Guy pays the $10k to enter wsop ladies event - Page 4 - Poker News

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion News, Views, and Gossip

Guy pays the $10k to enter wsop ladies event

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

07-09-2016 , 09:16 PM

#76

doublejoker

Old News

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,953

Thats for $1k buyins. They assumed no one would pay $10k.

All 10k buyins are raked 6%

Quote

07-09-2016 , 09:20 PM

#77

MGMDonk

centurion

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 126

Oh look. Chainsaw is arguing about something that doesn't really matter in a tournament he isn't even in.

Do you ever take that White Knight costume off?

Quote

07-09-2016 , 09:22 PM

#78

Edgelooker1

grinder

Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 650

The structure says:

7% of total entry pool withheld for entry fees.
3% withheld for tournament dealers & staff.

I guess they should of added a clause which would of stated:
If a douchebag male enters and pays the full $10000 entry fee, his fee will be
4.2% of total entry pool withheld for entry fees.
1.8% withheld for tournament dealers & staff.

They could of even went further and had different fees for pre-op and post-op males who identify as females.

Quote

07-09-2016 , 09:23 PM

#79

lnvasques

enthusiast

Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 66

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

Thats for $1k ladies buyins. $10k buyins are always raked $600.

In this event they raked $1000
The guys paid ten times more and they raked ten times more

Quote

07-09-2016 , 09:31 PM

#80

youriw21

grinder

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 684

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

Thats for $1k buyins. They assumed no one would pay $10k.

All 10k buyins are raked 6%

Spoiler:

Quote

07-09-2016 , 10:01 PM

#81

RigCT

adept

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 787

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

Thats for $1k buyins. They assumed no one would pay $10k.

All 10k buyins are raked 6%

EXCEPT THIS ONE. Chainsaw you are insufferable or are being intentionally more dense than usual. Your question was answered no less than 3 times. Please show your work if you disagree.

Quote

07-09-2016 , 10:08 PM

#82

bigdongbrad

journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 364

Quote:

Originally Posted by MGMDonk

Oh look. Chainsaw is arguing about something that doesn't really matter in a tournament he isn't even in.

Do you ever take that White Knight costume off?

not a costume for him

Quote

07-09-2016 , 10:13 PM

#83

evechad

grinder

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 462

Boston Tony, AKA the third rail, plays by his own set of rules

Quote

07-09-2016 , 10:14 PM

#84

NickMPK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11,569

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

Thats for $1k buyins. They assumed no one would pay $10k.

All 10k buyins are raked 6%

The structure sheet for -this tournament- says the -prize pool- (not individual buy-ins to the tournament) is raked at 10%. So it is very clear that in this case, a 10k buy-in will become part of a pool in which 10% is raked (of which 3% goes to dealers & staff).

Quote

07-09-2016 , 10:18 PM

#85

doublejoker

Old News

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,953

There has never been a $10k buyin raked $1k in the history of the wsop.

Common sense dictates the structure sheet only refers to the ladies buying in.

Quote

07-09-2016 , 10:38 PM

#86

RigCT

adept

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 787

Quote:

Originally Posted by RigCT

Chainsaw ....Your question was answered no less than 3 times. Please show your work if you disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

Common sense dictates ...

Oh, ok then. You win. Just ignore the facts.

Quote

07-09-2016 , 10:44 PM

#87

RowdyOne

adept

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 801

i guess he identified as a women that day
the feds get after it if they said no

Quote

07-09-2016 , 10:58 PM

#88

JoeSchmo

adept

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,126

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

There has never been a $10k buyin raked $1k in the history of the wsop.

Common sense dictates the structure sheet only refers to the ladies buying in.

Spoiler:

Quote

07-10-2016 , 12:04 AM

#89

Wilbury Twist

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 6,153

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

There has never been a $10k buyin raked $1k in the history of the wsop.

There also has never been a player who bought in $10K to play the ladies' event. You're trying to apply past history for something that has never happened before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

Common sense dictates the structure sheet only refers to the ladies buying in.

Common sense dictates that the stated 10% on the structure sheet would apply to either-sized buy-in, otherwise a footnote or exception would be listed for the $10K buy-in.

Quote

07-10-2016 , 12:29 AM

#90

MicroRoller

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 2,533

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

What are the numbers for the last 5 years?

That's not what "year over year" means.

Quote

07-10-2016 , 12:32 AM

#91

Two

centurion

Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 167

I think what he is doing is great for womans poker, if only more men can man up and do the same

Quote

07-10-2016 , 12:36 AM

#92

semicompetent

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 541

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilbury Twist

There also has never been a player who bought in $10K to play the ladies' event. You're trying to apply past history for something that has never happened before.

Common sense dictates that the stated 10% on the structure sheet would apply to either-sized buy-in, otherwise a footnote or exception would be listed for the $10K buy-in.

Common sense also dictates that no male is going to pay 10k to play a ladies 1k event.

Quote

07-10-2016 , 12:49 AM

#93

EastCoastBalla

banned

Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 1,765

That guy looks like he gained some weight

I looked at old pictures of him and now I know who he is. He is another guy high on himself and nasty. Used to see him from time to time on the east coast and couldn't stand him. Similar to that Amnon Fillipi person.

Quote

07-10-2016 , 02:57 AM

#94

NicestoryiCALL

journeyman

Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 325

played with him at the 5-10nl in florida, hes from boston.

saw him being rude to a rec, i didnt like it

Last edited by NicestoryiCALL; 07-10-2016 at 03:06 AM.

Quote

07-10-2016 , 03:27 AM

#95

cicakman

banned

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 9,229

Surprised that mercier didn't play. Is it possible with the large side bet that it could become +ev to pay the 10k?

Quote

07-10-2016 , 03:38 AM

#96

Bigoldnit

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,397

Quote:

Originally Posted by cicakman

Surprised that mercier didn't play. Is it possible with the large side bet that it could become +ev to pay the 10k?

Possibly +ev financially, but I'd be surprised if he even thought about it. And if he did, still plenty of good reasons not to enter.

(A) Ladies' tourney overlaps with One Drop, so, at best, he could reg both and live multi-table, which would hurt his expectation in both events. And

(B) He didn't want to be the jerk guy who went bracelet hunting in the Ladies' Event.

(C) Given that there has been at least some speculation that Vanessa might not pay out, he might have been afraid that she wouldn't pay even if he binked.

(D) To the extent that he cares at all about his AmayaStars' sponsorship, I'm sure he realized that they wouldn't like it.

Quote

07-10-2016 , 10:46 AM

#97

my_nameaintearl

adept

Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 752

Any arbitrator would rule against Jason

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote

07-10-2016 , 11:21 AM

#98

civ77

grinder

Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 456

Doug Polk used to play the ladies event when it was a 1k. Even though he would love for the community to forget that.

Quote

07-10-2016 , 12:42 PM

#99

Oh_4Q_Man

banned

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 452

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professionalpoker

Nevada passed a law specifically authorizing gender and age based promotions.

I was the one that gave WSOP the idea to use that law in this case through posts here and on twitter right after the law was passed.

Sure you were, fella.