Wow, I feel your pain, but as a Lawyer, if your going to be seeking legal action it is probably not a good thing to comment in public forums. It is ok for others to comment but if I were you I would not post on the subject until you seek legal advice.

yeah I kinda thought it was overboard for Steve to scream and call you an angle shooter in front of a room full of people. Now people in the room who have no idea of the situation will associate you with angle shooting and as we all know your rep is kinda based on word of mouth between poker players. Even after when we were sitting up on stage talking he was clearly talking **** about you, within earshot of us, to someone on the phone calling u a scumbag and ****. I've never had a problem with Steve before and I actually kinda had really good interactions with him prior but last night was really dirty. Completely unprofessional and just outright nasty. Lost lots of respect for him.

Also about the tipping no one knows how much someone actually makes because of action sold. On top of that dealers are already tipped because of the rake and anything he gives is extra. I think its really scummy that someone has posted here the actual amount you've tipped and that person needs to pay heavily. That information is private.

Wow did this really happen? I've had multiple interactions with Steve (including when I received a penalty) and he is very polite and well-mannered. I mean, I'm shocked to read this. Have other people had run-ins with him like this before?

OP, I think this is being ignored but it's too valid to dismiss. Did they record the names of everyone that finished 17-32 in the HU? If they did (and I'm assuming they did because they needed to match them for the round of 32), did they also record the names of people that finished 17-27 in the 7game event (outside of cashes)? I got knocked out in the mid-twenties and they didn't record my bust out. What about 15-27 in the PLO rebuy (outside of cashes)? What about 19-27 in the NLH rebuy (outside of cashes)?

I only bring this up because of the following situation: let's say they go back and say "nevermind, you DO NOT need to cash in order to receive points". Then there would be a whole bunch of points possible to the people finishing in the above positions that wouldn't have been recorded or regulated. Because it's too complicated to do that, they would just make a blanket statement that says "you must cash in order to receive points".

I also completely understand where you're coming from, and you may have a case legally. I'm just playing devil's advocate because this could be part of their thinking..."****. Well we screwed that up, but we can't fix the other screwed up events so we'll just say 'no cash, no points'" and it came back to bite em.

ewwww.... risking a slander lawsuit as well

I wasn't there for this. I hope it's not true.


Even if one disagrees with the points for the HU event, it's pretty clear there is a legitimate argument given the written language and unique characteristic of HU events.

While I agree with almost everything you wrote here, I will say the rake is not that extreme when one adds in the money added to individual events and the $50k and Camaro prizes for player points.

For a live circuit, it's probably one of the better ones when you add those extras in.

unless i'm mistaken, every single dollar added to this series came from the $1 "promotional drop" extra rake. it isn't some charitable contribution...

also they rake 3% out of the added money i believe so that promotional money isn't even returned to the players

oh.... wow... didn't know that was happening.

I, now, agree with every point you made.

This event is 21 and older, right?

Just because the structure sheet says 16-32 are awarded points doesn't necessarily mean that will hold up in court.

An example I can think of is: if a business puts out an advertisement that contains a benefit or discount that they didn't mean to give through a typo, the business does not have to honor the mistaken offer. IIRC, that's a pretty well settled matter of law. This isn't to say that there is no case here, but contract law is complicated.

I would see if I could get the issue resolved through the IGC before I hired a lawyer, this kind of thing is why the IGC exists.

Yes I was talking about tournaments with both. I consider 3% part of the rake I guess...

Hi guys - thanks a lot. It matters a ton to me what the community think. I would certainly listen up if you guys said 'dude, you are out of line here, man up and take the hit'...

On tipping, I never know. I do know that 92k looks huge, but after backers, taxes, expenses AND the 5k in other buyins during the event, I'm lucky if I net 20k. Still a lot of money, but in truth, I feed and clothe my kids with that and I'm not rich. With stuff like tipping, I sometimes ask because I want to do what is considered 'normal'. I also have two kids, an ex-wife, and a ****-ton of debt.

It is easy to look at someone's gross - which was like 175k last year - but I probably played 50k worth of events and had 25k in expenses. We all know that tournament poker is lose, lose, lose, lose and then (hopefully) a win that pushes us back into the black. Last year I came 2nd in the CPC main for 165 and found myself completely broke my New Years Day. (I will NOT let that happen again.) When I chopped the Caesars event in Jan, it felt like I was down to my last 50 bucks. I sell between 60 and 80 percent of my action for all events so i can play big ones AND reduce my variance.

I think the dealers were awesome, I hope they actually GET that 3% (and it doesnt get swallowed up by the Caesars Entertainment maw). I don't doubt they are underpaid for the **** they have to deal with, but I do my best given what i think is normal and what i feel like i can afford.

(And I think I tippped $400 FWIW)

One more thing. I'm not going to comment on the CPC points incident anymore because this is a casual forum, and it could get legal and ugly.

Am i the only one reading the small print at the bottom of the overall player rules page. Where it states winnings will be paid at the discretion of management. Essentially stating they have final say on rules regarding the payout of overal points winners/rules etc. Or does something like that not matter? Or am i interprating it wrong?

That line is definitely interesting, but I am not a lawyer so I don't know how that would work. My gut says that really shouldn't come into play because otherwise the tournament staff could decide to be racist and not award the prize to anybody from a certain race. Obviously they wouldn't do that, but putting that line in there would not make that ok.

I highly doubt that the clause legally gives them the right to change their rules mid-series however they want. (Disclaimer -- I'm not an attorney.) It certainly doesn't give them the ethical right to do that, if you ask me.

I mean, if they had just randomly decided to give the $50k to Phil Ivey if he agreed to show up for an event for publicity purposes...doubt that clause would give them much cover. An extreme example, but obviously they can't just do anything they want to do with the earmarked money because of a standard "Management reserves all rights"-type clause.

Obv the line isnt their for the above two scenarios ) but it is their tonprotect against human error in any part of the write up of the rules. Which im guessing they could say this was.

It may protect them legally somehow -- I don't know.

But it clearly doesn't change the right thing to do -- which, to me, was to honor the written scoring system, not to rely on people to guess what their intentions were when writing it.

I really can see both sides of this argument. Paul and backers were probably making the same assumption that they had the points and would play more tournaments based on the 50k for the leaderboard. The heads up tourney was definitely heavily promoted and it would not be unreasonable to assume that they would award points for 17th-32nd as a bonus to attract players.

On the other hand I am pretty sure it is at least very uncommon to award points for not cashing in events. This however, really needs to be written in as part of the rules. If this has happened before it is really even more ridiculous that it is not in the written rules provided by the staff. I am at this point unsure of what I really feel is the most fair outcome. It is impossible to know if other players would have won the points had they received them in other non cashes as well. I have now seen there were at least two tournaments that did not award listed points to non cashers. Were there more than this or is this all?

Ftr, its not "added" its robbed frm the cash game drop.

Just because management puts a phrase in doesn't make it legally binding. Anyone can say anything they want. But all that matters is what a judge and/or jury decide about what they say or write. As far as I'm concerned a contract was broken. I would seek legal action for certain.

Stop derailing this thread with stupid tipping bull****.

/

that is total bs and I hope they make it right. Why the casino series would even put themselves in this spot is beyond me! Gl sirs!