Very interesting discussion broke out on Twitter today.
It all started when Allen Kessler (who else?) complained that the Rungood Poker Series in Oklahoma was "forcing" the top 10 winners to buy a cruise they may not want.
https://twitter.com/twt/status/942194768372740097
Kessler also sent me a private message alerting me to the situation, presumably hoping I would back him up on this once I looked into it.
So what was Kessler talking about?
Apparently the Rungood Poker Series had a tournament where $15,000 was taken out of the prize pool in order to pay for a "$1500 cruise package" for the top ten finishers. The cruise would be a Cardplayer Cruise, taking place from May 3-10, 2018.
https://twitter.com/twt/status/942196947066261504
My first concern, of course, was whether this $15,000 removed from the prizepool for these cruises was totally disclosed.
I asked this question on Twitter, and was shown a copy of their flyer. It definitely was clearly disclosed, so no problem there.
The next question: Was the cruise for two really worth $1500?
I asked Kessler this privately, and he conceded that, yes, the prize was worth approximately $1500 on the open market.
So, again, nobody was getting shortchanged.
I told Kessler at that point (privately) that he was making much ado about nothing, but then he raised a great point which I hadn't considered:
If the cruise is worth $1500, and they're taking $1500 out of the prize pool for each one, why make the cruise part of the tournament at all? Why not just award the $1500 cash to each player, and let them decide if they want to spend it on the cruise or not?
While this clearly wasn't a scam, I decided it was kind of unethical. A prize should only be awarded in lieu of cash if there's some benefit to the prize being there instead of cash -- such as it being added for free or at a discount. This one was neither. It looked to me that this was a backdoor way to force the sale of 10 cruises.
In the meantime, Kessler was getting hammered on Twitter by people bashing him for complaining about this, with many not understanding the point he was trying to raise. I came out and defended him, and explained the problem:
https://twitter.com/twt/status/942206771539480576
https://twitter.com/twt/status/942209131758284800
Enter David "ODB" Baker.
Apparently he had some affection for the Rungood Poker Tour. Perhaps it's run by his friends? I don't know, but he got very angry about this whole discussion, and lashed out at both myself and Kessler, referring to both of us as "negative assy washed up whiners". He didn't name either of us in his initial tweet, but it's clear he was directing it at us, especially Kessler:
https://twitter.com/twt/status/942220993531076608
David Baker and I have disliked each other for the past decade, even though there was never any major incident between us. In 2014, David and I had some strong words for each other on Twitter after I was angry at him for treating me disrespectfully at Commerce.
However, since that occurred, I actually once escrowed a bet between a PFA user and David, and we've played together at the WSOP a few times without any further incident. So while David and I still don't particularly care for each other, I'm really not interested in pursuing an ongoing feud with him.
This was actually the first time since that 2014 Twitter fight where David said anything nasty to me, but I chose to ignore it, because it seemed that it was mainly aimed at Kessler, whom it appeared David also personally disliked.
Kessler and David continued to argue back and forth after this, and I stayed out of it.
So back to Rungood.
I had another thought: What if Rungood Poker was receiving these cruises at a discount, and then taking $1500 (full price) out of the pool for each one they were "awarding"? That would essentially be extra undisclosed rake, and would be VERY unethical. I raised this issue:
https://twitter.com/twt/status/942216401195958272
To Rungood's credit, they gave a response:
https://twitter.com/twt/status/942219737379016704
There's no way to verify this, but I think I believe them.
I then decided that this whole thing wasn't quite as nefarious as it originally seemed.
Indeed, the tournament was very player-unfriendly by "awarding" a cruise by taking its retail price out of the prize pool. But between Rungood's excellent reputation in the community (they had lots of defenders on Twitter, including well-respected pros), their willingness to answer questions, and the fact that nothing was hidden or scammy here, I decided that this situation was more likely just an oversight.
They probably thought they would create excitement by making 10 seats to their upcoming cruise part of the prize pool (the cruise is specifically for Rungood), and they also figured they'd get the added benefit of filing up the ship a bit more. I'm guessing that they didn't think about the fact that deducting retail price from the prize pool made it into a situation where only they benefit, and where the player would be better off with the equivalent cash.
So I decided to lay off Rungood, and just made a polite suggestion to perhaps give players the option in the future to trade in the seat for cash at full value:
https://twitter.com/twt/status/942221789207314432
To Rungood's credit, they sent a polite response, thanking both myself and Kessler, even though Kessler had taken a fairly aggressive tone with them:
https://twitter.com/twt/status/942226296460816385
What do you guys think?
Is it ethical to take the full retail value of a prize out of the prizepool, even if the casino or poker tour is also paying full price to acquire it? Or should there always be a cash option in such a case?
I think it's not terrible, but it's definitely player-unfriendly unless they allow the winner to trade it in for full-value cash.
Anyway, I'll give Rungood the benefit of the doubt here, because they have a good reputation, and I doubt they thought of the potential negative appearance of what they were doing. They're known to be a very "rec-friendly" poker tour, and many admire them for bringing new people into the game and giving them a pleasant experience.
And regarding Kessler, though he took a LOT of heat here (both on Twitter and Facebook), he actually had a reasonable point. He didn't communicate it very well, and he came off a bit too aggressive, but he meant well. Kessler actually makes a lot of effort to call out bad behavior on the part of poker rooms, and he usually has a good point when he raises issue about something. You may not like his personality, but he is an honest guy who tries to protect the poker community, so give him credit there.