WPT Responds to Players' Lawsuit

[Kevmath]

Details found at http://img.worldpokertour.com/media/article/214.pdf

[KneeCo]

Interesting stuff, the bottom of p. 4 (line 22) through the beginning of p. 5 is what really makes me nervous about the suit. Is it really relevant to the issue at hand? I don't think so (I'm no expert though), but it will be brought up again and again by the WPT which won't be in the best interest of online poker.

Nevertheless, I still agree with Raymer and co. on this one, and the statement does nothing to change my mind.

A lot of what the WPT brings up is totally off topic, and their definition of "competition" in the market place is weak (for instance, I don't believe WPT can honestly list 'Celebrity Poker Showdown' and others as an alternative "high stakes professional poker tournament [...] available for poker players to compete in").

So yea, still with 'the players' on this one and wish them the best of luck, though I do fear that the suit might have a negative impact on the game.

[DeeMo]

I agree with DN to the extent that poker players should be concerned about online poker sites being portrayed in a negative fashion. No one is going to deny that online poker (which I play occasionally) is great for live play (which I play frequently) in that it brings newbies to the game.

That being said...this is the part that made me say, "Yikes!"

"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 DOJ 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 Lederer) to reap these illicit profits."

[CaryDarling]

So, is the WPT gonna leave us poker players hanging out to dry on the online issue with that statement?

[Jooka]

take this with a large grain of salt:

http://pokerati.com/2006/08/23/the-monopoly-of-poker/

[ QUOTE ]
The Monopoly of Poker?

read more: Harrahs

From our crack rumor-ati department …

A disgruntled dealer reports new buzz that Harrah’s is looking to buy the World Poker Tour. (Scroll down to third comment.)

Developing …


[/ QUOTE ]

[Shadowrun]

I actually read the whole thing. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
I found some of it intresting and some of it lawyer speak. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[TheRanch]

The lawsuit filed by the players really has no legal merit. The fact that the WPT release is one-sided and unfair DOES NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL. Everyday people sign agreements that are one sided...look at your mortgage, bank loans, credit cards, car purchases....all of them contain provisions that are extremely detrimental to the consumer. It is up to you to decide if you are willing to live with the terms of the agreement. If you are not, you simply do not sign.

Nobody is forcing the players to sign. The players can simply choose not to play WPT events. They have the option to play the WSOP, WSOP circuit, as well as all of the other tourneys that are not WPT related. They can also play cash games. The pros are not deprived of making a living simply because they choose not to participate in the WPT. In fact the 7 Plaintiffs are proof that you can make millions of dollars and not participate in the WPT.
As a lawyer, I confront these issues daily. Just because something is "unfair" does not make it illegal.

Lastly, Phil Gordon recently made a statement that is extremely naive...he said something to the effect of "Our lawyers would not have taken this case unless they thought we were right". Not so Mr. Gordon. If the lawyers truly believed in your case they would have taken the case on a contingency, whereby they only get paid if they win. That will put an attorney to the test if he really believes in your case. Instead these attorneys are charging you by the hour and will charge you enormous fees regardless of the outcome of the case.

[mhcmarty]

I'm not sure why the WPTE would go in this direction. The WPTE needs on-line poker and on-line poker needs televised poker (Moneymaker ect...) to continue to reach the masses.

If I can't play poker on-line in my home, my interest in poker is diminished. Over time I become less interested in televised poker and for me poker takes the same route as fantasy football has.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
As a lawyer, I confront these issues daily.

[/ QUOTE ]

[CaryDarling]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why the WPTE would go in this direction. The WPTE needs on-line poker and on-line poker needs televised poker (Moneymaker ect...) to continue to reach the masses.

If I can't play poker on-line in my home, my interest in poker is diminished. Over time I become less interested in televised poker and for me poker takes the same route as fantasy football has.

[/ QUOTE ]
My take on this is like yours. I realize this is a battle, but what the WPT has done with that statement is run a suicide bomb mission.

In an attempt to take out their targets *Lederer and Co.* they have also killed and injured innocent bystanders *online players* and themselves dying while in the process.

You are correct, TV Poker needs online poker, and online poker needs TV poker...one needs it to continue to grow *online* and the other needs it so it doesn't continue to die..*TV*