Casino St.gallen Pokerturnier

Convenient search for places to gambl in the city of St. Casinos and slot machines near you. How to get to the nearest gambling clubs. Casino rentals torontocasino nights rentals in toronto we are proud to supply our casino night rentals to locations all over and around the greater toronto area whether you need 1 table, or 50 tables, we have the. Casino st.gallen pokerturnier Attractions – pa hotels poconos resort chateau resort attractions – the chateau resort conference. Swiss Casinos St. Sankt Jakob-Strasse 55, 9000 Saint Gallen, Switzerland. Tel: +0 Visit Web-site ». Gallen, the Grand Casino St. Gallen is one of the city's top nightspots. As a medium-sized casino, it offers almost 200 electronic gaming machines, and a few table games featuring roulette, blackjack, poker and craps. In order to enter the casino, patrons must be at least 18 years of age with a valid ID. Smart casual attire is also.

When values change

Re-negotiating Consideration

Tereza Šimanovská

1. Introduction

Throughout history, a number of common law doctrines have developed to determine whether a contract was validly concluded and whether it is enforceable in law. One such doctrine is the need for a contract to be supported by consideration.

The basic idea behind the doctrine of consideration is reciprocity – i.e. a person should not be allowed to enforce another's promise unless he or she has given or promised to give something in exchange for that promise.¹ In essence, consideration is the 'value' or 'price' that one contributes towards a bargain.

Consideration must also be provided when modifying a contract. This rule of the orthodox doctrine of consideration has recently undergone a very significant change and it may have cast doubt on the future of consideration itself. The issue concerns the nature of consideration upon the variation or re-negotiation of a contract and, more specifically, when one party is promised additional money to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation.

2. Re-negotiation of a contract – Need for fresh consideration

Until recently it was well-established that performance of a pre-existing contractual duty owed to the other contractual party could not amount to good consideration. In plain words, when someone merely performs what he was already bound to do, such performance is not good consideration to enforce a promise of extra money. He did not provide anything additional – he did not provide any consideration for the extra money paid by the other party. It can be said that the promisee does 'the same for more'.²

In reality, however, contractual renegotiations are commonplace in the daily commercial practice of almost all industries: whilst performing a previously-concluded contract, circumstances may arise which force the parties to renegotiate their agreement and alter the original price. Indeed, it seems rather unfair to deny the parties such a possibility.

When parties decide to modify a contract they should bear in mind that, just as consideration was necessary to create the original contract, 'fresh' consideration is required to effect a valid modification of that original contract. There are two ways to ensure that a promise for extra money is enforceable. Either one party does something 'more' than was required by the original agreement or that original agreement is discharged by both parties and a new agreement concluded.³ Traditionally, the courts have been unwilling to imply that an original agreement was 'torn up' and a new one concluded – this is a conclusion they are willing to reach only where the evidence clearly supports such a finding. Regardless of how artificial these two ways may appear, if the parties wish to alter the price stipulated in the original contract, they should ensure there is fresh consideration for the promise of such additional money.

3. Traditional doctrine of Stilk v Myrick

This aspect of the consideration doctrine originates from the case of Stilk v Myrick Bootloader slot count not found moto g5 g6. .⁴ Myrick was a captain on a ship who employed Stilk to work on a Baltic Sea voyage. During the voyage two members of the crew deserted and the master promised that the remaining sailors could share the deserters' wages amongst themselves if they sailed the ship back home. Upon arrival at the dock, the master refused to honour that promise and Stilk sued for the sum. His claim failed.

When explaining the grounds upon which the judgment was decided, it must be emphasised that this case was published in two separate law reports, both of which offered different ratios. Nevertheless, Campbell's report has generally been considered correct, and its ratio accepted as the precedent governing this area of law.⁵ The main reason it gives for the failure of Stilk's claim is that the agreement lacked consideration. The sailors were not entitled to the additional payment because they merely did what they were obliged to do by virtue of their original contract. They provided no new consideration for the captain's promise of extra money.

The other source, the Espinasse report, says that the main reason for the result was public policy. It was undesirable that it should be open to the sailors in the future to exercise improper pressure on their master to increase their wages. This report makes no reference to the fact that lack of consideration would bar the claim, and instead focuses on the need to avoid what would in modern law be referred to as economic duress.⁶ Economic duress exists when one party illegitimately abuses his or her superior economic power to coerce the other party into agreeing to a particular set of terms.⁷ A contract entered into under economic duress is voidable and may be set aside by the court.⁸

In any case, it has always been the first report that was applied. The rule about the existing duty laid by the Campbell report was followed many times afterwards,⁹ but has always been somewhat controversial. It simply does not seem fair that a party can breach his or her promise and get away with it, even if the other party acted upon that promise in good faith.

There have been some voices criticising this rule. For example, Lord Denning tried to escape it because it can often lead to unfair results. He stated in Ward v Byham¹⁰ that 'a promise to perform an existing duty,¹¹ or the performance of it, should be regarded as good consideration, because it is a benefit to the person to whom it is given.' The promisor in fact benefited from the situation – he obtained 'factual benefit'.¹²

Nevertheless, most of the judiciary were not willing to come to such radical conclusions. In Ward v Byham the remaining judges expressly refused Lord Denning's revolutionary proposition. Throughout history, rather than going against the traditional doctrine, courts were often ready to find consideration even where one could say that there was none to be found. Sometimes it is said that courts 'invented consideration' to abide by the orthodox doctrine.¹³

4. Revolution against the old approach: No legal benefit necessary

The controversial case of Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.¹⁴ might be labelled as falling into this category. This decision has dramatically changed the traditional doctrine regarding pre-existing contractual duty and has cast great uncertainty over the future development of consideration in this area.

4.1 Williams v Roffey

The Roffey Brothers were builders who contracted with a housing association to refurbish a block of 27 flats. They sub-contracted the carpentry work to Williams for £20,000. Williams got into financial difficulties and it was apparent that he might not be able to complete the work on time. It was mainly because Wiliams had underpriced his contract. The second reason was deficiency in William's supervision of his workers. Roffey Bros. became worried that they would be liable under a penalty clause in their main contract and promised Williams an additional sum of £10,300. This was to be paid at the rate of £575 per flat on completion. Williams finished eight more flats but only received £1,500. Williams ultimately sued Roffey Bros. for the remaining sum.

The main issue before the Court of Appeals was whether Williams provided consideration for the additional £10,300 promised by Roffey Bros. The court held that the agreement to pay the extra money was enforceable. This came as a great surprise. It defied the traditional rule set out in Stilk v Myrick. What was the consideration provided by Williams? He only did the work that he was bound to do by his original agreement – he only performed a duty already owed to Roffey.

4.2 New form of consideration: Practical benefit

In Williams v. Roffey, the court found valid consideration in the practical benefit that Roffey obtained by his agreement with Williams. So far the practical/factual benefit (Denning) has been refused as good consideration. The argument has always been that consideration must be something of value in the eyes of law – something that provides or brings about a legal benefit.

What was this practical benefit? It consisted of a number of factors. The court held that it was the fact that Williams continued his work and did not breach the sub-contract. Therefore, Roffey avoided the trouble of looking for somebody else to complete the work. Furthermore, Roffey avoided the penalty payment for the delay under the main contract. Also, by directing the claimant to complete one flat at a time, the defendant was able to organize their work with other subcontractors in a more efficient manner. It is clear that the logic of 'factual benefit' earlier argued by Lord Denning was applied here. Even though there was no legal benefit to Roffey, the contractual modification, in fact, benefited Roffey.

It is questionable whether this reasoning about 'practical benefits' is persuasive enough to disregard the need for a legal benefit and change this rule in such a dramatic way. When looking at each of the 'practical benefits', one realizes that they do not consist of anything additional. Roffey would have received all of these benefits under the original contract, even if it were not modified. In fact, all of these new 'advantages' were the very reason why they concluded the original contract. Williams was hired as the subcontractor to do the work. Therefore, the main purpose here was not to look for anyone else to do the job. Similarly, the fact that Roffey did not have to pay the penalty because the plaintiff continued the work was the very reason that a subcontractor would have been hired initially. The question is: how can this count as a fresh consideration? Was this not yet another 'invented consideration' by the courts?

4.3 Practical benefit justified by commercial reality

On the other hand, it can be argued that this pragmatic decision finally concedes what can be called 'commercial reality'. After all, it is a common practice in the building industry for the main contractor to increase sub-contractors' payments if the parties see that the price is too low. As the counsel for the plaintiff argued, 'It would be unfortunate if English law deprived an acceptable commercial practice, which both parties regard as beneficial, of legal effect.' Thus, the court should look at the situation as it stands and acknowledge what in fact is beneficial for the parties, as opposed to seeking a theoretical 'legal benefit'. The preference should be given to what the actual intention of the parties was when renegotiating the contract, so that their intended agreement is given effect. Would it not be unfair to negate their clear arrangement that was entered into voluntarily? Russel LJ said: 'Consideration there must be but courts should be more ready to find its existence as to reflect the intention of the parties.'

Casino St Gallen Poker Turnier

Obviously, there are two competing principles to be weighed regarding the doctrine of consideration. It can be said that modifications are in the public interest and both parties should be encouraged to bargain their way out of an unanticipated difficulty. On the other hand, it is also desirable to hold parties to the contractual terms of their bargain.¹⁵ Clearly, there are pros and cons to each of the two conflicting interests.

5. Potential escape from a contract as a value?

Another issue should be contemplated in this area. It was said that Williams suffered a detriment by continuing the work and not breaching the contract. His counsel argued 'he (Williams) might have been better off by breaking the contract, getting higher paid work elsewhere and paying such damages as the contractor can recover against him'.¹⁶ Can this constitute good consideration? Can this be anything of value in the eyes of law? This proposition seems to undermine the sanctity of contracts. It is an old principle of law that people should be held to their bargains – Pacta sunt servanda. Therefore, the legal practice should promote this principle and not acknowledge that a threatened breach of contract is a viable basis for finding consideration. Such reasoning does not seem correct as a part of legal practice.

Threatening with breach of contract to increase the agreed price is indeed walking on thin ice. As mentioned above, agreements that are achieved by illegitimate pressure exercised by the party with greater economic power can be set aside on the grounds of economic duress.¹⁷ It was very important that in Williams v Roffey duress was not established on the facts of the case. The main reason that the judgment was given for Williams was almost certainly because duress was not involved. Roffey called for the meeting because it was obvious that the work would not be finished as planned. Williams did not explicitly threaten with breach of contract.

6. Consequences of the new approach to consideration

Undoubtedly, Williams v Roffey significantly widened the scope of the doctrine of consideration. Promises to perform existing duties can now be good consideration when they lead to practical benefit. As the doctrine of duress is a relatively new concept (first acknowledged in 1976), in the past, courts used consideration in situations that would nowadays be judged in terms of duress. In situations like those in Stilk v Myrick, the judge could not avail himself of economic duress and instead used lack of consideration as the reason for his judgment. Thus, a case like Stilk would be decided differently today. Most likely, it would be brought as a duress case and not necessarily fail for lack of consideration. It could be stated that the Court of Appeals followed the reasoning from the Espinasse report.¹⁸

Established in 1987. The Gold Strike opened in 1987 as a full-service hotel casino on the way to and from Las Vegas and California. The hotel casino was built on the site of Pop's Oasis. Terrible's Road House in Jean will remain open 24 hours. Our stores in Searchlight, NV will be temporarily closed from 8PM to 8AM daily. March 17, 2020: As the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic continues to intensify across the country, Las Vegas has not proven to be immune to cancellations and closures of casinos, events, schools, etc. Things to do near Terrible's Hotel & Casino. Located in Jean at I15 intersection. 96 gas pumps at Chevron. For Terrible Herbst (Herbst Supply) back in 1967. TERRIBLE'S HOTEL & CASINO in Jean NV at 1 Main St. Find reviews and discounts for AAA/AARP members, seniors, meetings & military/govt. Terrible herbst casino jean.

6.1 Reconciliation of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey

It would seem that Williams v Roffey overruled Stilk v Myrick, but the court emphasized that Stilk still remains good law and distinguished Williams v Roffey. Glidwell LJ said that Williams v Roffey does not contravene the principles from Stilk, but that it 'refines and limits' the application of them. However, it is not wholly clear from the judgment on what basis the court arrived at this conclusion. The judges argued that the rigid approach to consideration in Stilk was only a product of the special conditions of the seafare in the 18^th century, and that it was too harsh to exist without changes in the modern day. However, the two cases are very similar. Myrick also obtained practical benefit because the sailors continued performance of their contract. Furthermore, Williams v Roffey was later applied in an employment case¹⁹ where it was held that when an employee's wage is increased, sufficient consideration for the increase is the fact that the employee continues his or her work and does not try to bargain for more money.²⁰ Is this not exactly the same situation as in Stilk?

Even if the court was so resolute that Stilk has not been overruled, it seems difficult to defend this idea for much longer. The conclusion could be drawn that the only principle that has survived the attack of Williams v Roffey is that consideration is still required when modifying a contract, while Stilk has been overruled as to what counts as fresh consideration.²¹

6.2 Application in day-to-day business

It is without a doubt that 'practical benefit' is now a recognized category that can be used in practice to establish consideration. Lawyers arguing enforcement of promises for extra payment when the consideration is of doubtful value should avail themselves of 'practical benefit' and argue that effect should be given to 'commercial reality.' Furthermore, lawyers should argue that it is in the interest of the parties to reach a viable solution that is acceptable to everyone. It is, after all, in the public interest to bargain one's way out of a stalemate rather than end up in a costly litigation process.

On the other hand, it has become more difficult for the opposing party to attack such contractual modifications because it is no longer so simple to plead lack of consideration where some sort of benefit can be found. It should be argued that there is no legal or practical benefit, and therefore no consideration. The security of contracts should be emphasized – people should get what they bargain for and not be pushed to pay more if difficulties arise. Any sign of duress makes such modification unenforceable. Therefore, one should always look at the process of renegotiation. Simply, was there any sign of improper pressure from the party who was in the stronger contractual position? If so, economic duress should be pleaded as a vitiating factor to the promise.

Williams v Roffey has since been applied in two cases,²² both dealing with renegotiation of commercial contracts. In each case it was held that consideration lay in the 'practical benefit' that one party obtained because the other party did not breach the contract and continued its performance.²³

7. Conclusion: What is the future of consideration?

A new liberal approach has been set. Courts are now more willing to find consideration just to give effect to what they perceive as the actual intent of the parties. This tolerant attitude is counter-balanced by the use of duress as the tool to limit bargains that have been achieved by improper means. The issue is whether this situation is wholly satisfactory. Courts have not been clear enough about the future application of this new approach, and it is evident that the doctrine of consideration in this area has been plunged into confusion.

These reflections might lead to a more revolutionary interpretation of Williams v Roffey. Is there really a need for consideration when varying a contract? American law, for example, does not require it.²⁴ Maybe it is finally time to stop being too afraid of changes and to move ahead. After all, is this not the real unexpressed meaning of Williams v Roffey? It seems that law would become more efficient without the formalistic burden of consideration when modifying a contract.

Reflections about contractual modifications might logically lead us even further. Is consideration necessary at all? It appears that consideration as a principle is still adhered to, but this effort has become somewhat forced. The civil law system can do well without consideration. There exists an increasing hostility towards the old doctrine. It has become more of a technical obstacle than a useful and essential tool. Maybe the modern law should finally get rid of this ancient principle and replace it with more effective doctrines.

Were the judges too afraid to explicitly admit that Williams v Roffey might be the beginning of the end of consideration?

Tereza Šimanovská is a second-year law student at the Faculty of Law, Charles University in Prague. She has spent one year in London, where she studied at the Faculty of Law at the University of Westminster.

Bibliography

–
Atiyah P S, Essays on Contract, 1^st Edition, Reprinted (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2001)

–
Chen-Wishart M, Contract Law, 1^st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2005)

–
McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6^th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005)

–
Noble M, For Your Consideration, November 8 1991, New Law Journal, Butterworth &Co (Publishers) Ltd

–
Stone R, The Modern Law of Contract, 6^th Edition (UK: Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 2005)

–
Treitel G, Some Landmarks of Twentieth Century Contract Law, 1^st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2002)

..........

1 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 85

2 Chen-Wishart M, Contract Law, 1st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2005) pp147

3 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 96

4 Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 and 6 Esp 129

5 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 95

6 Ibid

7 Ibid pp 358

8 Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the sailors in Stilk v Myrick actually used any pressure to get the extra money. On the contract, it was Myrick himself who promised the increase of wages because he needed to get the ship home. Thus, whilst no actual duress was proved in this, the decision aimed to pre-emptively prevent such situations occurring in the future.

9 For example Atlas Express v Kafco [1989] QB 833

10 Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496

11 However, here Lord Denning was concerned with a pre-existing duty deriving from public law, not a duty owed under a contract.

Casino St Gallen Poker

12 Chen-Wishart M, Contract Law, 1st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2005) pp 145

13 Prof Treitel as cited in McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 86

14 Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1

15 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 99

16 Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1

17 However, a distinction should be made between threats of breach of contract that amount to economic duress and behaviour that only amounts to acceptable commercial pressure. It should be highlighted that at the moment the law is not very clear about where the exact borderline lays. It seems that not all threats of breach of contract are automatically illegal.

18 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 100

19 Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications [1993] IRLR 383

20 Stone R, The Modern Law of Contract, 6th Edition (UK: Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 2005) pp 92

21 Chen-Wishart M, Contract Law, 1st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2005) pp153

22 Anangel Atlas Compania Naviera SA v Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co Ltd (no 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 526; Simon Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery AB [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 429

23 Stone R, The Modern Law of Contract, 6th Edition (UK: Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 2005) pp 92

24 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 102.

13.06.2008, Lesen Sie hier den Bericht über «WSOP Update , Erstes Lady-Bracelet ist Tatsache! Negreanu holt sich 4. Titel».

Schlagzeilen! Event 19, Vanessa Selbst hat es geschafft und gewinnt das Bracelet und $227,965.
Event 20 $2,000 Limit Hold'em, Negreanu holt sich nach Erfolgen in den Jahren 98, 03 und 04 sein 4. Bracelet und stellt seine Klasse einmal mehr unter Beweis
Bild-Quelle Bluff Magazin
Event 21 $5,000 No-Limit Hold'em, noch 10 Spieler am Final Table, Mizrachi als 11. ausgeschieden, Scott Seiver klarer Chipleader.
Event 22 H.O.R.S.E. $3,000, hier geben sich die Stars die Klinke in die Hand. Noch 18 Spieler dabei, Luske führt, Harmann als 3. und Tod Brunson als 9. noch mit guten Chancen. Ivey und Golser soeben ausgeschieden.
Event 23 No-Limit Hold'em $2,000. Noch 180 von 1344 Spieler dabei. Greenstein und Hellmuth in den Top 10, Dustin Dirksen klarer Chipleader
Event 24 Pot-Limit Holdem/Omaha $2,500, Ferguson soeben ausgeschieden, noch 30 Spieler dabei, Stephen McKinney führt, Erik Seidel und Rolf Slotbom noch dabei.
Details:
Event 19 Pot-Limit Omaha Buy-in: $1,500 Prizepool: $1,036,035 Entries: 759
Resultat 1. Vanessa Selbst $227,965 2. Jamieson Pickering $145,459 3. Stanley Statkiewicz $88,062 4. Thomas Schultz $72,004 5. Eugene Todd $59,053 6. Mel Randolph $46,621 7. Craig Natte $36,261 8. Jamie Robbins $28,490 9. Ken Lairson $20,720 10. Antony Phillips $12,950
Event 20 Limit Hold'em Buy-in: $2,000 Prizepool: $871,780 Entries: 479
Resultat 1. Daniel Negreanu $204,874 2. Ugur Marangoz $126,671 3. David Baker $78,624 4. Richard Li $63,335 5. Fu Wong $51,542 6. Jeremy Kottler $51,542 7. Greg Wohletz $31,886 8. Derek Lerner $25,334 9. Hien Tran $18,782 11. Babak Razi $12,230
Congratulations to Daniel Negreanu, Event #20 Champion! It was deja vu all over again for Daniel Negreanu, capturing his fourth WSOP bracelet in the very same event where he won this third back in 2004. Negreanu arrived at this final table as far and away the most experienced and decorated player among the nine, and proved to everyone here today why he deserves to be called one of the world's best all-around players. Negreanu rushed into the crowd after the final card was dealt, high-fiving his friends and embracing his mother, who still lovingly prepares her son vegan meals for lunch every day of the series. 'Me-1, Ivey-0!' cried Negreanu as he hoisted his new piece of jewelry in the air. The two poker legends have a standing bet during this year's WSOP in which one pays the other $200,000 for each bracelet won. That will effectively double Negreanu's prize money from this victory. As Negreanu sat back down at the table for his winner's photo behind his wall of chips and his winning 9s, 5h, he paused for a moment to dig his cell phone out of his pocket. 'Hang on, I've got to text Ivey!' he said with a sly smile. Congratulations to Daniel Negreanu on his fourth World Series of Poker bracelet!
The final Hand Daniel Negreanu limped in on the buttom and both players took the flop of 5d, Kh 5s. Both players checked. The Qh came on the turn and both players checked again. The river was the and Marangoz bet out. Negreanu raised to put Marangoz all in and Marangoz made the call. Negreanu showed the 9s, 5h for trip fives to eliminate Marangoz and win the tournament. Ugur Marangoz, the Mirage poker room manager, will earn $126,671 for his second-place finish. Daniel Negreanu is our champion, winning his fourth WSOP bracelet and $204,874!
Event 21 3-Day Event $5,000 No-Limit Hold'em No Rebuy/Add-ons, Entries: 731 10 Players left
Chipcount Scott Seiver 2,300,000 Rajesh Vohra 1,056,000 Jacobo Fernandez 850,000 Adam Geyer 616,000 David Seidman 586,000 Ben Sprengers 475,000 Scott Freeman 465,000 Chuck Sklar 345,000 Anders Henriksson 340,000 Jorge Arias 204,000 Mizrachi 0
Event 22 H.O.R.S.E. $3,000 3-Day Event No Rebuy/Add-ons Prizepool: $1,142,640 Entries: 414, noch 18 Spieler dabei
Chiplead Marcel Luske 325,000 Jared Davis 322,000 Jennifer Harman 215,000 Doug 'Dgang' Ganger 201,500 JJ Hazan 165,000 Blair Rodman 165,000 Jens Voertmann 156,000 Rostislav Tsodikov 106,000 Todd Brunson 105,000 Hoyt Corkins 93,000 Steve Zolotow 90,000 Eric Froehlich 78,000 Paul Zimbler 65,000 Mickey Appleman 59,000 Mallory Smith 58,000 David Levi 50,000 Tad Jurgens 45,000 Farzad Rouhani 35,000
Thu, Jun 12th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em (Event 23) $2,000 Prizepool: $2,446,000 Entries: 1,344
Chiplead Dustin Dirksen 172,000 Andrew Jeffreys 165,000 Matt Erhlich 104,000 Tom Braband 97,000 Allen Le 85,000 Barry Greenstein 68,500 Tyler Sprague 65,000 Maria 'Maridu' Mayrinck 54,500 Stephane Tayar 50,000 Phil Hellmuth 47,500
Event 24 Pot-Limit Holdem/Omaha $2,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Prizepool: $1,051,100 Entries: 457 30 of 447 Players left
Chiplead Stephen McKinney 85,000 Kyle Kloeckner 64,000 Dave Penly 63,000 Michael Pesek 63,000 Jesse McEuen 61,000 Lennart Holtkamp 53,000 Mark Davis 52,000 Dustin Sitar 52,000 Max Pescatori 51,000 Shawn Buchanan 47,500 Jordan Morgan 45,000 Erik Seidel 45,000
Schedule:
Fri, Jun 13th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event World Championship Heads Up No-Limit Hold'em (Event 25) $10'000 No Rebuy/Add-ons
Fri, Jun 13th 5:00 PM 3-Day Event Seven Card Razz (Event 26) $1'500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Sat, Jun 14th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em (Event 27) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Sat, Jun 14th 5:00 PM 3-Day Event Pot-Limit Omaha W/Rebuys (Event 28) $5,000 Rebuy/Add-on Event Sun, Jun 15th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em (Event 29) $3,000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Sun, Jun 15th 5:00 PM 3-Day Event World Championship Limit Hold'em (Event 30) $10'000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Mon, Jun 16th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em / Six Handed (Event 31) $2,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons
Tue, Jun 17th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em (Event 32) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Tue, Jun 17th 5:00 PM 3-Day Event World Championship Seven Card Stud Hi-Low Split-8 or Better (Event 33) $5'000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Wed, Jun 18th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event Pot-Limit Omaha W/ReBuys (Event 34) $1,500 Rebuy/Add-on Event Wed, Jun 18th 5:00 PM 3-Day Event Seven Card Stud (Event 35) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Thu, Jun 19th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em (Event 36) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Sheet
Thu, Jun 19th 5:00 PM 3-Day Event World Championship Omaha Hi-Low Split-8 or Better (Event 37) $10,000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Fri, Jun 20th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event Pot-Limit Hold'em (Event 38) $2,000 No Rebuy/Add-ons
Sat, Jun 21st 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em (Event 39) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Sun, Jun 22nd 12:00 PM 3-Day Event 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball (Limit) (Event 40) $2,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Sun, Jun 22nd 5:00 PM 3-Day Event Mixed Hold'em (limit/no-limit) (Event 41) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Mon, Jun 23rd 12:00 PM 3-Day Event Seniors No-Limit Hold'em World Championship (Event 42) $1,000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Tue, Jun 24th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event Pot-Limit Omaha Hi-low Split-8 or Better (Event 43) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Wed, Jun 25th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em w/ReBuys (Event 44) $1,000 Rebuy/Add-on Event Wed, Jun 25th 5:00 PM 5-Day Event World Championship H.O.R.S.E. (Event 45) $50'000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Thu, Jun 26th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em / Six Handed (Event 46) $5,000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Thu, Jun 26th 5:00 PM 3-Day Event Seven Card Stud Hi-Low-8 or Better (Event 47) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons
Fri, Jun 27th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em (Event 48) $2,000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Sat, Jun 28th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em (Event 49) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Sun, Jun 29th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event World Championship Pot Limit Omaha (Event 50) $10'000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Sun, Jun 29th 5:00 PM 3-Day Event H.O.R.S.E. (Event 51) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Mon, Jun 30th 12:00 PM 3-Day Event No-Limit Hold'em (Event 52) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Tue, Jul 1st 11:00 AM 1-Day Event All-In Energy Tournament No Rebuy/Add-ons invite only
Tue, Jul 1st 12:00 PM 2-Day Event Limit Hold'em Shootout (Event 53) $1,500 No Rebuy/Add-ons Wed, Jul 2nd 2:00 PM 1-Day Event Ante Up For Africa $5,000 No Rebuy/Add-ons Thu, Jul 3rd 12:00 PM 12-Day Event World Championship No-Limit Texas Hold'em (Event 54) No Rebuy/Add-ons
--------------------
World Series of Poker Daily Summary for June 10th, 2008
Haley Hintze Pokernews.com And then there were three… three bracelets awarded in a single day's play at the Rio.
The 2008 World Series of Poker on Tuesday showcased the final tables of three different events, spanning the spectrum of the game, while the one event that played down toward a final table to be held today will offer perhaps the most star-packed finale of this year's Series to date.
First up was Event #15, the $1,000 Ladies No-Limit World Championship, where Svetlana Gromenkova came to the final table with the lead and made that lead stand up, winning the specially-designed Ladies Corum bracelet and $244,702. Gromenkova' final opponent was Anh Le, who finished second in this same event to Jennifer Tilly three years ago. Le's repeat runner-up showing was worth $144,567.
Event #17, $1,500 No-Limit Hold'em Shootout, had pared a capped field of 1,000 entrants down to ten in two marathon rounds on Monday, then saw those ten finalists return on Tuesday to do battle again. The winner here was Jason Young, whose trifecta of wins in the shootout's three rounds brought bracelet gold and $335,565. Mike Schwartz finished in second for $209,527, while John Strzemp III (son of John Strzemp Jr., who finished as the runner-up to Stuey Ungar in Ungar's celebrated third and final Main Event win) finished third for $129,675.
Event #16's bracelet was the last of the day's three to be determined. The final in the $2,000 Limit Omaha Hi/Lo tourney was destined to take a while to resolve, since 18 players needed to be whittled down to one. Around 3am this morning that one was finally determined and it was 25-year-old Andrew Brown, who finished off one of poker's giants, Ted Forrest, for the win. Brown collected $226,483 and his first bracelet gold, while Forrest settled for a second-place payday of $143,420.
The big audience for today's action will certainly be attentive to the final in Event #18, $5,000 No Limit 2-7 Draw w/ Rebuys, which boasts an outstanding seven-player final. Top spot (and a sizable lead) is held here by Erick Lindgren, the star whose impressive poker resume finally saw its first WSOP bracelet added; he now has the inside track on collecting his second within a span of days. Still, despite his early run at this year's WSOP, it'll be no easy task, as the other six finalists are Barry Greenstein, Mike Matusow, Jeffrey Lisandro, David Benyamine, Tony G and Tom Schneider. This one gets underway as this story goes live on the Internet.
Two more events began action on Tuesday and in one of them, it was clear that Ladies Day covered more than just the glittery Event #15. Event #19, $1,500 Pot-Limit Omaha, saw a 758-player chopped all the way down to 46 players, well inside the money bubble, with the top position overnight held by Vanessa Selbst. Selbst's 203,600 in chips was more than 70,000 ahead of second place Anthony Phillips, with Carter Gill and Eugene Todd in the next closest spots. A short Day 2 session for this event is likely, with the field likely to be reduced to its final nine within a few hours.
The other event beginning play on Tuesday was Event #20, $2,000 Limit Hold'em, which saw its field thinned from 480 to 125 in the first eight levels of play. The overnight leader here is Daniel Makowski, though another, somewhat more famous Daniel -- Negreanu - - finished the event's opening session in fourth. Phil Hellmuth escaped short-stack status in this one as well, with a decent chance of extending his all-time career mark for WSOP cashes tomorrow as this one plays all the way down to its final nine.
Wednesday starts at the WSOP include Event #21, $5,000 No-Limit Hold'em, which began at noon with a slew of big names taking seats. 731 of poker's best began play. At 5pm this afternoon Event #22, $3,000 H.O.R.S.E., begins, which is sure to draw many late entries from stars bounced early from Event #21 proceedings.

Die World Series of Poker, oder kurz WSOP, ist eine Reihe von Pokerturnieren, die jedes Jahr in Las Vegas ausgetragen werden.
Die World Series of Poker finden jährlich im Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas statt.
Die World Series of Poker ist die grösste und prestigeträchtigste Pokerveranstaltung der Welt. Mit einer umfassenden Liste von Turnieren in allen wichtigen Pokervarianten ist die WSOP das am längsten laufende Pokerturnier der Welt und geht auf das Jahr 1970 zurück.
Darüber hinaus hat die WSOP bahnbrechende Allianzen in den Bereichen Rundfunk, digitale Medien und Unternehmenssponsoring gebildet und die Marke mit der Einführung der WSOP Europe im Jahr 2007 und der WSOP Asia-Pacific im Jahr 2013 sowie der WSOP International Circuit Series im Jahr 2015 erfolgreich international ausgebaut.
Ursprünglich wurden die Tourniere in Las Vegas Downtown im Binion's Horseshoe Casino ausgetragen. Im Jahre 2005 kaufte Caesars den Brand WSOP. Seit diesem Datum werden die Pokermeisterschaften im Rio All Suite Hotel and Casino durchgeführt.
Gewinner der letzten Jahre des WSOP-Championship-Mainevent
2019: Hossein Ensan 2018: John Cynn 2017: Scott Blumstein 2016: Qui Nguyen 2015: Joe McKeehen 2014: Martin Jacobson 2013: Ryan Riess 2012: Greg Merson 2011: Pius Heinz 2010: Jonathan Duhamel 2009: Joe Cada 2008: Peter Eastgate 2007: Jerry Yang 2006: Jamie Gold 2005: Joe Hachem 2004: Greg 'Fossil Man' Raymer 2003: Chris Moneymaker 2002: Robert Varkonyi 2001: Carlos Mortensen 2000: Chris 'Jesus' Ferguson 1999: J.J. 'Noel' Furlong 1998: Scotty Nguyen 1997: Stu Ungar 1996: Huck Seed 1995: Dan Harrington 1994: Russ Hamilton 1993: Jim Bechtel 1992: Hamid Dastmalchi 1991: Brad Daugherty 1990: Mansour Matloubi 1989: Phil Hellmuth Jr. 1988: Johnny Chan 1987: Johnny Chan 1986: Berry Johnston 1985: Bill Smith 1984: Jack Keller 1983: Tom McEvoy 1982: Jack Strauss 1981: Stu Ungar 1980: Stu Ungar 1979: Hal Fowler 1978: Bobby Baldwin 1977: Doyle Brunson 1976: Doyle Brunson 1975: Sailor Roberts 1974: Johnny Moss 1973: Puggy Pearson 1972: Amarillo Slim Preston 1971: Johnny Moss 1970: Johnny Moss

Casino St Gallen Pokerturniere