The WPT still features Melanie Iglesias on their site. I guess we have to live with it.

Okay, we get that you don't like the EPL's mission statement (and maybe due to Annie too).

But there are parallels in other sports. Pro Bowling has something similar. Some events are open to all PBA members (there are many thousands of PBA members including myself) while other events are restricted to PBA Tour exempt players (less than 100 players). In addition to the obvious monetary reason why fields are restricted (so the best players have a better chance of winning money), there are probably logistical reasons why they choose to restrict most PBA events to a limited field.

My point is once you buy into the EPL mission statement, then many of the other elements you don't like are seen to be "necessities." They need to have fan-friendly (in some sense) players in order to achieve their desired investors and sponsors. They need to have limited fields. Etc.

Anyway, poker already has the WSOP series which has no restrictions on entry. And, as you say, that is one of the special attractions of poker. The EPL is attempting to be something else.

I neglected to mention in my first response that applying the worst case scenario to a model doesn't neccessarily alter it's validity. You can make anything sound unappealing by highlighting the worst possible outcome. Similarly I could ask what if the EPL became the biggest thing in poker? Just because is it possible but highly unlikely doesn't make the model more valid.

Yeah, not that I'd want him in my house, but I'd rather play poker with a sex offender than someone who cheated at poker.

I am not sure about the logic behind the argument "if there is no ethics commitee, then there will not arise new problems". I know Adam read "DUCY" by sklansky and for me, this is a pretty obvious case of where people refrains from taking decisions that in average are good even thou it has it disadvantages. As long as the pros outweights then cons then its a good change.

Btw, not saying an ethic committee is a good idea or bad idea (it appears to be a good idea at first thought thou), just saying that it is pretty pointless to point out a problem as a sole argument why the commitee is a bad thing.

I'm not going to get into another long, drawn out men vs. women discussion after I already endured the NVG sexism thread, but while there are certainly differences between the genders (men are stronger, faster, and taller on average; women have better verbal skills, are better at reading emotions; etc. etc.), I will counter the "women are more emotional statement".

There is no evidence that women are genetically more emotional than men. Culture dictates emotional expression - in infancy and childhood, the differences between emotional expression in boys and girls in non-existent. Men have the same intensity and range of emotions as women, they just learn to channel them differently, leading to the differences in adulthood that lead people to say that "women are more emotional". But anyone with a background in psychology knows that men have just as many emotions (and just as many emotional problems, many of which stem from not (or inappropriately) expressing their emotions.

Women aren't inherently more emotional, they are just socially authorized to express their emotion more openly. Then they enjoy being essentially criticized for being "too emotional".

It's funny, because anyone who has actually played poker knows that men get pretty damn emotional as well. Or maybe all that swearing and whooping is just some testosterone leakage.

+1

its funny because nowhere has a single person said that men dont get emotional, they said that women tend to be more emotional than men....but maybe you let your emotions blind you. its ok


also i do think ive read that men develop their emotional intelligence later than women. and that teenage boys (up to early/mid twenties) often display many of the same traits as socio-paths (cba to look up reference)

Great show as usual, although I had some trouble undertsanding SteveD, especially at the beginning.

I also found it a bit contradictory that at one point Timex stated that he was pretty self-interested in the tournament (as a player, which is logical), but then later said that as a member if the ethics commitee he was looking out for the best interests of all the players and the tournament.

That may be hard, especially if at some point one of the players on the ethics commitee has some sort of interest (stake, friendship) in a replacement player if another player is disqualified for some reason.

I think that Mike is a nice guy, a great player and quite sound for his age, but IMHO ethics commitees that make executive decisions on the events should be formed by non-players in the events.

Unless I am mistaken, I was slightly surprised that neither Mike nor Adam brought up this point.

it is a question of hats, I also dont think that people are able to just disqualify who they want, hence there being a committe rather than 1 person makikng decisions.

if it was an independant body then people wouldnt really respect them


but tbh its all a farce anyway. If someone has been to jail and is now in the eyes of the law "free" who are they to deny them the chance to play if they qualify legitimately.

cheaters is what this committee should be used for

Are you saying if you were running a poker league with $400,000 added and rake free with the intention of expanding the brand once its established in the market you wouldn't want some way of preventing somebody playing if their inclusion would be damaging to its reputation? If casinos can ban people for whatever legitimate reason they feel like why shouldn't a poker tour be able to? All businesses have a right to refuse service to some degree.

You're getting way off topic retro. Just because people don't believe their needs to be an ethics committe, doesn't mean they are saying that EPL doesn't have the right to prevent someone from entering their event.

No one is saying the EPL should not have the right to block someone from their league. If a business wants to refuse a customer, they just do it. Businesses that tell customers they aren't welcome have competent decision makers that simply act in the best interest of their company and stand by their decisions, they don't hide behind an ethics committee. I actually refused $3500 of business from a customer at my office yesterday. I certainly didn't need a committee to do it.

can you say why? it doesnt break confidentiality does it?

Thanks for this post Mike. It clarifies, for me at least, where you are coming from. I certainly agree with your overarching point. I guess I agree with the EPL that a committee-of-peers is better at making these types of decisions than a single "commissioner" (AD). Both from a better decision point of view and a public relations point of view. But I can see how people can disagree on this point.

I was only trying to argue against this part of inthepub5's post

I would like to preface this post by saying non of this is an advocation for the EPL as it is at the moment just the idea of a professional poker league and the inclusion of an ethics committee in such a league. So please do not respond with "yeah but the EPL is/isn't..."

I don't think there should be an independent open ethics committee just to benefit the EPL, I think there should be one to benefit the players. If a body is going to be set up to protect the interest of professional poker players, run tours and popularize the game, similar to the ATP or PGA of America, then I believe there needs to be checks and balances within the body. Those who create the rules shouldn't also be the ones who adjudicate on the rules in the same way politicians and judges roles should not be mixed. This is why I think there should be an ethics committee. I would rather see the EPL be more of a Professional Poker Players' Association.

Although I agree with some of this on the surface I don't think it damages the game. I don't think because poker has a higher element of luck i.e. regular joes can beat any EPL member on any given day that it makes a professional league wrong or impossible to administer. The fact Bunner can't compete with professional golfers but can with Ivey doesn't mean a pro tour shouldn't be set up either. A professional tour only prevents Bunner from playing Ivey in tour events. This only becomes a problem for Bunner if Ivey chooses to only play tour events. As Ivey is unlikely to do this it doesn't not follow that a pro tour would be damaging.

I also disagree with "Sports leagues do not consist of people putting up their own money to compete" being used as a criticism because we already have players who are competing in tournaments who are not using there own money.

So an element of pro contracts already exists in the world of poker. I'm sure if you asked any pro poker player if they could have there tournament entries paid for and were allowed to keep 100% of their winnings they would take it. Tennis players and golfers have similar things in place were they are endorsed by companies who provide equipment etc and are allowed to keep prize money in exchange for promoting the company. Is this so different from a sponsored players deal with an online site?

I do not agree that poker should never and not be allowed to be professionalized, it is simply the rights of the players to be allowed to do this. I will concede that it is not wholly in line with the ethos of poker but it is consistent with competition, ego and capitalism. I admit that any ranking system put in place will be flawed, they are flawed in other sports. If you look at the recent tennis US Open, Serena Williams was seeded 28th and I'm pretty sure most people in tennis would say she is by far the best player. Poker obviously has some unique problems like the separation of cash game and tournaments, live and online. Despite these problems I don't think it follows that poker players are impossible/too hard to rank accurately and therefore and league based on rankings is also impossible. I also don't think closed invitational tournaments will become the norm because we all know the poker economy is fed by bad players who just enjoy playing poker. The WSOP main event will always be more profitable to a poker player than any tournament that just has professionals in it.

Edit: Forgot to say the main reason I'm for a pro tour. If it is successful I think it can help popularize the game.

How have the pokercast guys not responded to this:

http://nickraineyisathief.com/

After publicly stating that Schwartz recently met up with Mi_Turtle in Vancouver, and the use of funnerwithbunner to scam 2+2 investors?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...ammer-1099401/

Unless I missed it somewhere, in which case a link would be appreciated.

I have never met Nick Rainey irl. My only interaction with Nick is the following.

A) he has been a guest once
b) he chose the funnerwitbunner himself because he is a fan of the show. Bunner asked him to change it so there would be no confusion.
C) I bought a piece of him in napt Los Angeles event that ended up being changed tobthe big event. He also didn't play that event but did return the money. Would be pretty dumb to scam someone who hosts a radio show.
D) I have no idea why Adam had beers with him other than that Adam is a nice guy and nick has always been very cordial to us.

This just in. Adam shwartz doing a video series on DC with DJ Sensei. Looking forward to it

FWIW, men also have a harder time dealing with strong emotions. They get overwhelmed and experience adrenaline hits. So in conversations with strong emotional content, they often need to withdraw until the adrenaline burns off. The "time out" needs to last long enough for the heart rate to drop back to normal, at least 20 minutes.

For their own emotional safety, men need to be able to call an extended time out in those conversations that start with, "Honey? We need to talk."

The same is true at the poker table if you get a major adrenaline hit. For 20+ minutes your decision-making ability will be impaired. Tilt. You should monitor your heart rate to know when the adrenaline hit is over because most people underestimate the time it takes to return to normal.

Mike, regarding the meaning of the handle of the newest pokerstars pro, the similar "Memento Mori" can be translated as, "Remember you will die."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori

Maybe he got it from the movie Memento, which is based on a short story by the name Memento Mori. Maybe even from the children's books, A Series of Unfortunate Events. Maybe from Latin class. It's been around.

Just out of curiosity I googled...poker players with criminal convictions... and got this from the Bill Rini site:

http://www.billrini.com/2009/09/08/7...-with-the-law/

Can we assume that the EPL ethics team has examined each of these and decided prior to their entering any future events whether they are suitable contestants.

There must be many more. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!

I wouldn't say "by far". She got crushed in straight sets in the finals.

The romance is over ...

id love to dispute this, but it definitely applies to me

Another nail in the coffin. So how long will it be it until someone buys FTP and it debts for $10?