appearance fees...

[CaneBrain 95]

I doubt they will get appearance fees to play in any WSOP tourney or WPT event. You mentioned the PGA players get them but I'm pretty sure that's wrong, they do get appearance fees for going to overseas tourney's though, like Dubai. I think in the nex few years if the leaders of the poker world can get together some type of organization you will see TV money being added to the prize pool and maybe the juice being taken away. But I don't see players getting appearance fees to play in well known tourney's in the future.

PGA players can get bonuses, or contracts from sponsors. Your correct that a small over seas tournament will pay Tiger Woods to come and play, however Nike also pays Tiger to play in a set amount of tournaments, yearly

Actually, appearance fees on the PGA Tour are illegal. Golfers only get them to go to international tournaments (like the Dubai classic). I think adding TV money into the prize pool is a great idea. Conversely, I think having big name players get appearance fees is a terrible idea....but I dont want to hate.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I doubt they will get appearance fees to play in any WSOP tourney or WPT event. You mentioned the PGA players get them but I'm pretty sure that's wrong, they do get appearance fees for going to overseas tourney's though, like Dubai. I think in the nex few years if the leaders of the poker world can get together some type of organization you will see TV money being added to the prize pool and maybe the juice being taken away. But I don't see players getting appearance fees to play in well known tourney's in the future.

PGA players can get bonuses, or contracts from sponsors. Your correct that a small over seas tournament will pay Tiger Woods to come and play, however Nike also pays Tiger to play in a set amount of tournaments, yearly

Actually, appearance fees on the PGA Tour are illegal. Golfers only get them to go to international tournaments (like the Dubai classic). I think adding TV money into the prize pool is a great idea. Conversely, I think having big name players get appearance fees is a terrible idea....but I dont want to hate.

LOL!!!!!! what do you think OVER SEAS means????????

[PUNNISHER 0]

I dont agree that it will change the way anyone plays. What's the rationale behind this line of thinking? That the paid pro doesn't need to cash because of the appearance fee? If that's the logic, then anyone who doesn't need the money has no motivation to play well. Anyone who cashed big in one major doesn't really need the money at the next tournament, so the rest of the field is disadvantaged? I dont think so. You can't see how this could change the way someone plays? An appearance fee to play in a tourney would more than likely cover the Pro's buy in for that tourney. Since the "big" buy in tourney's are usually 10,000$. Poker is a game where decisions need to be made, and often these decisions are not only based on how one is playing in a particular game, but also one's bank roll. Whether you feel this way or not, this is the groundwork for which poker was built. That being said, yes ego would be pressure to a pro, but nothing is pressure like a "regular" guy putting up 10K to attempt to win a tourney. Poker is gambling. Without having to buy in to a particular event, you have eliminated that Pro's gamble and have thus changed the game. L*

[UnionGuy 0]

I think some of the posts are missing the point. Players are being exploited by ESPN, the Travel Channel, Fox Sports Network and any other channel that televises poker. It's as simple as that. To address a few points:a) People DO tune in to see their favorite players. What do you think the Tournament of Champions and the Fox Superstars Invitational are about?B) No doubt, the televising of poker has been good for the sport. The players should be thankful that ESPN et al have begun regularly showing tournaments on television. However, this doesn't change the fact that these networks would not be doing this unless they could make a profit from it. It was consumers and the players that created the popularity of poker, not any television station.c) Therefore, the players, who are ultimately what makes the sport popular, have a right to make some money off the poker explosion. They are providing ESPN/Travel Channel/Fox Sports with something to film. Therefore, they have a right to be paid. I don't have a specific set of suggestions for dealing with this fact-- but, I think the idea that television revenues should go to the prize pool is a pretty darn good one. For the invitational tournaments, players should get some sort of appearance fee, regardless of their success or failure in the tourney.

[jooka 0]

Without having to buy in to a particular event, you have eliminated that Pro's gamble and have thus changed the game.

im not sure what level of pro your talking about but if the likes of Ivey, DN, gus and these big money winners, you really think they would change the way they played if they had to put up the 10k? its slightly more than 1 bet in there side game, I mean come on.

[PUNNISHER 0]

Players are being exploited by ESPN, the Travel Channel, Fox Sports Network and any other channel that televises poker. It's as simple as that. Why are they being exploited? If you said that college athletes were being exploited I would agree. Pro Athletes, I could almost see the argument (well I would atleast listen) this is because at these events, people are paying to recieve a ticket into said event. Poker is different. ESPN is not exploiting one pro or any pro in particular. In fact, I could enter the same exact tourney (given I had the money) that Daniel enters. ESPN is taping a poker game. If you feel that you would be turned off by this, then you simply do not need to enter that tourney. In fact, you could go and enter 100 tourney's similar in nature. A college player cannot say he is going to play in "another" game. Poker players are probably being helped by the TV exposure. It is enabling them to become "icons" per se and recieve endorsement deals. I am not sure I am following your logic here.

[PUNNISHER 0]

im not sure what level of pro your talking about but if the likes of Ivey, DN, gus and these big money winners, you really think they would change the way they played if they had to put up the 10k? its slightly more than 1 bet in there side game, I mean come on.Probably not, however, how is that fair to the average Joe that puts up his 10K to play in the same tourney? How sick would it be to have these "pro's" get in on a freeroll and have them win the whole thing? The reason poker is so popular now, is because everyday people see Chris Moneymaker and everyday guy win 2.5 million dollars. Sure Chris one that on a satellite, but it still gives the hope that "hey I can win this". Believe me, if you start allowing "pro's" to recieve appearance fee's, the game of poker will suffer.

[jooka 0]

as long as that pro's entry fee is in the pot I dont care who payed for it.

[rog 0]

Probably not, however, how is that fair to the average Joe that puts up his 10K to play in the same tourney? How sick would it be to have these "pro's" get in on a freeroll and have them win the whole thing? The reason poker is so popular now, is because everyday people see Chris Moneymaker and everyday guy win 2.5 million dollars. Sure Chris one that on a satellite, but it still gives the hope that "hey I can win this". Believe me, if you start allowing "pro's" to recieve appearance fee's, the game of poker will suffer.

This is my last response on the topic. Frankly the subject doesnt deserve as much time as I've put into it already, and if we dont see eye to eye on it by now, we're never going to. I dont get your logic at all. How is it UNfair to average joe? He has the same odds of winning no matter who pays Gus Hansen's entry. He has to beat the same field either way, and he gets the same prize if he wins since the prize pool is the same. It's none of his business where anybody's entry fee comes from...it doesn't affect him in the least. If he's offended that someone else got in on a freeroll, then I'd guess he's just jealous, and maybe has some maturing to do since it's irrelevant how anyone else paid their fees.

[jack24bauer24 0]

I think some of the posts are missing the point. Players are being exploited by ESPN, the Travel Channel, Fox Sports Network and any other channel that televises poker. It's as simple as that. To address a few points:a) People DO tune in to see their favorite players. What do you think the Tournament of Champions and the Fox Superstars Invitational are about?B) No doubt, the televising of poker has been good for the sport. The players should be thankful that ESPN et al have begun regularly showing tournaments on television. However, this doesn't change the fact that these networks would not be doing this unless they could make a profit from it. It was consumers and the players that created the popularity of poker, not any television station.c) Therefore, the players, who are ultimately what makes the sport popular, have a right to make some money off the poker explosion. They are providing ESPN/Travel Channel/Fox Sports with something to film. Therefore, they have a right to be paid. I don't have a specific set of suggestions for dealing with this fact-- but, I think the idea that television revenues should go to the prize pool is a pretty darn good one. For the invitational tournaments, players should get some sort of appearance fee, regardless of their success or failure in the tourney.

Players aren't being exploited. If it wasn't for ESPN, the Travel Channel, FSN, etc putting so much poker on all the time, the game clearly wouldn't be as huge as it is today, with the massive prize pools for tournaments. If poker wasn't on TV so much, getting so many new people to take up the game, the prize pools wouldn't be anywhere near what they are now, and instead of making the 4-5 million or whatever Daniel did last year that # would probably be around 1 million.Do the players give TV better ratings? Sure they do, but without the TV these players would not be making anywhere near the amount of money they are today.And the Tournament of Champions was a freeroll for those invited with a chance to win 2 million bucks. If thats being exploited, I'd love for someone to exploit me.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

you dont understand the argument. PGA players pay a nominal fee to enter each tournament, and the prize pool is then boosted astronomically by contributions from the PGA which are directly related to the TV contract earnings they receive. The PGA profits from the players being there, and its only fair that the players receive a slice of this pie. In large buyin poker tournaments, the players entry fees constitute the entire prize pool. meanwhile, the tournament organizers and ESPN are getting rich off the TV contracts (and yet these tournaments still have the gall to take a percentage of the prize pool for 'expenses'). Why shouldn't the players receive a piece of this? i dont advocate paying specific 'name players', but surely adding some TV revenue to the prize pool is fair and equitable.

This is certainly a pretty decent idea. However, I actually think I have a better one. Take some of that money that TV is making and instead of adding it to the prize pool, give it to the dealers working the tournament. That way, the players wouldn't be expected to tip as much (hopefully) and the dealers would be getting in on the money making as well. The players would still technically be "making" money too since they have to tip less. That entire Stolzmann situation was ridiculous and casino's should stop depending on player's to pay the dealer's salary. The end.

[jogsxyz 0]

I would definitely agree with "all" players who enter the tourney recieving an added sum of money to the prize pool. However, I have read on a few different occasions where specific "big name" players are advocating the notion of appearance fee's. In my opinion, this does not bode well for the overall scheme of poker. L*

why not? do you honestly think ESPN would get the enormous ratings and lucrative advertising contracts that accompany them if they were filming the "Podunk Classic Poker Tournament" with a bunch of random guys from Podunk? the big name players drive the ratings which make the tournament organizers and the TV stations money. They are right in seeking a slice of the pie they baked.

Yes, I do. To most viewers they are just bodies. It's the vast amounts of money that's attracting the viewers. Unknowns winning is good for the ratings. Every couch potato thinks he can win. Few think they can win a PGA event.

[choic 0]

Can't compare golf and poker. A low ranked golfer on the PGA tour is wealthy or well off. Even a nationwide golfer makes more than a majority of good poker pros. They have a grueling Q school to get through, afterwards it's all freerolls. BUT it's tough to keep your card.Poker has a long ways to go. Can you pick 10 guys in WSOP and have just 1 to make it to the final table? Never mind win it but make it to top ten. In golf, you can pick 10 guys to make top ten in a major and probably have quite a few up there on the leaderboard. In the WSOP there are thousands of players and DN is favorite to win it. Guess what his odds are? 110-1!!! Followed by Hellmuth and other big names at around the 130-1. Tiger, Vijay, Els, Singh and Lefty is around 6-1 favorite to win the masters. So pros getting perks are fine in poker as long as they don't compare themselves to other star athletes. In a few years, they might be on the same level. Poker is addictive and very fun to watch, the product will sell itself.For now, golf still has the upper hand.This years WSOP might pay even 10million? Who knows? Golf' majors are only around a million and a half, but where would you rather make a living right now? The PGA tour seems like the place to be if you've got talent.

[Smasharoo 0]

People want to watch the money, don't you get it?The personalities are utterly meaningless.They just want to see million chip pots and to know that someone's going to win 5 million for playing cards.That's all that matters to them. You could have chimps in police uniforms playing the hands, no one cares.

[rednas 0]

Do you really think that all the professional poker players pay for their entry fees into the events? I can guarentee that many of the online poker sites will pay entry fees for well-known poker personalities. Why? So every one in the room, and on T.V., will see them wearing their gear. It's called advertising; brand marketing.

[dms26 3]

Can't compare golf and poker. A low ranked golfer on the PGA tour is wealthy or well off. Even a nationwide golfer makes more than a majority of good poker pros. They have a grueling Q school to get through, afterwards it's all freerolls. BUT it's tough to keep your card.

I know this isn't a golf thread. That's not true though, if you don't make the cut you make nothing. Plus you have a lot of travel expenses and you have to pay your caddie if even if you don't make the cut. There are alot of pro's struggling to get by on the PGA tour and definately the Nationwide tour. Some of those guys on the N'wide tour are probably making 40K and spending 60K. At least poker playesr have side games.There was recently a golfer auctioning himself on E-Bay, I doubt he is well off.

[justblaze 0]

Do you really think that all the professional poker players pay for their entry fees into the events? I can guarentee that many of the online poker sites will pay entry fees for well-known poker personalities. Why? So every one in the room, and on T.V., will see them wearing their gear. It's called advertising; brand marketing.

i dont see what this has to do with anything we are discussing...

[PUNNISHER 0]

I am not sure what the last thread had to do with Appearance Fee's? This is the only issue I have, and it is with the Poker Pro's recieving an appearance fee from the tourney to come and play in the tourney. L*

[dms26 3]

I am not sure what the last thread had to do with Appearance Fee's? This is the only issue I have, and it is with the Poker Pro's recieving an appearance fee from the tourney to come and play in the tourney. L*

I can only see this happening in small tournaments, not WPT or WSOP events . It's a business now and if a tournament director feels that paying for a pro's buy in will attract more people to play then maybe it could happen. Kind of like the Bay 101 where you get to "bust a star". I just don't see it happening at a large event because the pro's incentive is the million dollar first prize, you don't need to offer anything else.

[rednas 0]

I am not sure what the last thread had to do with Appearance Fee's? This is the only issue I have, and it is with the Poker Pro's recieving an appearance fee from the tourney to come and play in the tourney. Appearance Fee/entry fee....They are the same thing.....It is either money going into the player's pocket or money not coming out of the pocket.....And to think the online/B&M casino's are not in co-operation in this is silly.

[justblaze 0]

I am not sure what the last thread had to do with Appearance Fee's? This is the only issue I have' date=' and it is with the Poker Pro's recieving an appearance fee from the tourney to come and play in the tourney. Appearance Fee/entry fee....They are the same thing.....It is either money going into the player's pocket or money not coming out of the pocket.....And to think the online/B&M casino's are not in co-operation in this is silly.[/quote']its not the same thing. an appearance fee would be substantially more than the buyin.

[jack24bauer24 0]

People watch poker regardless of who's playing....if you get the big names at the final table its just a bonus....when so many people are watching Celebrity Poker Showdown, where the word "celebrity" is used rather liberally, and the players are horrible, its pretty obvious people aren't just watching poker to see Doyle, Phil, etc.

[rednas 0]

I am not sure what the last thread had to do with Appearance Fee's? This is the only issue I have' date=' and it is with the Poker Pro's recieving an appearance fee from the tourney to come and play in the tourney. Appearance Fee/entry fee....They are the same thing.....It is either money going into the player's pocket or money not coming out of the pocket.....And to think the online/B&M casino's are not in co-operation in this is silly.[/quote']its not the same thing. an appearance fee would be substantially more than the buyin.

Yes, the appearance fee would seem to be larger. But, with the entry fee you are looking at: The entry fee, room & board for the entire trip, hotel, flight to and from, etc.....No matter which way you look at it, they come out on top. I am, however, not opposed to it.

[AC BillP 0]

I must be missing something!!! As Jack24Bauer pointed out, there already are plenty of named players getting freerolls as at the Tournament of Champions or other invitational TV televised events. The name players aren't paid directly--they are getting a piece of the purse offered if they place.. The situation is the same as the PGA where TV revenues go to the winners. And TV productions giving freerolls keep coming, which proves that- so far- people are in fact tuning in to see the big names.If the pros are smart, they will form their own PGA (PPA) and have yearly rankings to determine qualified players--a top 125 like the PGA. Only as an organization will they be able to negoptiate a percentage added to the prize pool similar to golf. Heck even the pro bowlers have been able to do it (THERE's EXCITEMENT!!) so why not poker players?

[Awful 0]

If it doesn't take from the prize pool and is a marketing solution that the players and hosts agree upon, you can't really complain too much. As long as it's not affecting your overlay for the tournament vs. waht it would be if everyone bought in themselves, it's got no real effect. If you want the same treatment and get yourself paid to even show up, make a WPT TV table and be entertaining.The players would likely need to unionize in some way to do this; most of the tournament pros need the tournaments still more than the tournaments need any individual "name" pro. That combination of supply and demand insures that appearance fees will be on the house's terms, if at all. Have WPT ratings actually fluctuated as a function of the final table players? That's all a Gus or Danny would have to stand on if they were to make such demands. If Danny swears off the WPT and says "pay me or I'll just play 4k/8k", we'll be able to hear Lipscomb Entertainment laughing from our respective computer chairs.At the same time, a union or other similar agreement of solidarity would also be dangerous as it alienates non-members and raises the shadow of collusion and harms the accessability of the game and the best players. The beauty of poker is that all you need to play is money to buy the chips and to get a seat at the table, compound that with the luck factor, and that's why Poker is different than any other sport. I'll never outshoot Tiger without a 200 stroke handicap, but I will occasionally be able to get the money even in the big game due to variance. Separating the pros from the others will harm tournament attendance, cut payouts, reduce the vig collected and be detrimental to the game and the tournament circuit.I think they should use TV revenues to eliminate the vig, but that's because I'm not good enough to be a WPT TV table regular, nor obnoxious enough to be notable should that ever happen through miracles of hold'em.