Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Daniel I am a huge fan of yours, but don't make this bet.Ask Andy Bloch why they will win, and you'll see why. I don't want to give a long explanation, but it is a open and shut case for the players here.The Anti-trust Law is so obviously broken in this case by the WPT in many regards.Hope I just saved you 100k. :club::D:D:D
If you want to make an arguement, please provide some facts.Otherwise that is an useless post.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe Daniel was upset they used his name without his consent on the WPT website to promote the show.
this is what i thought also, and unless they changed the release form, they could still do so. I thought Steve Lipscomb told Daniel they wouldn't do so, I just didn't know if they actually changed the form, or if Daniel just accepted his word.it's why i asked Daniel
Link to post
Share on other sites
this is what i thought also, and unless they changed the release form, they could still do so. I thought Steve Lipscomb told Daniel they wouldn't do so, I just didn't know if they actually changed the form, or if Daniel just accepted his word.it's why i asked Daniel
Actually, Daniel addressed this in one of his video blogs earlier. He said he alerted Steve about this and he immediately took off the ad that included Doyle and others.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my question, Daniel. Where does the rest of the poker community lie on this situation? I'm not asking for you to drop names, I'm just curious if it's the "ungrateful 7" vs. the world, or do most pros see their side of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the same as the deal where McDonalds has an exclusive deal to only serve Coke products at all of their franchises. I'm going to contact Pepsi to see if we have a lawsuit there. Maybe I can get rich after all. Then I can switch sides and get Coke to sue KFC. This is the American way.
Yeh I think the worst thing here is that the players can sue about this, costing both sides money and bad publicity. Obviously they were not happy with the release form and the WPTE told them 'No' when asked to change it, therefore lawsuit ensues. Instead of lawsuits there should be non partisan government appointed arbitrators to settle cases that are serious enough to go to trial. Right now, unless they are getting really bad advice, the players best option to save face is to meet privately with the WPTE and get them to change their release form a tiny bit, so they can say they got most of what they wanted and vice versa.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Daniel addressed this in one of his video blogs earlier. He said he alerted Steve about this and he immediately took off the ad that included Doyle and others.
still doesn't answer the question of whether they changed the release form to make sure it doesn't happen again, or Daniel just accepted Lipscombs word that it wouldn't.
Yeh I think the worst thing here is that the players can sue about this, costing both sides money and bad publicity. Obviously they were not happy with the release form and the WPTE told them 'No' when asked to change it, therefore lawsuit ensues. Instead of lawsuits there should be non partisan government appointed arbitrators to settle cases that are serious enough to go to trial. Right now, unless they are getting really bad advice, the players best option to save face is to meet privately with the WPTE and get them to change their release form a tiny bit , so they can say they got most of what they wanted and vice versa.
gilbert,im pretty sure theyve done this. i think it was Andy Bloch who said he only hade a problem with one paragraph in the release and he used to cross it out before signing. i guess they used to let him do that and at one point they told him he had to sign it as is, or not at all.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my question, Daniel. Where does the rest of the poker community lie on this situation? I'm not asking for you to drop names, I'm just curious if it's the "ungrateful 7" vs. the world, or do most pros see their side of it?
I haven't talked to a lot of people about it, but those that I have talked to think it's as dumb as dirt. Barry Greenstein has also been vocal about it, but few others truly understand what's at stake with this lawsuit. They have no idea what is to come. Tax records are being looked at, and some people are going to be made out as liars... one in particular has gone on record saying that they won a tournament in 2004 and made NO DEALS. The tax records don't show that, and it will all get exposed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for you Daniel. How come you are such a big supporter of WPT a series that only showcases NLH while at the same time are critical of the WSOP for having too many NLH events. At least the WSOP does have other events.TY

Link to post
Share on other sites
one in particular has gone on record saying that they won a tournament in 2004 and made NO DEALS. The tax records don't show that, and it will all get exposed.
Lol, I hope you don't mean Raymer. This would be as dumb as Richard Hatch not reporting the million he won from survivor on his tax form. Raymer has stated before and it is common knowledge others owned something like 50% of him during the 2004 ME, so if he lied on his taxes to help his friends out that was just plain stupidity, and from a lawyer no less. And I'm sure he wouldn't like to have the same end result as Hatch did.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't talked to a lot of people about it, but those that I have talked to think it's as dumb as dirt. Barry Greenstein has also been vocal about it, but few others truly understand what's at stake with this lawsuit. They have no idea what is to come. Tax records are being looked at, and some people are going to be made out as liars... one in particular has gone on record saying that they won a tournament in 2004 and made NO DEALS. The tax records don't show that, and it will all get exposed.
Plus, I think alot of their brands could stand to suffer greatly from the media expousre. I don't know about the rest of them, but Bloch shady past as part of the MIT black jack team, and Lederer's history as a convicted book maker, can't look good under the glaring public scrutiny.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not AGAINST the players, I'm totally for the players. What these seven are trying to do won't help poker one bit. If anything, it will help take away a lot of the freedoms we have right now. These 7 people don't represent the "players." They certainly don't represent me or my views at all. This whole thing is so insane. BIG DEAL they can't play the WPT, whoopie... I don't think anybody is going to cry about them being gone. I mean seriously, it's not like the WPT needs that group of seven to keep their show on the air. They have a release you have an OPTION to sign. No one is putting a gun to their head. They don't like the show, DON'T PLAY!!! This makes me so sick.
How many of these players showed up to play the PPT freeroll, which is essentially the same damn thing? Andy Bloch has numerous degrees, but don't confuse education with common sense. Iknow nuclear physicists that can't fix a flat tire. Andy has been pissed at the WPT for the release he was forced to sign in one of the first events. Like Daniel said. Don't play. Either get over it or DEAL WITH IT!!!!! :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is why is DN so against the players on this one?
more then anything, the timing is just god awful. WIth there being focus on online gambling, the current political enviorment, and with one entire network deciding on not taking american players, this suit at this time just makes no sense. The group of 7 would have a much better case if the WSOPC didn't exist, so it will be hard to full out prove that WPTE is violating the Sherman Anti Trust laws. Lets be honest, for 5 of these plaintiffs, their intrest isn't what is best for poker, its what's best for Full Tilt, and these are some of the key players in the Full Tilt Team. All in all there is little basis for this suit and it is very much biting the hand that fed you. 4 of the 5 Tilters have greatly benefitted due to the WPT(with Chris Ferguson having benefitted most greatly from ESPN) and now they are going after the WPT with a rather frivilous lawsuit
Link to post
Share on other sites
Question for you Daniel. How come you are such a big supporter of WPT a series that only showcases NLH while at the same time are critical of the WSOP for having too many NLH events. At least the WSOP does have other events.TY
NLH sells it's self !some people from my work watch the WPT.. i ask them if they know how to play RAZZ..OMAHA..STUD etc.. and they all say NOdoes this mean they wouldn't watch those games ,NOT at all.So i think the WPT needs to do an expiriment and try a different tourney!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most, and possibly all, of the players in the lawsuit are from the FT stable. Any chance they could have been the ones that instigated this?
Annie Duke is with Ultimate Bet, Raymer and Hachem are with Poker Stars. Not all are in the Full Tilt stable. What would it profit Full Tilt to incite a suit? The online poker boom is due, in large part, to the WPT. They showcased the online qualifiers. Boy, talk about "biting the hand that feeds you."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel,I see you're still here. Did the WPT change the release from the time you had a problem with it or no?
I don't remember which series of blogs that it was, but check back somewhere between 7-12 months ago. I remember Daniel posting a email from Steve Lipscomb where certain problems with the release form were addressed. The thing is, these players are going after the wrong parts of what makes the WPT less enjoyable, as in the No Deals rule and the insane blind structure that turns the shows into crap shoots around 90 minutes in
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just happened to have a Bible next to me, and I randomly opened it to a passage, Isiah 17-19 Chapter 18. Too long to type in, but damn that is some great foreshadowing. For those of you who have your bibles, clap it open and read the passage, and tell me its all just a bunch of coincidences.I hardly read the good book but I think I may start now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just happened to have a Bible next to me, and I randomly opened it to a passage, Isiah 17-19 Chapter 18. Too long to type in, but damn that is some great foreshadowing. For those of you who have your bibles, clap it open and read the passage, and tell me its all just a bunch of coincidences.
Here, I'll type it out for everyone...'The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyrannies of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepards the weak through the valley of darkness. For he is truly his brothers' keeper and finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here, I'll type it out for everyone...'The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyrannies of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepards the weak through the valley of darkness. For he is truly his brothers' keeper and finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
sam jackson made me piss my pants in terror when he said that!
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the people who think the players have grounds for an anti-trust suit...you have no idea what you're talking about. You can only have anti-trust if it hinders competition but, since MGM/Mirage isn't the only major gaming corporation there can be no anti-trust. Just because MGM/Mirage signed an exclusive contract doesn't mean they're violating any anti-trust statute. For those of you who don't know, there CAN be "noncompetition"clauses in a contract. These clauses are not illegal and can be written into any contract and agreed upon by the signing party. As I said in my last thread and in my original letter to Daniel, the only real option they can probably exercise is to file an injunction against the WPT. All this does is hinder the effect of the release the players have to sign, effectively giving them back the rights to their likeness and whatever else the WPT decides they have the right to use. As Daniel said above, there are so many other properties that would gladly take on a poker tour to highten the interest and traffic to their casinos and the courts will recognise that. If these players have a case against the WPT then there would be hundred of cases against Harrah's for using their exclusive rights with the WSOP. Do you see any other major televised events in a Harrah's property besides the WSOP? No, do don't. Why? Because Harrah's owns the WSOP thus has an exclusive contract within itself that doesn't allow any other televised tournament series to be run in it's casinos. Is this illegal? No, it's not. Is there anti-trust issues here? No, there isn't. If MGM/Mirage owned the WPT as Harrah's owns the WSOP, do you think there would be an issue? Probably not. Here is some general information on what anti-trust actually means any why the players aren't going to be able to pursue an anti-trust suit.Under the antitrust laws, a business generally has a right to deal, or refuse to deal, with whomever it likes, as long as it does so independently. For example, where a manufacturer independently decides to substitute one dealer for another, the manufacturer's decision to sell exclusively to a new dealer does not amount to an antitrust "conspiracy" with the latter.The critical inquiry in such cases is not whether there was a refusal to deal, or whether a refusal to deal was carried out by agreement with others, but rather, whether the refusal to deal, manifested by a combination or a conspiracy, is so anticompetitive, in purpose or effect, or both, as to be an unreasonable restraint of trade. A factor in determining liability is the presence or absence of an available comparable alternative source of supply which is meaningful in terms of market realities.Reference: 10A Fletcher Cyclopedia of Private Corp. § 5007For those of you who don't understand what this says...it is basically saying that, because there are other venues to hold a televised tournament that these players could participate in, there is no antitrust issue here. They only have a hold of ONE major gaming corporation and not the others that have so many properties here in Las Vegas. With Wynn, Maloof, Station and others in town, there is no monopoly to speak of. Not only does this information hamper their lawsuit, there are also other factors to take into accout. First, this case will go to the Nevada Supreme Court. For those of you who forget, Nevada IS the gaming capital of the world. Most of the income and tax revenue comes from the gaming industry. With that being said, the judges on the Nevada Supreme Court are appointed WITHIN the state of Nevada. These judges know full well where their salaries, the tax revenues and incomes of 80% of the employees of the state come from. This should give you a little hint of which way a judge is going to lean against such a flimsy case. Here is the worst thing that could happen to these players...MGM/Mirage could decide to get involved in this lawsuit. For those of you who know ANYTHING about corporate law, you would know that this would be very bad for the players. The WPT may not have the money to fight something like this over the long haul but I guarantee that MGM/Mirage could wrap this up for years. This case may or may not settle out of court and, even though I don't agree with having to sign your rights away just to play in a tournament, playing in these tournaments is a choice. Joe

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem here isn't the lawsuit and whether there is a case or not, it is the ramifications of the lawsuit and what kind of scrutiny it will bring down on the poker community. If said 7 players want to take on WPTE and they have or do not have a case is for the courts to decide. However, by doing so this will put a magnifying glass over those said poker players. Being that those members also represent the PPA, this case will likely bring that group under the magnifying glass as well. Having said that, it will be in WPTE best interests (for sake of the suit) to discredit the players involved, i.e tax records, reputations, back child support, you name it. If there are any black marks on these players records and my guess is there will be, then this case will put much bad publicity on an area that REALLY needs a lot of GOOD publicity right now given the legislation about to go down in Washington. Not to mention no one in the public is going to feel sorry for these poker millionaires and the fact they can't play in a few poker tournaments in the United States. All this leads to is poker players being put under undue scrutiny, PPA being discredited, online poker ban in full effect, with likely more backing than ever from the hill. These are all things poker players do not need. I hope these players see the light, lift the suit, and work out agreements with the COMPANIES THAT ENDORSE THEM to allow them lattitude in WPT events.OEJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...