Not that I needed a reason in general, but I'll never play at the Borgata again, at least not while this resolution stands. I could have played there this week in their main, and next week in the WPT Championship, but I'll go ahead and vote with my wallet and not support their terrible practices.

I agree the final 27 got completely screwed over. I also agre that there is a huge conflict of interest between the Borgata and the gaming commission. This whole thing stinks and the Borgata is going to get away with a net profit.

The governing body has a financial interest in the casinos well being so yeah I am not taking their word as gospel.

take it for what you want, it's all that matters

The Division of Gaming Enforcement is responsible the ruling, not Borgata. Shouldn't The Division of Gaming Enforcement be the ones boycotted?

They returned over 250k in fees earned on this specific tournament. How many other events were run and what was the total amount of fees collected for the entire series? I think a 25% penalty from that total for the Borgata's negligence in the affair and added to the 450k they allocated for the final 27 would add a little more justice.

They took about 75% of the final 27's allocated money, most if not all who did nothing wrong, then why not hit the Borgata a little in their wallet

Questions to any one of the final 27-

What were your realistic expectations? Is the 20k more or less than you expected? How far away is the judgment that what you expected( not hoped for)?

That's actually very impressive Bakes - even though most poker players don't ever band together and stand together usually on these kinds of things, it's good to see people like you and David Bach fight the ruling in your own way(by not showing up).

I have attended every poker series there religiously since I came back to poker in 2012 and it seems like the place has definitely gotten worse every series. They have worsened their structures in some of the preliminary events(especially their 1st event), push reentries to death even though most venues are trying to curb them to some degree and don't listen to player feedback or suggestions.

I used to get excited when the Borgata poker series would be near but not anymore. I chose to go to SHR to play their main and have zero interest in attending the Borgata's spring open.

I don't know if I will permanently boycott the place, in fact I do know - I won't but I will tell you this much: Rather than come down for 2 weeks and play the majority of events each series, it might be only 4 days and 1 or 2 events. They need to get their act together because to screw these last 27 players out of $900,000 is plain awful.

The governing body specified the minimum that must be paid out. Nothing is stopping the Borgata from making extra payments to the 27, most notably those with more chips. The Borgata decided to not do anything more. Thus players can decide what to do in response to that and one such response is to never show up again.

lmao at this ^^^ why would they just give out free money? is that how you run your business? I know I don't.
and yes players now can choose to boycott but that won't hurt anybody

Well they didn't provide the services they promised so yes they should take a hit financially.

Why are you laughing so hard? Businesses give out free money all the time. Have you ever seen a commercial?

Sorry to hear what an absolute screw job this is to the final 27. Must he so frustrating to the ones who had a healthy stack and were chasing a life changing score. But I disagree strongly that any casino doing something like you describe would get back 1/10 of the money they spent in long term good will from the poker community. Maybe it's because of the nature of poker itself but the poker community does a horrible job when it comes to boycotts or working together to right a wrong. AP/UB had enormous scandals and poker regs still went back, then they got screwed as well. The Venetian poker room is the most popular in vegas and the biggest threat to poker in the USA in the entire world is the owner of the Venetian. Yet players flock to Venetian instead of the other dozen options in vegas.

I would love to see PokerStars do something like you described . However a brick and mortar poker room would be lighting a million bucks on fire .

WWPSD?

DGE says they did provide the services promised. And they did take a financial hit. They lost 288k. Why is it so hard for some to comprehend?

The governing body that has a financial stake in the success of casinos, yes their ruling should just be accepted.

Let's just stop engaging Jetlag, he's either completely obtuse, a shill, or some combination and he's clearly here to antagonize and turn this thread into aids.

flat out BS...You don't like the ruling so now they are in on it with Borgata. pure comedy in this thread

Agreed, I'll stop taking the troll bait.

Have you seen the state of the casino industry in AC? There are NO casinos that have 900K just to throw around on a goodwill act.

why becuz my opinion differs from most here? you can't handle a legit debate? You guys really expect Borgata to come out of pocket for more than they already lost? That's just absurd. This is exactly why they have the DGE. They may have been lenient but they have no financial interest in Borgata.

You seem like a smart fellow. In your opinion should the Borgada issued refunds to all players AND paid the final 27? If not what would have been your best case idea?

I've been mostly following along with these events, though I certainly haven't carefully read every post in this thread. Here is my take as a disinterested party:

-Poker tournaments are, in general, a mechanism by which players redistribute their own money amongst themselves
-Casinos charge a fee for providing the facilities and personnel to enable/facilitate this interplayer exchange of money
-As far as we know, the casino followed industry-standard practices in administering the tournament.



-Once the tournament was stopped, the remaining undistributed players' monies need to be distributed to the most appropriate players.
-This final redistribution was dictated by a third party who has legitimate regulatory power and oversight of the casino's operations.
-The casino chose to (or was required to) refund the fee that they charged to conduct the event and this money was added to the players' during the redistribution process.

I can see ire legitimately directed at two main sources
1) The lion's share of the ire should go to the person or people who perpetrated the fraud that set in motion this whole mess. They are the ones who made the agreed-upon rules for the players to redistribute their money unworkable.
2) Well-intentioned people can disagree about what decision rule(s) should have been used to redistribute funds after the agreed-upon rules became unworkable. No single distribution of the remaining funds would satisfy everyone, so a certain amount of ire here is understandable.

On the other hand, the casino conducted itself exactly the way that many/most/all other casinos have/would in similar situations. They returned the fees to the players, and facilitated the final redistribution of the players funds as they were directed by their regulatory entity.

^^ Wise words cetacean

Well said

Maybe at 1 time but not anymore. The Venetian's attendance for their Deep Stack events during the WSOP last year was way down and imo will continue to drop. I think Adelson's ridiculous stance against online poker has hurt the crowds there big time. I know I won't play a Venetian DSE event and haven't played 1 for 2 years.

It's funny that you say it's obviously a joke because I was reading your post thinking that's really the only possible way they could do it.

So how do they in fact know what time somebody busted out who just got up out of their chair and walked out of the building without rebuying?