AimlesslyChasingAmy

I finally got to meet Leigh and Brian, a couple traveling around the country in their restored 1963 Airstream - playing poker.  I missed them when they spun through Austin earlier this year as Michael Craig had declared an emergency Magical Mystery Tour stop and I had to leave for Vegas.  Sunday was their four hundredth day on the road.  Between B&M stops, they have their mobile dish and wifi to tie them into online poker.  Basically they can, and have, played poker in the middle of the Mojave desert.

They’ve been a little frustrated trying to locate poker rooms on the road, so they are developing the coolest poker website that will help players identify rooms by zipcode; complete with reviews, amenities, and game selection.  I’ll pop up the link as soon as they launch.  

Lee and Brian are obviously in town for the WSOP, but they also popped by Jen and John’s to see Jen’s televised poker debut.         

Jen’s television poker face basically says to an opponent, “I wouldn’t piss down your throat if your heart was on fire.”  I’ve never seen such an evil, malevolent look.   I think even Jen was scared when she saw it on TV.  Other than Jen being totally card dead on the show, the evening was close to perfect in every way.  Jen’s housemate Carl Olsen made the final table and finished 6th in the $2K NLHE.  Another housemate scored over $50K in the Full Tilt 200K guaranteed.  But sadly, John proved he will never make the Beer Pong Tour.      

I have yet to make my finder’s fee of one bottle of Cab Sav for securing suitable company for Richard “The Quiet Lion” Brodie.  You’d think I was trying to hook up Matusow.  Gals, you’re obviously not doing your homework here.  I mean the man can actually smile while playing Razz.  That’s like superhuman.  C’mon, don’t let him fall into the clutches of one of Pauly’s groupies.   

I’m fixated on the Players v. WPTE Lawsuit. I know there are many important issues in the industry right now. The House has passed an internet gaming ban,  If you haven’t signed up for the Poker Players Alliance, do it now.  Washington Staters are already paying the price.  Don’t think someone else will do the heavy lifting for you.  Get involved.  But the WPTE lawsuit also has some important ramifications for both amateur and professional players.  Read my earlier post for some background on the issues and read WPT Lawsuit for the latest status of the litigation.    

I wanted to chat a little about what kind of spin WPTE is likely to put on the lawsuit - and why.

First and foremost, this is an antitrust case.  The first burden on the plaintiffs (players) will be to prove that the WPT has sufficient power in the industry to control prices or exclude competition.  While there is no hard and fast rule on what constitutes monopoly power, if a company controls more than 50% of a market, that is usually deemed sufficient. 

WPTE Spin: We are a small player in a competitive industry.  The WPTE is going to want to define the industry as all of poker; including online gaming.  In their response to the lawsuit the WPTE stated that the claims “misrepresent the current state of competition in the poker industry.”  If the industry/market is defined in court as major ($10,000) events, the WPTE is screwed on this point.  They easily control more than 50% of the $10,000 buy-in tournaments, especially now that the WSOP Circuit championship events have all been bumped down to $5,000.  But the plaintiffs will have a bigger burden of proof than in other antitrust cases that have involved major league sports like baseball and football.  Most major league sports are by definition legally sanctioned monopolies.  In this case the plaintiffs must prove the WPTE has monopoly power.  Many antitrust cases are made or lost in the definition of the market.  The WPTE is hoping to make the definition as broad as possible.  The players will need to define it within the realm of major tournaments. 

WPTE Spin: We are losing money.  The other point WPTE often makes in its defense (specifically in its open letter to the industry) is that it sucks at making money:)  The implication is that if they were a monopoly, they would be making huge profits.  This is an argument that plays better in the court of public appeal than in a courtroom.  A company can still lose money and legally be recognized as a monopoly - and still be found guilty of unfair business practices.

This argument will also be used to try to demonstrate the WPTE did not profit by using the players’ image rights in its other businesses.  It is an unsuccessful argument on one front, but may work on another.  The players are going to argue that the WPTE is guilty of price fixing, paying nothing for the use of their names and images, which is far below the fair market value.  Whether WPTE was actually able to convert this unfair practice into a profit is immaterial; they didn’t pay a fair market price.  The players’ complaint also claims “unjust enrichment” damages.  It is assumed that the players will argue that the WPTE unjustly profited by using their images.  The fact the WPTE is a losing business entity will make that very hard for the players to prove.       

WPTE Spin: We created the growth and everyone else reaped the benefits. Again, this is a public appeal argument and is irrelevant to the case.  The WPTE indeed was responsible for much of the growth in poker and many people benefited.  That they did not realize the same profit or profit margin as did other parts of the industry just demonstrates that online poker sites, for example, had a higher profit margin than the television market.  They were operating a different business model and in a different market; they didn’t get the same bang for the buck as others.  That happens all the time.  IBM was responsible for the growth of PCs - and the software companies like Microsoft reaped the benefit.  Hardware was a lower profit margin segment of the industry.  In poker, television is a lower profit margin segment of the industry.    

The other fallacy of the argument is that had WPTE NOT used a player release form that the players deem to be an unfair practice, there would still have been the same growth in poker.  The same dynamic would have occurred; people still would have watched TV, people would have gotten interested in poker, online sites would profit, and players would get endorsement deals.  Other segments of the market would still have profited.  That WPTE was responsible for the growth does not justify their alleged illegal acts - nor were their alleged illegal acts necessary for the growth. 

Bottom Line:  The WPTE has some compelling spin.  They want people to focus on their role of growing the industry and the fact that others have profited by it.  But in the end, that has almost nothing to do with the case at hand.

OK - enough legal obsession for one day.  I’ll devote a future post to the strengths and weaknesses of the players arguments.