What Do The Following Players Have In Common?

[mx957 0]

Another thing I want to know is whether Daniel had consent to release their names if these players didn't want their opinions released publicly.I know that if I was a poker player and was against it, I'd keep quiet about my opinion since it holds no merit in any courtroom and will not stop the lawsuit from continuing.

Have you read much on this forum from Daniel? He takes the other pro's intentions into consideration when He posts about comments, converstaions, hands, business dealings. If he didn't he would be dead (figuratively only). He has to WORK with these people almost daily and is also associated with them socially as well.DN wouldn't put something in print if he hadn't cleared it. Of that I am sure. You on the other hand just seem to be taking a contrarian view and looking to start arguments. All this lawsuit will do is get the government more involved in something that it 1) can't and 2) doesn't need to regulate. Online poker will take a significant turn for the worse if this thing keeps on going.

[The Nuts 0]

Have you read much on this forum from Daniel? He takes the other pro's intentions into consideration when He posts about comments, converstaions, hands, business dealings. If he didn't he would be dead (figuratively only). He has to WORK with these people almost daily and is also associated with them socially as well.DN wouldn't put something in print if he hadn't cleared it. Of that I am sure. You on the other hand just seem to be taking a contrarian view and looking to start arguments. All this lawsuit will do is get the government more involved in something that it 1) can't and 2) doesn't need to regulate. Online poker will take a significant turn for the worse if this thing keeps on going.

People may be under that impression that I am starting an argument because I, to some degree, (*GASP*) disagree with Daniel on this issue.

[mx957 0]

People may be under that impression that I am starting an argument because I, to some degree, (*GASP*) disagree with Daniel on this issue.

Ok, then. If you disagree, what do you disagree with? How is he wrong or how you right?Put some real facts behind your bable and you might get some respect.

[Shizzmoney 0]

Daniel do I win a prize for answering first?

Yes, you get a FCP HAT! Bob, ship this guy a hat, would you please?

[The Nuts 0]

Ok, then. If you disagree, what do you disagree with? How is he wrong or how you right?Put some real facts behind your bable and you might get some respect.

Well, now we see who's inciting the argument.This seems to be a bad place to debate on an issue in which I disagree with the majority. The people who agree with the majority are merely preaching to the choir. In other words, I will be deemed wrong because the majority disagree with me (argumentum ad populum anybody?)So my argument will not attempt to change the minds of others here because that is an exercise in futility.I made this post on twoplustwo forums about 3 weeks ago:

This is obviously a very interesting case regardless of the outcome.Greg does state that the online poker sites are not involved in the lawsuit and of course that is correct. However, they will benefit significantly if the seven players win in this lawsuit. It isn't just a coincidence that all seven players happen to represent three of the more popular online poker websites around. This is actually why I'm surprised that players such as Mike Sexton and the now controversial Daniel Negreanu are not involved.The biggest problem is this: As you know, players like Greg [Raymer] and Howard Lederer are under exclusive contracts with the online sites they're affiliated with. They are the only sites that can use their names to advertise their product.However, when they end up signing the contract to play in the WPT, they have those same rights as well. If somebody wanted to use the intellectual property of Greg to sell their product, they would have to go to Poker Stars and probably pay a sum of money to have it done. They are the only firm that can do that.But when those players sign the WPT releases, there is another competitor in the market for those rights and could possibly sell those rights for a cheaper price and undercut any profit Stars would make off of that. To compensate, Stars would have to lower their prices, which would then start a price war between the WPT and online poker sites.Naturally, having those exclusive rights is very helpful in the long run profit wise. But, they no longer become exclusive when they are signed to another firm. Now there are conflicting contracts and more legal issues arise. Then the online poker sites have to be involved in legal matters. The reason that the online sites are not directly suing the WPT is because they do not have as much leverage when compared to having individual representatives file the suit.There is really nothing to lose here for the seven plantiffs. If they win, changes are made. If they lose, they stay at the status quo. Nothing gets worse for them. It's a different story for the WPTE. They aren't all that wealthy of a firm and going through paying cost courts and legal fees will hurt a lot if they continue to fight it. I really see no way of justifying it unless they believe that it will bring more profit in the long run. WPTE has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Nothing gets better for them, it just stays the same.Daniel's opinion isn't as much of a legal one as it is of a moral one. On a moral scale, his opinion does hold merit. It can be perceived as biting the hand that feeds you. He believes that will affect poker negatively no matter what the outcome is. I wouldn't take into account his legal opinion because it doesn't hold the same merit that it would from somebody such as Greg, who has practiced in the past.The issue deals far more with money than the plantiffs make it out to be. The portrayal of the plantiffs as the superheroes of the poker world who destroy the evil big businesses is just ridiculous. They, like every other rational human being on Earth (or in the "perpetuality of the universe"), are motivated by self-interest. They gain a hell of a lot. Poker players, who feel a residual effect of the suit, gain enough to feel satisfied and build the reputation of the seven plantiffs. Online poker sites are finally the exclusive holders to their affiliates and all competition for their intellectual property rights is eliminated.

In other words, I don't completely agree with either side of the issue. They have a legal case in that the WPTE is breaking the law. They cannot strongarm people into contracts like that. But these players are trying to make themselves out to be superheroes triumphing over evil, which is a total crock of ****.Daniel's view is from a moral perspective. It may not be "right" to bite the hand that feeds you and so on. While he is correct from that perspective, morality holds no merit in a courtoom if it doesn't coincide with the law. When morality and law collide in a courtroom, morality fails. If a law is being broken, then it should be rectified.

[milbucksfans 0]

DN wouldn't put something in print if he hadn't cleared it. Of that I am sure.

Wow, you must be quite the insider. Why would any of those other pros, who have said almost nothing regarding the lawsuit publicly, choose to "come out" through Daniel? So he went to them and said "Hey, can I tell the world that you're against the lawsuit too?" And they just said "Oh, sure. I've been meaning to come out publicly against it all along, but I've just been so busy."The bottom line is that the only proof we have that these pros share DN's opposition to the lawsuit is that DN says so. And it is 99.9% likely that he is telling the truth regarding their allegiances. But here's the thing - they are staying quiet. They understand that, as Daniel has obsessively stated so many times, this could be drawing negative attention to poker. So why fan that flame with so many needlessly vitriolic comments? No one on the "quiz-list" has done so.

[tobytobey 0]

None of you have been in my kitchen.

QFT

[DaRockets 0]

DN! I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION IN THIS LAWSUIT. YOU DONT WANT THE ILLEGAL INTERNET GAMBLING IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE BROUGHT TO THE FOREFRONT OF NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS. ITS SIMPLE: THE MORE ITS TALKED ABOUT THE LESS LIKELY ITS GOING TO EXIST. I COULDNT AGREE WITH YOU MORE MY FREIND BUT I THINK YOU ARE MAKING TWO CRITICAL ERRORS IN YOUR FIGHT. THE FIRST THING YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE IS TAKEN PHIL IVEY AND JESUS FERG AND/OR ANDY BLOCH AND TRY TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT THIS LAWSUIT IS GOING TO BRING BAD THINGS ABOUT NET POKER. NET POKER WILL MAKE THESE FULL TILTERS MORE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN THAN THEY COULD EVER DREAM ABOUT WINNING IN POKER. THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR NOTHING IN MY MIND AND THEY ARE JUST STUPID. THEY NEED SOME SENSE SLAPPED INTO THEM. DOS

[mx957 0]

Well, now we see who's inciting the argument.This seems to be a bad place to debate on an issue in which I disagree with the majority. The people who agree with the majority are merely preaching to the choir. In other words, I will be deemed wrong because the majority disagree with me (argumentum ad populum anybody?)So my argument will not attempt to change the minds of others here because that is an exercise in futility.I made this post on twoplustwo forums about 3 weeks ago:In other words, I don't completely agree with either side of the issue. They have a legal case in that the WPTE is breaking the law. They cannot strongarm people into contracts like that. But these players are trying to make themselves out to be superheroes triumphing over evil, which is a total crock of ****.Daniel's view is from a moral perspective. It may not be "right" to bite the hand that feeds you and so on. While he is correct from that perspective, morality holds no merit in a courtoom if it doesn't coincide with the law. When morality and law collide in a courtroom, morality fails. If a law is being broken, then it should be rectified.

I was pointing to the fact that you have said absolutely nothing constructive about this point up until this post. I also have seen a post of yours deleted due to the insensitive nature of it's posting (refering to the poor taste post you posted in the little Matt thread that if you'll notice the mods deleted). So I finally got you to actually try and make a point, well done. I am all for good debate. But you just questioning DN's reasoning on why he would make statements doesn't prove anything. It just starts senseless posting. Keep it on point and I have no problems with your post in this thread. But you hadn't done that till I forced you to it.

Wow, you must be quite the insider. Why would any of those other pros, who have said almost nothing regarding the lawsuit publicly, choose to "come out" through Daniel? So he went to them and said "Hey, can I tell the world that you're against the lawsuit too?" And they just said "Oh, sure. I've been meaning to come out publicly against it all along, but I've just been so busy."The bottom line is that the only proof we have that these pros share DN's opposition to the lawsuit is that DN says so. And it is 99.9% likely that he is telling the truth regarding their allegiances. But here's the thing - they are staying quiet. They understand that, as Daniel has obsessively stated so many times, this could be drawing negative attention to poker. So why fan that flame with so many needlessly vitriolic comments? No one on the "quiz-list" has done so.

An insider? When did I say that? I just go by the statements DN has made in the past in his blog. He won't post peoples names unless he's talked with them. Why would he risk it? Oh and reading the rest of your post it sounds like you agree with me on that. But I am not quite sure. If not let me know what you ment to say.

[loogie 115]

They've all never been in Cliff Clavin's kitchen.

[milbucksfans 0]

An insider? When did I say that? I just go by the statements DN has made in the past in his blog. He won't post peoples names unless he's talked with them. Why would he risk it? Oh and reading the rest of your post it sounds like you agree with me on that. But I am not quite sure. If not let me know what you ment to say.

You didn't say it. I'm merely noting that due to your certainty, you must have had some personal conversation with DN or have some insight the rest of us don't. (sw)You're asking if I'm agreeing with you? Obviously I'm not. Read my post again - I've made my position very clear. I do not believe that those pros would choose to go public with their feelings on the lawsuit by making DN their medium. Did they state their feelings to him? Most likely. Did they request that he publicize their opinion or give him express permission to do so? I can't imagine they did. Then again, I have no proof of that. You obviously do.My main point was that if they are indeed in disagreement with the lawsuit, they are doing it the right way. Privately. Continuous rants about the insanity of it all, and how these seven pros obviously didn't think about what they are doing, are completely pointless other than to bring negative attention to the topic.

[mx957 0]

You didn't say it. I'm merely noting that due to your certainty, you must have had some personal conversation with DN or have some insight the rest of us don't. (sw)You're asking if I'm agreeing with you? Obviously I'm not. Read my post again - I've made my position very clear. I do not believe that those pros would choose to go public with their feelings on the lawsuit by making DN their medium. Did they state their feelings to him? Most likely. Did they request that he publicize their opinion or give him express permission to do so? I can't imagine they did. Then again, I have no proof of that. You obviously do.My main point was that if they are indeed in disagreement with the lawsuit, they are doing it the right way. Privately. Continuous rants about the insanity of it all, and how these seven pros obviously didn't think about what they are doing, are completely pointless other than to bring negative attention to the topic.

Wait, again I am confused. Are you saying DN is lying? He just made the names up? or wait you are saying the he's being truthful but you don't think they gave DN permision to say so? I don't know who said what or who requested to stay "anonymous". Did they ask DN to put their names in the blog? I doubt it. Did they say hey DN I agree with you but please keep my name out of it? I don't think so either. You keep painting the picture that I know more than I do. All I know is what Daniel has written in his blogs, he won't put other players at risk in his blog. He'll respect their privacy and not print names if it's harmful to them or if they ask him not to. Don't listen to me, read his prior blogs. He printed that not me. I am just reminding you and other readers of this.

[milbucksfans 0]

I don't know who said what or who requested to stay "anonymous". Did they ask DN to put their names in the blog? I doubt it. Did they say hey DN I agree with you but please keep my name out of it? I don't think so either.So in other words, the truth is you have no idea if he received permission despite your statement that you are certain of it.You keep painting the picture that I know more than I do.You said you were sure. That's all I have to go on.

DN isn't lying. He never said he expressly sought and was granted their permission to print their names. I'm merely responding to your statement that you are SURE he received permission. And to that, I ask you (again), do you honestly think that these other pros would throw their hat into this lawsuit ring through DN rather than making their own public comments about it? Stating that DN received permission to refer to them is saying just that.You have not responded to my comment that DN is going about this the wrong way when compared to these other pros who remain silent. I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that point due to its validity.

[mx957 0]

Ok, I'll say it again. Dn said he wouldn't print names if he didn't clear it with them in prior Blogs. This was in refrence to hand histories in the big game, converstaions with other pros and in social gatherings. He takes their reputations in mind before he prints it. This was his statement. I take him at his word. I haven't ever read or heard of anyone claiming otherwise. So yes, That's how I KNOW he wouldn't do it without their permision. Do I need to search the specific blog entry for you and link it?Do you have information to the contrary? As to your last point about DN going about it the wrong way. I feel like DN is doing the best he can given the circumstances. He didn't bring the lawsuit. The press or media will have less of an impact on the state of affairs than the judicial system in this. DN can talk all he wants and it won't have one iota the impact the court system will have. So yes I think he's doing fine by it. The court of public opinion has much less weight in this fight than the courts. But that's just MY humble opinion.

[revg 0]

DN: I'm a fan; I once got your autograph at the Bike in L.A. I gotta ask: where has anybody said they're in it for the money? All the accounts I've read are that they say they're standing on "principle" and they care more about the poker than making anything off the suit.

OMG!!! Do you honestly believe that these 7 players are in it for "The Principle"??? HAHAHA. This reminds me of the city police force saying that they have photo radar setup because they want people to slow down, but the TRUTH is that they DON'T WANT YOU SLOW DOWN because they make money when you speed!! Heck, if they really wanted you to slow down they would give you demerits on your license rather than taking cash from your pocket.Same is true with this wpt lawsuit. Why would these 7 poker players take money out of their own pocket to fight the WPT for "The Principle"? It's easy, because they want MORE MONEY and are GREEDY and ARE NOT thinking about the benefit of the poker world.How in the world will this WPT lawsuit make things better for the poker players? How? IT CAN'T. The poker players already have it very very good. What more do they want? If someone can give me a specific example of HOW THE WPT HAS HURT THEM OR HINDERNED them then I would like to see it posted here.Please give your head a shake.Cheers,Greg

[fleung22 1]

They've all never been in Cliff Clavin's kitchen.

I already used that one.

[revg 0]

Yes, but since these players are so successful and must know they are vulnerable, why would they take this risk in this political climate? Are they trying to destroy the WPT. Why would someone as savy as Phil Gordon in the world of business not recognize these dangers if they are real?

Uh, someone as savy as Phil Gordon? Just because he is a millionaire due to the internet revolution doesn't mean he is savy. In fact he just got lucky that he started as lead software engineer for a company that was later bought out by Cisco Systems. His success can no way be used as an indication that he is business world savy.Not saying he is not smart, because he does have a degree in computer science, but this doesn't necessarily mean that he realizes what he is getting into by launching a lawsuit against the WPT.Cheers,Greg

[El Guapo 8]

I was going to say that they all have penises, until I go down to Jen Harman

[Oneeydjaq 0]

I was going to say that they all have penises, until I go down to Jen Harman

Would you say they have a plethora?

[milbucksfans 0]

Ok, I'll say it again. Dn said he wouldn't print names if he didn't clear it with them in prior Blogs. This was in refrence to hand histories in the big game, converstaions with other pros and in social gatherings. He takes their reputations in mind before he prints it. This was his statement. I take him at his word. I haven't ever read or heard of anyone claiming otherwise. So yes, That's how I KNOW he wouldn't do it without their permision. Do I need to search the specific blog entry for you and link it?Do you have information to the contrary?

Forget it. I understand that you are referencing DN's past comments. Past comments are irrelevant concerning the present, but it's not worth belaboring any further. My last comment on this specific issue will be that if I was John Juanda, I might offer my negative opinion regarding the lawsuit to Daniel. What I would not say is "You go ahead and print that, Daniel. I think the best way for me to make my feelings known to the world about this issue is through your forums." He (and the others) has been quiet about it for a reason. One can only assume that the reason is to not bring undue negative attention to this matter.

As to your last point about DN going about it the wrong way. I feel like DN is doing the best he can given the circumstances. He didn't bring the lawsuit. The press or media will have less of an impact on the state of affairs than the judicial system in this. DN can talk all he wants and it won't have one iota the impact the court system will have. So yes I think he's doing fine by it. The court of public opinion has much less weight in this fight than the courts. But that's just MY humble opinion.

The bold areas above are stating my case for me. We apparently share the same opinion. No matter how much he rants about the case deserving to be thrown out of court and stands on his soapbox and pleads for everyone to share his opinion, it is ultimately pointless. It's not his place to decide. It's up to the courts. All DN is doing by ceaselessly berating the lawsuit is painting himself as obsessive and causing speculation as to other motives for his words.

[BearCanada 0]

Daniel NegreanuMike SextonChip Reese Phil IveyDoyle BrunsonTodd BrunsonBarry GreensteinJennifer HarmanMark SeifJohn Juanda I'm looking for a specific answer, take your best guess.

They are 10 people who have never been in my kitchen!That's a true answer, now what do I win?-Bear

They've all never been in Cliff Clavin's kitchen.

Ah crap I didn't see this before I replied. nh.-Bear

[El Guapo 8]

Would you say they have a plethora?

There is a Plethora a penises, yes. They may all have new Birthday sweaters also.

[revg 0]

Daniel's opinion isn't as much of a legal one as it is of a moral one. On a moral scale, his opinion does hold merit. It can be perceived as biting the hand that feeds you. He believes that will affect poker negatively no matter what the outcome is. I wouldn't take into account his legal opinion because it doesn't hold the same merit that it would from somebody such as Greg, who has practiced in the past.

There are many areas of practice when it comes to law. Greg Raymer was a patent lawyer. This is a very specialized area of law that doesn't pertain to the WPT lawsuit or the gaming industry at all. I know this because I have a patent lawyer that I use for a invention that I came up with and I asked him about this case. He told me that he does not know enough about that area of law to comment. Just because Greg Raymer used to be a lawyer does not necessarily mean that he is more informed. Sure it doesn't hurt, but Daniel could know just as much if not more about the case by having sought legal advice from a lawyer that specialized in areas pertaining to the wpt lawsuit.Cheers,Greg

[beliblis 0]

None of you have been in my kitchen.

IS THAT YOU CLIFF CLAVEN

[The Nuts 0]

I was pointing to the fact that you have said absolutely nothing constructive about this point up until this post. I also have seen a post of yours deleted due to the insensitive nature of it's posting (refering to the poor taste post you posted in the little Matt thread that if you'll notice the mods deleted). So I finally got you to actually try and make a point, well done. I am all for good debate. But you just questioning DN's reasoning on why he would make statements doesn't prove anything. It just starts senseless posting. Keep it on point and I have no problems with your post in this thread. But you hadn't done that till I forced you to it.

You didn't force it. It's not like you made some life-threatening comment towards me. I would have gladly done so if asked.I normally save my detailed posts on serious issues (poker related and non-poker related) for the 2+2 forums and politically-charged forums. I post here because of FCP's laid back nature.