Questions About Raw & Uncut

[Naismith 0]

For Daniel or whomever would like to respond. I'm putting this here because I can't handle General.In regards to the lawsuit, Daniel continuously points out how bad this will be for poker, but without really explaining what he means by that. Is there anyone here who can enlighten me as to how this will hurt the overall well being of poker?Before anyone thinks I'm attacking Dan, I'm not. I'm against this lawsuit, but mainly because I believe a business should have the freedom to operate how it chooses and the consumer should decide whether that manner is correct or incorrect by agreeing or not agreeing to do business with them. I think if the WPT wants the player to sign away the naming rights to their first child, they should be allowed to make that a part of their contract. It's pretty easy to look at that ridiculous clause, laugh and move on.

[pbhockeyking 0]

people look at poker in a bad light, and there is a bill going threw congress right now that saying there should be no more online gambling. So poker is aready in bad light, more people may look down on it. and just other bad things bad for poker.

[chrozzo 19]

people look at poker in a bad light, and there is a bill going threw congress right now that saying there should be no more online gambling. So poker is aready in bad light, more people may look down on it. and just other bad things bad for poker.

and having top pros arguing publicly will not make many see poker in a better light

[DanielNegreanu 141]

It would be very easy for the WPT and/or MGM/Mirage to bring into play the affiliations the seven players have with online gaming. If that happens, it would likely open up a can of worms that would be best left unopened.

[TulaneFlyr 0]

First, I take into account the previous blogs, the original Raymer comments and the Raymer appology into account when making this comment. Also, I am an attorney. In Star Jones fashion, I have often used that to attempt to explain things as clear when they were more or less ambiguous. In this case, the ambiguity is the only thing that is clear.So, lets talk about what is clear. Seven poker players, on their own, unfunded by poker websites, unjoined in the lawsuit by poker websites, and not filed as a class action on behalf of poker players everywhere, have filed a lawsuit. Layman's terms, 7 people on their own, not for anyone else, only for themselves. Good, bad, or indifferent, they are only putting their OWN names on this. That much seems clear to a layman. It would have been easy to make this a class action. All they had to do was add one line, "and other similarly situated individuals." They didn't. They sued because they felt THEY themselves were wronged. While I have respect for Daniel, his opinions, his right to express those opinions, and his right to consult the opinions of other lawyer friends, his suggestion of online site collusion, and interference with the federal legislation as purposes behind this lawsuit appear unfounded. They appear as unfounded as Raymer's suggestion of Daniel's sock puppetry with Lyle Berman.So, the lawsuit is 34 pages of basically laweristic jargon with suggestion information and belief throughout. We all know what it is basically about. The releases. I have posted previously my concern as to what Daniel's reaction would have been were the shoe on the other foot. But let me ask if anyone believes that the following should be legal. The lawsuit contends that these WPT site casinos took the $10,000.00 entry fee from the players and then told them to sign the release. When they to refused to sign, they were told that if they didn't, they would FORFEIT their entry fee already paid. According to the facts presented, that actually happened to at least one player. As much as questions swirl regarding the legalities, should a casino get to keep $10,000.00 because a player feels his rights to his intellectual property might be worth more than the potential win? That was a point I didn't make before, but needed to be made. Its the sickest part of this lawsuit. Things get worse when these players specifically attempted to negotiate the terms of the release in person and were refused the ability to. The WPT refused to answer legal requests to attempt to negotiate the release in good faith. Those refusals make it sound more and more adhesive. What's worse, in certain instances, players requested to get a copy of the release prior to showing up, so they could have it reviewed by their lawyers to see if it would violate their other agreements. Even THIS was refused! What could be the benefit of that?I have no vested interest in this lawsuit either way. I don't stand against Daniel, nor for the plaintiffs. I stand as an observer, one who looks at these things and sees what is and has happened and reacts. I am reacting as a layman, because, honestly, I am not sure of the anti-trust situation. I can say that there are contractual and intellectual property issues going on right now and will continue. I asked previously, but I pose the question openly again. . . .. would our opinions change if Daniel stopped getting checks from his sponsors because he had breached his agreement with them merely by signing the WSOP/WPT release? Poker players are very conscious and concerned about the loss of freedoms. Many posts in here clamour for the freedom to play online poker, freedom from tax liabilities and freedoms in general. My opinion, which stands after reading this lawsuit, is that these players believe their freedoms have been stomped on by corporate greed. Aren't they at least entitled to having that complaint heard by a court? I await your flames, but note, I didn't attack anyone personally. I attacked Daniel's arguments and the WPT's policies. Please keep it intellectual y'all.

[Freshwaterau 0]

It would be very easy for the WPT and/or MGM/Mirage to bring into play the affiliations the seven players have with online gaming. If that happens, it would likely open up a can of worms that would be best left unopened.

I personally wonder if they really will. The WPT has the WPTonline. It is true that the WPTonline is closed to American players, but they have to be hoping for that market eventually. Seems like calling out the players online affiliations would also hurt them in the end and could forever close out a huge market for them. Maybe I underestitmate the pontential damage of the suit to the WPT, but it seems like calling into question the reputation of the players because of online game sites can also only hurt the WPT in the long run. You lose online poker and the WPT is going to lose a lot of it's fanbase, especially if the WPT is behind a clampdown on online poker just to win it's suit. It sure seems like a dumb suit, but it also seems dumb for the WPT to go down that route. Just my 2 cents.DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer or an expert on online gaming, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night.

[burgerman 0]

Daniel's analysis of the lose-lose proposition of the WPT law suit is on target. If Raymer has apologized, good on him. I'd urge Daniel to forgive him and never forget. Burgerman

[nutzbuster 7]

My rant may come off as overly simplistic but here goes anyway.This entire situation is very sad and quite frankly hurting poker. Right or wrong, the law suit, if pushed forward, WILL NOT bring good feelings and positive attention to this great game. And the press will eat this up. They love a good disaster story and love to play it up even more. This will be very bad for the game. What good will winning the lawsuit be is there is a huge black eye attatched to it? It'd be like winning a lottery where the prize is a new home that's just been gutted by a fire. What good is that???I know the "7" have their right to voice discontentment, as does everyone have the right to voice opinions of opposition to the lawsuit. I just wish it would all go away, and fast.The "7" should have a big sit down behind closed doors, throw away the key and fight in out hidden from the media and keep hammering away until an acceptable agreement is reached. A bad, nasty war will not only smear and taint poker for the pros but could very easily affect the rest of us as well!Never forget that without all of US, the Amateurs, wanna be's, hobby players, etc, none of THIS would exist! And yes, we may be the bottom of the food chain, but we ARE LINKS IN THAT CHAIN. You weaken us and you may not eat in a few years. We are a large part of why today YOU all get fed! We are indeed what you will feed on in years to come. Do you want to spoil your future food source? I know that sounds a little wacky but it is true!I know that I LOVE this game. My passion for it is full blown as are millions of others. We just love the game so much...it sucks that this nasty court fight may be coming, especially right now. The timing could not be worse.I was shocked that Raymer would insult Daniel but am very happy to see that Greg has since extended an appology to him (who being the class act fully accepted). THAT is a huge step in the right direction.Is there anyway that somehow an official mediation committee could be formed out side of the glare of the cameras and microphones and get everyone sensibly talking and settle this thing in private? Does it HAVE to go to court?PLEASE...for the love of the game, Can you folks do the right thing here and put poker first?Just one amateur wanna be's Christmas wish. (Dear santa....please let everyone stop fighting and share their toys. Thanks!)

[Naismith 0]

Why aren't the poker players putting any accountability on themselves? The WPT is offering a contract for services and in exchange for those services, they are asking for something in return...the buy-in plus rights to the players' likeness. If the players don't want that, DON'T SIGN IT!The proper recourse against a business that operates in a way unfavorable to its clientele is to do business elsewhere.

[TulaneFlyr 0]

Why aren't the poker players putting any accountability on themselves? The WPT is offering a contract for services and in exchange for those services, they are asking for something in return...the buy-in plus rights to the players' likeness. If the players don't want that, DON'T SIGN IT!The proper recourse against a business that operates in a way unfavorable to its clientele is to do business elsewhere.

This is exactly why I posted what I did. The problem that I have with the whole situation isn't whether they should go elsewhere and not sign it. My problem is, how can you find it a legal business practice to take the money they paid in entry fees away if they refuse? They are literally the old time stagecoach robber "Your money or your likeness." THAT is a practice that is unfair and this suit should be able to stop. My question to you is, lets say tomorrow someone at your work tells you to sign a release, so you can continue doing the same thing you had been, only now they are allowed record you in the bathroom, and put on a billboard, with your picture, an extrapolated length. They say they will probably never do it, and they only used that one guy on a box of a porno that they were advertising in malasia. Now I am sure you would do business elsewhere. My point is, is it right that you should have to? You are selling your rights in that release for exactly $0.00 ACTUAL dollars. You stand to lose a lot more than you stand to gain. The release gives you nothing and takes everything in return. The ultimate of unfairness. As for the lawsuits affect on poker in general, perhaps it won't be all bad. In every circumstance throughout history, those with power have exploited those without power until those without power had enough to rise up against them. Is this the time for that in Poker? If you were the WPT, wouldn't you just modify the release, instead of standing behind it like this? Something doesn't add up on their end either. we shall see how this all plays out.

[wontbez 0]

It would be very easy for the WPT and/or MGM/Mirage to bring into play the affiliations the seven players have with online gaming. If that happens, it would likely open up a can of worms that would be best left unopened.

*cough cough bullshit* As long as were making statements and not backing them up... it would be very easy for the IRS to put every poker player in jail. iF that happens, it would likely make finding a game live or online very tough.

[Naismith 0]

My question to you is, lets say tomorrow someone at your work tells you to sign a release, so you can continue doing the same thing you had been, only now they are allowed record you in the bathroom, and put on a billboard, with your picture, an extrapolated length. They say they will probably never do it, and they only used that one guy on a box of a porno that they were advertising in malasia. Now I am sure you would do business elsewhere. My point is, is it right that you should have to? You are selling your rights in that release for exactly $0.00 ACTUAL dollars. You stand to lose a lot more than you stand to gain. The release gives you nothing and takes everything in return. The ultimate of unfairness.

Well, that's certainly easy for me to respond to.Hypothetically, if I worked for someone, and they changed a policy tomorrow that I wasn't willing to subscribe to, I would leave. I would think to myself, "I can't believe someone would operate their business in such a manner," and then wonder how long it would take for their business to fail due to the poor way they've chosen to operate. And then I would go try and get hired by a competitor that would, most likely, be more successful due to their better business practices.This isn't entirely an accurate analogy, anyhow. If I went and applied for a job and one of the conditions was recording me in the bathroom, if I took the job, I made a conscious decision to accept that. The WPT isn't adding this stipulation after the fact. It's part of the agreement of terms...if you enter our tournament, in exchange for our services, we get the rights to your likeness.

[Flack_attack 0]

My point is, is it right that you should have to? You are selling your rights in that release for exactly $0.00 ACTUAL dollars. You stand to lose a lot more than you stand to gain. The release gives you nothing and takes everything in return. The ultimate of unfairness.

Unfairness? Probably. But illegality? Thats the question here. Perhaps you can shed some light for the lay persons.

[TulaneFlyr 0]

Unfairness? Probably. But illegality? Thats the question here. Perhaps you can shed some light for the lay persons.

To reply to both posts. First post, as to the inaccuracy of my analogy. . . as "The WPT isn't adding this stipulation after the fact. It's part of the agreement of terms...if you enter our tournament, in exchange for our services, we get the rights to your likeness." These tournaments (at least a few of them) existed prior to the WPT broadcasts/recording of them. They didn't have releases back then. They added a release upon the recording, at the poker boom. This is a change. Releases are changed all the time. To extend my analogy, and beg your response, what if they did this on a wednesday, and told you that you would not be paid for monday and tuesday if you refused to sign the release. That is exactly what the WPT has done by requiring the release AFTER taking the entry fee. Second post, as to the beacon of light my legal knowledge might shed. As the plaintiffs in this lawsuit and Daniel's lawyer friends have confirmed, legal minds disagree with the underlying merits of the claim. Where I have no doubts as to its merits are under pure contract law. There is literally no consideration for the "contract" that WPT requires to participate. Under contract law, contracts without consideration are unenforceable. Their "contract" contains adhesive language. Under contract law, contracts are essentially valid if they were freely negotiated. Any language that is tacked on, and language which can not be negotiated in good faith is adhesive language. In general, the law has held contracts of adhesion (those with adhesive language) to be unenforceable. Under those two theories, the "contract" which the release entails is unenforceable under law. That being said, its never been tested, to date, by either side. That is a reason, in and of itself, for this suit. As for anti-trust. . . .. I have no friggin idea. Its such a specialized area of law. I can give a layman's opinion, from someone who does some consumer protection law, and that is that when big corporate entities work together to close certain avenues off for competition, that the government always likes to keep their eyes on it. The WPT and WSOP aren't the only TV outlets, nor are they the only places to have rival leagues, but the most troubling part of the WPT is their insistence on these releases under "your money or your likeness" type terms. How about this for an ACTUAL scenario that I find similar. I gave money to Hurricane Katrina releif immediately, and I volunteered to go down and help with every organization that was looking for bodies. The Red Cross had trainging and I went. As part of that "training" they make you sign an intellectual property waiver. By volunteering to help people in crisis, you are required to assign all written works about your experiences and inventions developed while in their employ to them. Is that legal? Possibly, with the same enforceablilty problems as with the WPT release. But the fact that they told me I couldn't HELP PEOPLE without giving up my intellectual property is what made me just give more money to non-red cross charities. You won't hear about that much, and no one is about to fight them too hard or too public. And what would it have done for Katrina relief if people had brought up the Red Cross release?? nothing good. So, I agree with Daniel to an extent. There may be negative impacts on the game by this lawsuit and the mud that will be slung between the parties. Ultimately, the legal questions go from clear to muddy. I hope I have shown a light on some of the easier ones. Its just a pretty good barometer, in my mind and heart, that if something seems wrong, seems like it should be illegal, it probably is. Just gotta find the right law to work under. That is part of the lawyers art. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

[Flack_attack 0]

Thanks for the info man, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.Someone should post this thread in general this is good ****.

[houts 0]

I am insanely sick about this whole situation.Let me state my points so you understand where I am coming from...1: A poker player as a profession is somewhat a joke. By definition, it IS a skilled trade, with 'education' formed around experience rather than school. However, you still are a gambler in the purest form by defintion. A person who gambles his/her money in hopes to receive more.While this might seem to be an attack, it isn't. This is just reality. PC or not. A "administrative assistant" is a hyped up P.C. word for 'Secretary'.2: A business is entitled to run its business how it chooses, as long as it abides by state laws, in any manner it wants. The forms signed, giving away copy rights, "likeness", or any other is complete written down (in English-just in case they can't read) for a PERSON to decide.Either they are in, or they aren't.This is plain to see.A person cannot impede upon a business in this manner without justification.And, what do they claim is the problem? Now that the WPT has grown (as well WSOP), those businesses have chosen to make a few changes. End of story.This compares to the smoking ban that we have in our small towns, and the one just instituted in downtown Chicago.If one person does not like to smoke, he/she can go somewhere else. Supply/demand dictates the market.Hence, if there are no Non-Smoking business opening upon to cater to, then the majority are speaking, and there is no need for a ban.Doesn't this apply to this situation? I think so.If a few, Pro's (7), feel they can't play in the WPT because of x reasons (that conflict with their contracts or agency), then why should the majority suffer?Be a gambler. Go somewhere else. But we all know what this is all about: Capatalism.The 7 Pro's (as well others) who have been given (luckily for them) the spotlight since the Poker Boom, now want to profit off the celebrity status. That in itself is a market, rather than actually playing poker.Go back to gambling. Stop whining about endorsement issues/schedule conflicts, etc. Try working a 9-5 job. Then complain.It is YOUR choice to be a gambler. Noone else's.*Throws 2 cents on the floor**Scurries away*Sincerely,The one and only,HOUTS3: This is for tournaments ON television. There are plenty of games for anyone to play in, at ANY hotel/casino/riverboat.

[TulaneFlyr 0]

As your attacks were professional, please allow me to retort, as I disagree, but not as much as you may think.

1: A poker player as a profession is somewhat a joke. By definition, it IS a skilled trade, with 'education' formed around experience rather than school. However, you still are a gambler in the purest form by defintion. A person who gambles his/her money in hopes to receive more.While this might seem to be an attack, it isn't. This is just reality. PC or not. A "administrative assistant" is a hyped up P.C. word for 'Secretary'.Personally, I find those who are involved in Rodeos or Defense Contracting to be joke professionals, but they know their work, they consistently make money at it and the best of them recieve fame and fortune as a result, which makes them professionals nonetheless. These players have made money at the game, and enterprises now ancillary to the game. They are part of an industry, as much as you may deny that. The poker "industry" is one that has millions in endorsements, television rights, pay-per-view events, personal appearances, and yes, prize pools. The quintescent extension of this is the PPT. What is the difference between a professional GOLFER and a professional POKER PLAYER? Well, prior to the PPT, it was that the tournaments were PLAYER FUNDED. Do you find golfers to be less than physical gamblers? 2: A business is entitled to run its business how it chooses, as long as it abides by state laws, in any manner it wants. The forms signed, giving away copy rights, "likeness", or any other is complete written down (in English-just in case they can't read) for a PERSON to decide.Either they are in, or they aren't.This is plain to see.A person cannot impede upon a business in this manner without justification.And, what do they claim is the problem? In America, unfortunately, that isn't always the case. Those businesses must abide by state laws, federal laws, local rules, international treaties, etc. Those businesses can't do things like create a monopoly and exploit same, or, as has been my biggest point, can't take your money and then tell you that you will either lose the money YOU ALREADY PAID or sign a release and lose your intellectual property rights. That is not plain to see, and it took me a while to understand it. To set even ANOTHER example, lets say you put a $10,000.00 down payment on a car. You go outside to the car, and to get the key you must sign a document, in which you agree only to get gas from Mobil. There is a key that only mobil stations have to open your gas cap, so you can't cheat on the side. You say, no, I want to be able to go to any gas station. The place says, fine, but if you don't sign that we keep the $10,000.00 down payment. Not right, not legal and not cool. EXACTLY what the WPT is doing. The complaint alleges that the WPT is fixing prices. Well, they are kinda right. They are fixing the value of everyone's likeness at exactly $0.00. Is this the kind of message you would want to send as a business? That those who participate aren't worth any money at all? Now that the WPT has grown (as well WSOP), those businesses have chosen to make a few changes. End of story.Yeah, under the DeMedici formulae for success. Power to get gold, gold to protect power. This compares to the smoking ban that we have in our small towns, and the one just instituted in downtown Chicago.If one person does not like to smoke, he/she can go somewhere else. Supply/demand dictates the market.Hence, if there are no Non-Smoking business opening upon to cater to, then the majority are speaking, and there is no need for a ban.Doesn't this apply to this situation? I think so.I don't think that does apply here. That is a governmental entity making a decision which applies to all businesses. Prior to those bans, yes there were places that had smoking or not, and you had the choice if you wished to go to a non-smoking place. Majority or minority, smoking is a public health issue, not to be confused with monetary issues and therefore wouldn't apply. So, I respectfully disagree with the application to this situation. If a few, Pro's (7), feel they can't play in the WPT because of x reasons (that conflict with their contracts or agency), then why should the majority suffer?Be a gambler. Go somewhere else. The question remains, to me, how exactly will the majority suffer? If the suit fails, the releases stay the same. If the suit succeeds, the releases improve. Those x reasons are violations of the law, in their opinion. Shouldn't they get to have a judge determine whether they were actually wronged? The public relations can be spun any way you like. I mean seriously, there are PR people who will tell you that no news is bad news. That keeping poker in courts only enforces its legitimacy. That this is a step toward creating legitimate professions from what had been a shady enterprise. Speaking of legitimacy, the WPT created the opportunities for endorsements, but they are making them difficult to actually craft and enforce. Their release, which is adhesive and without consideration, is NON-NEGOTIABLE. That isn't capitalism, that is bullying. My way or the highway type shenanigans. If they loosened up and were clear on what rights they wanted, the players would absolutely have the ability to chose as you lay out. But in this case, under this release, you don't know what rights they ACTUALLY want. They CLAIM to not only want them all, but to have them all already, but they won't actually USE them. But they use Phil Gordon, Andy Bloch and Annie Duke's image in their bootcamps, when they have their own competing seminars. The WPT and the Players together launched the boom, and all parties have seen good things from it. It is all of our hopes that such a situation continue, without devolving into the bitterness and mudslinging of a public roux like this lawsuit. I think capitalism, ultimately, is contracting for synergy, where both sides are better off after a transaction. When it comes to the WPT release, you get nothing and give away everything. How is that synergistic?But we all know what this is all about: Capatalism.The 7 Pro's (as well others) who have been given (luckily for them) the spotlight since the Poker Boom, now want to profit off the celebrity status. That in itself is a market, rather than actually playing poker.Go back to gambling. Stop whining about endorsement issues/schedule conflicts, etc. Try working a 9-5 job. Then complain.It is YOUR choice to be a gambler. Noone else's.*Throws 2 cents on the floor**Scurries away*Sincerely,The one and only,HOUTS3: This is for tournaments ON television. There are plenty of games for anyone to play in, at ANY hotel/casino/riverboat.

True, there are other tournaments but I disagree that they are at ANY hotel/casino/riverboat. That is a specific part of the lawsuit. Those places are getting fewer and further between due to specific agreements between casinos and the WPT. These agreements with the casinos make it so that no competition with the WPT can occur at those sites. As I have said before, I don't think its right, and I think that governments get concerned when you start playing games like that, but that I can't comment on legality, because I don't understand THAT area of law. But under contract law, the release and the policies surrounding it stink.

[swiftD777 0]

It would be very easy for the WPT and/or MGM/Mirage to bring into play the affiliations the seven players have with online gaming. If that happens, it would likely open up a can of worms that would be best left unopened.

I really question why the WPT would bring up online gaming. Why? Because they have their own online pokerroom!

[AceyDeucy 0]

I really question why the WPT would bring up online gaming. Why? Because they have their own online pokerroom!

Because they had $2 million seized by the justice department for running the ads of online poker site (under the provisions of the Wire Act). That's why all the sites you see advertised now are the free .net sites, not the for-money .com sites.

[TulaneFlyr 0]

Because they had $2 million seized by the justice department for running the ads of online poker site (under the provisions of the Wire Act). That's why all the sites you see advertised now are the free .net sites, not the for-money .com sites.

Hadn't heard about that. Very interesting. But it does explain the decisions on the marketing, and why the line was drawn as it was. I think its really arbitrary but then again, what isn't.

[baltostar 0]

DN's position is absurd.If MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, any Euro football league, Champs league, F1 racing, world tennis tour, etc. demanded absolute rights to likenesses of players who participated, the contracts would be shot down in the courts almost instantly. But court cases would never happen because the leagues would never attempt demanding absolute rights because the star players would refuse to participate -- killing the league's TV rights and profits.Poker's way way behind the times. DN is dead wrong on this one. He better wake up and stop making enemies out of those fighting the right fight (that's already been fought and won a thousand times before).People like GR get angry and say stuff they shouldn't because it's so obviously in the players' and fans' best interests to make poker like every other sport : the league should not decide your commercial rights for you.The suit isn't bad for poker. It's great for poker. Poker has all sorts of historical connotations with the mob, extortion, money laundering, rigged games, armed robbery, unsavory characters of all sorts, etc. Poker has a very bad image in many peoples minds.For poker to get beyond that ( and that includes online poker ) , it has to be shown that poker generally follows the same status quo of fair and just conduct by its participants as other major sports -- and who better to fight the good fight than the players ?

[LooseCannon 0]

It would be very easy for the WPT and/or MGM/Mirage to bring into play the affiliations the seven players have with online gaming. If that happens, it would likely open up a can of worms that would be best left unopened.

Does anyone think that the players involved might be interested in opening this specific can of worms?P.S. DN, quit with the lawsuit and talk about important stuff, like finally answering Poker Quiz #19

[J Dawg 0]

Hello all... this is my first post and the video blogs are what brought me to this forum. I havent read all of the posts on this thread so sorry if this is a bit out of context to what ur saying...I live in Washington St. where it is currently illigal to gamble online,( yet the gambling age here is 18 "confused.") anyways... I think daniel Negreanu is prolly right that this lawsuit would hurt poker as it would feed the ignorance of our legislature is this state thinking that it is ok to ban poker in such a way.then again I don't know the details of the lawsuit so I can't say for sure what is right It jus seems a lil crasy.

[MyTheory 0]

As your attacks were professional, please allow me to retort, as I disagree, but not as much as you may think.True, there are other tournaments but I disagree that they are at ANY hotel/casino/riverboat. That is a specific part of the lawsuit. Those places are getting fewer and further between due to specific agreements between casinos and the WPT. These agreements with the casinos make it so that no competition with the WPT can occur at those sites. As I have said before, I don't think its right, and I think that governments get concerned when you start playing games like that, but that I can't comment on legality, because I don't understand THAT area of law. But under contract law, the release and the policies surrounding it stink.

As far as other casinos are concerned...Here in Vegas, the WPT isn't locking up a complete market by having contracts with specifically MGM/Mirage Properties just as Harrah's isn't locking up the market by only having WSOP events at Harrah's properties (although Caesar's hosted the heads-up championship this year). The players can argue that in court but it will only really apply to other parts of the country, where the casinos/riverboats and the like are fewer and farther between. Here, you have far too many properties that are very very famous and are open venues for large tournaments albeit, not as large as the WPT or WSOP but, have the potential to become large if there is capital behind the efforts. MGM/Mirage actually makes up a small portion of the major gaming market in Las Vegas as there are so many casinos that most locals haven't even been inside them all.MGM/Mirage Corp. is MGM Grand, Mandalay, NYNY, Excalibur, Bellagio, Mirage, Treasure Island, Monte Carlo and Circus Circus.Harrah's is Rio, Caesar's Palace, Bally's/Paris, Harrah's, Flamingo, Imperial PalaceCoast Casinos is Gold, Sun, South, Barbary Coasts and Orleans.Maloof is only the PalmsStation Casinos is Palace, Sunset, Boulder, Santa Fe, Green Valley, Texas, Fiesta, Wild, (a few more that aren't worth mentioning) and, most importantly, Red Rock. *Station casinos account for over 50% of all poker play in Las Vegas. That's right, 50%. That's a lot considering all the card rooms around town.Other major individual venues are Wynn, Venitian, Golden Nugget and Binion's.The Major Non-MGM venues that would and could generate large fields if someone had the means would be:Wynn, Venitian, Red Rock, Golden Nugget, Binion's, and PalmsAny one of these casinos knows they could benifit from the advertising and publicity they could receive for holding a decent televised tournament. Who wouldn't want to play in a tournament that was held at Binion's, where all this really started? Who wouldn't want to play at Wynn, Venitian or Palms, with all the ameneties? Who wouldn't want to play at the Nugget, where most of the old school pros cut their teeth in Vegas? Considering that the only MGM properties in Vegas that even hold WPT events are Mandalay, Mirage and Bellagio, I don't think they're locking up much of the market. The only other MGM casino worth having a tournament at would be MGM. NYNY doesn't even have a card room. Excalibur is a low limit tourist trap, Tresure is only a step away from Mirage and Monte Carlo just isn't the type of place for various reasons. The real problem is, no one really has the backup to get another major tournament series going. Even if they did find that MGM and WPT were guilty of an anti-trust issue, it still wouldn't change the fact that it takes a ton of money to make something like that happen and, let's face it, it's not looking like anyone is going to try and start up another major WPT type professional tournament circuit any time in the near future. Who really cares if MGM doesn't compete with their other casinos in Vegas? I sure as hell don't. Mirage and Bellagio are the only two places they have that have major action outside a WPT tournament anyway. The same thing is true of Harrah's. You don't see players rushing to play at Rio when the WSOP is not in town. People other than tourists rarely play at any Harrah's property outside of Caesar's. You won't see Daniel Negreanu playing at Mandalay on a monday night. Once the WPT is gone from Mandalay, who even cares about going to play cash games there because "the WPT was there?" Locals? Not really. Tourists? Only if they're staying there. Everyone still goes to the big 5; Bellagio, Mirage, Wynn, Venitian, and Caesar's. I would think that the WPT only generates a short-term revenue stream from these WPT events because of the people who want to go meet the pros. As far as the release goes, I don't think anyone should have to sign away their rights and the fact that they didn't refund a player's entry fee because of a refusal to sign the release was clearly wrong, especially since you get a receipt for entry fees paid and if you're not participating you should get a refund. My only worry is that a lawsuit like this will open the floodgates for all sorts of other legal issues, along with giving the IRS more reason to look into the profession than it already is. I don't play tournaments so I'll never be signing a WPT or WSOP release but, I do agree that a player shouldn't have to sign away his rights to play. On the other hand, I am an advocate of "if you don't like it, don't participate" as well...as long as they give you your money back if you choose not to partake. Otherwise, I'd be going to court to get my $10k back as well...especially since I'm a broke college student haha. Thanks for giving me another attorney prospective of this lawsuit though. I'm all about learning new things...especially about law.

[TulaneFlyr 0]

Thank you for your above post, it helped me do some thinking on this. The point about Binions holding a tournament is moot, because I think that Harrahs purchased the casino, and paid dearly, just to get the trademark right to the World Series of Poker. Its a shame what happened with the Binion family, and everything that has happened. I would pose a question that a law professor would pose to me, as that is who I heard in my head when I mulled over the question. That question is: If holding a televised tournament would be so beneficial, why aren't more locations doing it? Well, to answer that, I can only see two possibilities, though I am realistic enough to know that there may be other reasons as well. The first is the more sinister, and less believable of the arguments, the one that the players will probably be quietly advocating; That all of the casinos and television networks are quietly conspiring to provide only two quasi-competing products, because segmenting the market on more networks would dilute the quality of programming from the current level of decent, to a veritable "live at the bike" for TV situation where we end up watching some Wyoming yokel play 1-5 stud at a local cardroom. There were tons of attempts at competing programs, like the Fox at the Plaza, NBC heads up and that CBS "International" cirlcle jerk. (BTW - Caesars is now a Harrah's brand) Dilution isn't complete, but its rescinding. The second possibility is less sinister and more litigious, but also not as tenable. That is that TV is a VERY uptight legal culture. Perhaps there are less television outlets who are willing to deal with poker players, where their likeness rights, in perpetuity, are held by the WPT as a result of their release. That is a very random concept, I know, but let me try to break down my logic to see if it fits. These releases give the player's likeness rights, in perpetuity anywhere in the universe, to the WPT. Why couldn't the WPT use those releases not agains the players, but against competing networks? Just because they say they won't use the players images to disparage the players, doesn't mean they won't use those rights to block others from their usage.For example, lets say ABC decided to buy the "Super Bowl" of poker from Amarillo Slim (he held that trademark tournament for a while right?), dealt with an independant casino, had an invitational free-roll PPT-type tournament, and decided to use itself as an outlet for the produced product. ABC/Disney puts up the money, the players come in, sign releases for their likeness (probably ones which are reasonable) play and the footage is awesome. ABC spends millions advertising it in every media, Scheduling it for immediately after the Super Bowl. Friday morning prior to super sunday, Steve Lipscomb and his minions file an immediate injunction, as the players had given them rights to use their likeness, another entity using their likeness would be tortious interference with contract. The only remedy the Court would be offered is to enjoin the Super Bowl of poker. And they would probably take that offer. Then you get BIG law firms fighting it out. You would get public distrust of those around poker. THAT would be bad for poker, but it would definately be a legal battle. Its a legal battle that I don't know who would win, even on contract terms. How do we solve this situation? How do we avoid running into this situation? Honestly, I think THAT is a big reason why the 7 filed their suit. There is a declaratory judgment area of the suit, which asks the Court to find the releases as invalid contracts. Courts in the United States sit in a duality of roles. Law and Equity. They must follow the rule of law, but they also must do what is right. That balance is what our lady justice holds in her hands as she stands blind before us. I expect the judge to employ a tool called "reformation." In other words, the contract says one thing, but I am going to say it says something else. Specifically, I think that the WPT ultimately gives fame to those who appear on its program. That is at least quasi-contractual, but it dictates the necessity for appearance. The likeness rights of that appearance, for purposes of broadcast and advertisement of that broadcasts and other similar broadcasts, would legitimately be the reformed language of the release. For as long as the WPT runs their television program, they can use the footage they recieved as a result of that release. The judge will decide the grey area of broadcast footage usage at WPT Boot Camps. The judge also could decide the grey area of non-broadcast footage usage at WPT Boot Camps. (what? like lets say they show the Boot Campers the "in between" hands, it they were to analyze a player by showing you the hole cards of EVERY hand that was played. Technically, now they have the right not only to use that at a bootcamp, but sell that data to the highest bidder.)I trust our courts, our judges and our system. I am upset, and this will sound bad, at the prejudice surrounding this case. Everyone, from Daniel to thousands of posters here, have prejudged this case, already playing out the litigation/smear tactics of both sides and looking at their own intended outcomes. These are men, this is business, and this is a lawsuit. I say, let men be men, let business be business, and let the lawsuit progress without public infighting. This isn't a PR battle, one way or the other, unless one side or the other makes it so. I haven't seen either side take a nasty public shot yet. I can only hope that continues. Darn it am I long winded!