Results 1 to 5 of 5

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

  1. #1
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4509
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    31,079
    Blog Entries
    2

    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:


  2. #2
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4509
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    31,079
    Blog Entries
    2
    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.

  3. #3
    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?
    Last edited by Benford; 06-11-2016 at 05:46 AM. Reason: brief bout of dyslexia

  4. #4
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4509
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    31,079
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Benford View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4509
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    31,079
    Blog Entries
    2
    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".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-08-2016, 12:27 PM
  2. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 10-15-2013, 01:28 PM
  3. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-05-2013, 08:05 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-28-2013, 05:51 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-23-2012, 02:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •