Devil's avocado here, Larry.

Fox's subject seems to be that televised live tournaments take advantage of poker players by not paying them anything extra in order to show them and make money off of them. But, the only reason why poker in general and online poker in specific is as big as it is now (and was a few years ago) is because of these televised poker shows.

Basically, the thing he is complaining about is directly responsible for putting money into his pocket. Would it be nice if the casinos gave back some of the money that they got to players? Of course it would. It would also be nice if money rained from the sky. If you took a second to think about the big picture, you'd see that televised tournaments are still massively +EV for the community as a whole.

 

Originally Posted by jonnyg123

you have to remember not everyone who plays in these tournaments considers themselves part of the community...all the amateurs and fish who we want in the field are going to be excluded from having the chance to cash in on a FT appearance and the exposure they get. while it may be true on the one hand that they dont know theyre getting screwed, fox's point is that that doesnt make it right

imo

That isn't really my point, tho.

He's saying, "I don't want to play in this tournament because I feel like I'm not getting a fair shake".

My point is, "But when that tournament is aired on TV, so many bad players are going to start playing online poker that it'll make up for whatever small amount of revenue sharing equity you may have had in the tournament".

It seems to me like a situation where they have to take theirs in order for us to get ours. We end up making money from the deal, even though it seems like we are getting screwed out of money at first blush.

 

Originally Posted by acecatcher26

Its still a crock of shit and I cant believe GambleAB is defending them. While I agree that live mtts are super soft, by the time you figure in rake plus dealer tip and 40% for taxes doesnt this pretty much negate the edge u get from the tourney being so soft?

I mean, that's STILL not even close to what I'm saying.

"Would it be nice if the casinos gave back some of the money that they got to players? Of course it would."

pretty sure every casino in the world does this. card clubs give you money or food back depending on how much you play. didnt read the article. i do see your point tho

As long as the customers(players) keep coming and accept it things won't change. The answer? I don't know but money talks. If a series came along that was really about players first it would thrive and crush the competition IMO.

this tour isnt about anything other than trying to attract more players to pokerstars.com and thus making them a shitload more money online. same thing party poker will do with the wpt, sites just whoring themselves out.

Great article Fox.

GambleAB ur logic is lol_flawed.

Because televised mtts caused the poker boom that makes it ok for them to get away with these absurd rules?

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

AB, you're devilishly "avocado"-ing a position that you know is unpopular. Props for challenging the community. The obvious question is one that must be posed to producers of televised tournaments and the people in charge of making decisions pertaining to player sponsorship: WHY EXACTLY are the players forced to agree to the anti-competitive rules?

1) Is the tourney series merely an advertising campaign for one or more poker sites?

* if so, then the rules make complete sense.

2) Is the tourney series a true poker event intended to bring out the best players?

* if so, then there should not be restrictions about apparel or backing or sponsorship and players should be free to contract with whomever wants to pay them.

3) Are their issues that make televising tourneys impossible if players wear logos?

While I agree that televised tournaments are +EV for poker, there are methods of running tournaments with regulations that do not take money out of the pockets of players and that make the best players want to show up. Having the best players makes the best tournaments. This we can likely agree on. And when the best players don't show up, the value of the end television production is worth less...less EV for the community.

My real gripe is with the fact that they are setting such specific rules about what a player can wear. This is what will probably keep me away from the tournaments more than anything else. It doesn't cost them anything to allow players to sign an endorsement deal when they make the final table and make some extra cash, but they have decided to take away that opportunity for the players. It's means so little to them to allow it and so much to the players to do it, that I think it really shows how they have no interest at all in what is good for the players.

There's nothing we can do about taxes (actually moving to Costa Rica would do the trick) and most of the other things they are doing have become almost standard, but the endorsement thing is ridiculous. It's their right to choose whatever rules they like, I just thought it would be a good thing for the players to know what they are signing up for before they start playing in satellites or book a flight.