious that everyone was surprised that we were going to be playing six handed. Within a few hands Tournament Director Jimmy Sommerfeld came on the microphone and clarified the situation. He announced something along the lines of; “apparently everyone doesn’t understand how a Shootout Tournament works. We have 600 players at 100 6 handed tables, everyone that wins their table will get at least double their money back”.So far this WSOP I have played 11 out of 13 events that I have been in town for (I was in CA for a week). The two events that I skipped were the $1,500 7 Card Stud (I had an important doctors appointment that I had scheduled on that day) and the $2,500 Short Handed/6 per table NL Hold’em event. Why did I skip that event? Because I don’t think I have an edge in a short handed tournament.Right after Jimmy’s announcement a commotion began brewing on the other side of the room. Harry Demetriou was standing and SCREAMING. He was screaming bloody murder. He was pissed off at the ‘structure change’ and was making sure everyone knew. There were lots of people that were not happy/confused about it, none more than Harry.I immediately went to find Jimmy Sommerfeld and had the following conversation:Me: Jimmy, you just made this tournament a shorthanded event and it wasn’t advertised as such. Shootouts are not traditionally short handed to begin with.Jimmy: How do you do it online?Me: Tables are loaded 9 or 10 handed, whatever the site uses. This same event in the WSOP last year was done like that also, why did you change it?Jimmy: They did it wrong last year.Me: I challenge you to find a single Shootout tournament that was ever done this way. I have played 100’s of Shootouts online, I have played Shootouts at the Bike and Commerce as well as the WSOP, never has a Shootout been done like this.Jimmy: What’s the difference? Pretend like you already eliminated four players.Me: I am not a short handed player, there is a big difference, I would like to get a refund, and my stack is still at $2,000.Jimmy: No refunds, tournament already started.Me: What if there were 190 playersJimmy: We wouldn’t play heads-upMe: What’s the cutoff? How many handed would it be?Jimmy: 550 was the cutoff. Anything less than that and we would have gone 10 handed and advanced two.I went back to my table and played the tournament. The staff of the WSOP has an obligation to run the tournaments in a fair and traditional manner. It isn’t easy playing tournament poker when the rules change from place to place. It also isn’t easy to run them. Of course they are not going to be able to list every situation that will come up or explain every procedure that will be used in a tournament beforehand. They have to wing it with a temporary staff and make do with what they have. But this was different; they HAD changed the structure of the tournament after it already started. There are certain things that are done that are expected, and starting a tournament as a short handed tournament instead of full tables is one of them. If a tournament is going to be done differently than what is expected, it should be clearly identified.Mike Sexton said to me during the first break; “If you would have asked all 600 players, before the tournament started, if they thought we would be playing 10 or 6 handed, 599 of them would have said 10”. And he is right.The precedent has been set in two regards:Shootout Tournaments are not short handed. Tournaments that start short handed are labeled as such. Last years WSOP $1,500 Limit and No-Limit Hold’em Shootout started with 450 and 780 players respectively. Both started with 10 handed tables. Every single Shootout tournament that I have ever heard of has started with full tables.Several people have directed me to the tournament rules for this event, which make mention of advancing 100 players from Day 1. Although the rules for this tournament do talk about ‘100 players’, it is far from spelled out that 100 players will indeed advance.The rules, taken from the WSOP website, state: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. 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. The ONLY reference to 100 players is addressed in point four: Players (100) on Day 2 will start with $20,000 in Chips.It does not say “100 players will advance”. Like many of the other rules for events, they make mention of numbers assuming that the event will sell out. In the rules for the main event, a point states:Play will continue on day 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D until there are 800 players left each day. What if only 3,200 players signed up for the main event? Would they just cancel all of the day 1s? A long shot of course, but it shows the intent of the numbers they used. Jimmy Sommerfeld told me that if there had been 550 players, all tables would have been 10 handed and 2 players would advance. But with 551 players they would be 5 or 6 handed tables.What if only 200 players had signed up for this tournament? Do you think they would have paid 50% of the field? Of course not. The reference to 100 players was inserted assuming that the tournament would sell out. By sticking to the number 100, they ended up paying 16.7% of the field. All WSOP tournaments are paying approximately 10% of the field. Why the discrepancy? Because they didn’t anticipate this event not selling out and didn’t think far enough ahead.Keep in mind that we had played the beginning of the tournament with 10 stacks of chips on the table and everyone thinking that those stacks were going to be played. There is the very real possibility that someone went broke in that time making a play at dead blinds. If they knew the tournament was going to be 6 handed (they shut it off at 600) why did they have the dealers put those stacks out to begin with? How do I think they should have structured this tournament? 10 handed - 10 handed - 6 handed. Play the tournament with full tables, just like any other tournament, until you no longer can. For me there is a major difference in the way that a 6 handed 1-table tournament will play vs. a 10 handed 1-table tournament. When I play online I only play 10 handed 1-table tournaments. I believe that I excel in that format as opposed to the fast paced nature of 6 handed tables. Had this tournament been advertised as a shorthanded event I would not have played.After I arrived home after busting out of the tournament I found out that Harry (the screaming Harry from above) had been refunded. Imagine that. Here I was a nice guy about the whole situation; I didn’t raise my voice once and dropped the request for a refund after I was denied by Jimmy. I accepted that Harrah’s has the right to change their minds (and the structure of the tournament) and continued on and played. Yet Harry had screamed and yelled and apparently been kicked out…guess who got the refund?

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

funny.i woulda have thought they would have refunded you, not only because you were polite but because you have alot of power to make them look bad.

[PairTheBoard 0]

aggie brought up a point I hadn't thought of. With 600 players they can't have it 10 handed all the way. If it's televised they probably want the final table to be 10 handed. So they could have had the second round be 6 handed. But what if only 400 players had shown up? Should they be forced to have the second round 4 handed? Shouldn't the tourny director have the freedom to run the tournament and decide on say two 6 and 7 handed rounds with a 10 handed final table?

[aggie 0]

aggie brought up a point I hadn't thought of. With 600 players they can't have it 10 handed all the way. If it's televised they probably want the final table to be 10 handed. So they could have had the second round be 6 handed. But what if only 400 players had shown up? Should they be forced to have the second round 4 handed? Shouldn't the tourny director have the freedom to run the tournament and decide on say two 6 and 7 handed rounds with a 10 handed final table?

What they did last year made a lot more sense. They had 13 6-handed tables in the 2nd round and then started the 3rd round with 2 tables of 7 and 6. When 3 people were eliminated they had they're final table.I basically agree with Daniel but disagree that he should get a refund. Basically Harrahs screwed up but has no way of making the situation right after the fact. If Mike Omally didn't get a refund then why sholuld Daniel? It's pretty unfair that Harry demeitriu got a refund and O'mally didn't. It sucks when the loudest people get their way while polite/quiet guys like O'mally get the short end of the stick...Way of the world i guess.

The others ACCEPTED the structure change and continued to play. I never took a hand

Daniel, you did in fact take a hand in the tournament. You just weren't in you're seat. According to O'mally he did not ACCEPT the structure until he was told there would be no refund.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

What they did last year made a lot more sense. They had 13 6-handed tables in the 2nd round and then started the 3rd round with 2 tables of 7 and 6. When 3 people were eliminated they had they're final table.I basically agree with Daniel but disagree that he should get a refund. Basically Harrahs screwed up but has no way of making the situation right after the fact. If Mike Omally didn't get a refund then why sholuld Daniel? It's pretty unfair that Harry demeitriu got a refund and O'mally didn't. It sucks when the loudest people get their way while polite/quiet guys like O'mally get the short end of the stick...Way of the world i guess.Daniel, you did in fact take a hand in the tournament. You just weren't in you're seat. According to O'mally he did not ACCEPT the structure until he was told there would be no refund.

If O'Malley refused to continue, spoke up, and left the tournament, he WOULD have gotten a refund for certain. Once he played it through, though, he is no longer entitled to a refund because he still had a chance to win the event. I never had that chance at all.

[aggie 0]

If O'Malley refused to continue, spoke up, and left the tournament, he WOULD have gotten a refund for certain. Once he played it through, though, he is no longer entitled to a refund because he still had a chance to win the event. I never had that chance at all.

Hey, i'm glad you got you're money back. I'd rather you have the money than Harrahs. That said, I think it's unfair. If you had been there on time i'm guessing you would have played in the event despite the change. However unlikely, even if your table had been 10-handed, it was possible for you to be blinded off before you arrived. Obviously you wouldn't be entitled to a refund then. Maybe O'malley would have gotten a refund if he refused to continue but he was told the opposite. He would have to risk completely forfeiting the 2k to make that stand and he had every reason to believe he wouldn't get his money back.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Before making my decision to buy in to the tournament I spoke to the floor people. I asked for a structure sheet. We discussed the structure. I informed them that I planned on showing up an hour and a half late, giving up approximately 25% of my stack. I bought into the tournament and showed up late under false information given to me by the floormen. That is not my fault, whether I showed up on time or late is irrelevant.

[PairTheBoard 0]

From O'Malley's take on the tournament:"Me: I am not a short handed player, there is a big difference, I would like to get a refund, and my stack is still at $2,000.Jimmy: No refunds, tournament already started."According to this, O'Malley ("Me") did speak up. He was refused the refund. Like aggie said, "Maybe O'malley would have gotten a refund if he refused to continue but he was told the opposite. He would have to risk completely forfeiting the 2k to make that stand and he had every reason to believe he wouldn't get his money back. "

[aggie 0]

Before making my decision to buy in to the tournament I spoke to the floor people. I asked for a structure sheet. We discussed the structure. I informed them that I planned on showing up an hour and a half late, giving up approximately 25% of my stack. I bought into the tournament and showed up late under false information given to me by the floormen. That is not my fault, whether I showed up on time or late is irrelevant.

Everybody in the tournament had signed up thinking the event would be 10-handed. Not just you. It's unfair that some were given they're money back when they asked for a refund and some weren't. I'm almost positive that if the exact same thing happened to me i would not get my money back no matter how much i complained. I think the fact that you're Daniel Negreanu is a large part of the reason you got you're money back. There is nothing wrong with using you're influence by the way. You're a great embassador for the game and that should come with some perks. Sometimes it just seems unfair to the little people (such as myself and I'm guessing Mike O'Malley).

[bryan21 0]

Well, I'm not sure about the rules and all that, but it seems to me that if they refund 1 person...regardless of stature...they should refund everyone. That's my initial take on it.Daniel made a good point that those that accepted the change and played anyway should not receive anything back. Thats a valid argument. Then there are those that protested...Mike O'Malley...and were told to bad. Where do those folks stand? Do they have a leg to stand on w/ the NGC?Lastly, are all WSOP's this screwed up? Or are we just getting the 'bird's eye' view because Daniel is highlighting all this information for us? It seems that things have been fairly poorly run. Everything from the Dealer's complaints to the running of some of the tournaments to several decisions that have been made by the floor persons.

[mhoward29 0]

There is a big difference between me getting a refund and the others getting a refund. The others ACCEPTED the structure change and continued to play. I never took a hand. I never bought into the event that they held. Never in history, whether it be online or live, has there EVER been a shootout event that started short handed.

Times change, history doesnt always stay the same. They have the right to change/alter the events they hold. Its posted everywhere. I disagree they did it after they started the event, BUT, I guaruntee that you and other players that had already bought in would have still made a big stink about the event even if they announced the change before they dealt the cards.OWNED

[drewm 0]

There is a big difference between me getting a refund and the others getting a refund. The others ACCEPTED the structure change and continued to play. I never took a hand. I never bought into the event that they held. Never in history, [b]whether it be online or live[/b], has there EVER been a shootout event that started short handed.

First of all let me say I'm glad you got your money back given all the circumstances surrounding this incident. It was the fair thing for Harrahs to do, especially when the past WSOP shootouts were run 10 handed to begin with. However, Poker Stars runs numerous shootouts every single day and no matter what the numbers, always divides the field by # of people at the final table, i.e. if there is only 45 that join you start with 9 tables of 5 players each. This is not intended to start a big argument, just thought I'd let you know how one online site runs their shootouts

[nicryan 0]

However, Poker Stars runs numerous shootouts every single day and no matter what the numbers, always divides the field by # of people at the final table, i.e. if there is only 45 that join you start with 9 tables of 5 players each. This is not intended to start a big argument, just thought I'd let you know how one online site runs their shootouts

yes but the pokerstars shootout tournaments are advertised as such. Everyone who enters them know that this is the case. DN's main complaint is that they didn't advertise the fact that the tournament might start short handed. I'm sure that if DN had been there from the start he still would have played it short handed but he had been told before that it would start 10 handed and, with that knowledge, he knew roughly how much of his stack would be gone by the time he showed up.-Nicps yes I know my postcount is low and I'm a new member of this forum, but I'm not a player at this years WSOP who's posting anonymously.

[drewm 0]

where exactly does poker stars advertise this??

[socalpoker_j 1]

Why pay for something that you didnt want/ or was mislead about in the first place... false advertising.. or the ol' bait and switch.

[mhoward29 0]

Why pay for something that you didnt want/ or was mislead about in the first place... false advertising.. or the ol' bait and switch.

Harrah's is perfectly clean here. Its not false advertising with they have posted "we have the right to alter/cancel events at anytime."

[socalpoker_j 1]

Harrah's is perfectly clean here. Its not false advertising with they have posted "we have the right to alter/cancel events at anytime."

Watch the video blog where Daniel is on the course and reading the info regarding the tournament... doesn't seem like he agrees... If Harrah's wasn't in the wrong... why did they give him his money back then? As an aside, when did you become a spokesman for Harrah's?

[BluesTele 0]

Watch the video blog where Daniel is on the course and reading the info regarding the tournament... doesn't seem like he agrees... If Harrah's wasn't in the wrong... why did they give him his money back then? As an aside, when did you become a spokesman for Harrah's?

harrah's refunded his money for one reason and one reason only - his high profile

[aggie 0]

harrah's refunded his money for one reason and one reason only - his high profile

DING DING DING DING DING

[socalpoker_j 1]

How you doing Harry? Any new stuff?

[Dratj 0]

"Me: I am not a short handed player, there is a big difference, I would like to get a refund, and my stack is still at $2,000.

I thought DN loved playing shorthanded?

[PairTheBoard 0]

I thought DN loved playing shorthanded?

Since you pulled that quote from my post I suppose I should be the one to tell you that you misunderstood it. The "me" speaking is Mike O'Malley. Read DN's first post carefully. Most of it is quoting Mike O'Malley.