![\"\"](\"http://old.pokerati.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/poker-anon.jpg\")
OP-ED
Daniel Negreanu is the E.F. Hutton of poker. He relishes the role. He knows that if in the throes of passion he utters, “Do it. Do it. Do it just like that. Make sure there is a 150-300 level!†that — no matter whether he ends the night in warm, introspective afterglow –the tournament he plays the next day will have a 150-300 level. It’s the perk of being the most outspoken of the best poker players in the world. You’re allowed to open your mouth, makes billionaires dance, and change the world in which you live on a whim. It would be something you could respect about Kid Poker, if he only knew when to keep his mouth shut.
There was a time when world markets turned on whether Alan Greenspan had a good breakfast. The same is true of Negreanu. With a mere sneer, he can change the structure of a tournament. With a grumble in his tummy, he can get tofu served in the casino kitchen. With a wink and a smile, he can create a television show. His words—almost always—are game changers.
Make no mistake: most of the mainstream poker media exists because of and at the will of the online poker companies. If not for direct or indirect funding from the likes of Full Tilt and PokerStars, most poker magazines and websites you read regularly would go under in six months or less. It’s not a matter of news; it’s a matter of how they create revenue to stay afloat.
Ninety percent of time, the Negreanu-affected changes make the poker world better. There is no denying the man’s intelligence, skill, or innovative acumen. The problem is, Negreanu doesn’t respect his power. He wields it like a drunk with a gun. Most of the time he knows to keep it in his pants. Ten percent of the time, he waves it around the bar threatening to shoot whomever he’s imagined has upset his sense of order or eaten his veggie burger.
The problem with Negreanu being right most of the time is that people are afraid to tell him when he’s wrong. Or, perhaps, it’s that he’s grown so used to being right that he can’t ever imagine he might be at least a little incorrect. It’s hubris mixed with success that fuels his never-ending quest to make everything as he likes it.
And so it came that Kid Poker put a gun to the head of the poker media and pulled the trigger. It didn’t matter to him that he hadn’t thought the issue through. It didn’t matter to him that he was tarnishing his reputation with the people who worked very hard to keep him famous. It only mattered that his chip count was wrong and that made him angry, because he has fans that want to know. It is, as always, for the fans, isn’t it?
On his blog, Negreanu wrote, “Seriously if ALL [PokerNews] had were just chip counts with zero hand updates, but the chip counts were on point, it would be better than the current coverage by a mile.â€
The business of reporting on poker isn’t rocket science. It’s half effort, half art, neither half of which is respected by most of the people who play the game or read about it. It’s a new profession built on respect for such greats as Andy Glazer and Nolan Dalla. It has its good writers, and it has it’s bad ones, but it’s a craft for which few people have shown a real talent, and those people are often rewarded with just enough work to put food on the table. This is both because so many people want to do the job, and because media providers know they can get away with paying as little as possible as a result. Like any venture, people produce poker reporting for profit, and if there is no profit, it’s unlikely to get done.
Make no mistake: most of the mainstream poker media exists because of and at the will of the online poker companies. If not for the direct or indirect funding of companies like Full Tilt and PokerStars, most of the poker magazines and websites you read would go under in six months or less. The people who believe they are reading objective reporting might be amused to learn that some magazines are completely (and silently) funded by single online poker companies. Other magazines sell cover stories as part of ad buys. It’s not a matter of news. It’s a matter of how the magazines can create “nontraditional†revenue to stay afloat.
PokerNews—the official provider of World Series of Poker reports—is no different. It exists at the will of online poker companies. A majority of the company’s income comes from online poker affiliate revenue. Its tournament reporting arm is a loss leader, with the emphasis on loss. But for a timely bailout by an online poker company, PokerNews’ live tournament reporting section would have been dissolved more than a year ago.
PokerNews has the exclusive contract to report on the WSOP. It takes great pains to guard that exclusivity. Media restrictions on non-PokerNews reporters are strict. Other companies are granted—in most cases—no more than three media credentials. Photography is closely monitored and non-PokerNews photographers have restricted access to the action. Writers who are not part of the PokerNews cabal are restricted from posting timely information. Live updates of the action are verboten. Why? Because it is possible that another company could come in and do the job better. To allow anyone to come in and report would threaten PokerNews’ reputation. It would prove beyond a doubt that the job could be done better. PokerNews’ ownership—like the first exclusive provider, CardPlayer magazine—does everything it can to make sure it has complete control over timely information. Why? Because PokerNews saw what happened to CardPlayer after its disastrous effort in 2006. It was replaced, and rightly so.
This is where Daniel Negreanu is right. PokerNews’ efforts in the early part of the 2010 WSOP were not what they should’ve been. This is, however, not the fault of the reporters and editors on the ground. They work long, tireless days and produce the best possible reports they can under the circumstances. If something is wrong or incomplete, it’s not because they are lazy or incompetent. It’s because PokerNews has chosen to benefit from its contract with the WSOP while spending as little money as possible to get the job done. What’s more, the WSOP is letting PokerNews get away with it.
The people in the field—the writers, field reporters, editors, et al—know how PokerNews should be staffed. To properly cover the WSOP requires a dedicated team of chip counters who never have to look at a card, a dedicated team of field reporters and writers who only have to count stacks as a function of reporting the hands, and a team of editors overlooking it all to make sure it’s comprehensive and correct. None of the above would be an innovation. It’s been done before. It simply requires the will to spend the money. PokerNews currently refuses to do that. It’s field reporters and bloggers are working so hard on half the job, they can’t fully do the other half. Why? It’s impossible.
To fully fund a respectable operation would force PokerNews to cut into its profit, or the WSOP to spend money on a company willing to put forth the requisite effort to cover the event as it should be covered. Instead, the whole of the coverage is forced on a team of competent reporters and writers that are so stretched and dealing with a poorly-funded operation that they can’t do their jobs as well as they could be done. For this, the grunts in the field at PokerNews have received a classic Negreanu public rubdown. It’s enough that most of the people who give their all to the job should want to walk away with their middle finger held high in the air.
They don’t, however, because they both need the job and they love the game. They stick around because they rightly believe they are the best for the job. Given the proper funding and a fair system, they could go it on their own and do the job better than they could under the PokerNews reign.
Is there a solution? Well, there are many. The WSOP could open the floor to any company that could do a better job or PokerNews could actually fund its operation as it should be funded. Will either happen? It’s unlikely, but it’s more likely if people like Negreanu actually cast the blame where it belongs.
See, that’s the thing.
Negreanu is right.
The reporting at PokerNewss should be a lot better, but it won’t be until the WSOP forces the ownership of PokerNews to honor its contract, and until PokerNews’ ownership realizes that its lack of proper funding is the root of its embarrassment. If Negreanu were to say this, it might lead to some important change. Instead, he suggests PokerNews simply report chip counts, a not-so-tacit suggestion that the reporters are incapable of doing their jobs.
Will Negreanu take up this cause? That remains to be seen. It may be he’s offering his opinion without realizing he could make a difference if only he focused on the right thing.
In the meantime, Daniel Negreanu owes the poker media an apology. PokerNews owes its readers an apology. The WSOP owes its fans an apology. The problem is not with the reporting. The problem is a symptom of a systemic failure fueled by greed and ignorance that won’t be solved until somebody important stands up and forces the change.
Mr. Negreanu, I kindly submit that you could make the difference.
The writer of these opinions is an accomplished player and respected member of the poker industry who has asked to remain unnamed so as not to jeopardize current relationships and future opportunities with online poker sites and poker media outlets.