DEAL OR NO DEAL

[tikay]

There is no way you can make deals chip count based only.  Less than half the deals I see are instantly agreed on chip counts, usually its used as a guide before some people try to get a little more and people offer to take a little less to get the deal done.

If a short stack refused because they wouldnt get enough and everyone would have dropped a little to give the shorty more, can you really just not allow it because it isnt exact chip count %?  Same thing for just anyone wanting more than their chip count % where 1 or more of the others might be willing to make up the difference, it either blocks an otherwise workable deal or promotes under the table dealing for the extra.

IMO let people deal for whatever they want and leave some money behind for 1st place to ensure they play it out and there is an official winner.  Maybe just allow any deal for the standard nightly comps too however dealers and TDs should be quickly looking to protect any player that refuses a deal.

As a statement of fact, rather than an opinion, the system at DTD for around 2 years was "any deals must be chip equity only & agreed by DTD to ensure correctly settled".

[MANTIS01]

Honestly if poker ever gets to the stage where grown men have to put secret cards into a cloth bag to do a deal it will be very sad and slightly ghey. 

If players behaved like grown ups about deals then I don't think any of this would be an issue at all.

It's only because a significant proportion of them get greedy/angry/spiteful/vindictive/mardy and/or sulky about it that it becomes a problem.

I'm not sure about all this bullying and pressure stuff because it makes the final table sound like an infant school playground. If other players get mardy, sulky, or try and swing their handbag at you then lol ok just carry on playing. For me live poker is somewhat about character so saying what you want, negotiating with people, and not allowing yourself to be bullied is all part of the process and dare I say the skill. When eg 5 players are left the other players are prob bullying the weak player every hand, taking his blinds and generally bashing him up, yet when the clock is paused to talk about a deal everybody is suddenly worried about the weak player getting bullied, lol. Having choice and learning how to speak up and say what you want is a better live poker lesson and a better life skill lesson than having no choice and learning how to say 'all-in' with 10bb's. 

[SolarCarro]

I voted No Deals except the daily 15/50 tournaments as i believe their structure does not allow for play on the FT

I FT'ed the 15 freezeout recently and arrived at the FT with 2 BB, (average was 5BB)

9th paid £47 - 1st paid £795

I was basically playing a game of poker roulette

A deal was discussed (I would say encouraged by the TD) but who would give a 2BB stack a deal anyway, 4 of us departed quickly and the deal was done 5 ways

My opinion is...unless the structure of the 15 Freezeout (15 min clock) and the 50 Freezeout (20 min clock) is improved to say 25 mins with possibly a 500/1000 level then the club need to still allow deals on these tournaments. There was basically no skill involved from 15 players down, also pots were so multiway and dealers insisted on keeping side pots correct often taking 5 or so minutes per hand, 1 level there were only 2 hands dealt, should be a minimum of 1 orbit per level in my opinion.

The bigger tournaments are different and I am not in a position to really comment on those, good debate though

[cambridgealex]

Deals based solely on pure chip counts are are very good example of an unfair deal ~ so somewhat ironic if a house rule was ever to enforce an unfair deal in the name of fairness.

A chip-chop deal will always favour the big stacks and penalise the short stacks.  Even using an ICM-chop calculation assumes that all remaining players are of equal ability.  Why shouldn't the deal price in the fact that one of the remaining players is inexperienced/poor and therefore not worth their theo?  That's usually the kind of situation where I would much rather play on.

When you say to DTD "can we have a look at the numbers" do they use chip count calculations or icm?

I have a feeling its chip counts...surely if this way of dealing making is unfair on the shortstacks and too generous for the big stacks, then DTD shouldn't be using that method?

[smashedagain]

Deals based solely on pure chip counts are are very good example of an unfair deal ~ so somewhat ironic if a house rule was ever to enforce an unfair deal in the name of fairness.

A chip-chop deal will always favour the big stacks and penalise the short stacks.  Even using an ICM-chop calculation assumes that all remaining players are of equal ability.  Why shouldn't the deal price in the fact that one of the remaining players is inexperienced/poor and therefore not worth their theo?  That's usually the kind of situation where I would much rather play on.

When you say to DTD "can we have a look at the numbers" do they use chip count calculations or icm?

I have a feeling its chip counts...surely if this way of dealing making is unfair on the shortstacks and too generous for the big stacks, then DTD shouldn't be using that method?

The deal price should no way price in the fact one player is less experienced. No disrespect to Alex here but in the last Monte Carlo had a deal been done 4 handed with Alex, Jake, Skipper and Rastafish had been done with experience or perceived ability then the deal would have looked totally the opposite to the actual result.  ICM or chip counts have to be the starting point for any deals, if some one thinks they are better than an opponent but has less chips then play on untill you have more chips then negotiate again

[Tiger-flash]

Play to the death! lol, unless the ft locks up so bad that no hands get played for hours,
No seriously the larger tournies should deal but only when theres about 5 players left.
It would be hurtful to lose a coin flip with 20k on the decision so dealing is ok if its ONLY ok for all  

[cambridgealex]

but Jason if chip count deals are unfair, why isn't icm used instead?

[T8MML]

I must admit I didn't know there was ever a no deals policy at DTD. I won/flukes the first buy in tourny there and a deal was done based on chip counts.

Personally I don't like deals but generally go with the flow. Given a free hand I would go for no deals but a flatter payout structure from the outset.

[smashedagain]

but Jason if chip count deals are unfair, why isn't icm used instead?

I think the actual difference in the two calculations is minimal when all said and done (Someone would be able to work out a few examples) but there has to be a starting point. The starting point can't be based on people's opinions on how much better one player is than another.

Example. I went to Dtd Tuesday night and was amazed at the overall standard of the players in a £50 comp. We had Monte Carlo winners, Deepstack winners , gp winners etc etc. I made a comment that a certain player ( no names for fear of embarrassing him ) must have played really well one month to final table enough times in a week to win his seat into either the Monte or deepstack ( thought he made 4 but may have been 3). The response from one player was that this guy was a complete nit and played shocking poker. I just checked last night result and he cashed and on Tuesday he finished 2nd. Go figure

[MANTIS01]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest. They give their money to Rob to hold and get ready to race. At no point does Rob own that money. He is an escrow holding Tikay and Tightend's money. After running half way round the block both distinguished Blonde's realise this is a dumb idea and decide to go for a pint instead, taking back their money. Should Rob be able to say nah lads you can't do that you gotta complete the race cos it's my money and I'm in charge of this bet.

[tikay]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest. They give their money to Rob to hold and get ready to race. At no point does Rob own that money. He is an escrow holding Tikay and Tightend's money. After running half way round the block both distinguished Blonde's realise this is a dumb idea and decide to go for a pint instead, taking back their money. Should Rob be able to say nah lads you can't do that you gotta complete the race cos it's my money and I'm in charge of this bet.

Well you might argue that Rob sets the rules, as it his his Cardroom we are running round, so we have to abide by those rules......and if we do not like those rules, we go run & round someone else's block. You might also suggest the complete opposite, & I have suggested both in my time.

Incidentally, as to the debate as a whole, I'm not really fussed, but I don't much like the childish & stupid aggro that can accompany "deal-making". I've probably been involved in more deals than most here (just small money), but I would, & have not, ever propose a deal. I just step away from the Table & let them get on with it.  We are - mostly - amateurs, having a bit of fun, & I see no reason to get into arguments with anyone about it. If a few extra bob means so much to the others, fine, let 'em have it. This is not the WSOP, or a WPT, & 95% of DTD Tourneys are £100 entry or less, it's not just the Monthly Deepies, or Monte Carlos up for debate - it's every Guaranteed Tourney. Never forget the "regular" guys, or the "fish" as they are increasingly known by the poker snobs. They are the base of the poker pyramid, without them there is no poker.

I am still perplexed by the whole debate, in truth - why are we not examining the root cause of the problem? As several have said, if the payouts were flatter, there would be less excuse or need to deal. And I have stated that, imo, "90%" of Live Tourneys end in business. That MAY be on the high side, but I doubt by much. Ask yourself WHY so many Tourneys end in "business". There can only be one answer...... To fix a problem, start at the beginning.

[thediceman]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest.

YouTube classic in the making.

IMO I would prefer flatter structures and chip count deals.

[MANTIS01]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest. They give their money to Rob to hold and get ready to race. At no point does Rob own that money. He is an escrow holding Tikay and Tightend's money. After running half way round the block both distinguished Blonde's realise this is a dumb idea and decide to go for a pint instead, taking back their money. Should Rob be able to say nah lads you can't do that you gotta complete the race cos it's my money and I'm in charge of this bet.

Well you might argue that Rob sets the rules, as it his his Cardroom we are running round, so we have to abide by those rules......and if we do not like those rules, we go run & round someone else's block. You might also suggest the complete opposite, & I have suggested both in my time.

Incidentally, as to the debate as a whole, I'm not really fussed, but I don't much like the childish & stupid aggro that can accompany "deal-making". I've probably been involved in more deals than most here (just small money), but I would, & have not, ever propose a deal. I just step away from the Table & let them get on with it.  We are - mostly - amateurs, having a bit of fun, & I see no reason to get into arguments with anyone about it. If a few extra bob means so much to the others, fine, let 'em have it. This is not the WSOP, or a WPT, & 95% of DTD Tourneys are £100 entry or less, it's not just the Monthly Deepies, or Monte Carlos up for debate - it's every Guaranteed Tourney. Never forget the "regular" guys, or the "fish" as they are increasingly known by the poker snobs. They are the base of the poker pyramid, without them there is no poker.

I am still perplexed by the whole debate, in truth - why are we not examining the root cause of the problem? As several have said, if the payouts were flatter, there would be less excuse or need to deal. And I have stated that, imo, "90%" of Live Tourneys end in business. That MAY be on the high side, but I doubt by much. Ask yourself WHY so many Tourneys end in "business". There can only be one answer...... To fix a problem, start at the beginning.

Once the decision is made then sure enough the rules are set and you must abide by them if you want to play there. But this thread is to debate the idea and as such asking whether escrows should be able to control your money is valid. Because DTD is a leading force in poker what they do is likely to be rolled out at other clubs and casinos so it is an important point. Especially about issues regarding the freedom and control players have over their own money and how they want the game to be played out. A good poker club should facilitate the wishes of it's players, it shouldn't be players facilitating the wishes of the poker club.

[Karabiner]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest. They give their money to Rob to hold and get ready to race. At no point does Rob own that money. He is an escrow holding Tikay and Tightend's money. After running half way round the block both distinguished Blonde's realise this is a dumb idea and decide to go for a pint instead, taking back their money. Should Rob be able to say nah lads you can't do that you gotta complete the race cos it's my money and I'm in charge of this bet.

I am still perplexed by the whole debate, in truth - why are we not examining the root cause of the problem? As several have said, if the payouts were flatter, there would be less excuse or need to deal. And I have stated that, imo, "90%" of Live Tourneys end in business. That MAY be on the high side, but I doubt by much. Ask yourself WHY so many Tourneys end in "business". There can only be one answer...... To fix a problem, start at the beginning.

Flattening the payout structure would mean that the headline first prize would not be quite so big.

DTD might be reluctant to sacrifice that.

[gatso]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest. They give their money to Rob to hold and get ready to race. At no point does Rob own that money. He is an escrow holding Tikay and Tightend's money. After running half way round the block both distinguished Blonde's realise this is a dumb idea and decide to go for a pint instead, taking back their money. Should Rob be able to say nah lads you can't do that you gotta complete the race cos it's my money and I'm in charge of this bet.

not sure why we need the bizarre analogy

how about at the next blondebash tikay and tighty are heads up (ok, maybe that's more bizarre than the running round the block thing) and just decide to chop the cash. they shake hands and head for the cash desk

what do dtd do here with a no deals policy? force them to sit back down and play? disqualify them both? force them to sit back down and then dq them when they both agree to just go allin blind?