Who was the biggest winner at the WSOP?

The answer to this one should be easy.

Without knowing a thing about it except who runs it, my answer is Harrah's Entertainment.

Harrah's Entertainment (which has recently changed it's name to Caesar's Entertainment) is a good answer, I'd be more specific and say the Rio.

Sure, it's one and the same - but not for long. Harrah's is trying to sell the Rio. When it does, the WSOP will move, probably to Caesar's. But the Rio will continue to get the benefit from the broadcasts, until some time after the broadcasts begin to originate from the new location.

Yes. Probably The Rio benefits. There is some "halo effect"... people who liked The Rio during a major poker event will probably opt for the Rio at some other time. They are familiar with it, things went well... its "their" place in Vegas at least for a while. Gamblers are a fickle lot and tastes and loyalties do change, but right now the Rio basks in the glory of it all.

I'm sure rooms at the Borgata in Atlantic City were very popular just after the history making roll. The name was on everyone's tongue. Suddenly a "trip to Atlantic City" became "a trip to the Borgata". Oh sure, it was just a fluke but Marketing Departments love such things. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that even non-craps players took rooms at the Borgata in high numbers after the event made the headlines.

So yes. The Rio benefited. Just as The Venetian benefited from holding, of all things, a hard paddle Table Tennis championship. Such a niche event turned out well.

Sponsorship of events or hosting the event always helps simply because those advertising banners in the background work and when the news crews have light days, they do backgrounder interviews and those interviews always feature the casino's logo and main entrance signage very prominently.

Not correct so far, everybody. Hint: Harrah's gets 9% vig, but who charges three times that much--and collects it, for the most part?

Quote: mkl654321

Not correct so far, everybody. Hint: Harrah's gets 9% vig, but who charges three times that much--and collects it, for the most part?

Excellent!!! You gave this 'hint' right after I started my peparate IRS gambling taxes thread...

The winner, being a resident of Canada should be able to claim the taxes back as I understand how the cross border tax agreement works. As he's from QC though, I'm not so sure as the rules for Quebec Tax are different from the rest of the country.

So, who won more than the winning person, himself?

While I understand the rationale behind saying that the TaxMan won the most, the TaxMan had nothing to lose, and didn't make any gambles.


Everyone else: players, player sponsors, Harrahs, ESPN, Jack Links, other advertisers, etc., ALL gambled on the WSOP. So if anyone 'won' anything, it wasn't the TaxMan...

Quote: DJTeddyBear

While I understand the rationale behind saying that the TaxMan won the most, the TaxMan had nothing to lose, and didn't make any gambles.


Everyone else: players, player sponsors, Harrahs, ESPN, Jack Links, other advertisers, etc., ALL gambled on the WSOP. So if anyone 'won' anything, it wasn't the TaxMan...

You can "win" without risking a single penny. Free tournaments, free drawings, free slot play...

Quote: mkl654321

You can "win" without risking a single penny. Free tournaments, free drawings, free slot play...

I think you're grasping at straws here.

Free tourneys, drawings, etc, are designed to spark the consumer's interest in the product. They are an advertising tool. The consumer is still putting up a "buy-in." whether it's time, or an email address and dealing with the resulting spam, the consumer is still gambling.

You can't apply that sort of thinking to the TaxMan demanding his slice off the top without a competitor whom it was in competition to win these tax dollars - unless you count "creative accounting" as competition.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I think you're grasping at straws here.

Free tourneys, drawings, etc, are designed to spark the consumer's interest in the product. They are an advertising tool. The consumer is still putting up a "buy-in." whether it's time, or an email address and dealing with the resulting spam, the consumer is still gambling.

You can't apply that sort of thinking to the TaxMan demanding his slice off the top without a competitor whom it was in competition to win these tax dollars - unless you count "creative accounting" as competition.

Let's not split hairs. COMPETITION isn't at all necessary to "win" anything. The IRS clearly "wins" millions of dollars from the WSOP--I refuse to say that the converse is true, which would be that they "earn" it.