blonde poker forum

I get e-Mails from a lot of cardrooms, not sure why.

I had this one on Tuesday, from Ladbrokes.....(my enboldenment).

Danish Team Ladbrokes player Peter Eastgate brings home the bacon!

Peter Eastgate a Team Ladbrokes player aged 22 from Odense in Denmark is bringing home the bacon (at least $900,670) after making the final table of the World Series of Poker 2008. Peter succeeded where 6835 players have failed and will return to Las Vegas in November to play on the WSOP final table on the 9th November against eight other players for the WSOP Main event bracelet.

Edward Ihre, MD of Ladbrokes Poker commented: "Its great to see a Ladbrokes Poker player make it through to the final table.  He's done brilliantly and definitely is a pro in the making.  We're proud to call him a Ladbrokes regular - he's qualified through to the televised stages of Poker Million twice (2006 and 2007), so he's no stranger to high stakes pressure."   

Peter is the last of a 120 strong Team Ladbrokes contingent that boasted Jon 'skalie' Kalmar who came fifth in last years event, new signee to the Ladbrokes stable Jonas 'Nebuchad' Danielsson and Jeff Kimber a Ladbrokes sponsored pro who busted out in 120th position cashing $41k after his pocket Ks were cracked by a full house.   

In total 81 of the 120 starters of Team Ladbrokes players made it through to day two.  Eastgate began the penultimate day in 4th place with over nine million chips and finished the day in joint 3rd place with 19,300,000 chips.   

And yesterday, I had this one from PokerStars......

POKERSTARS MILLION DOLLAR MEN DOMINATE
THE 2008 WSOP FINAL TABLE

2008 World Series of Poker, LAS VEGAS – JULY 17, 2008: Six PokerStars players have made it to the final table of the 2008 World Series of Poker (WSOP) Main Event and a shot at the $9,119,517 first prize.  Out of a 6,844-strong starting field, each of the nine final table players will walk away with at least $1 million in prize money when they return to Las Vegas to conclude the Main Event final table on November 9.


The “PokerStars Million Dollar Men” are the six PokerStars players who will take part in this final table battle for their share of the $32.6 million prize money that remains to be won:

Dennis Phillips, 53 from Missouri, USA; has been one of the chip leaders throughout the last few days of the main event. He enters the final table as chip leader with 26,295,000 chips

Ivan Demidov, 27 from Moscow, Russia; has had a phenomenal event with this year’s WSOP being his first major live tournament. He enters the final table in second position with 24,400,000 chips and if he walks away with the title will become the first Russian to win the WSOP Main Event

Peter Eastgate, 22 from Odense, Denmark; a fearless and unpredictable player, Peter ranks as one of the top five online pros in Denmark and enters the final table with 18,375,000 chips

Ylon Schwarz, 38, New York, USA; no stranger to WSOP tournaments and has had 11 cashes in WSOP events since 2005. He enters the final table with 12,525,000 chips

Darus "Dennis_TO" Suharto, 39, Ontario, Canada; paid $80 for a seat in a satellite tournament on PokerStars and progressed through two levels of online tournaments to win his seat in the WSOP.  He enters the final table with 12,520,000 chips

David “Chino” Rheem, 28 from Californian, USA; has had five WSOP cashes in the last three years and has been among the chip leaders throughout the Main Event – entering the final nine with 10,230,000 chips

Aye, sounds similar to the stuff kicking off with PokerNews and their player, Tiffany Michelle. This has probably been posted here before, but I can't see it, so here's the linko: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/07/pokernews-official-statement.htm

Here's Tony G's response to the situation: http://tonyg.pokerworks.com/2008/07/the-integrity-of-poker.html

As someone said on another forum recently: "One thing that winds me up about modern business in general: What has happened to the good old fashioned verbal agreement and hand shake? There is massive lack of loyality and people not sticking to their word nowadays.
 
Maybe iam a bit naive and old fashioned, but if i say i am going to do something and have a verbal agreement/hand shake then i stick to it. Simple!"

I totally agree with this quote, and feel it's a massive shame that people are so disloyal / scheming these days, always out for what's best for them, rather than behaving in an honourable / fair manner.

Here's Tony G's response to the situation: http://tonyg.pokerworks.com/2008/07/the-integrity-of-poker.html

wow, thanks for the link Matt ... thats a real eye opener.

very sad to see in both cases. espically tiffany michelle they put her where she is today and she basically stabed pokernews in the back.

andy black set the precedent, they paid rake when they played the sats presumably, so can do whatever thay want imo

Agreed, if they haven't been sponsored in (or had expenses paid on the understanding they wear a certain rooms gear) they don't owe the room they qualified through anything. However, in the case of Tiffany Michelle, she was bought in by PokerNews / TonyG.

thanks for the tony g link mango.

whatever happened to a players word being his bond?

First we get gold trying to renege on a % deal now we get players whoring themselves to the highest bidder for a few peices of silver. If you do a deal with a site to play the event you stick to it. A few years ago when I played my first wsop ME I didnt even have a contract- it was done with a handshake and a verbal deal, if I had won big I would've stuck to the terms we agreed or not been able to look at myself in the mirror- there are more important things in life than money.

+ me

Wow, interesting stuff. If what Tony G say is true about stars wanting to sponsor her to the tune of million dollars in buyins, she has really dropped the ball on this one. As well as looking totally dishonest.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

  Official Statement in response to Pokernews

Tiffany Michelle Official Statement
Thursday, July 17, 2008

It is with great sadness that I've had to see my accomplishment of finishing 17th in the WSOP Main Event clouded by slanderous accusations and inaccurate information. I have been humbled by the overwhelming support from friends, fans and the media and for their sake as well as mine I feel as if I must respond and bring clarity to the situation.

There is no denying the positive press and exposure I brought Pokernews by wearing their logo and being their representative during the 2008 World Series of Poker main event. After such a successful series, I am greatly dismayed by Pokernews' subsequent actions. No one has ever questioned my integrity before this and I am so distressed that Pokernews is using their powerful public forum to spin such a negative recounting of the facts of what occurred during the final two days of the main event.

As we all know, it is standard practice for players to wear multiple logos during the main event. Pokernews was aware of this, having placed their logos on a number of players with sponsorship deals with other companies. Throughout the World Series I saw several players wear the Pokernews logo alongside the logos of online card rooms such as Pokerstars and T6. This makes it very clear that Pokernews supported this practice as a rule and were not against players wearing their logo in conjunction with the logo of an online card room. Like many other people, I wore multiple logos but in no way diminished the presence of Pokernews in doing so.

Unfortunately in this instance, Pokernews suddenly felt that I was in violation of my backing deal by wearing another logo. I have a written contract that has been reviewed by legal counsel – and it is very clearly a non-exclusive contract meaning that while I was expected to wear the Pokernews logo – I was in no way prevented from wearing any other logo. Furthermore Pokernews did not possess any power to make, advise or negotiate any kind of logo or sponsorship deal that came about via my playing the main event. In light of recent allegations by Pokernews, I have had this contract reviewed again by legal counsel to reconfirm my stance – that I in no way was in violation. It was never even said to me verbally until after the fact that there was an expectation of exclusivity. Even in my previous dealings with Pokernews, as their On-Camera Host I have made a point to never agree to any kind of exclusivity with their company as advised by my talent manager. The first I heard of Pokernews' disapproval to me wearing the UB logo was after I already had it on and was playing on the featured table.

It was unfortunate that while I was working hard to try to win the main event (and in so doing help to further promote Pokernews) I was chastised by Pokernews representatives at all hours of the day and night for wearing a second logo. Despite my repeated requests that they go through my manager and let me just concentrate on playing, they insisted on contacting me directly, greatly upsetting me during the most important weekend of my life. These representatives of Pokernews kept repeatedly telling me they had nothing but 'my best interests at heart' yet I felt bombarded by several parties trying to control my decisions and pressure my actions.

A fact that is known to Pokernews is that I was approached by many online poker sites wanting me to represent them during the last few days of the event; however I chose to work with UltimateBet. Tony G even quotes in his BLOG "I had been working on putting a deal together for Tiff with PokerStars and they had just emailed me. I knew Tiff could become a huge star and I was going to allow her to do a deal that would protect Pokernews also for the main event". The fact that Pokernews was willing to work with PokerStars on a joint deal says it all – the contract was NONEXCLUSIVE.

I am a grown woman and I can decide for myself who I choose to associate myself with. That should not be Tony G's decision. Just because Tony G. backed me in the event (and profited quite nicely by doing so) does not mean that he should be able to control or profit from any logo or sponsorship deal I might make or have any say in how I handle my career. I have been around poker a long time and it's widely known that a backer has no say or cut of a player's sponsorship or logo deal. Again, I had seen several Pokernews sponsored players wearing online card room logos already so clearly the backing deal and the logo deals were separate for every other player wearing Pokernews. Why would it be different just for me?

In the end, I completely stand by my decision and I feel that UltimateBet was the one site that treated me with the respect and dignity deserving of someone in my stressful situation. Throughout the whole event they were insistent on wanting me to just concentrate on my play and were clear that the decision in the end was mine and I should do what I felt was best for me.

It is unfortunate that Pokernews has taken the step of publicly accusing me of breaching their contract when I have been scrupulous in fulfilling my obligations. I have always felt that disputes like this should be handled privately and in this case using such a broad reaching platform to air such a dispute seems really inappropriate to me. Still, I want to say how much I appreciate the opportunities that Pokernews has given me. I am deeply grateful to Jeff Lisandro and Tony G for backing me in the event and giving me this opportunity to play in the most exciting event of my life.
 
from http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=82977901&blogID=415796002

i blame the sites, not the players.
harrahs & espn happily have a nazi vice-like grip on the reporting of the wsop but care not about allowing sales reps for the big sites to approach & poach players minutes before play begins, no doubt often putting the players in a very awkward spot when their focus should be entirely on the days play.
deals/swaps should be watertight; i'd never sh1t on mates or my own sponsors william hill, but outside of that arena, lets be frank, it's hard enough to make a good living in this game.
if certain sites are allowed & willing to keep offering ridiculous piles of dollars to those who run deep then i really do believe you'd be mad to not consider taking what you can get.
barring fpp/mpp freerolls, the site you qualify on was just the vehicle to get you there, what happens once there is up to the individual.

I understood this to mean for future events from the way Tony G wrote it.

A 24 YO poker player with a talent manager? rotflmfao ..Poker is going the way of footie, me thinks.

I don't like Tony G's whine, it's pathetic.."I even had to borrow money to stake her" (he probably borrowed it from those dodgy blokes that he's in league with in T6 poker) ..sure he got screwed over by her, but really..who couldn't see that one coming? She is a 24YO pokerplayer with a talent manager FFS, all the publicity she can get she will take and he should have known this.


In the case of Peter, well..he apparently lost 1 million chips by signing with pokerstars (If you believe the pressreleased chipcounts Laddies and stars posted above) he got what he deserved ;) (Seriously though, I though he had bought in on the Laddies site and therefore does not owe Laddies anything as he didn't qualify on it)

It is for us, because you keep winning everything.

Well done btw.

But yes, poker is getting very ugly at the moment, what with all this and obviously the UB stuff. I cant help but think that at least one of the November 9 are going to bring scandal to the game. Whether that be sponsorship scandal, betting fixing scandal, some sort of past history that they didnt want revealed etc etc etc

I spose its a good job Matusow didnt make it to the FT really

She is an actress I would assume she had one before starting poker.

ah...that explains it...anything we would have seen her in (that I'd admit to to MrsB, that is)?

Look at imdb shows her credits, shes been in a few things.

Yes, but the implication is 'Pokernews has no problems with players having joint sponsorship deals'.

This essentially boils down to whether the deal was exclusive or not. I'd think that it wasn't, considering this:


...which I take to mean that only after the fact did TonyG realise the contract didn't say what he thought it would.

As can be seen from the photos when she busted out, she didn't stop wearing the Pokernews logo, she just wore UB stuff as well.

..hmm..never heard of her..mainly extra work so that would explain why...That explains the Talent manager though...thank F for that, I thought it might be a new trend or something..and one that would be really bad IMO.

The agents at the Main Event peed me off. We (Party) had a qualifier who had worn our colours all week, and on Day 6 he was on feature table with Hellmuth. As he was sitting down at start of the day and unpacking chips, an agent from another site tried to get him to switch patches for 20K! Our player was trying to prepare mentally for the biggest poker session of his life - and some clown starts messing his head up at the table, in front of audience. Unbelievable!
Anyway, our man stuck with us and I'm very pleased to say went on to cash for $96,000.

Poor sod, being offered 20 grand for doing nothing.

Did he get an extra few quid from Party?

Surely if the press can't get decent access the agents should also not be allowed access? Don't get me wrong, I am all for pokerplayers making extra money through sponsorship but if you can't focus properly because of these vultures hanging about you'll never get the max out of it.

You miss the point of my post. He was loyal to us, contracted to us, but an agent is allowed (no one from Harrah's/ESPN stopped him) to walk up to the feature TV table and try an negotiate a deal right there just before cards are dealt. That to me is poor behaviour.

i'm surprised that gerasimov and especially luske need to be staked, woulda thought they would easily get sponsorship

I'm surprised they need staked if they are that successful...just goes to show everybody is playing out of their bankroll these days.

I know, I was just messing about, it is pretty awful that they can be so blatant. I presume the fact that a certain huge poker room sends so many players to the wsop giives them diplomatic immunity in these events when Harrahs are usually rugby tackling anyone without a press pass for walking remotely near the rail.

I just read a press release about your boy in the wsop, he cashed in the ME, won a mini cooper and won a bad beat jackpot all at Party.

And they say UB is rigged.......kiddng ;hide;

btw does anyone need an agent.. im gonna start at the ground up.. my fee 10% pm me if interested

Did Party give added value to the package he'd won? If not, I don't think he actually owes Party anything, and maybe should have accepted the deal.

Winning a satellite is a different bag from being sponsored by that site. Though, I guess the T&C at Party stated that online qualifiers have to wear Party clothing?...

e.g. If Dan Carter started wearing UB when he's on final table of next years WSOP ME, I'd be massively peed off.
If an online qualifier did the same, I'd still be disappointed, but I'd have to agree they'd be mad to turn a big offer down. I guess I'd hope they still wore my room's logo at the same time somehow.

You could get a little ".co.uk" patch and if their new logo said "Full Tilt Poker" you could put it at the end of the last word, sorted!

Score one for David 'Chino' Rheem:

x-posted from 2+2

David "Chino" Rheem, who played poker in South Florida in the early 2000s, beat out 6,835 players to make the final table in the World Series of Poker's main event.
Eight years ago in Broward County, Rheem was convicted of dealing in stolen property and burglary, both felonies, as well as larceny and possession of marijuana, court records show. He was sentenced to four months jail time and 30 months probation.

He also failed to appear in court on a 2003 misdemeanor trespassing charge in Hollywood, according to state criminal records, leading to a court order for his arrest. The warrant for his arrest remains active.

Rheem could not be reached for comment. Neither Rheem's main sponsor, PokerStars.net, nor World Series officials said they knew of Rheem's background.

From Sun Sentinel.com

Yes - covered in T&Cs that he can't wear other colours.

Legally does agreeing to T's & C's constitute a contract?

Or would it not be covered by contract law but something else?

Yep, Ive actually bet on Rheem after finding this out (Not because he is a convict, but because he is a good player) and it woudlnt suprise me if he wins, just so the media can do another 'poker shamed once again' story.

Would have been funny if UB sponsored him

or what will happen?

 This isone of  the problems with this 3 month gap..it gives the media a chance to drag up anything you might have done in the past...and they will because it sells. For some reason poker is being promoted as "A gentleman's game" which is of course the biggest load of bollox that has ever been claimed since O.J. walked free. But now the media have been given three months to drag up anything they can find on the FT players, the FT players stand no chance of remaining (relatively) anonymous where as they used to be able to just stay quiet and dissapear after the FT over the past few years...and people will moan about how "poker gets dragged down again"..Before you know it sites will ask people to sign wavers saying that they have done nothing that "could discredit the sponsor" when they qualify on a certain site when of course they won't owe that site anything. Big load of bollox.

like FT sponsored convicted drug dealer mike matasow?

The money involved has completely changed the dynamics of the game and competition should result for a better deal for the player. 

I was at this year's WSOP and was on the feature table on day 4.  There were agents standing by handing out $15k to players to wear their logo.  I won my seat on Ladbrokes and agreed to wear their logo and rejected the offers.  However, there is value to the online sites in having their logo on TV and I do not think that it is unreasonable to reward the player in some way if they display the online sites logo on the TV table.

Pokerstars have recognised this and lead the way by giving the player a cash bonus each time they feature on the TV table.

Huh? Doubt these T+C's would stand up in a court with the hoohaa surrounding online poker and wsop qualifiers. Personally, i would deffo have taken the 20k assuming he has no close affiliation with party and no sponsorship deals of course.

there is a huge difference between winning a seat in a satellite and being staked/sponsored. Tiffany was only in the event because she was put in by tony g and lisandro so they should imo have been part of any "extras" she got for getting deep. She wouldn't have been in the event but for them putting her in so I reckon its not unreasonable for them to be involved in other sponsorship negotiations. Tony G doesn't want to be associated with UB and has banned all adds from them on his site so you can see why he should be miffed when she appears in their logo next to his.

Lets just say Julian had bought me into the main event and given me william hill shirts to wear in case I got deep and I finalled. Would you all think it ok for me to turn up for the final in a DTD shirt with a william hill cap on? Julian hasnt got me to sign a water tight contract and rob offered me a few quid to get his logo on tv so wheres the harm in it? Anyone who thinks it would be ok doesn't know how things should be done. in the above situation I would speak to Julian and say robs asked me to wear DTD wear and offered 100k for me to do so, as you bought me in thats 50 large a piece so what do you reckon? If Julian says nah I would rather you wear will hills gear then I wouldnt dream of wearing anything else. Tiff should realise who gave her her shot, if she really believes she has done nothing wrong the very least she could do is give a share of any of the extra dosh she got to tony g and lisandro as she wouldnt have been in a position to get the extra dough if they hadnt bought her in.

Greed is a horrible trait

hmmm, good choice Tiff.

top post :)up

Aye, but would you accept $80k to be associated with a cheating poker site - e.g. Ultimate Bet, Absolute Poker - or $15k to be assoicated with one that was legit? Also, she may not have been aware of the UB scandal when signing the deal I guess. I loaded it up the other day and saw there were still quite a lot of people playing there, so I guess not everyone has heard yet :)

easy question - $15k to be associated with one that is legit.  I wouldn't accept any amount of money to be 'associated with a cheating poker site'.  I'd be gobsmacked if she wasn't aware of the scandal.

Aye lol, was just playing Devil's advocate a little :)

However, being in the position with 2 deals on the table- $80k or $15k (just random figures plucked out of the air)- it would certainly make me think. I like to think I'd pick the $15k deal, but without being in that situation, it's hard to say. Obviously I wouldn't think for even an ato-second if I'd been bought into a tourney as in this case. The answer then always has to be "no", or at the very least discuss it with your current sponsors to see what they say.

to me the question is almost like 'how much would you sell your integrity and reputation for'.  Mine's not for sale at any price!

I might take to playing poker in a white suit a la Martin Bell!!!

Okay, how about $5m for the UB/AP gear, or $2k for PartyPoker? lol ;)

To put it another way, you might have to look at these offers in relative terms rather than absolute terms.

For example if a site were offering you 5 or 10 or 20 times your annual salary - wouldn't practicality have to be considered rather than integrity?

I see what you did there. nh ;)

This all comes down to integrity. I see no probs in accepting the money. The fact is that she should have be honest and upfront with Pokernews and Tony G.

of course not - I wouldn't be making myself worse off by turning down the offer - I'd be in exactly the same boat I am now.  I'm not well off, but i'm happy with my life as it is :)

for someone who is playing poker for a living I guess it's a different kettle of fish, but if someone's willing to pay megabucks to sponsor them I'm sure another sponsor will be around the corner.

I am already grt a nice payday in the tourney so why would I need to sell my integrity for a few bits of silver. No ammount of money would make me stiff someone who was a friend and good enough to buy me into the event in the first place. If someone buys you into an event you are their servant for that event and you should do nothing without discussing it with them first. Any proceeds you do get from another source should also be split with your backer as well imo.

bet post ever by Russ - FACT

I would wear my Blonde t-shirt with pride for gratis.

I would take the $5m and let everyone know that I signed up for $5m.  I don't see getting to many offers of $5m and would have difficulty not taking it and being honest as to why I did it.

but would you not feel that that $5m was dirty money?  Would that not bother you? I suppose there is an argument that if you didn't take it someone else would.......

If you didn't take it they might just keep it themselves.

Who deserves it more - a fine upstanding member of the poker community such as yourself or the dirty, disreputable, lowdown poker site trying to buy your integrity?

The fact that they're trying to buy your integrity clearly shows that they don't deserve such riches and it would be your moral duty to deprive them of it so that you could put the money to good use.

I would take 5mill as well...if it meant only wearing it for the FT of the WSOP...in every interview after the WSOP I would mention that they paid me 5mill and are a bunch of cheating w*nks and people shouldn't play there... ..take 5mill and ruin them :)

To all you who say you would'nt don a few logos cos you have a lot more integrity than that, you cant really say that unless you have been in that situation.

BTW if it was a m8, no way would i be wearing any logo's, whether it be the first day or the final table.
I would'nt think twice about taking the money from another site if i satted into the event say for example with VC, after all they have'nt paid me in. Like Roy Keane say's players have gotta look after themselves.

PS Suffolk your guy must have been either minted or high on weed to say no to the 20k.

Perfect Post IMO Very well said, you should start a diary  ;)

Tiffany's response is a disgrace IMO. Basically she has had her lawyers crawl all over the small print to confirm she did nothing illegal to be in breach of contract. That may well be the case, but Tony G's point is a moral one, not a legal one. She is way out of order to fck him over like that.

She didnt put up a single cent of her entry, so to turn her back on the person that put her in that position is a disgrace. Glad she didnt final.

I kind of wish she did final, so the story would continue ... if we had until November to see what happens, it would make a really interesting story.

i disagree


the less attention ppokerwhores get the better.


rip brandi

I've thought of another scenario:

If there is a site that you genuinly play on all the time and you think they offer the best poker on the web - they're the best (hypothetically we could call them 'SuperPoker')

And there is another site that you think is really dodgy, offers rubbish structures and you don't entirely trust them to be fair (hypothetically we could call them Abso 'ScummyPoker')


A magazine freeroll gives you the chance to win a seat in the Main Event from 'ScummyPoker' without having to make a deposit.
You enter, you win the seat, they send you to Vegas and you make it to the Final Table.


Now 'SuperPoker' offers you some cash to wear their stuff at the Final Table instead of 'ScummyPokers' stuff.

The amount is irrelevant
- do you promote the site that you don't like but who sent you there?
- or do you promote the site you think is the best, but had no influence on you being there to start with?

listen the ammounts involved are quite commonly known- poker royalty the agents offer deals usually about the 100-200k mark for making the final table and stepping up to 1million to the winner (paid in cash not sponsorship). This is to wear full tilt logos. If in the above scenario absolute came to me and offered 5 milliion to wear their logo it doesnt matter how much of a cheating site they are its 5 million. What I would do is say to Julian (again we are going from the above scenario where a friend had backed me) listen mate its 2.5 million each- what do you think? Again if Julian had said no then I would accept his decision and turn the offer down. Can any of you put a price on a mate? I certainly dont think its worth losing mates for any ammount of money. To accept the 5 million and say stuff you julian you are only in for half of anything I win is totally taking the piss. no matter how much she dresses it up tiffany has been very foolish here and nothing but a greedy cow. I am so happy so she got her few pieces of silver and has managed to fk herself in the process. She better hope she never has a bad run as she wont find many friends willing to help her out.

I've got another scenario. Play for you. And play for you alone.

All this talk of logos, contracts, agents, back-stabbing and politics is far removed from the reason I play the game, and the reason I love the game. When I play I enjoy the Mantis Vs the field feeling. Mantis+Stars+UB+TonyG doesn't have the same appeal to me anyway. I was sponsored once in The Midlands Masters and hated every second of it. Final tabled as well and when I paid the guy it wounded me. I would really love to hit the FT of the ME not wearing any logos. I know that sponsorship has a lot advantages for a lot of people, but my god what a mess of a feeding frenzy. People are sellings bits of themselves left right and centre. As talented as you may be in poker the talent of integrity in life is much more difficult to achieve. So I agree with Ariston and his views on this topic. Being an honourable gentleman/lady is massively important and something every one of us can realistically achieve.

I would say pimping and whoring yourself to the highest bidder isn't the only way to go and playing purely for yourself is a really appealing proposition for some. A bit confused by the ethics of some pimps though. Wearing a Full Tilt logo at the FT when you have had no connection with them up until then but not wearing UB logos because you have morals is WTF imo.

fair point- its a question of being a "clean" media whore (ie stars or tilt) or a dirty media whore (absolute/ub). There is a big difference in my eyes as one of the sites has been proved to be run by a firm of cheating bastards and the other sites are market leaders.

I am not adverse to media whoring/staking etc as anyone on here knows- I just think this is a completely different scenario as tiffany was staked into this tourney by two friends and colleagues. This makes it wrong imo to turn them over and try to look after yourself. If you are backed you are a partnership and they should have been involved in other logo discussions and should certainly have been entitled to their share of the extra booty.

Tiffany in my eyes is no different to Jamie Gold and his "what 50%?" argument.

There's a lot of preaching going on on this thread and I'm sure everyone is whiter than white of course but if someone comes up to u and says here's 20k, pop this little thing on ur t shirt and have a nice day gl, most people are going to take it unless they are legally bound not to.

While I'm not defending Tiffany Michelle's actions, these guys are all grown ups and willing to fling about thousands of dollars without any signed agreements. Not like they are the first guys in poker to get screwed over...they should know better too.

The thing is though if someone asks you to wear a logo at the FT, just before the FT, doesn't that make you a cheating bastard? Why are they asking you to wear it? Because every Tom, Dick and Harry tuning in at home sees you at the FT with logo and makes an association. But there is no association. Or at least there wasn't until 5 mins ago. You could say that you are playing your part in a con really.

Posted by: GreekStein

What if that little thing was a badge saying "Man Love Rules OK!"

I'm probably the least gay person you've ever not met but for 20k I'll wear any logo you want! do your worst lol

What if Full Tilt wanted you to do a photoshoot where you had to put Mike Matusow's dick in your mouth for £1m? Would you do that?

I think I would. I mean when I was 18 I wouldn't, no way!! But, well, I'm 35 now, and that sort of deal sounds more appealing. I mean how bad could it be. In fact get the whole Full Tilt team down, Ivey, Lindgren...at £1m a pop I'd make a damn good job of it as well. Even spending 10% on mouthwash and counselling still returns a damn good profit.

Anyways the point is that it's difficult to judge what you'd do for money and therefore probably impossible to judge other people's decisions in this area. If someone breaks their word for money that's who they are. But it's not who I want to be.

think this debate has definately taken a surreal turn.

you cant put a price on integrity or honour for me. Anyone who doesn't follow a certain code in poker should be treated with the contempt they deserve. How many of you would want to be involved in a % swap with tiffany? How many of you would want anything to do with her now?

Hahahahahah

*sends email to Full Tilt suggesting adventurous marketing campaign with a cost of £1m*

BTW the suffolk party 20k thing and the pokernews/tiffany scandal are pretty different imo.

Ones a fistpump shove, the others a clear bet/fold.

Tiffanys the fistpump, right?

He should have sent Party an email about it, then nothing would have happened for two weeks.

Now THAT'S integrity.

Completely depends on the agreement with scummypoker. If their deal commits you to wear their gear then not sure what choice you have.
If the only down side of not doing so was being banned from their site then ship the super poker cash.

It comes down to loyalty and in this case i wouldnt feel particularly loyal to scummy poker or being out of order to a friend.

Aye, of course. I was talking about a situation where you've won a satellite thru a site - e.g. like the PartyPoker qualifier mentioned earlier in this thread.

If anyone puts you in to a tourney, mate or otherwise, you don't stitch them up by agreeing another deal behind their back - whether it be for $50, $5k or $50m.

Dont Lie......you'd do it for a packet of Nuts

At the risk of being simple, have I got this right.

Tiffany Michelle is employed by, and works for, Poker News.

But her buyin is paid for by Tony G ( and partner/s ).  He owns a piece of her action.

When she gets to the final 3 tables she starts wearing UB logos ( although keeping her PokerNews logos as well )

UB have signed her up.  Presumably to wear their logo in the ME, and then they are going to sponsor her into other events in the future.

PokerNews are ticked off coz she's gone behind their backs.

Tony G is ticked off for the same.  He was in the middle of negotiating a deal between TM, PokerNews, and 'Stars.

Presumably he was going to be paid for this, if it came off.   Obviously he gets nothing out of the UB deal.

What I don't get is if TM is a PokerNews player, how come they didn't put her into the ME.  If they didn't pay to get her there, do they deserve consideration ?

If Tony G paid for her to enter, then he is due a % on her.   Now the deal with UB must be partly for the ME, and partly for the future events. IMO I agree with TM ( and therefore disagree with many of the previous posts here ) in as much as ; She doesn't pay Tony G for wearing a PokerNews logo.  It's her decision, not Tony's about any other logo she wants to wear.  Now she owes Tony his % of the extra bunce she has earned whilst playing. ( similarly with the $5 mil proposition above - I'd tell him I was accepting the $5 mil, and give over the $2.5 as his share, not ask his permission to make us both millionaires. )

I see Tony G as getting upset more because he's not getting the extra $$$ himself by TM taking up the deal that suits him best.

If PokerNews didn't put her in the tourney, surely they're getting free advertising anyway.

Now I agree the deal TM accepted was stupid, I mean, being associated with UB is definitely dumb, but I'm falling short in exactly who has what piece of her.  Coz I know which piece I'd have, given the option  ;angel;

pokernews is owned by tony g (so pokernews did in effect put her in as part of the backing was that she was to wear pokernews apparel).

TM isnt offering tony g or pokernews any % of the extra bunce she got paid by UB. Pokernews wont take advertising or anything from UB after the recent scandals on a moral stance. For TM to then put the ub logo next to the pokernews logo hass pissed tony g off. For tony to say he was glad she got knocked out when he is getting a large % of her winnings shows just how pissed off he is.

If TM had gone to tony and said look UB have offered me $x to wear their logo and obviously that will be split with you as well as you own x% of me for this event then the discussion may have been different. Tony is a nice guy and very astute businessman away from the table and he wouldve said stars/tilt or whoever would match that deal (no way could UB have outbid stars or FT) and he would have no doubt brokered a better deal for TM and looked after the interest of both parties. Who is gonna be able to do a better deal for a young naive (read stupid) girl having the tournament of her life? In one corner we have one of the biggest names in poker with more contacts than you can imagine, in the other corner we have a talent agent (not a poker agent) with very few contacts who has steered his/her client to the only site out there who have been confirmed as cheats.

absolute owners also stole money. what do you think about people accepting sponsorship deals from them?

She is a fool with no honour or dignity it's a simple as that imo.

absolute and UB are in effect the same company (one is just a skin of the other I think)

you mean a greedy fool surely.

all poker players go through sticky patches. When you are in a rut you need friends to stand by you- I wonder how many TM will have if she ever runs bad and goes low on funds. I am sure there will be a huge queue waiting to stake her and I bet UB stand by her when she isnt on TV so much. She cashed for 500k which she gets a 3rd of as part of her staking agreement (so 166k), add the couple of hundred grand she got from UB and take off the taxes and she will be left with around the £100k mark- that will go a long way in the poker world.

Lets take an extreme example like Matasow- most people know about his past indescretions but would you still trust him to honour a deal and not turn you over if you staked him? He has been staked for many tournaments and won his backers lots of money and even an ex con has honour and integrity still intact as he would never turn over someone on a poker deal. To say an ex con is more trustworthy than a 24yr old girl at the start of her career is a little harsh but it should show how tricky it is going to be for her now in the poker world. Its took Jamie Gold a couple of years to be accepted after he tried to screw someone over and he won the thing- I fear TM will disappear off the radar completely in the next 12 months whereas she could've been a huge star with the right person helping her. This time next year it will be Tiffany who?

They are owned by the same company Tikworo Enterprises, but they are not skins of each other. The have entirely seperate player databases and there is no crossover.

Also if im not mistaken Tikworo were not the owners of UB when the original scandal hit.

that's right...though how they didn't find out during their due diligence is a bit of a surprise.

thought they merged a while back or one bought the other out. if not then I take back the only chating site comment as there have been two.

At the time they were two different companies..but it's the same one now.

makes it easier for us all if any site found cheating joins with these two in future. Meanes we all know where to avoid and wont get caught out.

that made me lol...you're not wrong.

How come this has not hit the worldwide press in a major way, These sites still have high traffic and potentally people ate being ripped off.

Am i right in thinking then that absolute and ultimate both got caught cheating so they then decided lets join together and create the Ultimate Cheating site ? and have been allowed to continue as a company

I know..I am stunned at how even the poker press hasn't jumped on this and destroyed UB.

you cant regulate companies that are based in the cayman islands etc and are internet based. The stupid port rugulations act that made online gamblind illegal has also made sure it cant be regulated. The yanks fcked us twice in effect.

I have a feeling there will be a 60 minutes type program on this in the run up to the wsop final table which really will effect not only their sites but all others ( no smoke without fire and the trust of all sites will be destroyed for the recreational player= easy wages gone).

Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder how many players that play on UB now realise about this scandal we could all go on and flood all the games with the 2+2 investigation LOL

Yeah apparently 60 minutes has interviewed several 2+2 people I hope the backlash isn't too bad for the other sites but have a feeling it will be an "all internet poker is evil" sort of thing

more likely to be all internet poker is bent and cant be trusted

Surely there could be a well balanced  take on internet poker published / aired , given the journos that lay the game one would think someone would have taken the mantle.

That might be the best sarcy post you've ever made Billy...genius mate!

Thanks for that.  It makes more sense now.

Sod the talent agent, you'd have thought TM has been around the block enough to know that A) UB are cheats B) 'Stars do the best deals.

But like she said.  It was her choice.  One she will regret hugely.

The idea that someone who buys a share in a player in a tournament should get a pro rata share of any sponsorship money earned is beyond ridiculous.

No it isn't. If you "earn" money from a tournament you have but a % share in, then you have but a % share of that money. That is not beyond ridiculous. Open to interpretation maybe, but not beyond ridiculous. The government earning a % of tips given to dealers is an example of something that is beyond ridiculous.

I am not saying they should get a % of future sponsorship but imo If someone says heres a million quid to wear this logo at the final table ( a final table of a competition I wouldn't have been playing if you hadn't bought me in) I would give you half of that as well as half my winnings.

Some years back I had a percentage of Joe Grech when he was runner up in the world pot limit in Dublin.  Before the final started, I spoke to lots of folks about giving Joe a deal to wear their shirt.  Not once did I think that I was entitled to anything from that deal. What I was trying to do was help him as much as I could. After all I was profiting from his success in the event.  It does cement one thought in that you should only do deals with friends who you are happy to see succeed.

If you were to go down the line of having an interest in sponsorship deals just because someone put you into the event then where would it end...Your teacher gets a percentage of your future earnings.  Your parents and even the guy who drove you to the event.....sorry pushed it a bit to far

Im not in a position to be the staker I have the one being staked in these events. Although it has never actually been said or spoke about before if a friend had put me in and I then got a bonus bung I would split that with my friend as well as they were kind enough to put me in. If someone had bought 5%/ 10% or something that would be different but if someone had put up the whole buyin I would think they are entitled to a share of the extra booty as well. Maybe I believe in friendship more than money though.

Hi Ariston,

I understand and applaud your position.  However your backer cannot just expect a return without having it agreed earlier.  To be honest this is a new area for everyone. I can see a time when their will be a standard contract for sites and promoters when they sponsor players. When we do it on a personal level it is different. I wonder how Neil Channing feels about this. Does he factor in a return on sponsorship deals when he backs players.  If someone is backing a player and acting as his or her manager then they can expect different returns.  What happens if you swap a percentage with someone. If they get the opportunity during the event to wear a shirt for a site should you get a return on that....I think not. 

I would class that as different tbh dennis. If I swapped 10% with you or even sold you 10% of me at spot or something then I wouldnt say you were entitled to a % of any extra bunce I got as I was already playing the event. If however you stuck me in as I wasnt going to be playing I would class any extra bunce into the deal because without you I wouldnt have been in a position to get that extra bunce. Maybe its a moral thing but I think thats the stance I would take. I am sure Neils players would return a share of any extra bunce they got and I am certain Neil is astute enough to have already mentioned this to his players.

Going back to the 'would you wear UB gear for a deal?' question - if UB are willing to offer you £200,000 (arbitrary figure), isn't it likely that someone else (e.g. PokerStars or FullTilt) would be willing to offer you something close to that, if not the same amount?

Sure the integrity question isn't take the dirty money or nothing, it's take the dirty money or take virtually the same elsewhere? 

You are sitting on £32k during Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. You use your last lifeline to phone a friend cos you don't have a clue. He knows the answer and you win another 32k. There's nothing in writing, no contract, no verbal agreement etc....but not giving the guy who helped you anything still makes you a dog imo.

think most poker players would give the mate who helped them a drink out of any extra money they won. Having said that if my mate got me to 64 and I was only half sure on the next answer i would be guessing as I am winning 61k and only losing 32k so its not certain i would end up with any extra dough anyway ;)

i had a similar situation in the ept final in ireland i was put in by william hill in a round about way without ant contractual obligations, pokerstars wanted me to wear their logo as i was sat next to roland in his full tilt gear............

they offered me a seat in copenhagen, a seat dortmund, a seat in the grand final in monte carlo..............................worth20,000 euro ,plus travel flights  etc worth 4000 euro

i rang hills up and talked them through the situation and they werent best pleased so i said can you do something for the coverage you will get on the final table , they said no at first , then said we will be able to get you one seat somewhere (turned out to b copenhagen were i busted 4 tables out() worth 5000euro no expenses.

i turned the pokerstars dealdown for a few reasons
1. ididnt want to bok myself ............stupid in the extreme
2,  didnt want to let hills down....................i felt obligatd to wear their colours even though i didnt need to cos thy had pulled a few favours to get me in the tourney , i had won a satellite (freeroll)for the cpc and because my wife was ill we couldnt go , so they canx it and entered me for this last minute as one of their players dropped out...........



everybody thought i was a clown for turning down pokerstars deal and in hindsight they were right , but for some reason i cudnt do it, wat a plumb