Use your social profile to sign in faster.
Or use your PokerNews account:
Bad username or password
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register Now!
Join now to get $88 FREE (no deposit needed)
Says promo code is invalid, fyi.
Cool piece. Thanks for bringing it back to the fore.
Big fan of your work here on Pokernews. I should have said that I agree that until the allegations are proven (which I guess would require an admission of guilt, or an action by the casino?), that removing them is the wrong move. But I actually don't think Rich made that point.
Some pretty poor logic here. Essentially what you're saying here is that winning is winning, even if you cheat. If I cheat on a test and get 100, and then later get called out for it, I don't get to keep my A, just because I got it at the time. If you rig the tourney, you rig the numbers, so therefore, the numbers "lie." Comparing this to roulette is lol meaningless.
Having said that, I don't know about suspending players. I just think they should have those scores removed from their formula (and, I would guess, they would fall off the GPI at that point).
Jungleman is one of the best HU players in the world, so obviously he should be on this list. I also think it's kind of contradictory to say that this should be a good TV event and then argue that Jennifer Tilly shouldn't be there. And Salaburu is obviously more entertaining than the three WSOP final tablists you mentioned (and it's not fair to argue that he got knocked out early, since he basically ran into the Jesse Sylvia luckbox machine). Overall, I think it's a good list of familiar faces, and young talent, so you get the recognizable players casual fans identify with the game, and up-and-comers that show the game moving forward.
I think the # of entrants for the Bigger 162 might be off.
Quick correction on Illinois legislation: There's no Chicago Democrat newspaper (well, there was, but it stopped publishing in 1861). The "Chicago Democrat" in the Reuters story refers to Cullerton.
Everyone claiming that Barry should have to pay the money back ASAP has no idea how money lending works. If an institution lends you money, typically it's for a pre-determined amount of time, or in a zero-interest case, it could be open-ended. But it doesn't mean that institution just gets to pick a day, show up and say "All my money, now." It's easy to cry "Pay it back immediately," but those weren't the terms of the loan. Things obviously changed with Black Friday, and it is the prosecution in this case, the DOJ, who should be determining the repayment plans and options, not a potential buyer.