Venetian CEO Poker Tournament Main Event Furor

[satelliter]

For the $500+50, they took an additional 9% from the pool, which we noticed when they put up the screen. There was tiny print on the back of the structure sheet but the buy-in was misleading. The 1000+70 also took an extra 9%.

[doublejoker]

[ QUOTE ]
ANYONE who entered any of these CEO Tour Events,(win or lose),is a victim here.
NOT just the winners.
The whole structure,payout,decision to even play,etc is completely changed with this charity deception issue in fine print.
The MONSTER dollar figures withheld from the prize pool monies were so far out of whack, that it just confirms what a SCAM this whole thing was!

~stephen

[/ QUOTE ]

Stephen is 100% correct; why should only the winners be compensated; we were all deceived.....

[doublejoker]

[ QUOTE ]
For the $500+50, they took an additional 9% from the pool, which we noticed when they put up the screen. There was tiny print on the back of the structure sheet but the buy-in was misleading. The 1000+70 also took an extra 9%.

[/ QUOTE ]And why didnt anyone object ; had this been brought to light earlier, the $100,000 in juice and "site fees" may not have been taken from the 234 players who decided to play the main event.....

[doublejoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the $500+50, they took an additional 9% from the pool, which we noticed when they put up the screen. There was tiny print on the back of the structure sheet but the buy-in was misleading. The 1000+70 also took an extra 9%.

[/ QUOTE ]And why didnt anyone object ; had this been brought to light earlier, the $100,000 in juice and "site fees" may not have been taken from the 234 players who decided to play the main event.....

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying they took $50 plus an additional $45 on a $500 tourney? That amounts to $95 juice or about 20%... can someone look up the prizepool payout on one of the $500 CEO Venetian tourneys?

[doublejoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the $500+50, they took an additional 9% from the pool, which we noticed when they put up the screen. There was tiny print on the back of the structure sheet but the buy-in was misleading. The 1000+70 also took an extra 9%.

[/ QUOTE ]And why didnt anyone object ; had this been brought to light earlier, the $100,000 in juice and "site fees" may not have been taken from the 234 players who decided to play the main event.....

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying they took $50 plus an additional $45 on a $500 tourney? That amounts to $95 juice or about 20%... can someone look up the prizepool payout on one of the $500 CEO Venetian tourneys?

[/ QUOTE ]

I looked it up myself.
342 entries at $550 = $188,100

Total Prizepool $155,610 (82% of what was collected)

The 18% number seems standard on every tournament I have been told about.....

BUY-IN $500
TOTAL PRIZE POOL $155,610
ENTRIES 342


1Martin El Kher$48,238408
2Raymond Lau$28,010340
3Michelle McLeod$15,561272
4Jason Peed$10,893204
5John Pearman$9,337170

[satelliter]

I objected, and told everyone who would listen, but most players don't pay attention to these details. If I had known there was a 2500 "main event", I would have posted earlier, sorry.

[PokeReader]

"Relevant Laws
Basic sources of traditional advertising law apply online
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) authorizes civil liability upon proof of:
False statement of fact by advertiser about its own or another’s goods, services, or commercial activities, which
Actually deceives or tends to deceive, a substantial segment of intended audience,
Is material,
Is made in connection with goods or services in interstate commerce, and
Results in or likely to result in injury to plaintiff
Section 5 of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. §45) declares unlawful “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce”
Under Lanham Act, burden of proof is on plaintiff to demonstrate that claim at issue is false, not merely unsubstantiated
FTC bears no such burden: it may seek to enjoin advertisement solely on ground that it is unsubstantiated"

File a complaint with the National Advertising Division,(NAD), of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, http://www.nadreview.org/, of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, if your competitor's ad is running nationally or regionally. The NAD is a private, self-regulatory group affiliated with the BBB. It investigates allegations of deceptive advertising and gives advertisers a mechanism for resolving disputes voluntarily.

Contact the radio station, television station, or publication where the ad ran. Let them know that they're running an ad you think may be deceptive.

Contact your state Attorney General's Office or your city, county, or state Office of Consumer Affairs. To get their phone numbers, check your telephone directory.

Contact the FTC. By mail: Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Response Center, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580; by telephone: toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP.


http://ag.state.nv.us/menu/action_bt..._complaint.htm
http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/index.htm

These are the links to the Nevada and New Jersey AG Consumer Complaint Divisions. I will go through my history tonight to find the links to the internet sites the false information was on. I also seems to recall seeing an ad in a poker magazine, but didn't find one in my quick search. If anyone has a print advertisement that will be helpful. In writing your complaint you want to stress that you never would have played the event had you been aware of the actual vig, which was falsely advertised before and during the event to be much less. I would also mention the surprise mandatory charity "donation", which violates several fundraising laws, which require a great deal of disclosure about the charity, the fundraisers, and their relationship to each other. Unfortunately, the charity is definitely not following best practices, which require a donation review board, and familarity with the fundraising practices of anyone raising money for them. I sincerely hope their mission and reputation are not damaged because of naive trust and desire for a significant contribution. In some states, this type of intentional bait and switch, not to mention the other problems, would result in triple damages, but I was not able to put in enough time to pull up the relevant New Jersey, and Nevada statutes. If anyone needs anything else specific, please let me know.

http://www.sidley.com/cyberlaw/features/online_adv.asp
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/busines...ing-faq(2).html
http://www.nonprofitpanel.org/selfre...ng_Revised.pdf

[PokeReader]

Sorry, realized I did not post the Gaming Commission links, here they are:

http://gaming.nv.gov/address_phone.htm#lv
http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/

[PokeReader]

Yes, we had an IT person go through it. Ms. Gomez came on the first day, and stated that the charity aspect and all the vig was on the structure sheets, and was advertised clearly and the web site, (I actually thought it was kind of hard to find the structure downloads at all), and then the first person to download it just had the 9%, then they clearly changed it to add the 5% for charity, and then they quickly took it down when they realized it was a bad idea. They still will not admit that they changed it, or that they misrepresented the vig at the events as a general policy, clearly to improve weak attendance. I think we also need to consider contacting Bluff, as they have a relationship, and all the poker magazines and sites. I would hate to have more players continue to be taken advantage of in this way.