tobytobey 0 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Poker NewsMost interesting part....."The most interesting portion of the 22 page answer filed yesterday by WPT counsel is the WPT actually attempts to turn the tables. One portion of the answer asserts that any of the players in this suit that are affiliated with, or participate in the business decision making process of an online poker room are actually putting the WPT at an unfair advantage"I swear I remember someone saying that the WPT would bring up online poker. If I could only remember who it was.(sw) Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Man his head is already big enough after getting that eagle on the golf course, don't puff it up anymore. Link to post Share on other sites
aucu 3 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Bad move by the WPT because they also run a on-line poker room. Link to post Share on other sites
psujohn 0 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 The WPT runs an online poker room that doesn't accept US players for real money. Key difference. I can't imagine that anyone actually believe that the players profiting from online poker has any negative affect on the WPT. It's more like a "We know you're doing something that's in a gray area and we're willing to bring it up if you don't leave us alone" kind of threat. It certainly won't win the WPT any friends in the poker loving public.It all brings up a pretty interesting question - if online poker is made illegal in the U.S. will it hurt TV poker? I'd have to say yes. Partly because TV poker is largely funded by ads for online poker. And partly because online poker helps create people who are interested in TV poker. There's a kind of circle there:non poker fan catches some poker on tv in passingmildly interested poker fan watches a couple poker showsinterested poker fan wants to give it a try and does online pokerpoker player watches ever more poker on TV for strategy tips, etcpoker addict watches HSP while 4-tabling .25/.50NL online (or is that just me) Link to post Share on other sites
finztotheleft 0 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 If the Senate decides to pass the bill and online poker officially becomes illegal in the US, wouldn't it be illegal for any business to buy advertising time during poker shows ? Shouldn't it also be illegal for ESPN and the travel channel to show poker programming ? It all promotes playing poker.I'm NOT saying I want all of this to happen, just saying if I can't play poker anymore, I want some company who can afford a team of lawyers getting involved.Regarding the WPT's side of the lawsuit.........can anybody explain to me what they mean by the players linked to online sites having an advantage ? I realize that I'm probably being dense here, but I don't understand what point they are trying to make. Thanks in advance. Link to post Share on other sites
fatman 1 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 poker addict watches HSP while 4-tabling .25/.50NL online (or is that just me)No Link to post Share on other sites
FourFlusher 0 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 They advertise with a .net instead of a .com, and the words, "this is not a gambling site".I think the argument is that by owning a part of an online site, and the site sponsers poker shows, and the poker shows compete with the WPT...I don't know what the argument is, either. Link to post Share on other sites
dirtystacks 0 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Does anyone have a link to the WPT's answer? I'll reserve my comments until after I've read it.I don't have a PACER account so I can't get it off the C.D. Cal's site. Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 The answer asserts that by participating in profits reaped by accepting US bettors via their online poker site, these players put the WPT at a competitive disadvantage. The WPT's online poker site, WPT Online does not take US bettors due to the unclear legal situation surrounding online poker here in the US. The answer also claims that, by promoting online poker in the US, and and taking US bettors, these players are actually subsidizing the poker TV programming these online poker rooms produce, and as such, competing with the WPT in its core business – producing poker television programming. that's gotta be the stupidest argument i've ever heard. "Even though we have exclusive agreements with a bunch of casinos, the few other events that ARE run that are sponspored by online sites are unfairly competing with us, and you help online sites make money, therefore everything we are doing is right even though it has nothing to ACTUALLY do with online poker, we're gonna bring it up and hope the players run away."WPT is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, this is soooooo lame. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDawg68 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 sounds like the WPT is "upset" because full tilt has a T.V show on the Fox sports channel and they have done a few freeroll tourny's for the full tilt pro's and put it on live. my $.02 Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 sounds like the WPT is "upset" because full tilt has a T.V show on the Fox sports channel and they have done a few freeroll tourny's for the full tilt pro's and put it on live. my $.02exactly, WPT is like WHAT?!? nobody else is allowed to put poker on TV, no fair, our show sucks too bad to actually compete with other events!I think the worst thing I've read lately about WPT is from The Best Hand I Ever Played. Erick Lindgren's hand was near the end of a WPT event and it said that the WPT was running out of tape, so they quickened the blind structure. They were RUNNING OUT OF TAPE so the QUICKENED THE BLIND STRUCTURE, people are playing for MILLIONS of dollars and they change the event because they don't have enough TAPE!!! If this happened at the WSOP, it would be a HUGE outrage. WPT sucks balls, the events are boring most of the time anyway, WSOP is much better IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
finztotheleft 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 They advertise with a .net instead of a .com, and the words, "this is not a gambling site".Yes, I get that Party Poker commercials are for .net and not .comI'm saying the Miller Lite commercials during ESPN's coverage of the WSOP supports poker. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDawg68 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 I have heard a few pro's talk about the WPT final table being an "ALL IN fest" because it "makes for good T.V" and it only takes about 6 hrs to film it insteed of the 12+ hrs the wsop takes. I say let the player's play dont rush them for "good T.V." Link to post Share on other sites
Jack Harris 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 It isn't their tournaments that make WPTE what it is, it's the cable networks that cover the tournaments and the players that prop WPTE up.I like WPT tournaments. They've been good for poker. I've played in eleven WPT tournaments.It's time to make all the money one can online before the Justice Dept. closes the show. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 "For example, Full Tilt Poker, a website started by Plaintiffs Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer and with which at least two other Plaintiffs are affiliated, already competes unfairly against WPTE by using the tremendous revenues it obtains from promoting online gambling in the United States and accepting online bets from persons located in the United States -- activities declared by the US Department of Justice as illegal under existing law -- to subsidize the poker programming it offers television networks. WPTE, on the other hand, complies with the letter and spirit of the law as currently interpreted by the Department of Justice and employs numerous safeguards to ensure no one in the United States can place a bet on its online poker website, leaving websites like Full Tilt Poker (and its owners Chris Ferguson and Howard Leder) to reap these illicit profits."Exactly the kind of potentially dangerous response Daniel (and many of us) were afraid of.Oh man..... Link to post Share on other sites
missIdaho 1 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Exactly the kind of potentially dangerous response Daniel (and many of us) were afraid of.Oh man..... i never actually watched or read DN's views on the lawsuit. i formed my own point of view after reading the lawsuit, which as i have been told (by some very pissy guys at NWP) happens to coinscide with DN's. i never believed this lawsuit would end in favor of the plaintiffs. i also believed that the WPT would defend itself by attacking their affiliations with online poker. this lawsuit could cause some serious damage to poker in the US for a long time to come. Link to post Share on other sites
FourFlusher 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 (Full Tilt) "a website started by Plaintiffs Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer"I did not know this...is it true? They started it? Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 what a bunch of assholes, instead of stepping up and dealing with the legitimate issues of the suit, they are bringing up all this online stuff. What a bogus line, "we can't compete because the sites get all this money that they can run tournaments with and we don't"okay, i just read another thread someone started that got locked and got me really mad. Let's all remember that the players that started this suit ARE NOT the ones that are fucking with online poker. The WPT are the ones that are dragging online poker through the mud because THEY CANNOT defend themselves on the actual claims of the suit. The players brought valid complaints to the WPT and weren't satisfied so they found it necessary to take legal action, the WPT doesn't seem to be able to answer the complaints so they change the subject to make the players squirm. Fine, it's a legal strategy, if that's what they want to do, it's stupid anyway, without online poker, WPT will drop off as well, alot of WPT players are online qualifiers. Just don't blame the players for this, it's completely the WPT that are doing this to online poker. Link to post Share on other sites
AceJackOffS 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Man his head is already big enough after getting that eagle on the golf course, don't puff it up anymore.I've been gone when did daniel get an eagle? link? Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 What is the deal with the .net vs. the .com??I have never seen the difference, could someone please explain how this is diff i regards to online poker? Link to post Share on other sites
Golden 2 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 What is the deal with the .net vs. the .com??I have never seen the difference, could someone please explain how this is diff i regards to online poker?All the .net's are "free" versions of the sites, which are legal to advertise Link to post Share on other sites
blueodum 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Shouldn't it also be illegal for ESPN and the travel channel to show poker programming ? It all promotes playing poker.Poker wouldn't be illegal; online poker would be. Except that it already sort of is illegal and this new law, should it pass, would not change the legal status of online poker (which the DoJ insists is already illegal). There would still be no federal law against actually playing poker (only fascilitating it and/or running an online poker site).i also believed that the WPT would defend itself by attacking their affiliations with online poker. this lawsuit could cause some serious damage to poker in the US for a long time to come.Well, yes, I expected the WPTE to do that too. But only because they are hypocrits. Does "Party Poker Million" ring a bell? PokerStars Carribean Adventure? Ultimate Bet Aruba Classic? This is the pot calling the kettle black. WPTE have been "in bed" with online poker from the start. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 All the .net's are "free" versions of the sites, which are legal to advertiseIs there some legislation that says the .nets are free? What happens if I start a site w/ .net for money and my free site is .org? Link to post Share on other sites
blueodum 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Is there some legislation that says the .nets are free? What happens if I start a site w/ .net for money and my free site is .org?You can call your real money site .net, but then you can't put "not a gambling site" in fine print on your commercial, like all the real life sites do. You may fool an advertiser for awhile, but eventually someone will notice that your .net site is real money. Link to post Share on other sites
erikakazan 0 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Hey Daniel, Where can I get me one of them there crystal balls? I commend you for sticking to your guns.Unrelated but I wish people would stop being mean about Mushu. I mean it IS your forum and your life. What you did for your mom when you got her Princess was sweet. Your mom raised a good boy. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now