ike i don't think you were there, they made a decision and said it was final that 3 paid after we all left, even the floor admitted today scott talked them into changing it back.

either case i was pretty pissed this morning going off on the tourney staff and they delayed the start for a bit because i assume they didn't want to hear 4 players complain the whole time on live stream, with the td coming back with 5 mins before the start of play to say they would provide an extra $50k for 3rd on their part. it was a very nice gesture on their part, i didn't expect it to happen.

in either case i think its incredibly ****ed up something like that can happen in a $100k tournament, where the tourney floor can change the payouts based on a discussion with one player. Scott had the chip lead the entire tournament and he was asking questions like "do we pay 1 or 2?" and arguing for 70-30 instead, if some idiot floor guy knows its not 1 so says 2 when its really 3.

So it's Scott's fault to ask "1 or 2" and not the TD that doesn't even know the pay structure in his own ****ing tournament?

Preach mo knowledge iMO

no scott did the right thing, i would have done the same thing in scotts shoes but i might not have gotten away with it. scott seiver is big time.

Either way, he got 3rd and the extra $50k we got

Between this and the 2.5 mil overlay Pokerstars should really think hard as to whether or not this is the Poker room that they want to potentially partner with.

Ofc Scott was in the right. He and everyone else thought the tournament was paying top 2 til right near the end of play and everyone was fine with this. Everyone was only not fine with this once Seiver had a huge cl and they the floor incorrectly said they were changing it to 3 getting paid. It's irrelevant whether Seiver would've been so angry if he was a short stack.

A relatively simple binary decision

We're there any objections when they announced the 2 spots payout structure? If they were then, condition = True

If everyone STFU during the announcement, then after playing and losing players, you discovered that the info is incorrect and now complain about it, then condition = False

If Chainsaw played this thing, this FU never would have happened.

The biggest travesty is paying 2.5% rake in 100k for a dealer and a table.

wtf??

Mistake compared to what? If they didn't know before the tourney started, when/how did they arrive at the 3 player figure?

lool, brilliant timing. probably just as well he wasn't around when his bosses found out they were going to have to make a $2.5m + $50k donation to the poker community.

bluff?

Why is a tourney with not many entrants a sham?

Why is it borderline cheating?

+1, with the possible exception of the last sentence.

wp (in the end) SHRPO

wtf?

I don't think PS (or the players) should be complaining about the overlay. To be fair, they also made good in the SHR situation in the end.

tl ; dr

That's spot on and quite sad that they got 9 people to actually pay it. Is pokerstars really going to partner up with this crappy poker room/mgmt??

Ike made a point that no one can argue with imo:

While play was underway, all players got informed that two spots would be payed. Would you say that having that information didn't change the way you played?

While play was stopped, players were informed that three places would be paid. No player could use that information to change his approach to the tournament, because no hands were played at that time.

If they announced "sorry guys, back to 2 players paid" while play had been underway again, there had been a valid case to argue. But since that didn't happen, Ike is 100% right in my opinion.

I presume Pokerstars had to pay to 'partner'and have their logo plastered everywhere.
Doesn't that make the rake even more absurd?

Seems difficult to screw up a 9 player tournament, congrats SHR.

Scott said that "Karmicly" speaking he deserved to get third place because of his complaining about how many places they should payout. He said this prior to the start of play yesterday. Pretty funny that he actually got third place. #Karmaisreal

It's one of those situations where it's not clear who should pay who. Pokerstars were running satellites and allowing direct buy-in during their site, so you could say they should get agent's fees.

I got few questions about this.


1. How many players was expected to play in this event?


2. How long did this tournament last? I took a look at the structure and its a deepstack event yet you start with only 125BB? Yes theres an ante for each level and blind level is 60 minutes per level which is very long.


3. So basically this was a 9 player sng?


4. Would any of you have played in this event if it was going to be a 9 player sng?


5. How would an online sng specialist fare in this event? The issue though is most sngs players play hyper turbos or turbos only but if they were one of the 9 players here... wouldn't they have a decent chance at this or would they be very much -EV? I read josh arieh played in this and was the first out but he qualified through a satellite.


6. How can this be a super high roller event when theres only 9 entrants? Shouldn't these events have say at least 30 players minimum?

With 2500 in rake, they would've run it with only 2 entrants.
...and would've tried to with only 1.

It is a Super Highroller because of the buy-in amount of $100,000 in order to participate. Did you ever see the unique entries of the WPT Alpha8 events so far?

Alan, I've always assumed that doing this was extremely unethical, a major angleshoot, and so I thought you were just idly accusing SS of doing something awful just to pile on. I didn't realize this is acceptable, standard behavior in streamed tournaments, so while you were speculating about what he was looking at, you were not accusing him doing anything wrong. So my reply to you was completely out of line.

I apologize for my comments and will delete/edit it if I'm still able.

Seiver strikes me as a really smart guy who has a friendly persona. But when push comes to shove, he plays poker for a living, and he's gonna lobby and politic and argue in situations like this.

Running his mouth non-stop at the poker table is bad enough, but he makes sure to make it exclusively about poker strategy on top of that. You would think someone that plays that big would know to never talk strat at the table.

I've played with Scott quite a bit and never heard him talk strategy at the table for real. It's always tongue in cheek about how "well" he played the hand when he got lucky or some such thing. Usually all in good fun and almost always a good tablemate

at some point arguing with the floor is a punishable offense, I was not there and do not know if the line was crossed.

Speaking from experience, or from watching him on TV?