Wpt Lawsuit...my Perspective

[Aardhart 0]

Also note; Daniel's representative, Brian Balsbaugh (Poker Royalty), was launched & funded by Lipscomb & Berman so be careful when reading his OPINION in the poker royalty post.

WOW! Is this true? Is Brian Balsbaugh a lawyer? This would potentially be a conflict of interest profession conduct violation if Mr. Balsbaugh were a lawyer. (Potentially. I didn't look into all the facts and don't know everything about the situation. But it raises red flags.)

[williskl 0]

I dont know why they are suing they havent been getting to any tv tables anyway.

[Aardhart 0]

Daniel's point is two fold: One, this is not the way to get things done in poker circles. Bringing the legal, governmental and negative media attention to poker at this time is detramental to everyone associated with poker, including you and I! Secondly, the WPT has been a catlyst for the global boom in poker and the success of its elite players.

I would love to hear a concise, consistant statement of Daniel's point, but he has been shifting his reasons for opposing the lawsuits. If these are his points, they are completely bogus. He sues Harrah's. That was how he got "things done in poker circles." Harrah's also owns the WSOP, a far far greater catalyst for the poker boom.I ask that Daniel outline a legitimate reason to oppose the lawsuit "for the good of poker" or shut-up and apologize. All his stated reasons have been disproven. If the real reason he opposes the lawsuit is that he is friends with Lyle and doesn't like [some of] the plaintiffs, that is fine. But then he shouldn't pretend he is being a noble protector of poker.

Finally, I have my message for the kids out there. The Original poster is using a form of argument which in latin is called "Argumentum Ad Hominem". It refers to someone who degrades the person rather than arguing the facts. It is considered to be the lowest form of debate and discourse.

I agree that these tactics are inappropriate. However, Daniel has engaged in both. He insulted Andy Bloch twice since Raymer's appology was accepted. Daniel posted that no one would want his bobblehead doll and that he foams at the mouth.

I dont know why they are suing they havent been getting to any tv tables anyway.

A big reason for this is that they haven't been playing in WPT tournaments. Are you making the ridiculous statement that the plaintiffs do not play tournament poker well?

[williskl 0]

I was making a joke.Anyway, there are alot more televised tourneys and other tourneys going on in the world. They dont have to play in the WPT. There are ALOT more options now.

[BearCanada 0]

My response to this is in Bold throughout.Mike

Mike,I really respect your post even though there a points we disagree on. It deals with the facts and does not attack Daniel or those like myself that agree with him. So there will be no name calling on my part anyway. Here is my response.I agree that my generalization that all lawyers will take on any client with money is overstated. I went to far in making the point that just because a reputable firm has taken on the case doesn't mean the 7 are right, nor does it mean they are wrong. Clearly there is a point of law here that is up for interpretation. I was not trying to say the case was baseless. I was saying though that I think the pklayers are trying to have their cake and eat it too. A point on which I think we just disagree. I'm not sure if the lawyers Daniel has spoken to are experts in contract and entertainment law or not and my guess is you aren't sure who exactly he has spoken to either, my point was that Daniel has said he has spoken to lawyers and so his opinion is at least somewhat informed which is different then what the poster I quoted was saying. Please remember I was responding specificly to a specific poster on the forum. I agreed that Daniel had a vested interest. I think in being very public about his opinion it's hard to claim an Agenda hidden or otherwise. Yes, I think he would like to influence others point of view. I would say by posting here you and I are also guilty of that. I think when one gives an argument or an opinion that is in fact what one is doing. Hardly a hidden agenda. As for my saying case closed, I was again referring to the poster I was responding too and saying that the case he had layed out was weak and I had fully refuted and therefore as a point of emphasis I was saying his case was closed. I apologize for the misperception I created that all argument and opinions were no longer needed or valid. Again Mike, thanks for providing useful debate.now for Aardhart:I guess I hope Daniel does give you something that you find concise. In my opinion he has touched on a lot of the issues that atre involved and surround the issue at hand so that it is not so much a changing of reasons for his displeasure and discomfort with the lawsuit but rather a detailed response to the vast number of issues at hand. However, we can just agree to disagree. I don't think he claimed to be the noble protector of poker. He's not the one who currently has a lawsuit claiming to be brought for all poker players. I think you got that backwards. Daniel responded poorly to attacks brought against him for voicing his opinion. But the argument of "well he did it too!" doesn't further anything. Golfingdaddy:My opinion is that the WPT isn't the sole reason for poker's explosion but it is the most succesful and the mainstay. The World Series Of Poker is almost it's equal except for the fact that the WPT is seen on tv year round and the WSOP is for a short period of time once a year. So I give the edge in mainting poker's popularity to the WPT. Of course though it is not WPT alone. Finally as to the fact that Daniel is friends with Lyle or with Steve. If you happen to agree with how your friends conduct business does that mean your opinion is completely biased and invalid? I think that's an unfair assumption. Their points maybe earily similar but talk to anyone who are friends and agree on something, it's not sinister that they see things the same way. That comes off as a little paranoid to me and again, all Daniel has done is state an opinion. All the WPT has done is promote the WPT. The hidden and dark part to me lies in the group of seven who have stated they are doing this for poker when really it's about their wallets at the end of the day. I do agree with your point about the senate and politicians. They play both sides of the issue so they can spin it when it all comes out in the wash or rather the courts. I disagree with the three of you but you make solid arguments which are on point and not about degrading someone in order to build up your opinion by tearing someone else down. For that you have my respect whatever that is worth. -Bear

[revg 0]

ouch. IMHO = In My HUMBLE Opinion. Buy a dictionary before you use terms in anagrams you don't understand.As for your "arguments." I got to the point. You quoted it. If you think that it is right that contract law shouldn't exist, go to China or another non-capitalist country. As it does exist, the WPT is bound by it, and has done things wrong. They threaten to take your money if you fail to sign the release that they don't give you until after they have your money. That is clearly wrong. The other wrongs presented by the 7 need and deserve examination, by a judge far more educated than either me or you. If these 7 players wanted to represent all players, they could have done so with one additional line in their pleading. They CHOSE not to. For better or worse.There is a marked change in position from the previous blogs to Daniel's most recent blog. This blog indicates that the 7 are selfish, they should have done it with more players through a protest throught the PPA. Also, the claim that if the 7 lose the lawsuit, the power of the WPT/WSOP will increase is a different presentation than the past. The claim that they are selfish and out for their own damages doesn't comport with the argument that they are purporting to represent all players. They either are selfish, representing only themselves, or falsely claiming that they are representing everyone. Daniel changed his opinion to the former from the later. It chaps you that people are educated? Honestly, I haven't flaunted my education, and I find it rediculous to attack my arguments as ramblings. You are honest in your opinion that my posts are ramblings. I am honest is saying that once you rise above the primordial soup of blissful ignorance, you might realize that this issue is one that has always existed in sports, and abstractly in society. The fact that you don't understand why people are debating this issue only amplifies your lack of knowledge of the issue itself. Perhaps if you educate yourself and develop your own opinion, vs. agreeing with Daniel 100%, your commentary would be worth a more biting argument against. Daniel put his position out there and has had no problem defending it. While I respectfully have disagreed with him, especially after having read the lawsuit itself and considered certain of the issues in the context where I happen to have some expertise, I have never attacked him or his writing style personally. I feel bad that you are so opposed to education that you had no choice.

Bla Bla Bla.... Yatta Yatta YattaHonestly I didn't even read your reply, I half skimmed it. Same old verbal diarrhea. Not interested in reading it. I did read the part where you told me to buy a dictionary, but just because you think IMHO means In My Humble Opinion doesn't mean that's the definition. It's an acronym, it could stand for anything. Secondly why would I buy a dictionary? I could just use an online dictionary??Seriously man... you write so much about this topic and spend so much time on it, for all I know you could be right about this whole issue. I sincerely hope for your sake that you are right because if you turn out to be entirely wrong it will look bad on you.Be that as it may, and being the un-educated dumb *** that I am, I will continue to side with Daniel because he IS a successful professional poker player that enjoys his career and is smart enough not to POKE THE BEAR. I think Daniel would know better than everyone that all the pro poker players are LUCKY to have what they have now, and pushing for more is asking for trouble. "The 7" are POKING THE BEAR. I say good luck with that.....Whatever,Greg

[blueodum 0]

My main problem with Negreanu's take is that it is full of generalities,1) He says the lawsuit will be bad for poker. How exactly?This is a civil case that only the poker world has an interest in. It has nothing to do with the federal government's mission to impede online poker. And it won't have any effect on those people in Washington - none. Not one cogent argument has been brought forth by anyone as to how exactly, step by step, this lawsuit will influence lawmakers in Washington. This is a dispute about the legality of a contract. If it leads to an amended waiver and/or a change in WPTE business practices, then it will be unequivocally good for poker players. It is in this sense that the actions of the 7 may potentially help ALL tournament poker players, from Phil Ivey down to the lowest donk on the totem pole.2) He says that they are ungrateful for everything the WPTE has done.Well, they've tried to negotiate in good faith, but it didn't work. And the suggestion that the WPTE is the hand that feeds them is patently absurd. As has been pointed out by myself and others, the success of poker today is due to many many factors, the WPTE being only one among them. This point has neither been acknowledged or refuted by anyone - it has been sidestepped.Those two points are the sum of Negreanu's opposition to the lawsuit. So I find it utterly unpersuasive.There is also the fact that Negreanu is very close to Berman and, in a lesser way, Lipscomb. It's also clear that, at least initially, Negreanu got his information from Berman and lawyers connected in some way with the WPTE. So in no way can Negreanu be viewed as impartial on this issue. He may be "entitled" to his views, but what are his views worth?1) They are generalities2) He is linked personally to Berman 3) He isn't a lawyer and doesn't understand the law in any sort of detail, especially anti-trust law (which was evident when he asked a question along the lines of how could it be wrong for the WPTE to sign an exclusive deal for televised tournaments with MGM/Mirage)As an influential poker player who has chosen to speak about matters he does not fully understand, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is doing damage to the reputation of these 7 players.

[revg 0]

My main problem with Negreanu's take is that it is full of generalities,1) He says the lawsuit will be bad for poker. How exactly?...2) He says that they are ungrateful for everything the WPTE has done....

Hey,Response to 1):Are you serious? How will it be bad for poker?First of all he is speaking in general terms because he can not predict the EXACT outcome. Noone can. However, what he is saying is that the Poker Players right now have it VERY GOOD, better than they ever have. On top of that right now online poker and online gambling in general is getting a lot of BAD publicity and attention, why in the hell would you want to start a lawsuit right now?I just talked to a lawyer that specializes in online gaming today about an odds calculator that I want to market. He told me that first of all it is currently Illegal to gamble online in the US and Canada. In fact he told me that he knows FOR A FACT that the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) have allocated resources to try to shutdown any illegal online gaming facilites. You don't think the WPT defense is going to bring up the fact that the 7 are affiliated with Poker Stars and FullTilt and try to make them look like criminals. Of course they are. This whole thing WILL open a can of worms.Cheers,Greg

[jooka 0]

I love to read replies that are as pathetic as Dn's. I like Dn alot when it comes to poker and his expliots but damn, can ya steer the kiddies in the right direction at all when it comes to this particular subject and not spread total BS which you and of course "your lawyers" who obviously never once studied this type of law. Its sad and pathetic to read your opinion because unfortunately for you, you keep stating it as fact. Ive held my tongue till now to reply, because , Ive read all of the complaint and all laws now that will reply to the judge who will hear the case. All Ive got to say is the so called lawyers you've talked to dont know **** and if they are representing the WPT, they are ****ed. Dn you have been acting as a schill for the WPT. If I was one of the 7 people you insulted first I would go on a campaign to show exactly who you are. and believe me its not some devote christian you wish you were.

[revg 0]

I love to read replies that are as pathetic as Dn's. I like Dn alot when it comes to poker and his expliots but damn, can ya steer the kiddies in the right direction at all when it comes to this particular subject and not spread total BS which you and of course "your lawyers" who obviously never once studied this type of law. Its sad and pathetic to read your opinion because unfortunately for you, you keep stating it as fact. Ive held my tongue till now to reply, because , Ive read all of the complaint and all laws now that will reply to the judge who will hear the case. All Ive got to say is the so called lawyers you've talked to dont know **** and if they are representing the WPT, they are ****ed. Dn you have been acting as a schill for the WPT. If I was one of the 7 people you insulted first I would go on a campaign to show exactly who you are. and believe me its not some devote christian you wish you were.

This just goes to show that anyone that disagrees with DN is a complete idiot. If you disagree with him, then why don't you setup a meeting with Heydary Hamilton PC like I did. This lawsuit against the WPT is serisouly going to screw up online poker for everyone and who knows what other consequences and repercussions will take place. So before you shoot your damn mouths of, why not ACUTALLY TALK TO A LAWYER.Here is a summary of my conversation this morning with the lawyer at Heydary Hamilton PC (www.heydary.com/). We started off the conversation with formalities, he told me a bit about their firm and their experience dealing with the online-gaming industry. He told me that although he wasn't at liberty to provide me with names, his company currently represents over 50 companies in Canada & the U.S. that are currently linked in one way or another with the gaming industry (they also have an office in Chicago). His initial statements reiterated the old, "As you probably know, there is a lot of gray areas when interpreting the laws pertaining to the legalities of the industry. But it isn't all the same tone of gray. There are areas of light gray (low risk) and areas of dark gray (high risk). The differences in tone are tied to the intent of the products. Are the products intended for recreation and fun? Or, with the intent to be used to gamble for money?" He then went on to make 1 bold statement. "Online Gambling, for money, in Canada is illegal. Any company in Canada and the U.S. offering a products that would promote the behavior of playing for money is putting it's self at real legal risk. The key is in the marketing and terms of use license agreement. If the product is advertised and promoted as something that is for FUN and Recreational use the risk would be low for legal authorities to seek action against a company. If however, the product promotes in anyway gambling for $, this risk of course would increase." (I paraphrased that the best I can remember). And that's where affiliate programs come in... According to him there are 2 main factors with the affiliate program that would put a company in the dark gray and at high risk for criminal charges. The 1st problem with the affiliate programs is that the user must make a deposit into his account. The courts will, with 100% certainty, interpret the intended purpose of this deposit to be used for the purpose of gambling for money. The 2nd issue would be the association itself with these off-shore companies who's primary source of revenue is illegal in Canada & the U.S. Cheers,Greg

[The Nuts 0]

Actually, I completely and utterly disagree with Daniel on this matter. If a law is being broken by the WPT on this (which there apparently is), then the WPT should be prosecuted. One person or entity should not be put above the law for any reason especially for one as ludicrous as, "It will be bad for poker".Sorry Daniel, but if that's your justification for the WPT breaching antitrust law (it seems to be theme in your perspective), then that's pretty damn weak.A lot of people are bringing up that this is a battle for online poker sites and that is not true. The suit is being done by seven individual poker players. Whether or not they are associated with a poker site is irrelevant in court and will be objected and sustained. It's about the WPT and their antitrust violations and not about the backgrounds of the plantiffs.However, that is not to say that online poker sites do not have a vested interest in this case. These sites have signed pro players to exclusive contracts so that they and they alone can use their images to advertise their label. When they sign the contract with the WPT, the WPT has those rights as well and the contracts with Full Tilt and Stars are pretty much nullified. Under these conditions, the online sites do not have the power to win if they directly sued the WPT. The pro players that represent them can win the case for them.

[blueodum 0]

that first of all it is currently Illegal to gamble online in the US and Canada. Aside from various US states, there's no law that specifically prohibits PLAYING online poker. If there is please point it out. Yes I know it is illegal to operate a gaming site, but I don't believe the law in Canada says anything about playing poker on one of these sites.Similarly, in Ontario, it is legal to host a home poker game, provided no rake or other fees are collected from the players (in that case it would be considered a gaming house).This just goes to show that anyone that disagrees with DN is a complete idiot. Are you for real? Do you purport to be an intelligent, educated person? No such person would ever write such a sentence. Read it again yourself and marvel at its stupidity.

[TulaneFlyr 0]

Quick Replies - Today OnlyBear -We will agree to disagree as to the motives of the 7, that is cool. I just want your opinion on the timing of the release issue. Can we agree, at least on a small point, that making someone sign something AFTER they have paid, or they lose the money they have already paid, is wrong? This is the biggest problem I have from a contract/consumer affairs point of view. Everything else is up for interpretation and should be determined by a court on its merits, not on the personalities involved.Jooka -Going on the attack like that is not going to bring any effective discussion of the issue. Attacking him personally, or hoping he gets attacked is hopefully not the aim of the 7. Their aim is to get things right. Your aim is the same. Don't attack Daniel, he has an opinion. If he supports it, good on him. I don't honestly think he has a hidden agenda. He benefits from the status quo and realizes that. Supporting it for that reason isn't a hidden agenda, its self-preservation.Greg - I guess you did take my advice and get your own opinion vs. sharing Daniel's totally. I just question the value of the information you got from the attorneys at Heydary, as there was no anti-trust discussion and their website doesn't indiate they do anti-trust law. I don't have time to go into detail, and your previous comments that I spend "so much" time kinda made me think that my 10 minutes a day on here might be excessive, so I will cut back. They commented on the preludes to your bear's swipe that you expect. Slinging mud only makes EVERYONE dirty. If the 7 get labeled as criminals, in your dark grey area, isn't Daniel in that same boat with FCP? If I am right or wrong, I have my opinion, and I am backing it up with my personal experiences and knowledge of the law. If I am wrong, which I have stated repeatedly that I might be, I really won't care. I am humble enough to take such a minor blow to my ego. The issues will be resolved and everyone will have an idea where they stand. Courts bring resolution. To change your analogy from the can of worms to the 500 lb gorilla/bear in the corner, eventually that gorilla is going to wake up on his own, poke him or not. These issues are going to have to be resolved at some point, eventually. That is all we can hope for.

[revg 0]

Actually, I completely and utterly disagree with Daniel on this matter. If a law is being broken by the WPT on this (which there apparently is), then the WPT should be prosecuted. One person or entity should not be put above the law for any reason especially for one as ludicrous as, "It will be bad for poker".Sorry Daniel, but if that's your justification for the WPT breaching antitrust law (it seems to be theme in your perspective), then that's pretty damn weak.A lot of people are bringing up that this is a battle for online poker sites and that is not true. The suit is being done by seven individual poker players. Whether or not they are associated with a poker site is irrelevant in court and will be objected and sustained. It's about the WPT and their antitrust violations and not about the backgrounds of the plantiffs.However, that is not to say that online poker sites do not have a vested interest in this case. These sites have signed pro players to exclusive contracts so that they and they alone can use their images to advertise their label. When they sign the contract with the WPT, the WPT has those rights as well and the contracts with Full Tilt and Stars are pretty much nullified. Under these conditions, the online sites do not have the power to win if they directly sued the WPT. The pro players that represent them can win the case for them.

Look... Lets say what the WPT did (IMO they still haven't done anything that terrible) something illegal. So What? You are going to put your Professional Poker career at risk just to get a little more out of everything???? The problem is that the 7 have egos that are far to big for living.When is enough, enough? Hell, I am forced to sign unfair agreements EVERYDAY. Ya it sucks, but what is the alternative?Lets do this. Lets say I find a plant one day that does the same thing to people as marijuana. It's not really illegal yet, or at least the authorities are not cracking down yet and I strike up a bunch of distributorship deals with various companies and I am making millions of dollars. Well now the distributorship is stealing an extra 10% off the top. What should I do? Should I take them to court so that I can risk my whole operation that is running so well? or should I SHUT MY MOUTH and BE HAPPY WITH WHAT I HAVE?The WPT may or may not be doing "bad stuff", but the point is why risk messing up the game because 7 millionaires just want more.cheers,Greg

Quick Replies - Today OnlyGreg - I guess you did take my advice and get your own opinion vs. sharing Daniel's totally. I just question the value of the information you got from the attorneys at Heydary, as there was no anti-trust discussion and their website doesn't indiate they do anti-trust law. I don't have time to go into detail, and your previous comments that I spend "so much" time kinda made me think that my 10 minutes a day on here might be excessive, so I will cut back. They commented on the preludes to your bear's swipe that you expect. Slinging mud only makes EVERYONE dirty. If the 7 get labeled as criminals, in your dark grey area, isn't Daniel in that same boat with FCP? If I am right or wrong, I have my opinion, and I am backing it up with my personal experiences and knowledge of the law. If I am wrong, which I have stated repeatedly that I might be, I really won't care. I am humble enough to take such a minor blow to my ego. The issues will be resolved and everyone will have an idea where they stand. Courts bring resolution. To change your analogy from the can of worms to the 500 lb gorilla/bear in the corner, eventually that gorilla is going to wake up on his own, poke him or not. These issues are going to have to be resolved at some point, eventually. That is all we can hope for.

Well I contacted Heydary actually to find out about the legalities of marketing an odds calculator software I produced. He just menitioned to me in our conversation that online gambling is illegal and there are actions being taken now to crack down. All I am saying is that I believe that this is a large part of the reason why Daniel is so chapped that the 7 are starting a lawsuit with the WPT. Most big name pro poker players are associated with online poker sites that are lucky to be still running by the sounds of it, so why bring unwanted attention and RISK screwing up all you have going?

If the 7 get labeled as criminals, in your dark grey area, isn't Daniel in that same boat with FCP?

YES 100%! This is EXACTLY my point. IF the 7 get labeled as criminals then Daniel would most definately be in the same boat. THIS IS WHY HE IS AGAINST IT. This is why I am against it!!!I am not saying that something Bad WILL happen because of the WPT lawsuit. All I am saying is that the 7 are putting their livelyhoods (and more importantly every other pro poker players livelyhood) at RISK by doing this, whereas if they just left everything alone it would be the safer play. As poker players they should learn NOT TO RISK THEIR ENTIRE STACK THIS EARLY ON WITH RAGS.

To change your analogy from the can of worms to the 500 lb gorilla/bear in the corner, eventually that gorilla is going to wake up on his own, poke him or not. These issues are going to have to be resolved at some point, eventually. That is all we can hope for.

So you are telling me that there is a 500 lbs Gorilla in the corner that is going to wake up on his own, so you think the right play is GO WAKE HIM UP BEFORE HAND? come on man. You can't be serious. I think you let him sleep until you get a better plan dude.cheers,Greg

[blueodum 0]

Hell, I am forced to sign unfair agreements EVERYDAY. Ya it sucks, but what is the alternative?One alternative is to go to court and get the agreements struck down, if you have the money and you think it is worth it.Another alternative is to skulk back to your cave, complaining about how life sucks.These 7 players have the money and they think it's worth it. You should be thanking them because if they win it will make things better for every tournament poker player who might wish to enter a WPT tournament in the future.It's not really illegal yet, or at least the authorities are not cracking down yet and I strike up a bunch of distributorship deals with various companies and I am making millions of dollars.Is the crux of your analogy that high buy-in tournament poker is quasi-legal? Clearly it is not, as all the hosting casinos are licensed by their state to hold poker tournaments.And I repeat - sponsorship by online sites is a completely separate issue. This whole "lawsuit will draw attention to online poker" is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the case and the judge will not consider it relevant. And if people are really worried about this issue, why are Lindgren, Ivey, Matusow and many others appearing on national TV advertising a poker site? I haven't heard Negreanu call them out for "drawing unnecessary attention to online poker".Most big name pro poker players are associated with online poker sites that are lucky to be still running by the sounds of it,Forgive me, but it doesn't sound like you know much about the online poker world. These sites operate offshore where they are completely legal. No matter what laws the US or Canada enact they can't shut these sites down. At the very most they can make it extremely difficult for US and/or Canadian residents to access these sites. But there is a world beyond North America, my friend. And so these sites will continue to exist and prosper.Negreanu is using the "bad publicity angle" because he is grasping at straws. He knows very well that many of his friends have actively promoted online poker sites. But somehow this publicity will apparently not open up a can of worms, whereas bringing a civil lawsuit that no one outside of poker cares about, WILL open a can of worms.The fact is that DC legislators only have to turn on their TV and they will know, in short order, which poker player is promoting which offshore online poker room.

[revg 0]

Hell, I am forced to sign unfair agreements EVERYDAY. Ya it sucks, but what is the alternative?One alternative is to go to court and get the agreements struck down, if you have the money and you think it is worth it.Another alternative is to skulk back to your cave, complaining about how life sucks.These 7 players have the money and they think it's worth it. You should be thanking them because if they win it will make things better for every tournament poker player who might wish to enter a WPT tournament in the future.

Ya the pro poker players lives really suck. I mean, if they didn't launch this lawsuit they would be living so hard. I feel bad for them. Whatever.IF they win it may or may not be better for every tournament poker player. Noone knows for certain. What we do know, is that by launching this lawsuit that they are actually jepordizing the industry as a whole.Cheers,Greg

[blueodum 0]

What we do know, is that by launching this lawsuit that they are actually jepordizing the industry as a whole.Again, on what basis do you claim this? No one has made a rational case for leaping to such an extreme conclusion.

[revg 0]

What we do know, is that by launching this lawsuit that they are actually jepordizing the industry as a whole.Again, on what basis do you claim this? No one has made a rational case for leaping to such an extreme conclusion.

Look I have already told you that I am not saying that 100% for sure it will mess up the poker industry ok???????I AM SAYING THAT THEY ARE RISKING SCREWING IT UP? and for what? more money?I think it is stupid.Cheers,Greg

Most big name pro poker players are associated with online poker sites that are lucky to be still running by the sounds of it,Forgive me, but it doesn't sound like you know much about the online poker world. These sites operate offshore where they are completely legal. No matter what laws the US or Canada enact they can't shut these sites down. At the very most they can make it extremely difficult for US and/or Canadian residents to access these sites. But there is a world beyond North America, my friend. And so these sites will continue to exist and prosper.Negreanu is using the "bad publicity angle" because he is grasping at straws. He knows very well that many of his friends have actively promoted online poker sites. But somehow this publicity will apparently not open up a can of worms, whereas bringing a civil lawsuit that no one outside of poker cares about, WILL open a can of worms.The fact is that DC legislators only have to turn on their TV and they will know, in short order, which poker player is promoting which offshore online poker room.

I know alot more than you think my friend. I payed a $5000 retainer to a legal firm to determine what the legalities were for setting up an online casino/poker website. Of course they are set up offshore, everyone knows this. Let me tell you, ALL of these online casinos are at risk. They have multiple holding companies setup all around the world, it's a very complex operation, but by no means have they neutralized all risk. They are hanging on by a thread. Believe me, if they weren't I would have been on this a long time ago.They can't just go shut the sites down, but they can make it difficult or nearly impossible for individuals to play on those casinos online if they really want. They can control the legalities in terms of where you put your money. Maybe the gov't makes it illegal to deposit funds into an online casino. I could go on with examples, but it's all just speculation. I am just saying that you are nieve if you think that the online casinos are not at risk soley because they are offshore.cheersGreg

Negreanu is using the "bad publicity angle" because he is grasping at straws. He knows very well that many of his friends have actively promoted online poker sites. But somehow this publicity will apparently not open up a can of worms, whereas bringing a civil lawsuit that no one outside of poker cares about, WILL open a can of worms.

Ya you're right. It might not open a can of worms, but then again IT MIGHT OPEN A CAN OF WORMS.The whole point is why bring MORE attention to it than there already is.If you were in danger of being layed off due to lack of work at your company. Why in the world would you go into your bosses office and ask for a raise? You're just asking to get punted. And ya, maybe you will get punted anyway, but why risk it.Cheers,Greg

[gkunit20 1]

For More on the lawsuit, go here:http://www.wptlawsuit.com/

[DerekTah 0]

Quick Replies - Today OnlyBear -We will agree to disagree as to the motives of the 7, that is cool. I just want your opinion on the timing of the release issue. Can we agree, at least on a small point, that making someone sign something AFTER they have paid, or they lose the money they have already paid, is wrong? This is the biggest problem I have from a contract/consumer affairs point of view. Everything else is up for interpretation and should be determined by a court on its merits, not on the personalities involved.

The only bit I may disagree with is are there not things where you may have to sign a release after payment/performance. For instance, don't most gameshows make the person sign a release after the show, not before. I'm just saying in the limited amount of time the WPT been on they may be able to argue "we always made it clear that players had to sign a release that would come after payment. Dispite knowing this several players payed up and then complained about the release". I have no clue if this is an issue or not as I'm not a lawyer, but in general are there things where payment then later a contract signing can be legal?

[TulaneFlyr 0]

The only bit I may disagree with is are there not things where you may have to sign a release after payment/performance. For instance, don't most gameshows make the person sign a release after the show, not before. I'm just saying in the limited amount of time the WPT been on they may be able to argue "we always made it clear that players had to sign a release that would come after payment. Dispite knowing this several players payed up and then complained about the release". I have no clue if this is an issue or not as I'm not a lawyer, but in general are there things where payment then later a contract signing can be legal?

I think you misunderstand. The lawsuit, see the link in the above post, specifically lays out what happened. The players paid their ENTRY FEE and then were required to sign the release, regardless of the terms, or they would FORFEIT that fee. When they asked about getting the release ahead of time, they were refused. So, basically, the situation is different than had been portrayed. The "if you don't like it, don't play" argument is refuted by, if players don't like the release they don't play and have to give up $10,000.00. I think you were thinking that they had to sign the release before they got WINNINGS. That would be a different situation, and one that I would still believe they have the right to see the release prior to participation. In regular contract terms, it wouldn't be right for a car dealership to take a $1,000.00 down payment, then hand you contract addendum, which required you to pay the undercarriage wash, the new paint job, the alloy rims and a new wallet for the boss of the dealership. If you refuse to sign the addendum, they would still require that you forfeit your downpayment. Not kosher and exactly what the WPT has done! Not a question of MIGHT do. This HAS BEEN DONE! Its wrong and everyone should be against it!

[k-10isnogood 0]

I think you misunderstand. The lawsuit, see the link in the above post, specifically lays out what happened. The players paid their ENTRY FEE and then were required to sign the release, regardless of the terms, or they would FORFEIT that fee. When they asked about getting the release ahead of time, they were refused. So, basically, the situation is different than had been portrayed. The "if you don't like it, don't play" argument is refuted by, if players don't like the release they don't play and have to give up $10,000.00. I think you were thinking that they had to sign the release before they got WINNINGS. That would be a different situation, and one that I would still believe they have the right to see the release prior to participation. In regular contract terms, it wouldn't be right for a car dealership to take a $1,000.00 down payment, then hand you contract addendum, which required you to pay the undercarriage wash, the new paint job, the alloy rims and a new wallet for the boss of the dealership. If you refuse to sign the addendum, they would still require that you forfeit your downpayment. Not kosher and exactly what the WPT has done! Not a question of MIGHT do. This HAS BEEN DONE! Its wrong and everyone should be against it!

First of they knew there was a release and it their fault for giving money their money then looking at the release. Just like your car example would you give the money to the dealership if you know there was a release that you didnt see. You would be a idiot to get involved in something where you didn't look at the release first. The WPT is probaly in the wrong here, but these 7 were selfish and could have started with the WPA and gotten more players involved. Plus Hachem & Raymer never had to make a living off poker. Alot of players NEED the WPT to earn a living. Should NFL player get pissed off when they are in teasers for MNF. (Let also be clear I mean games on TV , not merchendise and clothes. If EA wants to put you on the cover of Madden the have to pay the players just like the WPT has pay poker players) These aren't the grinders who are suing these are well off people who are being greedy. If they really wanted to make a change they would have brought in more players. Damn the 7!

[DerekTah 0]

I think you misunderstand. The lawsuit, see the link in the above post, specifically lays out what happened. The players paid their ENTRY FEE and then were required to sign the release, regardless of the terms, or they would FORFEIT that fee. When they asked about getting the release ahead of time, they were refused. So, basically, the situation is different than had been portrayed. The "if you don't like it, don't play" argument is refuted by, if players don't like the release they don't play and have to give up $10,000.00. I think you were thinking that they had to sign the release before they got WINNINGS. That would be a different situation, and one that I would still believe they have the right to see the release prior to participation. In regular contract terms, it wouldn't be right for a car dealership to take a $1,000.00 down payment, then hand you contract addendum, which required you to pay the undercarriage wash, the new paint job, the alloy rims and a new wallet for the boss of the dealership. If you refuse to sign the addendum, they would still require that you forfeit your downpayment. Not kosher and exactly what the WPT has done! Not a question of MIGHT do. This HAS BEEN DONE! Its wrong and everyone should be against it!

I was sort of asking in a generality area of "is it ever ok for the contract to be signed after rather than before". Actually I not certain if I'm thinking of signing a release or the idea that people have to pay taxes on the winnings after the show (something those shows that give away one million dollars don't like mentioning).

[TulaneFlyr 0]

First of they knew there was a release and it their fault for giving money their money then looking at the release. Are you F'ing kidding me? I just said they were not allowed to SEE the release beforehand to know the terms of it before paying their entry fee. How is that THEIR fault? Just like your car example would you give the money to the dealership if you know there was a release that you didnt see. You would be a idiot to get involved in something where you didn't look at the release first. That is my point, they knew there COULD be a release, and asked for a copy of it beforehand and were denied that request. Further, they were denied their buy-in back when they refused to sign. EXACTLY like my car example. Why would you give the money first, without being an idiot? Well, because who expects someone to do something as illegal as requiring you to sign something against your will, or take your money? Its not idiotic, just like you cross at a crosswalk when the light is red, because you don't expect a car to just take off and plow into you. An action based on the assumption that others will follow the law. Not idiotic, but perhaps idyllic.The WPT is probaly in the wrong here, but these 7 were selfish and could have started with the WPA and gotten more players involved. Plus Hachem & Raymer never had to make a living off poker. Alot of players NEED the WPT to earn a living. Should NFL player get pissed off when they are in teasers for MNF. (Let also be clear I mean games on TV , not merchendise and clothes. If EA wants to put you on the cover of Madden the have to pay the players just like the WPT has pay poker players) Um. The players are pissed about these releases because they do exactly that. Worse, they give the WPT the right to SELL those player's likenesses to EA. Lets say EA tries to work out contracts with the 7 and, as you argue, they are greedy and want too much money. I am sure the WPT would negotiate for a MUCH lesser sum, and would have the right to, according to their interpretation of the release. Its that interpretation that has to be clairified. YES, the WPT has not yet done this, the problem is that they claim that they could. These aren't the grinders who are suing these are well off people who are being greedy. If they really wanted to make a change they would have brought in more players. Damn the 7!Why not bring in everyone who has ever played in a WPT event and signed the release? Do you know how hard that would have been? It would have been simple as adding ONE line to their complaint. Why didn't they do it? Well, Raymer said the problems of class certification, but I say because they really aren't attempting to represent EVERY poker player, just themselves. They want the ability to negotiate the releases. I am cool with that. We live in a society where contracts are not dictated, they are negotiated. God Bless America.

And as to the other gentleman, handing someone an addendum afterwards is only enforceable as a contract if they understood those terms might come into effect. Contracts require, what law has called, a meeting of the minds. I pay $10,000.00, I expect that money is paid so that I can play in the tournament where everyone else has done the same, where rules will be maintained and where the payout will be guarunteed. The release is an additional term, one not contemplated at the original contractual agreement. That would render the original meeting of the minds null and void. Therefore, I would have the right to rescind the contract and take my money back. Their tactic of threatening to call that money forfeit is unconscionable and unenforceable. At least they would be where I practice. I don't claim to have knowledge over the affect of Indian laws on contracts at those casinos. I know if they ever pulled that forfeiture thing on anyone in New Jersey, I would definately be willing to represent them in New Jersey state court.

[golfingdaddy 0]

Additional info to do with as you please.WPTE is a publicly traded company. It launched at $9.15/ share. In June '05 it reached it's all time high at $23.88/ share. Yesterday it opened at $3.77 and closed at $3.81/ share. The current price represents a little more than 1/6th the all time high & 1/3rd it's original price at opening. If someone had a friend who suggested they invest say $100,000 at launch, that same $100,000 would have reached over $260,000 a year ago only to fall to just over $40,000 right now.One could speculate that any famous personalities who invested in the company would consider negative press (lawsuits, etc.) toward their investment as "bad for business." Draw your own conclusions.Also as affirmation, the online sites are not US or Canada based, therefore not governed by US laws. In fact, the WTO has ruled that the U.S.’s casino policies violated international trade standards, as the country hosts legally-sanctioned casino gaming within its borders, but restricts such pursuits for offshore Internet casino companies. The US has appealed, but no conclusion has been reached.