The WSOP does not endorse tournament deals on a liability issue (WTF)

[tdomeski]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no way that any player is going to accept a deal where first gets more then what first place is paying thats retarded in so many ways


[/ QUOTE ]

well i agree but it happened and i didn't even have to say a word during discussions...

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is no way that any player is going to accept a deal where first gets more then what first place is paying thats retarded in so many ways


[/ QUOTE ]

well i agree but it happened and i didn't even have to say a word during discussions...

[/ QUOTE ]

sucks for you taylor but I suppose it's for TV value or whatever, they want all the tourneys to be live in the final stages (for more than a bracelet) but obviously can't stop private deals.

Anyway grats on your score, sick finish!

[shaniac]

I don't find Harrah's policy on deals particularly accommodating, but I also don't think it's unreasonable for them to choose to stay out of the process. I'd prefer if they focused their energy on repairing all the day-to-day problems we've experienced this year, anyway.

I do think deals should be allowed in all tournaments, and that it's fine if these bracelets are bargained for, and I actually don't care if someone involved in a deal "buys" the bracelet as part of the deal (although I think in those cases, it's a little absurd to play the tournament out for show). Anyway, I don't think it's necessarily the house's responsibility to accommodate the particulars of any deal, as long as they allow deal-making in general. I do like the way the Bellagio does it better--allowing players to chop based on chip-count rather than good-will--but if obstacles arise in terms of trust/liability, players should be prepared to play the tournament out as it was meant.

One thing I don't understand--if everyone was agreeing to the deal and it was on the up-and-up--why would his opponents would be unable to claim part of the prize in cash in order to settle the deal afterwards, before flying home with the rest of the money in a check? Obviously, this still requires implicit trust on the part of all parties, but I'm still unclear on why it was a deal-breaker.

[Temp Hutter]

The three times I have been involved in a final table deal the casino was not a party to the deal. Two times we went to the window and got paid the same amount on the structure sheet and then turned around and exchanged money to settle the deal. It was not complicated or hard. I even asked for and received a signature from another player stating that I was giving them X amount of cash just in case I needed something for an IRS audit.

The Venetian however did a much better job with helping the players calculate the money and get paid. We explained to the TD what the deal was and he broke out a clacultaor and paper and figured up the exact dollar amounts. We all agreed to the deal and he gave us each the exact amount agreed upon in the deal. This was a big help. The TD had us each sign a piece of paper that listed our names, chip counts and amount of prize pool - basically a CYA for them.

I understand a casino not getting involved in deal making, but that should not preclude them from facilitating the deal once it is made.

[Clayton]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still unclear on why it was a deal-breaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taylor had the most to lose based on the fact he was going to get the lion's share of the deal, and the other parties involved, though willing to make the deal, were unwilling to privately send money afterwards due to logistics (2 just wanted checks and to go home the next day). Harrah's was in no way accomodating to divvy up the player's needs in this regard, and adding in the element of there being only 98% trust, with Taylor standing the most to lose, allowed the tournament to go on without a chop.

hope that explains it thoroughly enough shane.

[stephenNUTS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seems fine on the WSOP's part.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain why it seems fine. what is stopping them from divvying up the remaining prizepool and writing it on the slips, thus giving their "chop" amount to the cashier?

dont get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the zillions of $$$$ at the WSOP,on the line at the end of these push-fest 30 minute long lasting FINAL tables,where the chipleader has about 8 BB's,it only makes sense that the players at least discuss a deal,and have the WSOP staff there to witness,verify,and chop accordingly making sure the players are happy,as well as the deal being consumated in a fair and equitable manner...........it really aint too hard!

~stephen [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[NickMPK]

Casinos are very tighly regulated by the gaming commission and have to abide strictly by their stated rules. Additionally, certain casinos (especially Harrah's) have agreements with the IRS as to the tax treatment of winnings.

It is entirely reasonable for the casino to want to avoid involvement in any deals made by players that change the structure of the tournament to something other than what the casino has publically published. They would have to do a lot more than get forms printed; they would have to go through an approval process with the gaming commission and probably renegotiate with the IRS.

Atlantic City casinos have even stricter rules on deal-making than Vegas, and I have chopped several tournaments privately between the players, and have never had a problem. BTW, even if it is not officially written on any forms, such a deal is an enforceable oral contract; if one of the player welches, they conceivably sued for enforcement as I understand it.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
When dealmaking is ever considered, the WSOP reps and tournament managers insist on the dealmaking occuring privately, and between the players with the WSOP offering no assistance towards chopping of prizepools.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do think deals should be allowed in all tournaments, and that it's fine if these bracelets are bargained for, and I actually don't care if someone involved in a deal "buys" the bracelet as part of the deal (although I think in those cases, it's a little absurd to play the tournament out for show).

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought you could officially deal in the WSOP, and when you did they let you deal for the bracelet. If not, what happened in the seniors tournament?
http://www.pokernews.com/live-report...t-holdem/day3/

[Willy]

[ QUOTE ]
How hard would it be for them (WSOP) to hire some lawyers to draw up some basic forms to cover their asses, leaving the players to simple enter the agreed new payouts and sign?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's in it for them?

[Jurollo]

This happened to me too. Couple things Harrah's doesn't tell you.

A) The whole, whoever wins has to pay taxes on the full win speech is wholly untrue. They have paperwork at the payout booth called "partnership" something which accommodates if someone is going to take your tax liability for some of the winnings. The TD's conveniently dont tell you this.

B) You have to realize Harrah's and the WSOP have a rooting interest in someone getting paid a bundle of money. They don't want you to deal so they certainly won't help negotiate it. They want someone to win the biggest sum of money possible, if they could make these winner take all they probably would, it would make the best marketing.

C) When you are sequestered and you take a walk to discuss then you can easily either have witnesses and verbally agree to the contract thus entering into a legally binding contract. Or ask for paper and write up a quick, albeit crude contract to have post tournament.

When it is all said and done I think the biggest crime on Harrah's part is the misinformation being spewed by the TD's about tax liability issues when it becomes very clear once you are at the payout booth that this is clearly not a problem.
~J