some thoughts about fees and such.
In this thread (the relevant subthread starting about halfway down),
andybloch said (in part) the following:
...However, let's keep this all in perspective. There is cheating in poker, but how much does this cost a good player? In the WSOP final, the players put up $56,190,000, but there was only $52,818,610 in prize money. The house took $3,371,400 for itself and the dealers. Maybe, just maybe, there were enough cheaters in the final event of the WSOP to cost the entire field $1 million. Which should bother us more?...
fun160 has some good thoughts in reply.
I want to unbury that subthread in a new entry to say some more...
...Which should bother us more?...
You make a great point. The money is an important consideration. I agree that the probable "cost" of cheating in the WSOP ME was lower than the fees taken, probably even lower than the $1 million you conjecture. I definitely think the fees are onerous. It was only a short time ago that the main event had no fee at all (although it was "customary" to tip about 3% then). Since then, poker has boomed. TV and other money is starting to pour into the coffers of those holding valuable poker entertainment. The players in the WSOP (entertainers, if you will) must PAY to provide the promoters with product they can then sell? It is crazy. TV has changed the old dynamic and the players (generally) are slow to realize their value in specific venues.
Whatever, the fees are taken. They are more than the cost the field bears as a result of cheating.
Still, I think we should be considerably more bothered by the cheating: the soft play, the collusion, the cards, etc. than the high fees. The fees are a negotiated part of the entry. They are high, but people gladly pay anyway. People know what they are being charged in advance and pay up for the privilege of playing. The "cost" of cheating is borne silently, quietly, without knowledge of the depth or extent of the amount paid. The cheating costs are never known and those involved want to keep it that way. That is a big distinction, one which overcomes the mere economic value of the situation, I think.
andybloch said (in part) the following:
...However, let's keep this all in perspective. There is cheating in poker, but how much does this cost a good player? In the WSOP final, the players put up $56,190,000, but there was only $52,818,610 in prize money. The house took $3,371,400 for itself and the dealers. Maybe, just maybe, there were enough cheaters in the final event of the WSOP to cost the entire field $1 million. Which should bother us more?...
fun160 has some good thoughts in reply.
I want to unbury that subthread in a new entry to say some more...
...Which should bother us more?...
You make a great point. The money is an important consideration. I agree that the probable "cost" of cheating in the WSOP ME was lower than the fees taken, probably even lower than the $1 million you conjecture. I definitely think the fees are onerous. It was only a short time ago that the main event had no fee at all (although it was "customary" to tip about 3% then). Since then, poker has boomed. TV and other money is starting to pour into the coffers of those holding valuable poker entertainment. The players in the WSOP (entertainers, if you will) must PAY to provide the promoters with product they can then sell? It is crazy. TV has changed the old dynamic and the players (generally) are slow to realize their value in specific venues.
Whatever, the fees are taken. They are more than the cost the field bears as a result of cheating.
Still, I think we should be considerably more bothered by the cheating: the soft play, the collusion, the cards, etc. than the high fees. The fees are a negotiated part of the entry. They are high, but people gladly pay anyway. People know what they are being charged in advance and pay up for the privilege of playing. The "cost" of cheating is borne silently, quietly, without knowledge of the depth or extent of the amount paid. The cheating costs are never known and those involved want to keep it that way. That is a big distinction, one which overcomes the mere economic value of the situation, I think.