International| Topic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Preferential Treatment at the WSOP |
||||
| The time now is 2010 Mar 20, 17:19 | ||||
| Author | ||||
lrgeenen
 |
Posted on: 2009 Jul 8, 15:43 | |||
|
While this is a recent exposure at the WSOP, it happens everywhere. In order to gain the full amount of knowledge required to follow this post, please read this article first. . The writer originally sent his friend's picture with the article, which I opted not to use for her sake. Later, the writer found out (as should be expected) that his friend was very upset with him for giving up their private text conversations and using her name. No kidding? Her name was removed, the private text conversations were edited out and condensed to tell the story without endangering any more of the threads of their badly torn friendship. You will note the editing in the article as it is specifically stated. . My point, I feel the writer's friend is as guilty as anyone - including Harrahs - for taking the shot. If she was standing on the rail and knew of the same instance happening with someone else, she would be having a fit - as any sane minded person should. IMHO, it's cheating and undermining the integrity of the game by all parties, I don't care who's famous or how much money they have. I hesitated to make the edited changes once the article was online for 8 hours already - for more than one reason. One of the main reasons is because finger pointing was done at Joe Reitman and Harrahs. If it's fair to have a finger pointed at one, it's fair to have it pointed at all. The next reason is that writing/reporting can be a grim street at times and once you've chosen to tell all, there's hardly ever a way to turn back or salve someone's feelings because the damage is already done and the article had been online too long and already indexed by google which means many, many people could have read it, And another is that wrong is wrong, the story needs to be told, the way it was originally set forward. . People complain all the time about cheating in poker, that is cheating, no matter how you cut it. Linda R. Geenen http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/ What game are you playing? |
||||
|
||||
| TenMile | Posted on: 2009 Jul 8, 22:02 | |||
|
For Christs Sake. Cheating is cheating. The original reporter is cheating. Friend ship not with standing, the sucker is cheating one of two ways: Not using names and facts, using inuendo and rumor, two the puppy that won't use names needs not report such trash in the first place. Yeah, Harrahs greases the wheels. Keep the whales happy. Corporations do those things. They aren't honest. We use words as players to the effect: griffters, angle shooters and others. Two choices: Report - all. Report nothing. Choose.[ |
||||
| TenMile | Posted on: 2009 Jul 8, 22:11 | |||
| Sorry, Linda. The whole thing feels more slimy than I imagine Brandy found the Captains moron dangle. | ||||
| jbharshaw | Posted on: 2009 Jul 9, 13:17 | |||
|
I think the edited version is best. Sometimes we don't need to have all of the details. I also like the use of the preposition "in" instead of the preposition "at." Poker had a deserved slimy rep' until a group of players led by Mike Caro and others led a crusade to clean up the card rooms and to rid them of the cheating players. Until then the house often left "policing" the game to the players and sort of stuck to the "Caveat Emptor" doctrine. In online play we face the same situation with "bots." Bots keep the games up and rake coming in. Bots don't affect the sites, but few players want to play at the sites that allow them. Some may remember the event where the decision was made to have a 10 seat final table, instead of a 9 seat table, to insure that the short stacked PH was on the final table. The combination effectively doubled the number of hands PH could see with his remain stack. Was it cheating? It was definitely unfair, but it probably doubled the ratings for that particular episode. The problem definitely needs to be published to pressure Harrahs into keeping the tournaments a fair as possible,. We really don't want poker to revert to the old rep. Look how poker suffered after the online cheating scandals. The public isn't innocent either. Preregister, and don't wait until the final day. Live ain't always fair. Evidently it took a lot of juice if TJ Cloutier couldn't get in. Harrahs has always opted to do what was best for Harrahs over what may be best for the WSOP, and ESPN isn't any better. We the players have to expect that and do every thing we can to protect ourselves too. Harrahs sets the rules. They need to enforce the rules. We the poker player community must hold their feet to the fire and still take measures to protect ourselves. Articles like this help keep them honest. jb "Never try to bluff a stump." |
||||
|
||||
| TenMile | Posted on: 2009 Jul 10, 06:28 | |||
|
jb: The entire article stinks to high heaven. You are trying to deflect something that needs addressing. Journalistic integrity. That writer has none. Not on a personal level or on a professional level. Take it from the top. 1. He is on duty getting a personal call. OK, so what. 2. He is on duty and agrees to "place hold" a possition in a line. That is not his function. 3. He "place hold's" a position in a line as a non-player among players. In short, he is taking up space from someone else who is there for some not there. 4. He is doing this from "Friendship." When in reality he is imposing himself into the story and becoming part of it. Stinky jounalism. 5. He uses his jounalistic contacts and friendship to secure and introduction for his friend. 6. He, to be correct, had to be wearing his credentials as a journalist, while performing the introduction. That means he indirectly used his position as an accredited journalist to unspokenly pressure the Harrah's functionary. 7. The functionary used his position to assist the friend of the journalist. 8. The journalist when assured that his person was awarded a seat then wrote a piece "Exposing" malfieance in the WSOP. 9. Not only that, the piece written stank on its own. It was badly written. 10. As a piece as an article it contained "I"'s all over the joint and read like a police statement from a suspect or harried witness. Poor journalism. Lousy writer. Bad pratice. 11. The writers editor tried to modify the article and evidently met resistance. She should have scrubbed the whole thing. Personally speaking: This whole incident falls into the same catagory as Card Players plagarism incident a couple of years ago, except it is worse. This was planned and exec uted by PW employe to fabricate news. |
||||
|
lrgeenen
|
Posted on: 2009 Jul 10, 07:05 | |||
|
Let me add this to the mix. First, the writer's work always reads more like a blog than an article. I understand that and accept it for more than one reason. Second, we all know sensationalism sells. Like the gossip magazines at the local market checkout counter and people like to read dirt. Third, it is not news but it is news to a lot of people that aren't aware that this type of thing goes on all the time. . The article could have been written as is and submitted - I would have printed it as all of his 'The Works' articles are mostly titled as 'gossip' in the url listing. I like what he brings to the picture of poker that most people never get to see, like conversations and actions by the stars and ordinary people. Poker is a completely different reporting venue since it is all about the actions of people at the tables and the threat of going broke or winning. . Once the article had been indexed by google, and the fact that it contains information that needs to go public, it was not going to be deleted from the PokerWorks archives. . The whole of it is - IMHO - that all parties were involved in an unethical and underhanded approach to the platform of poker. In an article by the same writer that followed, he had a conversation with Jeffrey Pollack where Pollack stated that players were going to have to learn that the 'days of coming up at the last moment and assuming they will get a seat are over.' which is so wrong. If the players can't register, there is no tournament. The tournaments are paid for by the players. The game is about players, not Harrahs. . There's an old saying that runs around the poker tables, "it's not who ya know, it's who ya blow!" and the fact that an ordinary Joe with $10K in his pocket is shut out and someone else with connections is quietly shuffled in, SUCKS! The person being quietly shuffled in is guilty on all counts. . I believe the writer should have thought about the fact that he might (HUGE might) receive some flack over the article from his friend, other media people, and it might affect his ability to gather information in the future because no one is going to open up around him if he blabs everything he hears. Once he decided that he was going to write the story, it should have just went in and not have been altered. That's where I come into the picture. . For years I have been involved in the mix of 'getting along with people' and knowing that I will always run into someone down the line and circumstances will have changed. I try to preserve my sanity and presence in the world I rotate in by finding a path through the maze that works for me. While I didn't like the idea of changing the article, it would read as well the way it is as the way it was originally published. . Everything moves forward and it will. Nothing will change in the world of 'I'm someone and I know someone and I'm getting a favor because...' as this is a tiny bump in the road. What I didn't really like about the whole thing (and I admit that I'm uncertain as to how to proceed at times) was the fact that the writer didn't mind slamming name specific players and Harrahs but thought his friend was OK in doing what she did. After all, she was just doing what any poker player would do...really? I wouldn't. Would you? . Linda R. Geenen http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/ What game are you playing? |
||||
|
|
||||
| clearspine | Posted on: 2009 Jul 10, 09:46 | |||
|
In response to Ten Mile, "journalism" has changed radically in recent years. When I studied it in high school, the writer was never part of the story, and opinions were completely kept out of the reporting, except in editorials, that were clearly labeled as such. That has completely changed in the post-cable news boom. Fox News, for example, is almost nothing BUT opinion and innuendo, despite their joke of an Orwellian "fair and balanced" label. The Internet has speeded that process up even more, and even the venerable New York Times quite often departs from the classic "Who, what, when where, why, how" format that newspapers provided. From my perspective, this story is THE issue of the Main Event. From the moment the sellout was announced, Pauly on Tao of Poker started talking about the rumors of Antonius and others getting in after the closeout. Someone with first-hand information about this who is a reporter absolutely SHOULD be writing about it, ideally in a less chatty, more classically journalistic style. The fact that he became part of the story is irrelevant, as investigative journalism, beginning with Nellie Bly in the 1800's, often required the writer to force the issue in order to expose injustice. Now, having said that, the WSOP is corporately owned. It belongs to Harrha's, not the players, despite how the players would like it to be. As we've seen on so many levels in this nation since the days of "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA", corporate entities will make decisions based on what is best for them, after weighing their options. I have absolutely NO problem with Harrah's and ESPN deciding who gets to play and who doesn't. It's part of what they paid for when they bought the tournament. Players knew they risked being shut out if they didn't pre-register, and anyone who didn't get in has only them self to blame. Period. End of disucssion. However, what the story really is here is about lying to the players that were shut out, while "back-dooring" others into the event, if that's what actually took place. Now obviously, Pollack could not come right out and say that was going on during the meeting with the players (if he knew), or he would have had a riot on his hands. But if there is to be investigative journalism, that's the story that needs to be followed up. Linda, assuming the original details of the story are true, it certainly belonged on the site, and needed to be seen by many others as well, so that people could be aware of the realities of how the tournament is run. I say this not from any need to have Harrah's or ESPN held accountable, because it is perfectly within their right to do what they did, if they did it. I say it so that people can be more informed about how the world actually works, so that they can get rid of whatever fantasies they have about "fairness" in this situation or in any other one where other people call the shots. |
||||
| jbharshaw | Posted on: 2009 Jul 12, 03:48 | |||
|
I like the original story. The poker world needed to see it, but as always there are two sides to a story. Harrahs made the rules and should enforce them fairly, but players really need to stop procrastinating. Waiting till the last minute is foolish, but until Harrahs enforces there own restrictions, they will always have a problem. On this thread about why names were omitted: I watching a House marathon right now, and the episode is the one were the award winning reporter is suffering form talking gibberish. At the beginning he is giving his retirement speech and thanks Greta, his editor, for two things. Never forget Rock n Roll and Never give up a source. The writer got the story because they had access. Had they used the names, that access would dry up and might miss other stories that might be just as important. jb "Never try to bluff a stump." |
||||
|
|
||||
| KenP | Posted on: 2009 Jul 12, 09:57 | |||
|
OK, Ten (can I call you by your first name?) I see your point to a degree. The story/blog/article did have its annoying components. But, you're off base, IMO. . First, unnamed source is a staple in investigative journalism. In Linda's case it may be about a personal relationship. I give that equal points against other whistle blowers. . Then, what are the alternatives? Yes, she could have tried to clear it through the Washington Post's Ben Bradley or such and called her friend Deep Throat. She could have outed a friend and lost that trust. She could have kept her yap shut and grabbed a broom and lifted a section of carpet. Thankfully, she did what she did in providing the information she was comfortable in sharing. . Look, blogs are built for opinion. And they are built to allow minimal facts. They don't come with editors. You seem to be looking for so much more and that's your fallacy. Ken Prevo Blogging at: www.pokerperambulation.com |
||||
| TenMile | Posted on: 2009 Jul 12, 10:50 | |||
|
You presume, KenP. No you do not assume first name basis. I attack the writer. The half assed reporter that used his position, betrayed his friendships twice (girlfriend and Harrahs functionary), betrayed his chosen profession as a WHITE journalist, and truthfully, could well have determined whether PokerWorks itself is in jeporady next year at the WSOP. Personally, were I Harrahs I'd notify PokerWorks now that they had no place in next years reporting booth. No other reason need be stated. No explaination required. The Editor is a swinging lady. I will not assume, presume, I know her. But allowing a half ass reporter to do as this one did is understandable under the circumstances. I'm point out she had the responisibility to do as she felt best. I think she thought short term - not next year or to gather readership, who I feel want facts non-contrived. We all have our doubts as to the verasity of large corporations, and we're generally exposed to incidents confirming our suspesions. I don't doubt the reporters truthfulness. I doubt his integrity. Which is worse. On a personal note: You presume to much in your personal magnetism. You're pushy in assuming superiority in a relationship best unassumed. |
||||
|
Jump to:
1
| 2
|
||||
German
French
Spanish
Italian
Hungarian
Croatian
Dutch
Brazilian
Romanian