Everybody entered the tournament for the same amount of money.

The only difference is that one group of players had to pay 100% out of their own pocket while another group of players paid 50% out of their own pocket and 50% from promotional money from Westgate.

What happend here is shady AF but from a legal standpoint probably not different than a rich donor standing next to the cashier and handing cash to some players who sign up for the tournament.

It's different because the WSOP is paying the bubble's entry fee, which means that fee contributes to the total prize pool. Westgate putting people into the tournament at 1/2 off contributes nothing to the prize pool until the overlay is covered.

Let's be real here, players are po'd because some got in for half a buyin out of pocket, not whether prize pool was increased or not. And probably the most po'd players are those that are backed and don't pay anything out of pocket to begin with, which makes the whole thing hilarious. And even if those players paid "full boat" it wouldn't increase the prize pool either, because of the guarantee, so the "outrage" is really over some getting a 50% discount out of pocket.

If Westgate has a "comp list" or "VIP Player List" and made calls offering them a half buyin option to minimize their own exposure to the overlay, then so be it. VIP Players are given comps and buyins, free plays, etc. all the time.

I don't believe it's like they just offered 20 random people in the casino this 1/2 buyin option, from what I understand they actually made phone calls to their "VIP list" or something that could be described as such.

That's actually exactly what happened. Did you RTFT? Try to keep up.

are you for real? the issue here is the fact that they were offering half off the entry to get money in the prize pool to cover their own ass. in doing so, they were stealing equity from those players who paid full price because now there are more entries in the tournament then there originally would have been. in what universe do you live in that do you think this is fair to those who paid full price?

Everyone paid full price dude. Your argument is no different than the backed player who pays zero out of pocket, he didn't pay full price, he paid zero, someone else paid his buyin. Should I be jealous of a backed player when I have to pay 100% out of pocket myself?

And what universe do you live in that you've never seen host casinos comp or pay the buyin for certain players?

What if in this case, instead of offering a 50% deal, Westgate realized near registration closing it was going to have to meet an overlay and decided to give its best VIP Players a FREE ENTRY into the tournament as a thank you promotion?

What if with 15 minutes to go they made an announcement to the whole casino that for $100 you can get into this $1650 Tournament and 50 to 100 people came running.

That would be awesome! I hope 500 people came running. Anything over the guarantee Westgate is eating $1,550 in your example. I could care less where the money comes from whether the player pays or the casino pays.

The reasons for the players' anger is irrelevant.

You're arguing that two paths to the same fait accompli outcome are equivalent irrespective of whether one of those paths involved a potential illegality. That's like saying robbing someone's house isn't a crime if the house was destroyed by a tornado before the owner realized his house was robbed.

Fortunately the legal system doesn't have a "so be it" exemption to malfeasance.

What would you say if this is like what happened?

negative. several people paid half price while the prize pool stayed exactly the same. your stakes player argument is lame dude, get off it. at least a staked player contributed a full buy in, who gives a **** who supplies it other then you maybe.

lol, it is so obvious that thefly is commenting without knowing what exactly happened. must be one of those people who blindly support thetrooper97.

Interesting. I'm certainly no legal expert so I don't know if that would hold up. Seems like this might be a flaw, though:

Yeah, I don't know if I'm buying that. Full price entries also aren't contributing anything to the prize pool. I find it hard to believe that whether the entries 1/2 paid for came before or after the guarantee were met is going to change the legality.

It may not be fair, but that doesn't make it illegal.

But maybe TheFly is arguing that it's fair as well. If he is, I think he's on his own.

Have no idea if it is illegal or not, not claiming that. But it is definitely not fair to those who paid full price.

If they paid full price the prize pool remains exactly the same also.

Your two statements contradict themselves. A staked player pays zero out of pocket but that's ok. In this case the casino covered half the buyin and you're outraged.

"Who gives a **** who supplies it" is your direct quote. So why do you care if the casino supplies it?

So I guess you are twice as upset at WSOP, they put the "Bubble Boy" in the Main Event for FREE, at least Westgate made players pay 50% of the buyin.

I'm not arguing it's "fair", in fact I think it's a horrible PR move by Westgate to do this. But as long as a host casino ensures the prize pool is reflective of the total entries, they can stuff players in there for free if they want.

Unless the Nevada Gaming Commission, or other appropriate body, issues new rules/regulations on what host casinos are allowed to do when facing overlay situations, then we'll probably see more of this stuff when guarantees aren't being met.

I don't think you've been following this story very closely.

I realized after I posted that it's unlikely this could be deemed illegal, provided Westgate did in fact cover the other half of the buyins, of course.

Lots of legal and what if experts around here.

So, What if there was no overlay and then the casino decided to make this half off offer to some people or a host comped some entries,,,,,,so long as that money was added to the prize pool

Are you still mad?

This though just hit me as really really funny.

What kind of lousy shape does your poker room have to be in
when you need the mfking Trooper of all people to drum up bidness for you?




GoGamble!!!!

In before HPT has another event there in the future and we're all WTF.

Despite it being someone else's fault, not instantly apologizing is pretty bad, it's a HPT event, that's your brand that took a hit.

^clearly the fact that there was overlay in play is the crux of the players' anger/complaints. if they had met the GTD then it would of been irrelevant that the Casino paid half the entry for these players.....

BUT by Westgate doing what it did, they reduced the amount of overlay that was going to be divided among the entrants up to that point. i often like to think of overlay as a discount on my buyin...when thought of like that its a little easier to recognize the grievances felt by the players.

LOL.

Marketing and branding. Even crap products need some kind of a label.

In absolute terms you're right. But again it comes down to what is reasonably implied to be the agreement by both the players and casino. In the absence of an explicit set of expressed terms by the casino I think the implied terms that a judge/jury would devise would be based on the balance of imputed value and risk+reward each party receives from the overlay. Here's how I reason it out:

The purpose of a guaranteed prize pool is to entice players to enter a tournament they otherwise might not if they believe there wouldn't be enough entries to create a large enough prize pool from entry-fees alone. The imputed value players receive for this enticement is the potential for a larger equity/ROI if the number of entrants is below the minimum needed to meet the guaranteed prize pool (ie, overlay provided by casino). That's the players' reward. The risk to the players is that the number of entrants will be >= minimum needed, meaning their equity/ROI will be no greater than if the tournament had no overlay.

The imputed value received by the casino for offering the guaranteed prize pool is the attendance of players that otherwise wouldn't have entered had the guaranteed prize pool not been offered (ie, the success of the tournament). That's the casino's reward. The risk to the casino is that fewer people will enter than is necessary to cover the guaranteed prize pool (ie, overlay provided by casino).

As you can see the risk/reward for each party is the inverse of each other, and the imputed value to both parties is balanced IMO. This is why I believe a reasonable judge/jury would find that the casino violated the implied terms of the agreement.

Well argued, and I can't say that you're wrong. I guess my only counterpoint would be whether the players have any right to an overlay - that's simply a bonus they receive if the guarantee isn't met. They are getting exactly what they paid for - a tournament with a prize fund equal to all the entry fees, provided by the casino in return for the rake.

But you're of course correct that it's in the casino's interest to reduce the overlay, and that is counter to the players' interest. I just don't know that such a conflict gives the players a case for damages, but I think I'm in over my head trying to argue the legalities with you.