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

[Clayton]

Felt this issue needed to at least be brought up for discussion, as I had no idea myself of this until my friend Taylor Douglas (aka 2+2 poster tdomeski) made the $1500 final table this Monday.

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.

Basically, when you cash out in a tournament they give you a slip for the payout dependant upon your finish, you go up to the cashier place, hand your slip, and give your money. If a deal has to be made at the WSOP, the players have to rely on the trust of the others afterward to actually make the deal. They have to trust people they have never met before in their lives to give a portion of their rigid (actual) winnings like a chop never happened, and put the money in their hands. Seems to be asking a lot, no?

In Taylor's case, 2 of the remaining 3 opponents planned on immediately getting a check and flying back home. As such, Taylor couldn't really finish a deal that would have potentially gotten him MORE THAN FIRST if he won. The deal was suggested by the Brazilian, everyone agreed to it, but because the WSOP could not chop the prizepool up and be flexible, a deal could not be made on the basis of Taylor having to put his trust in one of these three guys to ship hundreds of thousands, without the liability of the WSOP, if taylor did not win. Two wanted checks and had no plans of ever sending money as it would be too much of a bitch to pull off on their own time (which is obviously reasonable)

But the fact that Taylor lost around $100,000 sklansky dollars thanks to the WSOP is not the point. What the point is, is that for some reason on a liability issue the WSOP doesn't want to deal with players making deals, on account of the fact that if someone gets screwed and the WSOP is associated with it, they could sue the WSOP and get 2x the amount they would have gotten in the deal.

As such, every well known and operated tournament can safely deal (at least, I get that impression) except the WPT and the WSOP.

This has me kinda baffled, because wouldn't it make even a little bit of sense for the WSOP officials to just chop up the prizepool and dictate as much on the slips so payouts dont have to be so rigidly distributed upon finish?

Anyways, I'm kinda hoping someone can explain something I may not know, as I don't claim to be knowledgeable on the subject but with the current state of affairs revoling around the WSOP on this issue (one of infinite issues this summer) being completely retarded just asks the question to be posed: Why can't the WSOP chop up prizepools and just alter slips at the cashier and not force players to trust people they've never met?

The WSOP should be there to broker and endorse dealmaking and accurately distribute chop amounts dependant upon the deal at hand, as opposed to just throwing up their hands in the air and saying "YOU GUYS TRUST ONE ANOTHER IF YOU WANT MAKE A DEAL"

Seems really retarded, and I hope to get a response from WSOP or some form of explanation, prob wont get one tho...

[Equal]

Seems fine on the WSOP's part.

[Clayton]

[ 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.

[Equal]

Why should it be their responsibility? They set up the tourney with their rules, the players are attempting to modify it. Name one other major sport or competition that the ruling body allows the players to modify the rules during the competition and the governing body allows it.

[Silent A]

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?

[fatshaft]

Deals are players responsibility in all UK casinos too, I dont see the problem, they've said they are flying out immediately, why cant these same players take cash and divvy up?

Can't see anything wrong with WSOP stance here.

[Silent A]

Obviously, WSOP is well within their rights. But this can be so significant for so many players that it borders on cruel in my eyes, and their reasoning sounds lame.

[MaverickUSC]

In most american casinos I have played in, when a deal is made, that is the amount that is paid by the cage and reported on tax forms. However, for publicity, they still report the "pre-deal" amounts on all records. For example, on my stats, even though it says I won $37k in a commerce tourney, I was only paid $31k by the cage/reported on taxes due to deal.

It's not that big of a deal, Harrah's is lazy.

Devo

[EWS87]

also let me just mention in case anyone cares, that this is the policy on all tournaments associated with the wsop name, including a $300 circuit prelim in tunica

i dont fault the casino at all...why should they bother...

[ 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 ]

this wouldnt be that hard...but it would be infinitely harder then doing nothing so why should they...there selling out events so it makes no difference to them...nobody is going to stop playing over this....also, 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

[sirtimo]

[ QUOTE ]
.also, 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 ]

It may be retarded but can happen because people are, well, retarded. I was involved in a final table deal where we chopped part of it 10 handed then later chopped up part of it 4 handed, if I had ended up winning I would have cashed more than the actual listed 1st place money.