7 Players Vs The Wpt

[digitalmonkey 929]

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.

Wow, you're comparing a blog entry to a lawsuit? You're a special person and don't let anyone try to tell you any different.

[Oneeydjaq 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.

Whats fun about that?

[elaear 0]

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.

Alright, I get what you're saying there. Thanks for the clarification.

me1) 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.

That doesn't make sense to me. So you're saying, if I start the first $100 million buy-in tournament but have a release that prevents some players from playing, they can sue me for it?

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.

I'm obviously not saying the WPT will ever choose to edit people out of the final table. I'm just saying that it's possible, so that TV/non-TV shouldn't be a factor in regards to the profitability of a tournament. The players have no control over their TV exposure. For example, instead of cutting a player out of the final table, the WPT can make the player look like a jackass, and can therefore have a potentially negative effect on his earnings. The player can do absolutely nothing about it if it were to ever happen.

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.

1. I didn't mean that geographic location isn't an issue. I meant that the WPT does not have a stranglehold over any location and therefore location shouldn't be an issue in this case.2. Top tier casinos are a different market in events like concerts, shows, and conventions; but it'd be tough to argue that they are a different market in large buy-in, televised poker tournaments. The other 95% casinos would have to be extraordinarily bad in order for it to be an issue.

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.

Well, no, I'm not arguing exactly that. I'm saying that the quality of casino has little to do with the desirability of a casino when it comes to large buy-in, televised poker tournaments. Therefore, you shouldn't think of the WPT as having deals with 99% of the best casinos, but rather think of the WPT as having deals with only, say, 25% of casinos that are suitable for such tournaments.

[dirtystacks 0]

Alright, I get what you're saying there. Thanks for the clarification.That doesn't make sense to me. So you're saying, if I start the first $100 million buy-in tournament but have a release that prevents some players from playing, they can sue me for it?

No. But if you lockup some percentage of the relevant market, they may have a claim against you. See, the WPT doesn't have to lock up a majority of the relevant market, they just have to lock up some percentage of it. It's extremely fact/industry specific. We can't predict what a court would require in this case.

2. Top tier casinos are a different market in events like concerts, shows, and conventions; but it'd be tough to argue that they are a different market in large buy-in, televised poker tournaments. The other 95% casinos would have to be extraordinarily bad in order for it to be an issue.Well, no, I'm not arguing exactly that. I'm saying that the quality of casino has little to do with the desirability of a casino when it comes to large buy-in, televised poker tournaments. Therefore, you shouldn't think of the WPT as having deals with 99% of the best casinos, but rather think of the WPT as having deals with only, say, 25% of casinos that are suitable for such tournaments.

Well, these are issues at trial. The players will argue that the quality of the casino is relevant for defining the market that the WPT has locked up. The WPT will argue otherwise. Each side will present expert testimony about the gaming industry and its economics. I don't believe any of us have the knowledge necessary to make a judgment on that. Sure, there are other casinos. But the proper analysis includes data and market statistics. Can those casinos draw as well as the majors for high buyin events? We just don't have the data at hand here. However, saying that the lawsuit is necessarily bogus simply because other casinos exist is premature without these statistics. (And remember, all of this discussion is only relevant to some of the players' claims. The price fixing claim doesn't depend on any of this.)

[pokerlegend1 0]

This lawsuit is more than about these 7 players against the WPT, their position, despite the fact that they think they are doing it for "ALL PLAYERS," is something none of the players are asking for. The "players" are not for this lawsuit. Not one person I asked outside of the 7 thinks this lawsuit is a good idea. Not one. How quickly people forget what poker was like before the WPT. Man, oh man, how quickly y'all forget. Players would have signed their life away back then for a chance at bigger prize pools and television exposure. People quickly forget how fortunate we are that poker has boomed so much over the last few years. Before Moneymaker, before ESPN, it was the WPT that was responsible for making stars of the players. The WPT gave several players an opportunity to sell books, games, and DVD's. That's a fact no matter how they try to spin it. How quickly they forget...

uI will be honest and frank you are uneducated i am correct by saying that. Did you even graduate High School? Wondering because this sounds like it is above your head nad oyu ave no idea what you are talking about. But that is usual for you. Look you had a great year inthe boom of poker that is all. Oh wait your one tourney win BOOYA!!! IDIOT!!! Get an education and please i beg of you please close your mouth you are hurting everybody except your lackey followers.

[Gargoyle 0]

I mentioned in the this thread once before about the seven playing in the PPT. Every one of them has a PPT card. Every one of them has shown up for at least the two tourneys that have been televised. This is a Steve Lipscomb deal too. Somebody tell me what is different in the PPT release that is not in the WPT release. What is different enough to make them all behave so hypocritically? Andy Bloch has been bitching about the WPT release for a couple of years, yet he shows up for the PPT event.

[DerekTah 0]

You know I notice a lot of people saying this will be a "black eye" for poker. In my opinion this is the greatest thing for poker.Look, no matter what the outcome is, whether it is a win for the WPT, a win for the players, or a settlement; from that point on there will basicly be a legal structure of what will be acceptable or both the buisness practices of these tournaments and the rights of the players.I would rather have this occur now as TV tournament poker is starting rather than 40-50 years from now which would probably see a split between the old guard players vs the newcommer players.Also, other than us I doubt there are people reading the newspaper going "what this, 7 players are suing the WPT. I've always questioned the game of poker now its clear this is Satan's game". We are probably the only ones concerned about the suit, not outsiders.Edit to add: Also I notice alot of people state they don't like the timing of the suit. When exactly should the lawsuit occur timing wise anyway?