Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[JayTee]

It seems to me that the founders of the WPT took an investment risk in creating it with the hope of turning a profit in the future (some of which would obviously come from marketing the likeness etc.. of the players). They created a contract which stated what the players had to agree too and the players signed it.

Now, after sometime these seven players have realized that the use of their likeness etc... is not helping or perhaps even hurting their bottom line. So they have filed this suit to try and end the practice.

I obviously do not know all of the details and am just making an opinion from what I have read. If the above is true, then it seems that the statement about doing this for the good of all the players is misleading.

If players don't like the contract then they don't have to play in the WPT. It seems like you guys might be making this bit about them locking up the casinos more of an issue than it really is.

My issues with all of this basically amounts to three things:

1. Are the seven players motives in this suit really what they are saying, or are their additional reasons that may hold more importance?

2. The WPT contract may be something that some players think is excessive. If that is the case, then don't play. They can't last very long with no players.

3. This relates to #2. How much does not playing in the WPT effect these seven players ability to make a living? How does it effect the masses of other players which these seven claim to be harmed by the practice?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Greg:

As you know on issues like this I prefer that Two Plus Two play the role of honest broker without taking sides. So we welcome you explaining why you are taking part in this law suit and what you are hoping it will accomplish just like we would welcome someone from the other side expressing their views. This in my opinion is the best way for all our posters and readers to become well informed on this issue.

I did however just listen to Negreanu's rant on his video blog. I couldn't help but notice that he stated he read your comments on the Internet which probably means us and he made several negative references to those people selling lots of books which I can't help but think also means us.

Anyway, I want you to know that all of us at Two Plus Two think the absolute best of you and appreciate all you have done for poker. I can't think of a better ambassador for our game and know that you would not undertake being part of this lawsuit unless you thought that it was simply the right thing to do.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Tuco]

Disclaimer: I don't think Lipscomb was anything close to a visionary at all. I agree with Raymer et al.

Everyone who is saying that the reason for the boom is SL and the WPT should remember that Henry Orenstein created the first under table cameras. If you ask (and I have) the principles in the deal about how Henry was treated you would likely think differently of SL and the WPT.

Also, Late Night Poker was a huge success in Europe. It was a matter of time before the concept came to North America. Yes, SL was there first (with Lyle Berman), but it would have happened anyway. If it werent for Henry Orenstein, I cant say the same thing.

The other thing that bothers me is that at every opportunity, SL points out that he (and the WPT) are the main reasons for the boom. While I agree that they certainly had a large impact, i'm not sure they were as much of a factor as they think they were. Just my opinion. Also, i'm always suspicious of people who tell me how good they are. Online poker was thriving (paradise was very busy) and ESPN probably would have done exactly what the WPT ended up doing.

The releases seem to be a personal sticking point for SL. If they are never going to use the players' likenesses (as they an d others claim) why do they ask for the right to do so?

Tuco.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
Stephen Lipscomb wasn't lucky. He had a vision of what televised poker could be. Nobody else seemed to share it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. He was an opportunist that took someone else's idea and vision and ran with it. What that makes him is up to you, but it was someone else's vision.

Tuco.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
If the WPT were paying your lawyers do you think they might have a different opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two Plus Two has an attorney, and he has been our attorney since 1987. He also does all the intellectual property work for Steve Wynn, so he's a big time lawyer.

Due to our success we have had to come to him on all sorts of legal issues. Normally what we do is we say we have this issue, what's your advice, and then we try to follow his advice which on several occasions was not what I wanted to hear but which I did recognize was correct. So the assumption that your attorney does whatever it is you want just because you pay him is not a good one.

MM

[infinite_loop]

This case is simply a political move. I guess even poker players can become politicians. Dark times.

[LuckyStrike]

Daniel's "WPT created the poker boom so they should be absolved of all wrongdoing" stance really is stupid. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read too much into the lawsuit so I don't have much of an opinion either way, but to say that the WPT shouldn't be attacked for allegedly exploiting players just because they helped poker explode (which may be debatable) is absurd.

[mrmr]

DN is very vague about how or why he thinks this will be bad for poker. It is only in his latest video blog that he lets the cat out of the bag, if you read between the lines.

He is making a living, and living in the USA, from an online poker site. Any judicial scrutiny of players that have deals with the major online sites could have negative fallout for people like DN (I am not suggesting that it will; nor do I think DN is suggesting that it will; only that it could, and he would prefer they not rock the boat, just to be on the safe side).

When DN says that the lawsuit is not being done on behalf of poker players, perhaps there is some truth to that. He personally, along with his circle of friends (big name pros with substantial income from online poker sites), do not stand to directly gain anything by the lawsuit, but there is potential, however small, that they could suffer from it.

The fact that the ones bringing the lawsuit would suffer just as much as DN if something went wrong is a pretty good indicator to me that they are not acting out of greed. I guess continue to take them at face value unless they prove untrustworthy? At the very least, it is hard to side with DN when he is not giving any arguement, or in fact making any particular claim, other than that it is "just his opinion" and that he thinks it is "bad for poker."

[Shandrax]

I have a degree in law (Germany) and all I can say is that both sides are right.

Negreanu has every right to voice his opinion that this lawsuit is total [censored] - and I agree with him on that.

Raymer is right in his opinion that law may technically dictate an outcome that is not in line with common sense. Maybe they do have the nuts on the case.

I can't judge that part, because I have no clue about US law. All I can say that in Germany this lawsuit would have zero chance for success, because nobody is forced to sign a contract with the WPT. This is gambling after all. If you don't want to gamble under their rules, go gamble somewhere else. It's a free country. If they can't get anyone to accept their rules, that's their problem.

Btw, I just invented a Hold'em version that is similar to the original with the only difference that I win every showdown by default. My plan is to sue Raymer to play with me for all his money. What do you guys think about it?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason -

I did however just listen to Negreanu's rant on his video blog. I couldn't help but notice that he stated he read your comments on the Internet which probably means us and he made several negative references to those people selling lots of books which I can't help but think also means us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're off base here Mason. Daniel said he read the comments in the "Forum" meaning the Full Contact Poker Forum which he commonly refers to in his video blog - not the "Internet" as you say. The threads he is referring to there are the "Greg Raymer Runs His Mouth" and "Raymer responds again in Star Jones fashion, I am a Lawyer" threads - both posted by LongBall42 the same OP as for this thread. Daniel only refers in his video blog to statements made by Raymer quoted in those threads.

Nowhere does he say, "those people selling lots of books" as you write. He does two video "Takes" of part of his rant with the apparent intention of cutting the first Take in the Editing of the video. Evidently he decided to leave both Takes in later on. In the first Take he mentions books in the context of players benefiting from "DVD's, books, and Site associations". In the second Take he words the same thought as players benefiting from "video games, books, DVD's, and online poker sites". Nowhere else does he mention books.

There's no way an honest broker could see any of this as being aimed at 2+2.

PairTheBoard