100% THIS!

I also would like to see an example of Jon complaining about something that was either incorrect or extremely petty.

From what I have seen, all of his complaints were very discussion worthy.

People like him help make the WSOP better. The ones that sit silent enable Harrah's to make it worse.

(guy who doesn't understand there is a way to speak up for yourself and your peers without sounding like a petulant little bitch)

It's pretty mind blowing how people ITT can't grasp the concept that someone can have good intentions and a just cause and still wind up being annoying or harmful in the process.

Nominate Alan for best 15th post of all time lol

the best post itt.

It is so comical to read some of this stupidity.

Who gives a crap if he's annoying? He brings attention to a lot of problems in poker that otherwise get ignored or swept under the rug.

How has he been harmful?

News flash: You don't have to like the person who is speaking up for what's right.

Certainly not.

How annoying or douchey the man is doesn't change the facts:

1) it's a stupid rule
2) WSOP rules are not enforced evenly
3) the tweet was unprofessional and inappropriate

The stupidity ITT is people like you, more concerned with debating how "bitchy" he "sounds" than the actual facts of the situation.

It's harmful when someone is literally complaining about everything when others are looking to him to champion a cause that actually matters. He's just being an attention whore and it cheapens any real argument he has. Everyone is just going to roll their eyes at just another obnoxious poker player trying to make a name for themselves by being the lowest common denominator.

There is no real argument ITT over whether the rule he was objecting was stupid, that much is clear to anyone who values the rights of players over a minor possible increase in the quality of a stream that sucks anyways. Again, I have no problem with his message in this instance, but there is a right way and a wrong way for an adult to get what they want.

EddieOB:

I don't know if that is a compliment or an insult, so "Thanks!" - maybe?

As for that being my 15th post, that's not entirely accurate. I used to be "adept" (with well over 700 posts) until the April 26th hack attack. I posted under the moniker "Former DJ" in honor of my former [part time] profession from many years ago. But alas, after 2+2 returned from the two week slumber I was no longer Former DJ. (Maybe Mason or one of the red Ad Mins can change me back to adept.)

I guess I'll have to live with being "outed" as a (gasp!) poker player. So far nobody has accosted me in the street, but you never know in this crazy world. I suppose Hellmuth, Scotty, Matusow and Sammy Farha will make it their goal in life to crush me at the poker table. At the huge stakes I play, they better bring a lot of money. (Ha! Ha!)

and i agree with this of course, they do many douchey things there though and i think that while my post indicated that I do have respect for John as far as speaking up on issues, it seems to be his MO, norm rather than the exception...."pick and choose" your battles maybe? seems a pretty brutal way to go through life but that's his choice i guess. I'm just reading these players complain about everything and it's just hard to relate to I suppose coming from someone who has a lot of other things in the world going on to be concerned about.

Point of my post anyway was not that is was right or wrong as some others commented on but that it was extremely whinny etc

exactly TN.

Alan C, although your post is like 1000 lines long and written very well, you are missing the point. This special treatment of the pro's....trace the root of it, as TN says.....tipping the floor to get the heads up on a good game, bumped of up the transfer list, those types of things. Maybe different scales and different levels but that is all prevalent in environment "ecosystem" of a pro poker player.

The casino does not thrive off wonderful symbiotic relationships where order and justice is maintained. It thrives off it's oxygen, money. Always has, always will.

If all of these "do-gooders" were so concerned about truth and justice for all, aside from boycotting the rooms and tournaments like the WSOP and really putting something behind their tweets, they'd also be lobbying that they themselves get no special treatment at their local cardrooms (I'm sure that never happens) etc.

Have you ever heard the story about the boy who cried wolf? Or the experession about shooting the messenger?

Yes, it would be really great if all complaints could be evaluated objectively on their merits... However, whether consciously or not, people often evaluate the validitiy of a complaint in light of the person making the complaint... And if someone is perceived as a frequent compainer who likes to pick fights, their complaints are going to be given less weight that someone who rarely compains and, when they do, does so in a more respectful manner.

Not saying that the WSOP is in the right here, just pointing out that, sometimes the messenger matters...

False dichotomies ITT.

The things Jon complaining about have merit? Yeah.
WSOP blog guy being out of line? Yeah.
Jon being whiney and douchey? Yeah.

Uh, they are known and the branded as entertaining to the public by ESPN for their personalities. Jon just seems to be an unknown douche.

First world problems at its best.

No, the WSOP can't attract Fortune 500 sponsors because gambling is, for the most part, a social pariah in the US. It's a touchy subject and there's a large portion of Americans that think gambling is immoral. No company--especially a large, publicly traded, and risk-adverse company--is going to want to be associated with gambling to the extent as to having their logo plastered all over every poker table at the Rio.

As for the Masters being a class operation, ask women what they think. That could cost them sponsorship down the road also.

+1 to this. Have seen him in person at a big buy in tourney, and every time i was around all he would do is constantly complain... he would shush for few minutes blog on his Ipad or whatever he was doing and go right at it again. i swear i almost wanted to shout out a big STFU

There were no commercials during the Masters in 2003 and 2004 because of this (technically it's the Augusta National Golf Club that has the membership rules, but the club and tournament are basically conjoined siblings).

Half of the disagreements ITT would vanish if we just recognize that it should be two threads: one strictly about the appropriateness of Jon Aguiar's behavior, and one strictly about WSOP rules and rule enforcement. They really have absolutely nothing to do with each other except in this one isolated instance.

Mods: is it too late to split one topic off? These really should be two separate discussions.

I personally think it would be better to have to 'climb' into these already crafted avatars at the final tables, and you can have a pre selected voice for check, raise, fold?

This, except it should be THREE threads: Jon Aguiar's behavior; WSOP rules and rule enforcement; and Seth Palansky's misuse of the @WSOP Twitter account.

A poker buddy friend of mine listened to the 2+2 Pokercast and commented to me about Jon Aguiar and the rules controversy at the WSOP. I responded to his comments as follows.

Dear Poker Buddy:

There is a stark difference in perspective as to what players think the WSOP is about and what the owners and management of Caesar’s/Harrah’s think the WSOP is about. Players (or many players) operate under the delusion that the WSOP is the Super Bowl – the Mecca – of poker and this annual pilgrimage is about the players and the glorification of the game. The owners of Caesar’s/Harrah’s and executives at ESPN see it differently. They view the WSOP as a cow to be milked – an opportunity to extract every last dollar from the players. It’s only because of that mindset, (i.e. that players should be exploited to the maximum extent possible), that you get insane “rules” such as “Players must verbally declare their actions at the final table.” This is what happens when you have Harvard MBAs running the show. These “Masters of the Universe” know everything about maximizing shareholder value – and nothing about the game itself.

When the late Benny Binion ran the WSOP he believed in the philosophy of giving players generous comps (including free or close-to-free food and drinks) along with other enticements. Benny Binion didn’t have the “benefit” (or the curse) of a Harvard MBA, but he understood if you give “the small guy” a good deal and treat him like a big guy, you’ll reap many times the cost of your generosity from the gambler. Gamblers are naturally inclined to loosen up their wallets when they think (or believe) they’re getting a good deal. Benny Binion understood this because he was a gambler himself. This truth is lost on the folks who run the WSOP. They are so into spreadsheets, databases, and statistical analysis that they can’t see the forest for the trees. In the process of “maximizing profits,” they’ve managed to ruin the WSOP.

"It's pretty mind blowing how people ITT can't grasp the concept that someone can have good intentions and a just cause and still wind up being annoying or harmful in the process."

RESOUNDING +1
*

It doesn't matter how annoying, intentionally or otherwise, Jon Aguiar has been.

Seth Palansky's job description includes (or bloody well ought to include, if he's working for a professional outlet) not showing annoyance in front of a hot mic.

Didn't Seth make some pretty harsh comments about the epic poker scandal using the wsop twitter. I remember one being "at least our million dollar guarantee will take place".

I agree with Jon that the rule is dumb, and I like Jon and think its good to have people who will speak their mind. With all that said, I think the WSOP retweet is awesome. I think that as social media brings us all closer, we're seeing that everyone, including the higher ups at big corporations, are just normal people. Imo the notion that large corporations have some requirement to be "professional" is silly. I would rather see people speak their minds openly, as I believe open and honest communication is always a good thing. If a corporation feels that one of their customers is being a whiny bitch, then regardless of whether or not I agree with them, I applaud them for coming out and calling him a whiny bitch. I think the standard company line of "the customer is always right" is actually patronizing and demeaning- I would rather them give their honest opinions and let an open discussion occur as a result.