7 Players Vs The Wpt

[jayvegas420 0]

Like Daniel and other Canadians, I suffered through a season without professional hockey. I spent days hearing about who was at fault. Those days stretched into weeks and the weeks became months. Inevitablly it didn't really matter who you blamed, it was just bad for the sport. Not unlike other NHL fans I vowed I wouldn't go to see a live game, let alone watch it on T.V. Well, guess what?.... When hockey started again last season I watched it opening night. A few weeks later I was sitting rinkside, on the glass, watching Sid the Kid warm up. After I argued with all my friends and voiced my displeasure with all aspects of the strike/lockout I came to the dulling realization that if I want to watch the best calibur of hockey with the greatest players alive I HAD TO WATCH THE N.H.L.I could watch WHL or OHL WHA hockey, but I choose not to.After vomiting with disgust over the owners and how greedy they can be, I sat down with a six pack and watched the players.After feeling disappointed with the players for asking for intitlements they weren't intitled to, I bought front row seats at the Scotia Bank Center.After maintaing my life long belief that ten lawyers and ten agents at the bottom of the ocean is a "GOOD START", I am still watching hockey.Because it is still, IMO a good product.Point is, if the product is good enough people will watch and when people watch everyone involved should profit.Was that the real Dave Foley? crazy!I hate to expand my paralell to golf but, the reason you see golfer's faces on a daily basis or perhaps you see them doing charity work or promotional footage, it is because their likeness "IS" owned. In part by the PGA and the Professional Golfers Players Association. The NHL players had a players association who decided on isues like this one, in this forum. The players rely on the soundness of the decisions made by these bodies so that the players don't run into problems like this. I doubt every golfer wants his face to be associated with a particular product or event but, they make their living endorsing what they told and they do it for good reason...$$$$. I suppose the suggestions of a Professional Poker Players "union" is comparable. But then you end up with a Players Association like the N.H.L.'s who make decisions that don't necesarily have the best interests of THE GAME in mind. The point made earlier about golfers paying to enter a tournament was well put. If a particular golfer does not like the conditions he must adhere to to earn his money on the PGA, he is forced to play on the Hogan tour or the Nike Tour, or the DOTCOM tour or even the European, Spanish or Canadian tour. But we all know the only tour to watch is the PGA. The only hockey on my T.V. is the NHL. I don't watch Triple A Baseball I watch MLB. I guess my point, after reading 4 hours of posts and ready to fall asleep is....Is the WPT the NHL of poker?Is the WSOP like the PGA for professional poker players? Can you even compare the poker affiliations, or these sports as a whole. In all facets of sport and business there is always a continuing conflict and I think Daniel has handled this conflict, thus far, with class, intergrity and and an overall intelligent demeanor. His beliefs are his and his competator's are theirs. They are all intitled to their opinions and they all have choices to make.DN has chosen to air his grievances in a public forum with little or no mud slinging and if it weren't for this actual forum I wouldn't have as great a knowlege of the issue nor could I actually throw my two cents in... and have it read by notable Canadian comedians, profesional poker players, attorney's, wanna be attorney's and other fans like me. (Raymer's only choice is to find a new career!)...different topic.It's not necessarily biting the hand that feeds you but, nibbling at their fingers may be exactly what you don't want to do.new here and looking forward to playing at FULLCONTACT.

[PairTheBoard 0]

57. For example, WPTE markets the "World Poker Tour" video game which competes with, among other things, the "World Championship Poker" line of video games co-Plaintiffs Howard Lederer, Annie Duke and Greg Raymer each have licensed to Crave Entertainment, Inc - which manufactures and sells the "World Championship Poker" video games - the exclusive right to use their names, likenesses, images in conjunction with Crave video games. WPTE, however, upon information and belief, has used video footage of Messrs. Lederer and Raymer and Ms Duke playing in the WPT tournament as part of its "World Poker Tour" video game. The co-Plaintiffs were never notified by WPTE of this fact, nor did they receive any compensation for WPTE's coercive use of their intellectual property rights.Did they start these companies, games, before or after they appeared on the WPT? Not that it really makes much of a difference, however, what I think DN is and has been trying to say is that without the WPT, the show, and the popularity of it heading into the WSOP tourney (and hence ESPN picking up on the popularity of the WPT adding more tv to it), these games, the books, etc. wouldn't even make these players any money at all had it not be for the introduction of poker on tv and the WPT. One begets the other, and if they are going to go after the WPT, why not go after the worse culprit, the WSOP?? So to say the WPT is hindering their ability to earn a living is laughable and ludicrious. I am sure they are not complaining about the money they have been making at the WSOP, the "special" events on FSN, and other sites. And who knows on how much money they have made from cash games from "dead money" players that are rich and don't care that they lost money to some poker superstar, they just wanted the honor of playing them. 58. Another example is provided by WPTE's exploitation of the intellectual property rights of co-Plaintiff Phil Gordon, who is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Expert Insight, a company which markets instructional poker DVD's and books among other things. In connection with Expert Insight, Mr. Gordon and co-Plaintiff Andrew Bloch run the "Las Vegas Academy" poker fantasy camp, where interested poker and blackjack players can pay for instruction from Messrs. Gordon and Bloch. WPTE runs its own poker fantasy camp - "World Poker Tour Boot Camp" - which is a head-to-head competitor with the Las Vegas Academy. Upon information and belief, WPTE has used video footage of Mr. Gordon playing in WPT tournaments - without his prior knowledge or any compensation - to promote its World Poker Tour Boot Camp.Would these "boot camps" even be in existence had the WPT even started? OK, so an argument can be made that another company could have come in, that may be true, but I am sure the wording would be the same in any event. Here is my take on the situation, not that anyone even cares:They filed this lawsuit way too prematurely. 7 players doesn't come with a position of strength. Had they gone to most of the players and they had all agreed to boycott events, it would have held much more weight. Had they gotten a majority of the players to join them, they would have much more in way of settlement because it would ultimately make the WPT take notice and offer some concessions to the players to keep it from going away. Strength in numbers is where they need to be. Maybe the WSOP or other tourneys should charge a player for pimping their websites......Phil Gordon, Howard, et al sure do come to play in Full Tilt poker gear at any event they go to play in. Maybe when they are in a featured table they should get charged for the advertisement they display on their body. Their residual income from that site, and all of the other "events" and the tv shows they are on sure are making them a lot of money they wouldn't otherwise have. A few questions come to play here...why doesn't Mike "the Mouth" join in in the lawsuit, or Phil Ivey as they are part of the Full Tilt team? The thing is, they are not going in with a position of strength, and although they bring up good points, they are not going to get anything out of the lawsuit. Them not being able to "make a living" is a joke. Let's see how much they have made in all of this. Would Annie Duke be making movies, or doing all the things they have been doing without the recent popularity? Hell no would be the answer. The only way they could possibly change these contracts is to have a position of strength with all of the players boycotting the WPT. And until that happens, these 7 are just spinning their wheels.Maybe they would rethink their position if they had filed suit in Britain where the loser pays the others legal fees. And by the way, I didn't agree with the terms and conditions I had to agree to to in order to sign up for this site. You will be hearing from my attorney here shortly!

The thing is, 57 and 58 from the litigants' complaint are examples of the WPT doing things that Daniel claims they have never done. This was one of the main arguments He made in coming to His posistion and he has said that if it were brought to light that he was wrong on this point then he would reconsider his position. If 57 and 58 are what they appear to be then Daniel IS wrong on this foundation point of his stance and He Should Reconsider as he said he would.PairTheBoard

[Joom26 0]

Umm.....I too will be contacting my attorney about this contract I had to agree to in order to post in this forum. Does it matter that I only read the first sentence before I clicke don the "I agree" tab? Seriously, I wanted to saw that I loved that "Raw and Uncut" video Daniel posted. Classic.Jm

[blueodum 0]

I also know something about anti--trust law too. Not that much, but I know enough to say that the players do not have a case. They have to prove that the WPT used monopolistic power in an anti-competitve way, and they have to prove damages were done because of said action of the WPT, but that has to do with the exclusive deals with the casinos and not the release.The player release does not fall under the umbrella of anti-trust law. It is a legally binding contract signed in good faith by both parties. It meets all the requirements to make a legally binding contract and the players agreed to the terms by signing the contract. That is the bottom line and it is very clear cut.Basically everything you say here was refuted in an earlier thread by a poster who IS very familiar with anti-trust law. Do yourself a favor and read it. It was started by Negreanu titled "The players have no shot".Casinos cannot ban players just because they are, or could be since there is not one yet, a part of a union.Wrong again. Casinos are private property and as such they have the legal right to refuse entry to anyone they wish for any reason (in Nevada). That is why known card counters not allowed in Nevada casinos, even though card counting is perfectly legal.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I am not a lawyer nor have I ever played one on TV...I feel that the division over this topic seems to be based on something that is unclear; to me anyway. 1. The WPT requires a player's signature on a release prior to participation - that seems reasonable to me.2. The WPT can use a player's likeness from their WPT appearance to promote the WPT - sounds similar to a lottery and also reasonable to me.3. The WPT can use a player's likeness on any WPT product they want - is this true? Does a release signed by Daniel Negreanu in 2005 allow them to release a WPT product in 2010 with Daniel Negreanu's image on it even if said product may go against Daniel Negreanu's beliefs and/or morals? I'm not asking if they would do it, but rather if they could do it from a legal standpoint.And how does something like this affect other contracts that may have been signed by a player?It is interesting to note that the 7 players in the lawsuit are affiliated with other entities.Annie Duke - UltimateBetAndy Bloch - Full TiltChris Ferguson - Full TiltPhil Gordon - Full TiltGreg Raymer - PokerStarsJoe Hachem - PokerStarsHoward Lederer - Full TiltI am curious as to why others affiliated with such sites (Phil Ivey, Chris Moneymaker, Phil Hellmuth, etc...) are not also named in the suit. Are the 7 being used as pawns? I understand Daniel's point that these players have profited greatly because of the WPT. Daniel seems like someone who places a great deal of emphasis on loyality. It is a trait not seen very often these days especially in situations where the stakes are so high. However, despite the fact that I also place a great emphasis on loyality, I would have a great deal of difficulty remaining loyal to someone who (if the answer to #3 above is yes) is taking advantage of a situation to the point where it can almost be called contractual rape. I love my wife, she has made me a father and a better person and I am forever grateful to her, but if she started screwing the milkman and/or tried to take my children away from me I would come down with the wrath of a thousand Khans. The difference is, I would not stand behind the facade that I would be acting in the best interest of men everywhere.Hey, Annie Duke, Andy Bloch, Chris Ferguson, Phil Gordon, Greg Raymer, Joe Hachem and Howard Lederer; I respect your right to file suit against something you feel is wrong. Hell, I commend you, but don't try (directly or indirectly through your lawyers) to make it sound like you're doing it for the good of all players when anyone with the most basic knowledge of human motivation knows it is a self-serving action.And for the individual suggesting a union I really don't see how it would work. I have my reasons for doubt, but for starters; the players are not employed by the WPT.Thanks for listening (i.e., reading),Dale

[PairTheBoard 0]

3. The WPT can use a player's likeness on any WPT product they want - is this true? Does a release signed by Daniel Negreanu in 2005 allow them to release a WPT product in 2010 with Daniel Negreanu's image on it even if said product may go against Daniel Negreanu's beliefs and/or morals? I'm not asking if they would do it, but rather if they could do it from a legal standpoint.And how does something like this affect other contracts that may have been signed by a player?

This is the Crux of the Complaint. The language of the Release does give the WPT these Broad Rights to player names and images. Daniel has said that he is all for standing up for principle and he would stand up for this principle just as he objected when the WPT tried to use His Image in this way, BUT Daniel claims the WPT has never actually done this. He has said that if it came to light that the WPT Had done this kind of thing he would reconsider his position. Yet Items 57 and 58 of the Seven's Complaint are examples of exactly such things. I've posted these items several times now. Daniel has yet to respond.Link to the Lawsuit ComplaintFrom the Lawsuit Complaint==================57. For example, WPTE markets the "World Poker Tour" video game which competes with, among other things, the "World Championship Poker" line of video games co-Plaintiffs Howard Lederer, Annie Duke and Greg Raymer each have licensed to Crave Entertainment, Inc - which manufactures and sells the "World Championship Poker" video games - the exclusive right to use their names, likenesses, images in conjunction with Crave video games. WPTE, however, upon information and belief, has used video footage of Messrs. Lederer and Raymer and Ms Duke playing in the WPT tournament as part of its "World Poker Tour" video game. The co-Plaintiffs were never notified by WPTE of this fact, nor did they receive any compensation for WPTE's coercive use of their intellectual property rights.58. Another example is provided by WPTE's exploitation of the intellectual property rights of co-Plaintiff Phil Gordon, who is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Expert Insight, a company which markets instructional poker DVD's and books among other things. In connection with Expert Insight, Mr. Gordon and co-Plaintiff Andrew Bloch run the "Las Vegas Academy" poker fantasy camp, where interested poker and blackjack players can pay for instruction from Messrs. Gordon and Bloch. WPTE runs its own poker fantasy camp - "World Poker Tour Boot Camp" - which is a head-to-head competitor with the Las Vegas Academy. Upon information and belief, WPTE has used video footage of Mr. Gordon playing in WPT tournaments - without his prior knowledge or any compensation - to promote its World Poker Tour Boot Camp.==============PairTheBoard

[missIdaho 1]

The posts in this thread are too long for me to read while I am at work I am going to say that in my professional legal opinion, being that I am only a legal assistant/paralegal you can add value to my opinion or not, there are points to the suit that have merit, but in the long run I don't believe enough so that they could win. That is all.

[ohen 0]

I also want to point out the absence of such players as Chris Moneymaker, Phil Hellmuth, Antonio Esfandiari and all but 4 of the ultra-famous Full Tilt Poker "family" from this lawsuit. If Raymer and Hachem's pokerstars contracts were somewhow threatened by the duality of WPT using their likeness, then why is Chris Moneymaker, the original of the PokerStars Main Event champ, not associated with the lawsuit? Is his contract so different from Hachem and Raymer's contracts with Stars that Moneymaker is somehow able to not breach his contract while Raymer and Hachem do? (and I'm not even mentioning the fact that Raymer and Hachem haven't accomplished diddly squat in WPT events while Moneymaker has a 2nd place finish in the Bay 101 even, so if anyone's likeness could potentially used by the WPT, it would be Moneymaker's). Same goes for the fact that Phil Hellmuth and Antonio Esfandiari, the two most visible Ultimatebet.com members are not associated with the lawsuit while Annie Duke is. If the lawsuit was so important for the poker players, and especially ones associated with online poker sites, how was Ms. Duke NOT able to pursuade his fellow UB players such as Hellmuth, Esfandiari or Deeb to join this lawsuit? And why are Mike Matusow, Phil Ivey, Erick Lindgren, Jennifer Harman, Erik Seidel and the plethora of remaining Team FullTilt members not involved in this lawsuit? I mean, if Ferguson and Bloch are going to criticize Daniel for somehow being against poker players as a whole, maybe they should start with their own "family" and get guys like Matusow and Ivey to join. The fact that those FTP team members not involved in the WPT lawsuit are being silent, in my opinion, speaks volumes.

[rivergirl 2]

I also want to point out the absence of such players as Chris Moneymaker, Phil Hellmuth, Antonio Esfandiari and all but 4 of the ultra-famous Full Tilt Poker "family" from this lawsuit. If Raymer and Hachem's pokerstars contracts were somewhow threatened by the duality of WPT using their likeness, then why is Chris Moneymaker, the original of the PokerStars Main Event champ, not associated with the lawsuit? Is his contract so different from Hachem and Raymer's contracts with Stars that Moneymaker is somehow able to not breach his contract while Raymer and Hachem do? (and I'm not even mentioning the fact that Raymer and Hachem haven't accomplished diddly squat in WPT events while Moneymaker has a 2nd place finish in the Bay 101 even, so if anyone's likeness could potentially used by the WPT, it would be Moneymaker's). Same goes for the fact that Phil Hellmuth and Antonio Esfandiari, the two most visible Ultimatebet.com members are not associated with the lawsuit while Annie Duke is. If the lawsuit was so important for the poker players, and especially ones associated with online poker sites, how was Ms. Duke NOT able to pursuade his fellow UB players such as Hellmuth, Esfandiari or Deeb to join this lawsuit? And why are Mike Matusow, Phil Ivey, Erick Lindgren, Jennifer Harman, Erik Seidel and the plethora of remaining Team FullTilt members not involved in this lawsuit? I mean, if Ferguson and Bloch are going to criticize Daniel for somehow being against poker players as a whole, maybe they should start with their own "family" and get guys like Matusow and Ivey to join. The fact that those FTP team members not involved in the WPT lawsuit are being silent, in my opinion, speaks volumes.

my senitments exactly...NH

[RuntCake 0]

The USFL pulled the trigger too early and it won its lawsuit in a similar case. (see http://www.oursportscentral.com/usfl/ for a brief history and the involvement of Donald Trump) They agreed to the anti-trust ruling but since they could not prove damages, the were awarded $1. Yep, one buck. That was tripled due to federal law and interest was paid for a grand total of $3.20. Eventually, due to bad management and an attempt to steal the season, they folded.My question is, could a win be a loss or vica versa?

[ohen 0]

I will also bet that the lawsuit, assuming it doesn't settle, will not survive the summary judgment stage. It probably will get past the initial Motion to that the WPT will file to dismiss the case, but, as a litigation attorney who has studied antitrust law and litigated numerous contracts disputes, I would be shocked to see this case go to trial. My guess his after the "Magnificient Seven" get themselves a new one torn during discovery and their depositions and their legal bills start to add up to over $1 mill per each player (I guarantee the WPT attorneys will make the whole process a living hell for these guys and if they are, as they claim, paying their attorneys themselves, the legal fees WILL rise astronomical amounts), they will reassess the situation and settle the dispute where the WPT will make some minimal concessions.

[missIdaho 1]

I will also bet that the lawsuit, assuming it doesn't settle, will not survive the summary judgment stage. It probably will get past the initial Motion to that the WPT will file to dismiss the case, but, as a litigation attorney who has studied antitrust law and litigated numerous contracts disputes, I would be shocked to see this case go to trial. My guess his after the "Magnificient Seven" get themselves a new one torn during discovery and their depositions and their legal bills start to add up to over $1 mill per each player (I guarantee the WPT attorneys will make the whole process a living hell for these guys and if they are, as they claim, paying their attorneys themselves, the legal fees WILL rise astronomical amounts), they will reassess the situation and settle the dispute where the WPT will make some minimal concessions.

this is exactly what I see happening too

[wheatrich 0]

Problem with Daniel's argument that the WPT made them is that out of the 7 players on the list you can really only make an argument for 2 and lederer had way more coverage in the wsop than he ever did on the wpt. So that just leaves Phil Gordon. The rest all were made in/because of the wsop.Daniel did mention not one agreed with the lawsuit but he also convienently didn't mention how many people agreed with their position regarding that issue. That's something I'm more interested in.I wish the group the best of luck in getting that stuff cleared up with the two major poker "tours" but I'd be shocked if judge didn't just say "then don't play" and throw it out.No sport that I know of uses people's names for products without their permission and I think that should apply to poker as well.Also regarding the other players--you do realize they're paying legal fees out of pocket and those players just may not be willing to pay for the legal fees. I'm pretty sure lindgren's book had WPT right on it so that would eliminate him from that lawsuit and some of them have been on there quite a bit recently so it wouldn't be such a good idea to include them on the lawsuit.Everyone's their own person you know...

[dirtystacks 0]

I would love to hear the exceptions that are applicable in this case. Consent - The agreement must have been entered into freely. Consent may be vitiated by duress or undue influence. Legality - The purpose of the agreement must not be illegal or contrary to public policy.

First and foremost, formulaic application of black letter rules is going to lead you to the incorrect result many times. The law is gray-not black and white. The primary issue here is one of economic duress. These players are being forced to sign the contracts or sacrifice their livelihood. It's all fine and dandy to say they could go play elsewhere but that isn't actually true because WPT has locked up the major venues. You must look at the entire situation. Second, if you don't think the 'void against public policy' exception can be applied by courts whereever they think some business deal stinks, you don't know how the legal system works. Judges are result-oriented.In Andy Bloch's case, they told him he had to sign the contract or forfeit his buyin. This is clear economic duress and the contract is voidable.

I have expressed my opinion on anti-trust law from what little I have read about it, but I have always stated my knowledge of anti-trust law is not that deep. I do not think there is an anti-trust case here from what I have read about anti-trust law from lawyers and from what I know about market structures and monopolistic competition (which I know a lot about). I am an economist, so I market structures are kind of my thing.

Look, you admit you don't know antitrust law then proceed to tell me you don't think there's a suit? It's a common misconception that antitrust suits require that someone have a monopoly. This is not true. Under section 1 of the Sherman Act, many practices, such as price fixing agreements between competitors (and there are many other things), are illegal per se. That means, if you engage in the conduct, the court does not look at the why's the market share or anything else. It's open and shut. This is the law. Period. If you want more of an explanation go look at my post in the "WPT Lawsuit" thread.

If they ban players, and all the player that they ban happen to belong to a union, then I would say that it is more likely than not that the reason they were banned was due to their membership in a union. Even if they let one or two play. The rule of law in civil court is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It is, in plain english, whether something is mroe likely than not to be true. If they did that, they would get sued and get their butts kicked in court. Also, banning players is bad for business and would get a ton of negative press, so I doubt the WSOP or WPT would ever ban a player unless they had a good reason (cheating and other such offenses).

You keep spouting irrelevant legal rules. Union members are not a protected class unless statutes specifically grant protection to that union. More importantly, some states don't even allow unions. Unions are a form of price fixing on the supply side. Courts allow them when they are necessary to counteract price fixing on the demand side.

[dirtystacks 0]

Then, don't the players need to prove that the WPT exclusivity deals do have a negative impact on competition?

Not for a price fixing allegation under section 1 of the Sherman Act.

From what I can tell from here, there are approximately 1,650 casinos in the US. The WPT probably has deals with less than 5% of that number. I don't see how barring under 5% of the casinos in America is preventing other TV-poker-tournament companies from starting up. True, the remaining 95% might not be "high-profile", but do viewers and players actually care in what casino a tournament is held?

Look, for some causes of action under the sherman act, this is going to be at issue. Where it is, the question is going to be defining the relevant market in terms of geographic area and cross-elasticity of demand. The question is whether tournaments in other cities are substitutes for vegas tournaments. Are 10k events (are there any?) at shitty casinos substitutes for Bellagio 10k events? Are televised events substitutes for non-televised events?

Also, how can only preventing the players from playing in televised events hurt them financially? Do cameras turn on their A-game or something? There are thousands of other tournaments going on every day. Why don't they just play in those? Are there more donks in TV tournaments than in non-TV tournaments, and are therefore more profitable? Probably, but to win on that point, they'd have to provide some statistics on the donkitude of tournament players in non-TV/TV tournaments, and I'm guessing those are hard to find.

How is it difficult to understand this? IF the WPT didn't lock up these venues, someone else would be free to come in and host a televised tournament. Given competition, they wouldn't be able to exact these unreasonable waivers. In those tournaments, their play would be seen and they would gain notariety. They would then profit from that.

I will also bet that the lawsuit, assuming it doesn't settle, will not survive the summary judgment stage. It probably will get past the initial Motion to that the WPT will file to dismiss the case, but, as a litigation attorney who has studied antitrust law and litigated numerous contracts disputes, I would be shocked to see this case go to trial. My guess his after the "Magnificient Seven" get themselves a new one torn during discovery and their depositions and their legal bills start to add up to over $1 mill per each player (I guarantee the WPT attorneys will make the whole process a living hell for these guys and if they are, as they claim, paying their attorneys themselves, the legal fees WILL rise astronomical amounts), they will reassess the situation and settle the dispute where the WPT will make some minimal concessions.

Why, exactly, would the WPT's summary judgment motion be granted?

[Koonsy08 0]

I totally agree with you Daniel the players that are doin this are idiots. They are gonna give poker a black eye hopefully they wake up and decide not to move forward but it dosen't look like that will happen. Oh by the way this thread that supposedly is suppose to be Raymer bad mouthin you I would try to confirm this before doin anything harsh. Take care Koonsy!!!

[StevieV711 0]

The thing is, 57 and 58 from the litigants' complaint are examples of the WPT doing things that Daniel claims they have never done. This was one of the main arguments He made in coming to His posistion and he has said that if it were brought to light that he was wrong on this point then he would reconsider his position. If 57 and 58 are what they appear to be then Daniel IS wrong on this foundation point of his stance and He Should Reconsider as he said he would.PairTheBoard DN would have to answer this one. But, as far as this point is concerned for me, they signed this form a long time before they were household names. They didn't have a problem with it then, and in fact, had they had a problem, they should have filed the complaint a LONG time ago, and way before they made celebrity status. Hell, if the WPT and the WSOP and poker hadn't gone mainstream, I think these players would have been thrilled to be even on a video game that didn't sell. I am not saying they may not have some valid points, but they maybe pulled the trigger much sooner than they should have. People talk about "what ifs" but if they never happen, and they lose the lawsuit, then what have they accomplished.It looks to me that they are fighting a losing battle, and even if they get a small victory, they are still going to lose because they will have alienated the tour. Does everyone see the possible ramifications? Say the WPT loses, do you really think that the WSOP won't be next? Some yayhoo from South Dakota will think it is a bright idea to get his name out there and sue with a few buddies talking about how the WSOP is unfair, and now that there is a ruling, do you think that the WSOP won't have to change as well?IF it ends up hurting the venues and the tours, who do you think the people that put on these tourneys are going to blame? It isn't hard to blacklist players in casinos so they really may suffer from this. Ask Andy Bloch how if feels not to be able to gamble in a casino (at least blackjack), and ask him how long he will be watched the minute he walks into a casino. Timing, the lack of strength from other players, and the weakness in some of their claims is going to doom their efforts REGARDLESS of the outcome.IF you don't like what you are signing, then don't sign and don't play. But do you think that the WPT attorneys won't compare their consent to the WSOP and ask the same questions on why they will sign those consents freely?

[ColeSLaw 0]

Legality - The purpose of the agreement must not be illegal or contrary to public policy.

You complain that no one explains why this lawsuit is not a striaght contract law, yet you do not listen.COURTS WILL NOT ENFORCE UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE CONTRACTS.There is much room to argue what is reasonable and what isn't in terms of the assignments of image rights.

[PairTheBoard 0]

The thing is, 57 and 58 from the litigants' complaint are examples of the WPT doing things that Daniel claims they have never done. This was one of the main arguments He made in coming to His posistion and he has said that if it were brought to light that he was wrong on this point then he would reconsider his position. If 57 and 58 are what they appear to be then Daniel IS wrong on this foundation point of his stance and He Should Reconsider as he said he would.PairTheBoard DN would have to answer this one. But, as far as this point is concerned for me, they signed this form a long time before they were household names. They didn't have a problem with it then, and in fact, had they had a problem, they should have filed the complaint a LONG time ago, and way before they made celebrity status. Hell, if the WPT and the WSOP and poker hadn't gone mainstream, I think these players would have been thrilled to be even on a video game that didn't sell. I am not saying they may not have some valid points, but they maybe pulled the trigger much sooner than they should have. People talk about "what ifs" but if they never happen, and they lose the lawsuit, then what have they accomplished.It looks to me that they are fighting a losing battle, and even if they get a small victory, they are still going to lose because they will have alienated the tour. Does everyone see the possible ramifications? Say the WPT loses, do you really think that the WSOP won't be next? Some yayhoo from South Dakota will think it is a bright idea to get his name out there and sue with a few buddies talking about how the WSOP is unfair, and now that there is a ruling, do you think that the WSOP won't have to change as well?IF it ends up hurting the venues and the tours, who do you think the people that put on these tourneys are going to blame? It isn't hard to blacklist players in casinos so they really may suffer from this. Ask Andy Bloch how if feels not to be able to gamble in a casino (at least blackjack), and ask him how long he will be watched the minute he walks into a casino. Timing, the lack of strength from other players, and the weakness in some of their claims is going to doom their efforts REGARDLESS of the outcome.IF you don't like what you are signing, then don't sign and don't play. But do you think that the WPT attorneys won't compare their consent to the WSOP and ask the same questions on why they will sign those consents freely?

You can have Your point that players who sign the release should be willing to live up to it. But that's not Daniel's stance. Daniel signed the release. But when the WPT was about to use Daniel's image to promote a non TV WPT product, Daniel objected strenuously until the WPT backed down to accomodate him and the two other Big Name Players involved. He was unsure about whether he would continue to sign the Release the WPT adopted in December until he was assured by them that they would never use a player's name or image in a WPT product against the player's wishes. That is, WPT insists players sign a release giving WPT such a right but WPT assured Daniel they would never use it. Daniel stated in his vblog that he would stand on principle along with other players if WPT had actually done such a thing but he insists they never have. However, 57 and 58 in the Complaint seem to contradict this. I suspect Daniel is busy playing golf, the big game, and maybe the 10k tourny at the Bellagio. Good for him. That's what he should be doing. So I don't blame him if he hasn't been perusing these threads too closely. I am curious what his response is to 57 and 58 though. There may be more to it than meets the eye. And for that matter, he may not even want to respond to such particulars for good reason. Still, I'm curious.PairTheBoard

[elaear 0]

Then, don't the players need to prove that the WPT exclusivity deals do have a negative impact on competition?Not for a price fixing allegation under section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Sorry, I know little, if any, about law. How are the WPT exclusive deals with casinos different from, say, soft drink companies having exclusive deals with fast food chains, restaurants, and schools?

Look, for some causes of action under the sherman act, this is going to be at issue. Where it is, the question is going to be defining the relevant market in terms of geographic area and cross-elasticity of demand. The question is whether tournaments in other cities are substitutes for vegas tournaments. Are 10k events (are there any?) at shitty casinos substitutes for Bellagio 10k events? Are televised events substitutes for non-televised events?

1) It shouldn't matter if there aren't any 10k events at shitty casinos because any casino/company can easily start one there. The WPT is not preventing those other 95% of the casinos from starting their own large buy-in / TV events. Nor is the WPT purposefully preventing the high-stakes players from playing in their events (why would they even want to?). They simply have incompatible terms.2) It deosn't matter if TV/non-TV tournaments are perfect substitutes, because the WPT has the freedom to decide who to show.3) Location shouldn't be an issue, because there are over 350 casinos in Vegas, and the WPT only has deals with a small fraction of that.4) Quality of the casino shouldn't matter, for reasons stated below.

How is it difficult to understand this? IF the WPT didn't lock up these venues, someone else would be free to come in and host a televised tournament. Given competition, they wouldn't be able to exact these unreasonable waivers.

I DO understand that, but my point is that there IS competition. There are over 1,500 other casinos that other people can start televised tournaments in. When viewers watch the tournaments on TV, they don't care where the casino is held. They never think to themselves, "Ew, the tournament's being held at the Tropicana," and then change the channel. And players also don't care about the quality of the casino (so long as it isn't completely appalling). They just see the large buy-in and the televised aspect of the tournament and then they go ahead and register. Just because few, if any, companies have taken the opportunity to host TV tournaments at lower quality casinos doesn't mean that the WPT is exerting monopolistic pressure in the market.

In those tournaments, their play would be seen and they would gain notariety. They would then profit from that.

Again, the WPT, not the players, decide who to show and who not to show on TV. Should the WPT want to, they can easily choose not to show Greg Raymer during an entire televised tournament, even if he won the thing. TV/non-TV should not be a factor.

[dirtystacks 0]

Sorry, I know little, if any, about law. How are the WPT exclusive deals with casinos different from, say, soft drink companies having exclusive deals with fast food chains, restaurants, and schools?

Look, there's way more to this than I can possibly explain on a forum. Just to give you the basic knowledge to understand this we'd have to do a full semester course (approx 55 hours of class time). To get the more nuanced parts of it, there's another 55 hours of class time and 2k pages of reading. That's what I did to get to the level where I feel at least educated enough to comment on this. You can read the "WPT Lawsuit" thread for some of my comments on how this may or may not be characterized under the existing law. Basically, the difference is that those are vertical exclusivity agreements. Some of those are okay, some are not. They are subjected to what is called the 'rule of reason' analysis. The court determines if they are net anticompetitive. What is at issue in this case appears, effectively, to be much more like a horizontal agreement restraining trade (specifically a form of price fixing) between the casinos with the WPT running the show. I'm not saying this characterization will necessarily be accepted, but it is plausible. If the court believes this is horizontal price fixing, then the agreement is illegal WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS OR FURTHER ANALYSIS. This is what people don't understand. Horizontal price fixing, according to case law, is illegal. Period. That's it. You can argue all you want about this of that effect, but the analysis is very simple. Is this an agreement between competitors? About prices? If so, WPT loses.Now, they may be able to get the court to say that this is not truly an agreement between competitors just because of the way it is arranged. They may not. But this is at least arguable--arguable by people with Ph.D's in economics and J.D.s. Quit frankly, very few people on this board know the law and the relevant economic theories well enough to know what is or is not relevant to these arguments. That's why I keep saying that most of the posters on here simply do not understand what is at issue.

1) It shouldn't matter if there aren't any 10k events at shitty casinos because any casino/company can easily start one there. The WPT is not preventing those other 95% of the casinos from starting their own large buy-in / TV events. Nor is the WPT purposefully preventing the high-stakes players from playing in their events (why would they even want to?). They simply have incompatible terms.

Look, this is relevant to one of the players' other claims. Remember, under a section 1 price fixing claim, this is completely irrelevant. But here is the point. It does matter if there aren't any other places for the players to play. This isn't about what companies could potentially do. This is about the ACTUAL state of the market.

2) It deosn't matter if TV/non-TV tournaments are perfect substitutes, because the WPT has the freedom to decide who to show.

No, they really don't. Are you telling me that the WPT is going to choose not to show someone who is at the final table? They would lose value. Consumers of their product (the tv show) would value it less if they edited out players at the final table. This is fairly self evident. I don't think I'm making a controversial claim here.

3) Location shouldn't be an issue, because there are over 350 casinos in Vegas, and the WPT only has deals with a small fraction of that.

1. Geographic location is an issue according to the courts. You can say it isn't, but they say it is. Because the courts have the power here, I think I'll go with what they say.2. Quality of venue is also used to determine the relevant market that is being foreclosed. The top tier casinos ARE a different market than Terribles. You can argue they aren't, but this is an issue to be resolved at trial.

4) Quality of the casino shouldn't matter, for reasons stated below.I DO understand that, but my point is that there IS competition. There are over 1,500 other casinos that other people can start televised tournaments in. When viewers watch the tournaments on TV, they don't care where the casino is held. They never think to themselves, "Ew, the tournament's being held at the Tropicana," and then change the channel. And players also don't care about the quality of the casino (so long as it isn't completely appalling). They just see the large buy-in and the televised aspect of the tournament and then they go ahead and register. Just because few, if any, companies have taken the opportunity to host TV tournaments at lower quality casinos doesn't mean that the WPT is exerting monopolistic pressure in the market.Again, the WPT, not the players, decide who to show and who not to show on TV. Should the WPT want to, they can easily choose not to show Greg Raymer during an entire televised tournament, even if he won the thing. TV/non-TV should not be a factor.

So, you are arguing that because the players can start their own tournaments at less desirable venues, the WPT has done nothing wrong. Unfortunately, this is simply not how the law works. Economics and antitrust law are not setup to be intuitive. Repectfully, you can't just argue from the hip like this. Trust me. You know, if I thought it would help, I would write up a comprehensive analysis of this whole thing with the applicable law. Before I went to law school, I thought I understood this stuff. I knew nothing. I admit that there are still areas of the law I don't know very well, but after taking advanced classes in antitrust and writing a seminar paper on something very similar to this, this is not one of those areas. I know antitrust.

[Pupsta 0]

2. Quality of venue is also used to determine the relevant market that is being foreclosed. The top tier casinos ARE a different market than Terribles.

don't knock terrible's...best graveyard breakfast in town

[AceyDeucy 0]

Re-posted from locked thread at suggestion of mod:Please note the non-ironic use of "respectfully" in the title.I completely get your argument about how poker wasn't NOTHING, but it was precious little compared to how it is now. I understand the comment about how you view this as biting the hand that feeds you, and I am reading a bit of "where's the gratitude" in this as well. But on the principle of the matter, I disagree.All that said, I disagree with you fundamentally on the concept of this argument. I don't believe that because person A did me a big favor in the past I am forever indebted and must overlook anything unfair they do in the future. Of course, I don't think you believe something that extreme either. So the question then becomes, where, between the two extremes of absolute craven self-interest and absolute canine obedience we fall.On this matter, I tend to agree with the suing players who, fully acknowledging that their likeness had virtually no value in the pre-WPT world, want contorl over the use of their likeness. Just because a different entity created the value, that doesn't alter the ownership of the final result. I'm a research engineer, and I do not OWN any of my inventions, because someone else paid for me to invent them. (I would self-promote here to validate this statement, but that is getting off-topic.) By the same token, even though the WPT created the value, the players are still entitled to use the value of their likeness to their own profit, something the WPT is inhibiting by using it themselves. This is not to say that they are not completely replaceable, because they are. From a different angle, I'll add that I don't mind the seven looking out for themselves, because no one else is looking out for them.All that said, that doesn't mean I agree with their tactics, which I tend to view as frustrated "lashing out," after the boycott went unnoticed. I am sure they have great lawyers who think they can win. The problem is that all lawyers think they can win (they wouldn't be good lawyers if they didn't), but they get paid for the fight, not the victory. I think that, projecting into the future, they will be spending far more winning the rights to control the use of their likenesses than they will be able to profit from said rights.But that doesn't alter the fact that I think that your argument, Daniel, is on the wrong side of obsequious to the WPT. I would have an easier time accepting a "Pyrrhic victory" type argument than a "ingrates" argument. I can even see how one might go so far as to call you a "tool" for your argument of choice, although I think that is needlessly crass (to say nothing about inaccurate, too).

[Alina 0]

DN's position that the seven don't have a shot is ill-thought through. His basic contention is that freedom of contract should prevail, but the rationale of anti-trust law is that this should not be the case in all circumstances. The legal issue is whether anti-trusts should trump contract here. It would be interesting to see if the WPT used DN's image to promote a poker game which outsold Stacked without giving him his cuit whether DN would take a different view on the merits of the case.

[BoBetter 0]

I love how Daniel is saying this whole thing is bad for poker, then he goes on several rants on his video blog that a ton a people watch, and now it's become a full blown obsession for everyone on this board. So much for keeping this thing quiet.