"Only in Philadelphia could a team trade for a Cy Young Award winner and have its fans say: "You got the wrong one."
This quote is the first sentence from the story printed on the ESPN website about the Phil's acquiring Cliff Lee.
This is yet another example of the some asshole cunt face, know nothing hack piece of journalistic shit that has no fucking idea what he is talking about other than just following everyone else because he can't come up with his own tag line fucking pric shit head fuck your dead mother in the ass cunt cock licker.
Yeah, it steams me a little to read/ hear this crap from some douchebag who knows nothing about philadelphia other than the group think that has gone on throughout the national media for years.
Let me tell you this... Most Philadelphia fans are floored by this trade. The consensus through talk radio and folks talking about it in the bars is that this trade is 1000x's better than what Halladay would have cost. The fans like it! WHY?? Because Philadelphia fans are the smartest fans in the world. They actual read about their teams. Take that much interest in the teams future. STAND BY THEIR FUCKING TEAMS!
"only in philadelphia"... I'll give ya Only in Philadelphia. How about only in Philadelphia are the fans able to recognize the genius of this trade, and the restraint it took not to dust off the best prospects they had for some god like mutant that has as much a chance to help us win the series as Lee does.
How about that the only negative shit I heard about the Lee trade came from METS fans laughing about how we got a guy who was 7-9!!! How about a guy who's run support was less than his ERA. How about a guy who is 12-2 against the NL. How about a guy who has pitched two complete games his last two outings? See Philly fans know this. Mets fans, not so much.
How about only in Philadelphia can you get your fucking throat ripped out of your neck for being a cock nosed cunt bag??? HUH?!?!? How 'bout them apples you stinkin' piece of mother fucking shit. Suck it all you fags! See you in October when all the haters can say is "WAAHHHH YOU LOST 10,000 games!! WAAAAAHHHHH!. And I'll be sitting there with my friends and colleagues laughing at your hate while we enjoy a realistic attempt at back to back World Series Championships! Oh and across the street the Eagles are tearing apart your suck ass Giants/ Bills/ Redskins/ whoever shit hole piece of shit poser town you come from while on their way to being 6-0.
Suck it FUCKERS!
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
No Halladay.... Lee
The Phils have scratched Lou Marson, Donald, and Carrasco from their minor league game tonight. Apparently a deal has gone down for Cliff Lee with the Indians. I think Knapp is going with those 4 players as well for Lee.
I'm not exactly sure how to feel about this yet.
The chance at Halladay is gone. I want to finish writing this up and will do so shortly.
EDIT:
OK, now that I"ve finished what I have been doing I can write this up and try to make some sense of it. If there is any to be had. And I am going to take this from the stand point of the organization and not a fan.
I think Halladay is an auto grab for whoever Toronto wanted. There's so much upside to him over the next two years it's ridiculous. But let's look at what they wanted for him. Happ and Drabek being the deciding factors. The other two are insignifcant for this discussion.
The organization has stated time and time again that Drabek is an untouchable. Should Halladay have changed their mind? The fan side of me says absolutely. But let's look at the Phil's situation.
And let me say there is no way I believe that the organization sat there and said "NO WAY are we giving up Drabek for anyone.". I firmly believe that they tortured themselves over this decision, and I can be pretty sure that there was much infighting about letting go of Drabek.
So let's look at some assumptions. They give Drabek Happ and whoever to Toronto (whoever being Brown, their best fielding prospect) in order to get Doc. That leaves us where in the rotation? Who starts 5th?
You basically have Halladay Hamels Blanton Moyer Pedro
Now you have Lee Hamels Happ Blanton Moyer / Pedro with Pedro probably going into the bull pen... and you still keep Drabek.
NOT TO MENTION that you keep LEE away from the Dodgers! Which is a very poignant statement when discussing WHY we settle for Lee over Halladay.
I'm not defending the fact that they wouldn't give up Drabek for Halladay. Christ, you have Charlie and Gillick screaming for it to get done. But from an ownership perspective and what would be given up in the long run, versus what you already have in offense and talent, adding and keeping seems better than adding and giving. Getting Lee for what they got is almost retarded anyway.
Marson isn't all that great. Donald has zero chance of seeing any time with Utley there, Carrasco has potential but has pretty much shown nothing when it counted. I like his size at 6'3" and his velo, but still pretty much a stiff. Knapp is unproven and behind Drabek. I actually like the deal and how it sets up the Phils for the rest of this year and moving forward.
Now all of this is under the assumption that the deal as I have written it goes forward. I won't be happy if Happ is inculded, but it doesn't sound like he is. As of now.
I'm not exactly sure how to feel about this yet.
The chance at Halladay is gone. I want to finish writing this up and will do so shortly.
EDIT:
OK, now that I"ve finished what I have been doing I can write this up and try to make some sense of it. If there is any to be had. And I am going to take this from the stand point of the organization and not a fan.
I think Halladay is an auto grab for whoever Toronto wanted. There's so much upside to him over the next two years it's ridiculous. But let's look at what they wanted for him. Happ and Drabek being the deciding factors. The other two are insignifcant for this discussion.
The organization has stated time and time again that Drabek is an untouchable. Should Halladay have changed their mind? The fan side of me says absolutely. But let's look at the Phil's situation.
And let me say there is no way I believe that the organization sat there and said "NO WAY are we giving up Drabek for anyone.". I firmly believe that they tortured themselves over this decision, and I can be pretty sure that there was much infighting about letting go of Drabek.
So let's look at some assumptions. They give Drabek Happ and whoever to Toronto (whoever being Brown, their best fielding prospect) in order to get Doc. That leaves us where in the rotation? Who starts 5th?
You basically have Halladay Hamels Blanton Moyer Pedro
Now you have Lee Hamels Happ Blanton Moyer / Pedro with Pedro probably going into the bull pen... and you still keep Drabek.
NOT TO MENTION that you keep LEE away from the Dodgers! Which is a very poignant statement when discussing WHY we settle for Lee over Halladay.
I'm not defending the fact that they wouldn't give up Drabek for Halladay. Christ, you have Charlie and Gillick screaming for it to get done. But from an ownership perspective and what would be given up in the long run, versus what you already have in offense and talent, adding and keeping seems better than adding and giving. Getting Lee for what they got is almost retarded anyway.
Marson isn't all that great. Donald has zero chance of seeing any time with Utley there, Carrasco has potential but has pretty much shown nothing when it counted. I like his size at 6'3" and his velo, but still pretty much a stiff. Knapp is unproven and behind Drabek. I actually like the deal and how it sets up the Phils for the rest of this year and moving forward.
Now all of this is under the assumption that the deal as I have written it goes forward. I won't be happy if Happ is inculded, but it doesn't sound like he is. As of now.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Phillies Trade Hypotheticals
It was reported over the weekend that the Phils countered the Jays first offer for Halladay (Drabek, Happ, and Brown) with Happ, Carrasco, Taylor, and Jason Donald.
The Jays then went on a league rampage talking to other clubs such as the Angels and Dodgers (again), the Rangers, and one other team that is so insignificant I can't recall.
They're seemingly insignificant for several reasons. Each will have their own issue in signing Halladay, from not having enough cap space to not really having the talent that they are either willing to part with, or don't even have for Toronto to be satisfied with.
Toronto has stated that they are fine with not trading him, but I just don't see it. An arm like that without the surrounding talent is pretty much worthless to an organization who seems to be very interested in long term success.
So that leaves this weekends happenings with a huge question mark. Who is posturing? Of course the fans and overall baseball theorists believe that Halladays worth to the Phils is great enough to give away whatever is asked for. I think that Torontos demands are reasonable. I also think that the Phils counter was more than reasonable.
So that leaves us with the supposition that both sides are doing nothing more than posturing. Of course Buster Olney of ESPN's MLB Tonight reported that it got "nasty". Which I highly doubt, but he needed to report something to show he was in "the know".
My guess is that both of these teams understands what they are going to get/ give for this ridiculous talent, and something will pop on Thursday.
Toronto is taking it's stance because who knows what retarded thing could happen before then, either forcing the Phillies hand to give what they requested or getting what the Phillies countered. Halladay wont stand for not being traded and that will likely make for a rough end of season for Toronto so they want to deal him now.
It was reported that the Jays sent their scouts to the IronPigs (Phils 3A team) to watch Carrasco pitch. Unfortunately he gave up 6 runs in 6 innings that day and the scouts left unimpressed. Heck, even Glavin, Maddux, and Clemens have been shelled at some point. That and the fact that you're looking at something that you don't want to leaves a lot of expectations on what you are looking at. When he doesn't perform, it's an easy assumption. The fact that they went to look at him (again) so close to a possible trade is an indication that they really want to trade Halladay to the Phils. Why? Because the only value he has to them right now is trade value, and they know that the Phils are the only team that has enough to make that trade.
My guess is that you will see Halladay in a Phillies uniform by the weekend and Drabek, Happ, and if not Brown, then Taylor and Donald sent off to Toronto. Here's to wishful thinking :)
The Jays then went on a league rampage talking to other clubs such as the Angels and Dodgers (again), the Rangers, and one other team that is so insignificant I can't recall.
They're seemingly insignificant for several reasons. Each will have their own issue in signing Halladay, from not having enough cap space to not really having the talent that they are either willing to part with, or don't even have for Toronto to be satisfied with.
Toronto has stated that they are fine with not trading him, but I just don't see it. An arm like that without the surrounding talent is pretty much worthless to an organization who seems to be very interested in long term success.
So that leaves this weekends happenings with a huge question mark. Who is posturing? Of course the fans and overall baseball theorists believe that Halladays worth to the Phils is great enough to give away whatever is asked for. I think that Torontos demands are reasonable. I also think that the Phils counter was more than reasonable.
So that leaves us with the supposition that both sides are doing nothing more than posturing. Of course Buster Olney of ESPN's MLB Tonight reported that it got "nasty". Which I highly doubt, but he needed to report something to show he was in "the know".
My guess is that both of these teams understands what they are going to get/ give for this ridiculous talent, and something will pop on Thursday.
Toronto is taking it's stance because who knows what retarded thing could happen before then, either forcing the Phillies hand to give what they requested or getting what the Phillies countered. Halladay wont stand for not being traded and that will likely make for a rough end of season for Toronto so they want to deal him now.
It was reported that the Jays sent their scouts to the IronPigs (Phils 3A team) to watch Carrasco pitch. Unfortunately he gave up 6 runs in 6 innings that day and the scouts left unimpressed. Heck, even Glavin, Maddux, and Clemens have been shelled at some point. That and the fact that you're looking at something that you don't want to leaves a lot of expectations on what you are looking at. When he doesn't perform, it's an easy assumption. The fact that they went to look at him (again) so close to a possible trade is an indication that they really want to trade Halladay to the Phils. Why? Because the only value he has to them right now is trade value, and they know that the Phils are the only team that has enough to make that trade.
My guess is that you will see Halladay in a Phillies uniform by the weekend and Drabek, Happ, and if not Brown, then Taylor and Donald sent off to Toronto. Here's to wishful thinking :)
Friday, July 24, 2009
November 9 comment follow ups
I got some comments on the Nov 9 post that I wanted to address. Nothing special or Profound but I have nothing else to write. It's dreary here, Friday, and I have 113 kids running around. So I may as well do something :)
Hoy responded that because Ivey is at the final table this year, it will add auto growth to the ME in 2010.
I have heard a lot of reasons why those who play the "circuit" don't play the Main. One of the biggest is the fact that it's so big that the main becomes a luck box tournament, regardless of it's structure, and why would they waste 10k (call it a cop out if you want). I can see that point of view chasing guys back when Ivey is sitting there this year. It is afterall the Main Event. But those players are few and far between. And any increase in playership next year will have a number of factors to point to. I doubt one man will have any effect on a notable increase. but I get his point.
Bam wrote a whole post with his response. I answered in his comments, but for the long an short of it he referred to NASCAR being born out of the illegal booze runners. It's a valiant attempt to show why an immoral activity can grow into a mainstream sport. But there are two issues with that. One, being illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's immoral. Alcohol has never been immoral in our country (for whatever reason). But I answered in his post so go read.
Gorilla stated that high line sponsorship could be attained with high level stars. He compared it with Woods and Federer. Again, it's not so much about the pitchman, moreso with the audience he is selling to, and the vertical he is pitching from.
Baywolfe makes a great point as well by noting that Schulman is there also. Anyone paying attention long enough to poker knows who Schulman is. This could be the worst thing for the WSOP. He has claimed that he will throw the bracelet out if he wins in protest of Harrah's. Now, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Sure. But the firestorm this will cause... The whole focus of someone winning the World Championship will be taken away and be put on a pissing match between the WSOP and Cardplayer. Yeah, that oughta be GREAT! for poker.
With all of the crap poker has to wade through to gain some sort of credibility with not only mom and dad America, but with companies who would want nothing more than to be able to attract that whole 50 million person pool who play (with every conceivable demographic to shop their wares without the risk of alienating their brand because they are promoting gambling), you would expect a hero, or Ivey in this case to be the Knight in Shining Armor. I just don't see it.
So for now, players will stick with sponosrhips from online sites, Corem watches (as Doc said), and stupid energy drinks no one consumes.
Poker is a paradox. After a while, it's not just about the money. Everyone wants to play and win big dollars. But it's not enough to just win the money. They want to be able to have won it the right way. Does it really matter? Ask Jamie Gold.
I reckon that having Ivey there gives credence to that thought. Therefore, by default, being good for poker. I agree.
But I think I've been clear that being good for poker is one thing. Having an effect that will increse numbers, bring poker mainstream (or even acceptable as a mainstream contest), or even massively change the face of how poker is viewed in the long run will be obtained by having Ivey at this final table is just not going to happen. It's going to take a whole lot more.
Hoy responded that because Ivey is at the final table this year, it will add auto growth to the ME in 2010.
I have heard a lot of reasons why those who play the "circuit" don't play the Main. One of the biggest is the fact that it's so big that the main becomes a luck box tournament, regardless of it's structure, and why would they waste 10k (call it a cop out if you want). I can see that point of view chasing guys back when Ivey is sitting there this year. It is afterall the Main Event. But those players are few and far between. And any increase in playership next year will have a number of factors to point to. I doubt one man will have any effect on a notable increase. but I get his point.
Bam wrote a whole post with his response. I answered in his comments, but for the long an short of it he referred to NASCAR being born out of the illegal booze runners. It's a valiant attempt to show why an immoral activity can grow into a mainstream sport. But there are two issues with that. One, being illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's immoral. Alcohol has never been immoral in our country (for whatever reason). But I answered in his post so go read.
Gorilla stated that high line sponsorship could be attained with high level stars. He compared it with Woods and Federer. Again, it's not so much about the pitchman, moreso with the audience he is selling to, and the vertical he is pitching from.
Baywolfe makes a great point as well by noting that Schulman is there also. Anyone paying attention long enough to poker knows who Schulman is. This could be the worst thing for the WSOP. He has claimed that he will throw the bracelet out if he wins in protest of Harrah's. Now, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Sure. But the firestorm this will cause... The whole focus of someone winning the World Championship will be taken away and be put on a pissing match between the WSOP and Cardplayer. Yeah, that oughta be GREAT! for poker.
With all of the crap poker has to wade through to gain some sort of credibility with not only mom and dad America, but with companies who would want nothing more than to be able to attract that whole 50 million person pool who play (with every conceivable demographic to shop their wares without the risk of alienating their brand because they are promoting gambling), you would expect a hero, or Ivey in this case to be the Knight in Shining Armor. I just don't see it.
So for now, players will stick with sponosrhips from online sites, Corem watches (as Doc said), and stupid energy drinks no one consumes.
Poker is a paradox. After a while, it's not just about the money. Everyone wants to play and win big dollars. But it's not enough to just win the money. They want to be able to have won it the right way. Does it really matter? Ask Jamie Gold.
I reckon that having Ivey there gives credence to that thought. Therefore, by default, being good for poker. I agree.
But I think I've been clear that being good for poker is one thing. Having an effect that will increse numbers, bring poker mainstream (or even acceptable as a mainstream contest), or even massively change the face of how poker is viewed in the long run will be obtained by having Ivey at this final table is just not going to happen. It's going to take a whole lot more.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Ivey in the November nine... and why you're wrong
When the final nine were announced for the Main Event this year, and Phil Ivey's name was listed, people everywhere went ape shit. There were blog posts, Facebook status updates, and tweets representing the kind of hope that everyone believes will come of this because one of the worlds best players is there.
I posted that they were all wrong. That I would offer a rebuttal telling why they are wrong. My point is that their perspective is wrong. I am speaking to the folks in the business... players, reps, etc. Of course Ivey making it to the final nine is awesome. As Waffles said in his post, it gives good players, or players who have at least played the game while actually thinking about how it's played, hope that skill will eventually win out over douchebaggery drycockedness button smashing, limp calling, over-shoving retardedness.
So yes... in that sense, Ivey making the final nine is good. But not necessarily good for poker. Poker doesn't need to get any better. It's already there. What is good for poker? More players? Ivey making the final nine isn't going to do that. Respect for the players? Ivey making the final nine will only win him respect. Better Structures or lesser fees? Again, ,zero effect.
As a matter of fact, the only winners I see out of this whole mess is going to be ESPN. And that's a big fat maybe! Because guys like me and Hoy who watch poker on TV very seldom might actually watch this time around. Because Ivey is there. Ratings are sure to go up.
The whole table is actually pretty darned good. With the exception of Darvin Moon (who seems to be playing just a very aggresive game) everyone has proven to some extent some very high level of skill.
But this avoids my point.
One professional player posted on Facebook that he guaranteed "IVEY CRUSHES A MAINSTREAM SPONSOR" for making the November nine. My response was, I'll lay 3 to 1 that he doesn't.
Again, you have to define what is good for poker. In the industry, for players, reps, and publicicsts, what's good for poker is sponosrship. There seems to be this anticipation that Coke or Pledge, or Citibank is going to show up some day and pick out a player and offer him millions to endorse their product. I will tell you that in today's climate, as it stands right now... unless it changes, that will never happen. Ever.
It's a shame as well. If you think about it, Ivey, Helmuth, Lederer, Scotty, Jesus, Lindgren, Negraneu all have gotten more TV time than say Tiger Woods. The problem is what kind of TV time are they getting. Of course you can deduce that Poker is still gambling, and what type of reputable company that sells billions in goods and services would want to risk their consumer base by sponsoring gambling?
On top of that, you have to look at the players. Poker gets a ton of exposure. Even when TV ratings started to decline, poker still had a lot of exposure. The WPT, even though it has waned the last few years is still on a lot. The WSOP televises 4 months of new programming leading up to stupid prizes, and then reruns the rest of the year. High Stakes poker is a huge show with exceptional ratings. But it's the poker that is highlighted. Not so much the players.
Add to that the expense of sponsoring one specific player, and have him go on a bad run and you get zero return. None.
Poker players were told stories of paradise when the WSOP got those retarded ratings in 2003 and everyone and their mother started putting up poker shows. It was all about who was going to get the biggest piece first. Success meant TV time, and TV time meant endorsements. But with the exception of online sites throwing them a red name, or a couple of patches and some rake back and even an hourly rate, the promise of Michael Jordan money never came. And will never come. Yes, poker players will forever have to make their money the hard way. They'll have to earn it.
That being said, let's assume that Hersheys Chocolate takes a liking ot our boy Phil and decides to think about signing him up for a deal. He's not necessarily the world's best pitchman. He's no Billy Mays. As a matter of fact, I would reckon that he wouldn't want anything to do with it. Now, no one is going to look a gift horse in the mouth, but for the time he will have to spend, and the change in lifestyle he will have to make in order to get the type of dollars that players think they are entitled to, I would think Ivey would tell them very plainly to go fuck themselves.
So back to what's good for poker? As it relates to us as players and the game itself? Respect? The whole gambling monacher to be lifted? The fact that it will be seen as a game of skill moreso than luck?
Does Ivey sitting at the final table of the Main Event change any of that? I don't think so. Sure, he's a skilled player, but so is Helmuth. This is why I think Helmuth is one of the smartest guys going in poker. He realized that making money in poker, besides playing was going to take place in the poker arena only. He invested wisely in poker related companies. He didn't sit back and wait, or even complain about the lack of mainstream sponsorship that never came. He went out and created his own brand and made his money that way.
So no... Ivey will not be the savior of poker for making a final table at the Main event. Even if he does win. Which I hope he does. But for that matter, poker doesn't need saving. Sure it has it's problems. But neither Ivey or God himself making the final table of the most revered tournament in the world will have any effect on how this game is perceived by the non playing public, mainstream sponsors, or those that have enough influence to offer players a better game. Poker is and always will be about the money. From all sides. There's no one out there that isn't focused on sucking every last penny out of poker. Whether it be the players, the sites, or the casinos. And no one is bigger than that.
Look, I get as a player why you would think that a big named player, and possibly the most feared player ever making the final 9 is nice. But it sure as hell isn't going to do anything to improve poker as we know it. Not one I-oda! If you think Ivey feels some sort of kinship to other players, or some sort of responsibility to the poker community for being in what could be the largest spot light of his career... you're smokin' crack. He won't be caring about what others think of poker. He'll be thinking about 8 million. And that's that.
I posted that they were all wrong. That I would offer a rebuttal telling why they are wrong. My point is that their perspective is wrong. I am speaking to the folks in the business... players, reps, etc. Of course Ivey making it to the final nine is awesome. As Waffles said in his post, it gives good players, or players who have at least played the game while actually thinking about how it's played, hope that skill will eventually win out over douchebaggery drycockedness button smashing, limp calling, over-shoving retardedness.
So yes... in that sense, Ivey making the final nine is good. But not necessarily good for poker. Poker doesn't need to get any better. It's already there. What is good for poker? More players? Ivey making the final nine isn't going to do that. Respect for the players? Ivey making the final nine will only win him respect. Better Structures or lesser fees? Again, ,zero effect.
As a matter of fact, the only winners I see out of this whole mess is going to be ESPN. And that's a big fat maybe! Because guys like me and Hoy who watch poker on TV very seldom might actually watch this time around. Because Ivey is there. Ratings are sure to go up.
The whole table is actually pretty darned good. With the exception of Darvin Moon (who seems to be playing just a very aggresive game) everyone has proven to some extent some very high level of skill.
But this avoids my point.
One professional player posted on Facebook that he guaranteed "IVEY CRUSHES A MAINSTREAM SPONSOR" for making the November nine. My response was, I'll lay 3 to 1 that he doesn't.
Again, you have to define what is good for poker. In the industry, for players, reps, and publicicsts, what's good for poker is sponosrship. There seems to be this anticipation that Coke or Pledge, or Citibank is going to show up some day and pick out a player and offer him millions to endorse their product. I will tell you that in today's climate, as it stands right now... unless it changes, that will never happen. Ever.
It's a shame as well. If you think about it, Ivey, Helmuth, Lederer, Scotty, Jesus, Lindgren, Negraneu all have gotten more TV time than say Tiger Woods. The problem is what kind of TV time are they getting. Of course you can deduce that Poker is still gambling, and what type of reputable company that sells billions in goods and services would want to risk their consumer base by sponsoring gambling?
On top of that, you have to look at the players. Poker gets a ton of exposure. Even when TV ratings started to decline, poker still had a lot of exposure. The WPT, even though it has waned the last few years is still on a lot. The WSOP televises 4 months of new programming leading up to stupid prizes, and then reruns the rest of the year. High Stakes poker is a huge show with exceptional ratings. But it's the poker that is highlighted. Not so much the players.
Add to that the expense of sponsoring one specific player, and have him go on a bad run and you get zero return. None.
Poker players were told stories of paradise when the WSOP got those retarded ratings in 2003 and everyone and their mother started putting up poker shows. It was all about who was going to get the biggest piece first. Success meant TV time, and TV time meant endorsements. But with the exception of online sites throwing them a red name, or a couple of patches and some rake back and even an hourly rate, the promise of Michael Jordan money never came. And will never come. Yes, poker players will forever have to make their money the hard way. They'll have to earn it.
That being said, let's assume that Hersheys Chocolate takes a liking ot our boy Phil and decides to think about signing him up for a deal. He's not necessarily the world's best pitchman. He's no Billy Mays. As a matter of fact, I would reckon that he wouldn't want anything to do with it. Now, no one is going to look a gift horse in the mouth, but for the time he will have to spend, and the change in lifestyle he will have to make in order to get the type of dollars that players think they are entitled to, I would think Ivey would tell them very plainly to go fuck themselves.
So back to what's good for poker? As it relates to us as players and the game itself? Respect? The whole gambling monacher to be lifted? The fact that it will be seen as a game of skill moreso than luck?
Does Ivey sitting at the final table of the Main Event change any of that? I don't think so. Sure, he's a skilled player, but so is Helmuth. This is why I think Helmuth is one of the smartest guys going in poker. He realized that making money in poker, besides playing was going to take place in the poker arena only. He invested wisely in poker related companies. He didn't sit back and wait, or even complain about the lack of mainstream sponsorship that never came. He went out and created his own brand and made his money that way.
So no... Ivey will not be the savior of poker for making a final table at the Main event. Even if he does win. Which I hope he does. But for that matter, poker doesn't need saving. Sure it has it's problems. But neither Ivey or God himself making the final table of the most revered tournament in the world will have any effect on how this game is perceived by the non playing public, mainstream sponsors, or those that have enough influence to offer players a better game. Poker is and always will be about the money. From all sides. There's no one out there that isn't focused on sucking every last penny out of poker. Whether it be the players, the sites, or the casinos. And no one is bigger than that.
Look, I get as a player why you would think that a big named player, and possibly the most feared player ever making the final 9 is nice. But it sure as hell isn't going to do anything to improve poker as we know it. Not one I-oda! If you think Ivey feels some sort of kinship to other players, or some sort of responsibility to the poker community for being in what could be the largest spot light of his career... you're smokin' crack. He won't be caring about what others think of poker. He'll be thinking about 8 million. And that's that.
UIGEA Reversal Market effects
How does this thing pan out for us (reads us, not U.S.) players when the UIGEA finally reverses and allows the U.S. Government to stick their hands in it and take whatever they want?
One can only guess. So that's what I am going to do. Guess. But mine will be more of an educated guess. Again, these are all suppositions from my stand point so feel free to disagree. This is why I am doing this. I want feedback to incite dialogue so we can hash this out and get ready for an online ass raping. Because that's what I think is really coming. An ass raping of consumers and sites alike.
So where to begin?
For one, I think you have to decide how the market will look. That is, who will be allowed to compete. I've already posted that Harrah's has been pretty active and through a little persuasion it seems the government may preclude sites that have already admitted guilt, or have been recognized as "guilty" of operating illegally from even being allowed to play in the what will be a new sandbox of legalized U.S. online gaming.
I'm not sure this will actually happen. After all, the largest site pre UIGEA, Party Poker would be on that list. And I'm not sure the Government would preclude a site that has the capability of generating players (hence dollars) when they could realistically be the largest provider of tax revenue. We'll have to see how that pans out. But for now, let's assume that will happen.
If that is the case you can forget about Party, any 888 site, and Titan. These sites have been pretty succesful in the international markets since not being able to compete in the US. However, I don't want to micro manage this post, so I will focus on what could happen given the assumption that Harrahs will be stubborn and protect their brand, hence what they think is the GOD of all poker.
Assuming they will have the largest presence, it won't preclude other brick and mortar's from having their own sites. Other casino's with popular live poker rooms will also get in on the action. Foxwood's, The Borgata, the Bicycle, and possibly even the Commerce Casino. I would guess that some of these would most likely partner with an established site already to save on overhead. That is if the government allows it. There also has to be consideration for the media sites like Facebook, Google, and Yahoo. Time will tell how that will shape up. I'm still not sure if they come flying out of the gates wanting to provide gambling to their customer base. It may take some of their main stream advertisers away from their sites. Afterall, Coke andPepsi still have a consumer base to protect, and promoting gambling isn't the best way to do that.
But how will all these new sites effect online play other than being able to just play? What promotions will there be? Will things change at all?
Obviously it will bring new players into the frey. New, and more players will equal a feeding frenzy from those that can play, and those that think because they have played that they automatically are pre qualified as a shark.
Either way the waters will certainly get deeper. From a standpoint of being able to play, deposit and withdrawl money, and shed the notion that you are breaking the law from non-players, this will be a win from every stand point.
You will pay taxes on those monies now. Most likely from withdrawls. The sites will issue you some sort of tax form, just like when you win at a live casino. But seeing that the average withdrawal is a lot smaller than the threshhold for brick and mortar issues of those forms, I have to believe deposits will be taxed in some way. Only time will tell.
Don't think the sites aren't going to pass off their tax liabilities onto you as well. That can only come in the form of bonuses, rakeback, etc. It will be sad to see how that pans out. Of course competition will be fierce so maybe not (I'm just thinking outloud).
I believe that all of these things will have a very big effect on the industry. As more players flock to the now legal online game (and I recognize that online poker was not illegal, just the wiring of monies for the purpose as gaming), Brick and mortar casinos will have to compete more and more.
You will see things such as comps and credit when you play an online site for their brick and mortar counterpart. You will also see more brand protection. What this means is that you will no longer be able to qualify, or satellite into the WSOP off of the Foxwoods site. Unless of course Foxwoods pays Harrah's a fee for use of the WSOP brand. But I highly doubt that is going to happen at all. At least for quite some time. Harrah's is going to do everything they can to protect, and maximize any revenue off of that brand.
They will almost certainly utilize that brand to hoard players to their new site. You can guarantee that. There will be no more, "what's good for poker" actions. It will be more of a "what's good for our bottom line".
Because of this, the online competitors that don't have brick and mortar places (just yet) will do everything possible to offer the craziest games around. Stars WCOOP and Tilt's FTOPS will rival the real World Series. They will have events in place which will be highly marketed such as the first $50million guarantee. Ridiculous events that will only be feasible from the huge participation that only online sites can accomodate and offer.
The WSOP may even at some point become supplanted as the recognized World Championship of Poker. Other brands will come about as well. The WPT may become stronger, or just bought out and renamed.
Online sites will open their own poker rooms, or at least sponsor them with naming rights (think the state of PA and their impending law allowing poker rooms). The Pinnacle Casinos Poker Stars Poker Room in King of Prussia, PA is not that far off from reality.
You will also see a whole lot of more tournaments falling below the $3k entry mark. That is already, and has been happening for the last 2 years. But as casinos try to cater more and more to that new player, the buy-ins for Championhsip events will become increasingly smaller.
There are a ton of possibilities that will come about. The maket will definately be redefined. And it will happen in a relatively long but steady time. There won't be any surprises. In hind sight there will be some shockers, but everyone will see it them coming.
The professional players that have pined for years over a percieved right of sponsorship will jump from site to site. Deals will come and go. Quickly and painfully. Some will be deserved and those top players (maybe 15) will have a very nice future secured. But most of them will go the way of their profession. That is to play. They will quickly realize that this "main stream" market they've been told about, or have been talking about really doesn't want them as spokespeople. Their hopes will be snuffed out like an abandoned campfire in the rain and their sense of survival will turn them back to the tables.
With this, I am heading into my next post. Which is why I will stop here. That next post has to do with all of the tweets and articles about how Phil Ivey being at the final table will be such a boost for poker.
I'll tell you why it's not as hot as you think it is. And what to really expect.
One can only guess. So that's what I am going to do. Guess. But mine will be more of an educated guess. Again, these are all suppositions from my stand point so feel free to disagree. This is why I am doing this. I want feedback to incite dialogue so we can hash this out and get ready for an online ass raping. Because that's what I think is really coming. An ass raping of consumers and sites alike.
So where to begin?
For one, I think you have to decide how the market will look. That is, who will be allowed to compete. I've already posted that Harrah's has been pretty active and through a little persuasion it seems the government may preclude sites that have already admitted guilt, or have been recognized as "guilty" of operating illegally from even being allowed to play in the what will be a new sandbox of legalized U.S. online gaming.
I'm not sure this will actually happen. After all, the largest site pre UIGEA, Party Poker would be on that list. And I'm not sure the Government would preclude a site that has the capability of generating players (hence dollars) when they could realistically be the largest provider of tax revenue. We'll have to see how that pans out. But for now, let's assume that will happen.
If that is the case you can forget about Party, any 888 site, and Titan. These sites have been pretty succesful in the international markets since not being able to compete in the US. However, I don't want to micro manage this post, so I will focus on what could happen given the assumption that Harrahs will be stubborn and protect their brand, hence what they think is the GOD of all poker.
Assuming they will have the largest presence, it won't preclude other brick and mortar's from having their own sites. Other casino's with popular live poker rooms will also get in on the action. Foxwood's, The Borgata, the Bicycle, and possibly even the Commerce Casino. I would guess that some of these would most likely partner with an established site already to save on overhead. That is if the government allows it. There also has to be consideration for the media sites like Facebook, Google, and Yahoo. Time will tell how that will shape up. I'm still not sure if they come flying out of the gates wanting to provide gambling to their customer base. It may take some of their main stream advertisers away from their sites. Afterall, Coke andPepsi still have a consumer base to protect, and promoting gambling isn't the best way to do that.
But how will all these new sites effect online play other than being able to just play? What promotions will there be? Will things change at all?
Obviously it will bring new players into the frey. New, and more players will equal a feeding frenzy from those that can play, and those that think because they have played that they automatically are pre qualified as a shark.
Either way the waters will certainly get deeper. From a standpoint of being able to play, deposit and withdrawl money, and shed the notion that you are breaking the law from non-players, this will be a win from every stand point.
You will pay taxes on those monies now. Most likely from withdrawls. The sites will issue you some sort of tax form, just like when you win at a live casino. But seeing that the average withdrawal is a lot smaller than the threshhold for brick and mortar issues of those forms, I have to believe deposits will be taxed in some way. Only time will tell.
Don't think the sites aren't going to pass off their tax liabilities onto you as well. That can only come in the form of bonuses, rakeback, etc. It will be sad to see how that pans out. Of course competition will be fierce so maybe not (I'm just thinking outloud).
I believe that all of these things will have a very big effect on the industry. As more players flock to the now legal online game (and I recognize that online poker was not illegal, just the wiring of monies for the purpose as gaming), Brick and mortar casinos will have to compete more and more.
You will see things such as comps and credit when you play an online site for their brick and mortar counterpart. You will also see more brand protection. What this means is that you will no longer be able to qualify, or satellite into the WSOP off of the Foxwoods site. Unless of course Foxwoods pays Harrah's a fee for use of the WSOP brand. But I highly doubt that is going to happen at all. At least for quite some time. Harrah's is going to do everything they can to protect, and maximize any revenue off of that brand.
They will almost certainly utilize that brand to hoard players to their new site. You can guarantee that. There will be no more, "what's good for poker" actions. It will be more of a "what's good for our bottom line".
Because of this, the online competitors that don't have brick and mortar places (just yet) will do everything possible to offer the craziest games around. Stars WCOOP and Tilt's FTOPS will rival the real World Series. They will have events in place which will be highly marketed such as the first $50million guarantee. Ridiculous events that will only be feasible from the huge participation that only online sites can accomodate and offer.
The WSOP may even at some point become supplanted as the recognized World Championship of Poker. Other brands will come about as well. The WPT may become stronger, or just bought out and renamed.
Online sites will open their own poker rooms, or at least sponsor them with naming rights (think the state of PA and their impending law allowing poker rooms). The Pinnacle Casinos Poker Stars Poker Room in King of Prussia, PA is not that far off from reality.
You will also see a whole lot of more tournaments falling below the $3k entry mark. That is already, and has been happening for the last 2 years. But as casinos try to cater more and more to that new player, the buy-ins for Championhsip events will become increasingly smaller.
There are a ton of possibilities that will come about. The maket will definately be redefined. And it will happen in a relatively long but steady time. There won't be any surprises. In hind sight there will be some shockers, but everyone will see it them coming.
The professional players that have pined for years over a percieved right of sponsorship will jump from site to site. Deals will come and go. Quickly and painfully. Some will be deserved and those top players (maybe 15) will have a very nice future secured. But most of them will go the way of their profession. That is to play. They will quickly realize that this "main stream" market they've been told about, or have been talking about really doesn't want them as spokespeople. Their hopes will be snuffed out like an abandoned campfire in the rain and their sense of survival will turn them back to the tables.
With this, I am heading into my next post. Which is why I will stop here. That next post has to do with all of the tweets and articles about how Phil Ivey being at the final table will be such a boost for poker.
I'll tell you why it's not as hot as you think it is. And what to really expect.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
November Nine... teen billion!
I have read some opinions on why Ivey making the final table is good for poker. I disagree. I don't think it's bad, but I think people are deriving this from the wrong perspective. I will post my opinion(s) and the Market effects of the UIGEA (which is partly written) very shortly.
Stay tuned...
Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)