Was the LV Hilton unfair?

I've gotten this story from three different sources, none of whom I have any reason to doubt at all.

In their year-ending $125,000 Championship BJT, the LV Hilton decided to arbitrarily place nine of their "high rollers" directly into the semi-final round while the remainder of the field had to battle through four rounds of typical table-elimination. Apparently one of those folks won the tournament and the $60,000 first prize.

Personally, I am extremely glad that I was not there. This was so stupidly unfair since nobody I've talked to had a clue about this until they'd already arrived. Had the Hilton been transparent about this decision, it wouldn't be so unfair but few knew about it until they'd already arrived. Some folks spent quite a bit in travel expenses and with the winter weather problems raging in some parts of the country, also went through no small amount of hardship and personal risk.

One could say that this wasn't much different than the Ultimate Blackjack Tour sending one person straight to a TV final table through an online BJT, but I beg to differ. Everyone who played the UBT events, whether the "live" tournament or online, knew right from the start what was going on. No smoke-&-mirrors, no hidden tricks, and everyone was eligible to play and win the online Golden Ticket.

THIS STINKS. Even one of those high-rollers said something similar. What does everyone here think about it?

 

showing the love

lefty;

a nice, caring act by the hilton.

 

Mea culpa

Interesting. I (obviously) didn't know that was in there. When I'm wrong, I admit it and I was wrong this time.

I still think it's blatantly unfair, though, and it will impact my decisions regarding future LVH events.

 

Let's get the facts straight before we continue discussion

I agree that advancing a high roller to the semi-final table is just not right and makes for a very uneven playing field. I said so yesterday in a calendar update to this event. However, let's get the story straight.

When a player received the invitation to play this event, a copy of the rules was included in the mailing. Rule #8 (in normal size print - not fine print) stated: "Any $100,000 qualifier tournament participant, who earned a theoretical of 7,500 points or more during the specified tournament trip, will automatically advance to the semi final round to be held on Tuesday, December 14." So if a player registered without reading the rules – and therefore did not know what he/she was getting into – the fault falls on the player, not the Hilton.

Again, I do not like the rule but the Hilton was not guilty of withholding this information.

Depends on the definition used for "day one".

If "day one" means the beginning of solicitation for the December 2010 event:
Then, yes, "Rule 8" (quoted below) was in effect since day one.

If "day one' means the first "finale" event:
This was only the second "TABLE TOURNAMENT SERIES GRAND FINALE". The first was December, 2009. The 2009 event consisted of a combination of different games with Blackjack being played as a Final Table to determine the overall winner. I was invited to this event but did not attend. I do not believe "Rule 8" (quoted below) was part of the 2009 event.

The 2010 event was the first one that had rule #8: "Any $100,000 qualifier tournament participant, who earned a theoretical of 7,500 points or more during the specified tournament trip, will automatically advance to the semi final round to be held on Tuesday, December 14."

 

Agreed and my apologies to anyone from the Hilton staff who sees my original rant.
Remember, I was not one of the invited players so I hadn't seen that rule.

 

Hilton

Okay, so it was in rules. And in one form or another is in rules for other tourneys.

I'm not a fan of "High Rollers" being placed in the semis, but have seen enough tourneys where "they" seem to get unlimited "rebuys"/free re-entry in addition to their originally comped entry. Now in a way "tournaments," in the beginning, were a "reward" for the high rollers. Hilton is only continuing that tradition.

There has been endless discussion about open competitive tourneys, but I think the long and short is that for a casino, it's still a reward for "High Rollers" or an attention/attraction getter for a new or revamped property, except for the few remote and infrequent good open tourneys that do exist.

While a few early AP's saw the opportunity and Prof. Wong exposed it, the rest of us schlepers some how believe it should be fair to us. (Is OK fair?)

And LEFTNUT, don't feel apologetic. The UBT from the get go stated it would have one finalist from the ON LINE competition. From their standpoint,(my opinion) that was to generate interest in their ON LINE entity.

 

Certainly there's no problem with comping the big players into the tournament, even in multiple rounds, as long as they are at the starting gate with everyone else. It's a perk of being a big player. IMHO, it's still wrong - way wrong - to comp people that deeply into a tournament of any kind. I'm surprised that Gaming allows this at all.

 

lefty;

and to think that i was going to buy a rolex watch from a vendor outside the front door of the hilton, when i get there.

 

MMMmmmm

lololololol