WSOP $10k Heads Up NL Holdem event players accuse WSOP of double-raking

Interesting controversy here regarding the $10k Heads Up NL even at the WSOP.

The Heads Up event has always had a problem involving the first round. Unless the number of entrants is an exact power of 2 (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc), then there will end up with some players without an opponent in the first round.

Even though this is randomly selected, the WSOP decided it would be fair to those forced to play the first round (as opposed to those without an opponent, who get a 'bye') to get a 50% refund of their buyin.

So let's take this year's event with 153 players.

The nearest power-of-2 (without going over 153) is 128, so the first round needed to be structured to where the field would get down to 128 when it was done, meaning the elimination of 25 players was needed.

That meant 50 people (2 x 25) would play the first round (and each get $5000 back), while the remaining 103 would get a bye directly to the second round.

But what of the rake? Are they raking the event as a $5k event, or a $10k event?

After all, it's technically a $10k event, meaning the rake is $600 (6%) per person.

However, if many players are actually entering for $5k (since they get the automatic 50% refund), shouldn't it actually be considered a $5k event?

The WSOP does not explicitly state the rules on this, and thus the controversy.

Andy Bloch brought up a good example of this:

Embedded Tweet

So in Bloch's example, where the only option would be to "bye" one player and make the other 254 play, 254 of the 255 entrants would be paying $5k to enter, so why should it be considered a $10k event for rake purposes? At what point is this a $5k event?

Jack Effel (WSOP tournament director) had an odd answer to this.

Embedded Tweet

So this answer implies that, yes, it was double raked. But it isn't 100% clear.

However, some simple math verifies that indeed it was.

The initial prizepool was $1,530,000 for 153 entrants.

Since 50 people played the first round, that meant $250,000 in refunds.

$1,188,200 was paid in prizes (excluding the $5k refunds).

So.... $1,530,000 - $250,000 - $1,188,200 = $91,800

6% of $1,530,000 is also $91,800. So that means each entrant paid $600 rake.

For the 103 players with a bye, that's fine.

However, the 50 who didn't get a bye paid $600 rake on a $5000 entry. Brutal.

Andy Bloch was not amused!

Embedded Tweet

Oh, and ironically this follows a nearly opposite controversy in a different event, where the WSOP claimed in a tweet that there would be double rake, when in reality there wasn't.

It sounds like somebody simply screwed up and should have applied the 6% rake to calculate the prize pool AFTER the refunds were taken out, not before. 6% of $1,280,000 (which is the raw prize pool AFTER refunds) is $76,800, reflecting the proper amount of rake that should have been paid by everybody.

Has this mistake been going on for multiple years now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benford

It sounds like somebody simply screwed up and should have applied the 6% rake to calculate the prize pool AFTER the refunds were taken out, not before. 6% of $1,280,000 (which is the raw prize pool AFTER refunds) is $76,800, reflecting the proper amount of rake that should have been paid by everybody.

Has this been mistake going on for multiple years now?

---

Not sure if it's been going on multiple years. I haven't paid attention. I think it has been, though.

We could probably figure this out by going through other years' results and prize pools.

You're right, though. They should simply rake 6% after the refunds are subtracted.

They might have agreed to do it this way if it were pointed out before the prizes were awarded, but now it's too much of a pain in the ass to adjust after-the-fact, so they're just being stubborn and pretending they did the right thing the whole time.

I don't think this was intentional, but rather just an oversight which happened to benefit CET at the expense of the players. Maybe it was intentional, but I think it was just something they didn't think about until tonight when it was pointed out.

Still, they should make it right. Hopefully they at least fix it in 2017.

Oh, and this is just a minor point, but they're also counting the $5k refund as a "cash" for record-keeping purposes.

I guess they have to process it this way for legal reasons (related to NV gaming), but they really shouldn't report it as a "cash" otherwise.

If someone has 8 cashes, but one of those eight was a loss at the $10k NL Heads Up event where they didn't get a bye, then it should read as 7 cashes.

Otherwise, I could register for that event, place my dog at my seat to play for me, and he would get a guaranteed "cash".