I'm just going off what Scott wrote here:

How about all the players come clean before the event or during the event disclosing the swaps with each other. It is so blatant in the HR events and when it comes down to final 5 -6 it is borderline cheating because of chop potential due to swaps

From Scotts account it seems like him and Dan Perper were the only two people who gave a **** about the structure beforehand, and the ones driving a discussion for a proper payout

Bottom line it is every players fault not get a definitive answer before the Tournament started. How players kept playing without getting definitive answer on payout structure is mind boggling

Well if you had 2 choices:

1. Try and have a meaningful discussion with Scott Seiver while he is screaming and yelling and threatening for an hour or more because he had most of the chips in play and wants as much as an advantage on the payouts as he can get

or

2. Let him have his way and get him out of your sight for some peace and quiet

What would you choose??

That is why these events are a joke and should not even be played.

I would chose to maintain my, and my establishments integrity, and not let him bully me because he had the chip lead, or because of his well known name in Poker.

It's common knowledge that payouts change as more entries come in.

Had he been the short stack, he would surely be arguing that a 4th spot should have been paid.

#Degen

Edit:
The Poker Room should have this stuff available BEFORE tournament start, and Seiver should not have thrown a hissy fit because a floor staff (possibly) misspoke prior to entry deadline.

no, because, unless Scott is just making things up, they announced that with 10 or fewer players they're paying 65/35 and with 11 or more they're paying 50/30/20.

If Seiver would have been the short stack he wouldn't have been arguing anything after the bagging of the chips. He would have walked away without a peep knowing that they are paying 3 spots. Since he has most of the chips in play however, the "integrity of the game" became very important to the man and he had to "right that ship".

I don't buy that for a second.

Don't buy what??

You said if Seiver was the short stack he would be arguing for a 4th spot payout. So by your logic if he was the big stack(which he was) he would argue for 2 payout spots.

I am agreeing with you in case you didn't notice.

Which is why there is normally a pre-announced formula to determine in what way the payouts change as more entries come in. In this case the formula was announced during the first level, that they were paying two but with 11+ entrants they were paying 3 people - this version of events is confirmed by the timing of tweets by people stating they were playing in an sng paying out 2 places.

Maybe, which is why rational people look at and examine the arguments, not at who's making them and whether not they consider them to be degens.

This part only applies if they got the wrong answer above. They didn't, and they also didn't let themselves be bullied by a numerically superior group of players.

I was in the same situation a few weeks ago when I had the chip lead on the bubble and two players with less than a BB each suddenly wanted to take some money out of first to make a bubble prize. Everybody else was happy but I told them I wasn't agreeing any change. I am not normally a Scott Seiver fan (nothing negative either, I just have other favourites) but definitely going to be railing him this time on the live stream.

Based on the tweets quoted in the post I was responding to, it seems clear that you and everyone else in the tournament understood that two spots would be paid for some period of time during play.

In the time between play concluding for the night and play resuming the following day, an announcement was made that they were changing that. Scott argued, and they didn't change it. No hands were played while anyone thought 3 spots were being paid.

You then took to twitter complaining that Scott had bullied the TD into "changing" the payouts. This seems like a misrepresentation. Unless I have some facts wrong, it seems more accurate to say that Scott bullied them into "not changing" the payouts. This is important, because changing the payouts after they've been announced would be wrong, whereas insisting the payouts not be changed would be right.

With very few exceptions, yes, that's how it works. In this case, where they are "wrong" only relative to a printed structure that no one had access to, where no one complained following the initial announcement, and where a substantial portion of the tournament played out with everyone assuming the "wrong" payouts were the ones being used, I think it's pretty clearly better for the integrity of the tournament to not change the announced payouts.

Lots of mistakes were made here. There is no way that this Siever degen guy should have been allowed to lobby/bully the TD without all of the remaining participants being present.
The best thing to do NOW is to pay three places.

It is really offensive and inappropriate for you to create entirely hypothetical scenarios, ascribe fictitious points-of-view to Seiver, and then abuse him for these hypothetical and ficitious points-of-view that only exist in your own head.

Please stop doing this. You have the potential to contribute to this forum in better ways than this.

This

Who do you trust more.....

lol

Well put.

This seems to be the most important part of the argument. Scott has simply asked how many players are getting paid. He got an answer.
The fact that he then questioned the wisdom of the percentages is understandable but is really moot in terms of what the argument is about - the number of places being paid.

If anything, it's better that Scott questions the 2 player payout structure before the monetary payouts are announced. If he did it afterwards it would make him look even more like a moneygrabber.

Are you saying you didn't hear the floor explain that 3 players would be paid if the field reached 11?

I assume you didn't, as if you had, you wouldn't have 'thought everything was speculation'.

The SHRPO added $50,000 to 3rd place (NOT taken from the prize pool).

It's been an expensive week for them. You have to applaud them for making things right, though.

Obviously Scott is only concerned with his own self interests and would probably be singing a different tune if he were a shorter stack. That doesn't change the fact that he's right. The other players have every right to be upset with the tournament officials but acting like Scott is bullying his way to an extra 70k equity is ridiculous.

guys before you join the circlejerk, take with consideration that ike was wrong once.







Nionio, never forget

Alternatively,

Obviously the other players are only concerned with their own self interests and would probably be singing a different tune if they were the big stack.

The exception that proves the rule.