Poker News

What could have been fair from the organizers then would be a setting a fee 10K per player they allowed in - person who knocks out one of these would get that 10K$ fee. Would that have been acceptable to all players who qualified?

So what if Harrah's lied? So what if they did not hold up their end of the bargain? So what if Harrah's treated them like possesions? They are getting rich, now! Who cares if the future will be Vince McMahon style laughfest? You can clean up now. The future is not important. It's good that sponsers can now bribe the casinos and get the lineup they want!

Only an idiot would buy into that.

Hello,

Andres, you might have an idea there that would have alleviated some of the hassle. If there had been a bounty placed on Chan, Brunson and Hellmuth, it might have made it more acceptable for them to have been allowed in the tournament.

Mac, I can understand your feelings about Harrah's being "bought out" by the sponsor. The point I tried to make when I wrote my part of the article (and I have to say that John did an excellent job on the other side of the equation...it really made me think a little longer) is that one day, somewhere down the road, poker should be along the same lines as golf or tennis, devoid of the players paying their way into play. If sponsors stepped up and put up the prize pools instead of the players, poker would move into the future as a true competitive sport.

Perhaps that isn't the way it should be. It may work better if a sponsor put up part of the pool, named fifty players, allowed the casino to name fifty, and then allow satellite or direct buy-in entries. Maybe that would work better.

All in all, I think it makes for an interesting discussion. Let's just not go backwards instead of forwards!

Thanks for reading PokerNews!

EB