I've played a ton of WSOP events the last 5 years, but I'm never going to play in an EPL event. Why would I? I have zero convictions, but the mere thought of a committee being able to steal my money when I enter a tournament for whatever reason they want (no standards) means that I could potentially win a million bucks only to have EPL decide they want someone else getting credit for the win. This is the definition of a reverse freeroll and I am shocked that otherwise smart people (Zeejustin) would think otherwise. I'd also point out that ZJ himself should not be playing in the EPL because of his past behavior (remember, "not having any felonies is not enough") and I'd also point out that if ZJ had lost his seat in the same manner, he would rightfully raise hell on 2p2.

Once you decide that the man is allowed to enter your tournament, you cannot disqualify him for something like this. Either screen your participants beforehand or don't ban them afterwards.

The concept of integrity means making decisions for and against people who you otherwise like or dislike. By adhering to the mob mentality, Annie Duke and co have shown that they have zero integrity. Zero.

I am the last to defend a sex offender, but this situation has nothing to do with being 'super nice' or 'tolerant' of such offenders. It has to do with being fair and not making up rules as you go along. What kind of Mickey Mouse organisation does that? I predict an early demise if this is the way they plan on doing business.

I would be very wary and give a wide berth of any organisation that Duke is involved with. So, having said that, I guess the rule should be for anyone who gets involved with anything that she has any influence over that they take their chances and should not boo hoo when cheated or treated unfairly. It was bound to happen sooner or later and appears sooner as in this case.

I'll lay one billion to 1 that this was solely Annie Duke's decision and that she didnt even consult or think of consulting the committee, that she was just told in passing the guy's history, went ewwwwwww, then said "this icky person isn't allowed to play in MY league!"

Then when Howard doubtfully asked her if she consulted the committee about the incident she replied "of course Howie, I swear on my kids!"

booked. i'll take 1 dollar at a billion to one

guess i'd better get in touch with annie duke to make sure she gets her story straight

The committee voted to suspend DiVita and not allow him to play the Main Event if he elected not to withdraw.

Your post makes several incorrect assumptions IMO.

1) That there is something in black and white in the EPL Rules that singles out Mr. Devita's specific history as deeming him ineligible. The rules are ambiguous and open to any interpretation that suits them. Further, you seem to ignore the point that has been made several times that offences prior to the start of the EPL would not be taken into account.

2) The other incorrect assumption is that the Pro/Am and the ME are all part of the same event. They are clearly 2 seperate tournaments.
a) the pro-am is marketed, scheduled and promoted as an entirely different event
b) the pro-as is televised as an entirely seperate event
c) the pro-am plays down to a final winner, they do not stop at 9 players
d) If the prize pool is more than $180K, the additional money is paid out over and above the seats and more than 9 people are paid. For example Steve O'Dwyer won $42K plus a seat in the first pro-am. Brian Rast came 10th, didn't win a seat but did win $3170.
e) entry in the ME is only eligible to certain players, anyone can register for the Pro/Am

This is not simply a satellite into the main event and they can't pretend that it is, simply because no one decided to show up to their second event and got hit with 30K of overlay.

If they choose to prevent him from entering the ME event, what they are saying is, you can not take the $20K you won in the Pro/Am and use it to buy in to the main event. Any judge plus the NGC would view it this way IMO.

The real problem here is that "rules on the fly", if that is the case, can harm ALL OF US!!!!

This will be the 1st and last year of the EPL... Just like the USFL

+1 the law really needs to break them down into varying degrees of categories. I don't agree with this at all

I just don't like that the EPL acts like the almighty moral genius who decides everything where they don't have any business in and bend their 'rules' in their favor, or make them up as they go.

First the ridiculous statement on Chino about personal debts, which is none of their business.

Now they act on somebody being a sex offender, after he won the 20k.

Who died and made the EPL king(s) of moral right and wrong?

Like Mike and Adam already discussed earlier on the pokercast: this is opening a can of worms because where does it end? Murderers? Thieves? Not paying your parking tickets?

I can see why Daniel Negreanu stays away from all of this, although he even probably coudn't even foresee this bull****.

Don't know if somebody made the reference already, but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jUBbCgMWmE

What hasn't Poker News picked this up yet? Tony and his crew love to spew dirt on people.

Totally false, no court has allowed casinos to recover money from card counters (advantage players); although I am sure casinos would love to be able to. Casinos do of course show players' the door; but the player keeps the money.

I agree that the rules are ambiguous. I believe they were written that way to deal with situations like this. Most contests and tournaments have similar conditions that allow the contest to be cancelled, changed, etc.

I understand that the pro/am and ME are separate events.

If he won money in addition to the ticket that is a separate issue.

I disagree that Mr. Divita won $20,000. He won a ticket to a poker tournament that other people paid $20,000 to enter. The ticket cannot be sold, given away or refunded so it has no cash value.

If he had won $20,000 cash he probably would have been paid.

If he took this to court they would probably settle with him just to make him go away. The amount of money is trivial.

There isn't time to background check everyone that enters a $180 satellite into your league.

There is time to background check all of your qualified League Members.

I was personally invited and had a long chat with Annie about the ethical standards among many other things. She spent a lot of time meeting with every single member (except for a few that couldn't make it), one on one for quite a bit of time each.

From my shoes, there was no freeroll.

FWIW, when I first read the ethics stuff, I was a little worried. Annie made it clear to me that any poker player that is currently held in high regard among his peers basically has nothing to worry about. However, if I ever did anything similar I would immediately be kicked out, and that's how I think it should be.



It's a private league. Just like when you enter a tournament underage, if you enter a tournament without meeting the entry criteria, you are freerolling yourself. The rules make it EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR that he is not welcome. Not everyone is getting freerolled, but he certainly freerolled himself.



People ITT are failing to draw the distinction that this is a unique, private league. They can refuse anyone the right to play. Think of it like the NFL instead of thinking of it like the lottery.

And do you honestly think that everyone who entered the Pro/Am read all the material and were aware of the "high ethical standards" (excuse me while I recover my breath, just typing that made me LOL) of the league and its members, and would therefore have any reason to wonder if they met those standards? Or was it just a local tournament with a bunch of big names attached to the main event that they took a shot at? And JFC, just look at the membership list, which includes other convicted felons, and then try to tell us with a straight face that he should have known he wouldn't be allowed. Or are only well known, highly regarded felons allowed?

You're right that it's a unique league, though. A uniquely horrible, hypocritical, and destined for failure league. No self-respecting member of the poker community should have anything to do with this joke of a league.

Justin the rules are not clear at all. What was clear is that the Standards committee publicly stated that past conduct would not be considered. Could you quote the rule that you feel clearly DQs him?

LOL. Your a funny guy Justin. You can have your little private league buddy, nobody wants in. Nobody likes it.

An NFL team would do a background check prior to hiring a player. EPL just lets em in and if they don't like it they will fix it later. Its weird. EPL is nowhere near the NFL.

Ya, but NFL doesn't background check every player that comes in for tryouts. The EPL didn't let anyone in the league and fix it later.

some of these posters are pretty naive about how casinos do business. i was thrown out of the old Four Queens by 2 guys who looked like they were straight out of the Sopranos. my crime? i had walked around the place for about an hour w/ a couple friends, watching them play, while keeping my eye on the slots area. i saw how a person could pick up a number of small jackpots w/ little investment. these were NICKLE SLOTS. I was up a little over $2 when i heard the words: "buddy, take a hike". they followed me out the door, and made sure i walked away from the place.............................b

Guys it doesnt matter if he ****ed a 17 year old girl or a 4 year old boy, or even if he is a mass murderer or whatever. Once you serve your time and you are out you can't be discriminated against / harassed.

No Todd. I didn't say the rules were clear. I said the rules made it exceedingly clear that he was not welcome.

How can you read this and think a pedophile is good to go?



Just use common sense. If you have one DUI from 10 years ago, you obviously have nothing to worry about it. If for some reason you are still scared, just ask the EPL and they'll tell you there's nothing to worry about.

If you killed or raped someone, you should be more careful. Ask the EPL and then there's no freeroll.

This isn't even close to true. You can be discriminated against. Hell, you can't even vote for the rest of your life. Can't get a passport anywhere. And most importantly, you're gonna have a super rough time getting a job.

Justin, I don't get how you can defend this at all. And the rule you cited specifically says that players are "expected to avoid conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of poker and the League", not expected to have avoided committing crimes in the past. And they came out and said that PAST CONDUCT was not a method of exclusion when questioned about Chino.

So when they are questioned about one player, past conduct isn't considered an issue, but when when it comes to another player he can be disallowed based on past conduct (and well over 10 years past - the recent charges were dropped, ergo he was never convicted and that shouldn't be allowed to be considered at all). And you don't see a problem with this at all? You don't see how this can be interpreted as "player X can stay because we like him/he's a pro but player Y is no good because he's not well known?"

I can't believe you're defending this. It's clearly hypocritical of them, and clearly a case where they exerted pressure on some ex-con and got him to go away quietly.

EPL is an embarrassment to poker. How anyone can be defending these actions and agree to play in this league is absolutely beyond me. Anyone with a conscious should be able to see how they basically cheated this guy.

A guy who, yeah, has a serious criminal past, but who has repaid his debt to society, and there's no PROOF that he's a current risk for engaging in "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of poker and the League". If having a criminal/scummy past makes him a risk and they use that as the basis for excluding him, guess what? You and a **** ton of other people in that league have to be excluded as well, and they should draw up specific criteria for who is and isn't allowed to play in their league.

I'm pretty sure a prospective NFL player is looked at extensively before a team considers him for tryouts/team. If hypothetical player's image would be damaging to a team they wouldn't even consider him.

The EPL let plenty of ex felons play in the tourney. Why make an exception here? This is discrimination, plain and simple.

Because it is written in the context of current activity behind prohibited - things that a professional poker player should avoid.

It seems unreasonable to hold him to a particular standard of conduct before the standard of conduct was written.