blonde poker forum

Vote away, the question needs to be "if I owned Dusk Till Dawn" , because if i did a poll saying "should Dusk till Dawn do a £1M freeroll every Monday afternoon at 2pm"................we know what the vote would be from the players!

I have taken out evening comps on Option 2 because they are our most reg/local based comps where players are less likely to get taken advantage of/less arguments etc, where as even at Super 50 and above there is a massive increase in the travelling player % (70%+)

We will PR this vote to all Dusk Till Dawn club members as well as Blondepoker members

As per question if I owned DTD I would want it to be no deals, as a player I might see it differently if I was ever in a big money situation but at least a no deal rule would focus me on the game

To be totally honest if I owned DTD I'd probably be on a beach in the Bahamas and wouldn't give a shit either way.

Kudos to you for actually caring :)

Voted money aside.

However, I reckon if you set a guarantee and the comp has overlaid, there should be no deals. I thought thats what you meant when you first put out the no deals policy, and agreed with it completely.

I'm just not sure a no deals policy is possible to police. It will surely lead to a lot more collusion and people making deals away from the table etc. I don't mind either way, but it seems likely that would be what would happen. Definately prefer the tournaments to have a winner a playing for £X.


Why would you want it to be no-deals? Surely it just means more staff hours spent on the tournament, if deals are done, tournaments end early and staff requirements are reduced. Also means more people playing the comps for longer unable to jump onto the cash tables.

I don't like to deal, I am all for playing it out but I think we have to accept that there is a deal culture and with that being the case and for us wanting to see a winner I have voted that deals were X is kept for winner and comps played out to a conclusion.  That way both venue and player get the best of it.

I hate the arguement thats been used in the past of its the players money, that tilts me so much.  Once the prizepool is collected that money no longer belongs to the players.

PRINCIPLE/ETHICS FOR ME, NOT FINANCIAL DECISION, PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS ON OTHER THREAD, DONT WANT TO REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN AND GET BORING

Deals with a % of the prizepool going to 1st place.

NO DEALS EXCEPT CHIP COUNT
DEALS - % MONEY KEPT FOR 1ST PRIZE

^^Maybe a combination of both of these?

this makes zero sense to me. if you've got a £50 comp guaranteed at £5k with 99 runners you'd have different rules than if it had 100 runners?

what if the comp has 2 start days? anyone playing day 1 would have no clue what rules they were playing by as it'll be a day until the guarantee is hit or not


and +1 to this

I've spent longer deciding which way to vote on this than who to vote for in the general election!

I only recall doing a deal once before, and what we did is flatten the payout structure 4-handed and played on as normal, which I think worked out well. Seems like a potentially fair solution but I don't know how practical it is.

1st  €12,500     
2nd   €9,000     
3rd    €8,000   
4th    €7,000   
5th    €3,500

They flattened the payouts at the Mirage in Vegas a few years ago.

People still tried to do deals.

I don't understand how you could ever enforce any kind of restrictions on deals. People will simply deal away from the table. By putting any club enforced restrictions, all you will do is make the deals more 'under the table', and thus increase potential for people getting grimmed, misunderstandings and all the other dangers that arise from large amounts of money being passed around under the radar. It is in the interest of the players that all payouts are made officially by the club.

Personally, I think something DTD could take a strong lead in is policing deal negotiations. I make it a policy that I never do a deal for the bubble. It would be great if as soon as I've made my position clear, I could rely on the TD and staff to protect me somewhat from abuse and persistent nagging I sometimes get from other players (tbh I've never made a DTD bubble, so I don't know how good/bad you guys are in these spots, but it's definitely a problem in poker in general). Again this 'policing' wouldn't involve enforcing a chip count deal or preventing someone from willingly taking a deal that may seem bad for them (although maybe if some new person was totally overwhelmed, discretion could be used), but it would prevent people being bullied into taking deals they don't want to, or at least being given a hard time about it.

Why no ICM deals?  Isn't chip count inherently unfair?  

So chip count+percentage for first would be more so?  I feel it must be.  Couldn't you also get the situation where the combination gives more than the first prize too.

What about limiting the percentage that can be dealt to 50% of the remaining prize fund or similar?  I haven't seen it anywhere else, but it strikes me as you keep the integrety of the competition and it gives people the opportunity to lock a big score.

Pretty sure dtd have never let people do a saver on the bubble thank god!

I personally don't do deals very often (maybe two or 3 times ever) but I do think that the ability to deal has become entrenched in poker and I don't necessarily think its a bad thing...

I think that ensuring players have to play for X%/X£ for first regardless of the deal for flagship tournaments (Super 50, Deepstack, MC etc) is a good one and does strike a fairly decent balance between the two options. The daily evening tournaments should continue to allow for full chops.

One thing I would like to see is an actual system to decide wether the chop should take place or not. A growingly popular solution is for every player to be dealt a red card and a black card and for the players to return a black card to vote for chop and red card to vote no chop. The cards are then shuffled and placed face up for the vote count. This ensures that there can be no 'bullying' and/or collusion against the one or two players that do not want to chop. There also needs to be some kind of limit as to how long before the next vote can be held (ie player bust out or 30 mins etc).

*In my dreams I will make a final table*

When I get there, although I am not one for deals, I can easily see scanarios where I would deal providing I can negotiate in in my interests.

Therefore I think deals should be allowed but with % retained for 1st

In theory this is great. In reality this wouldn't work.

The vocal ones will always hunt out the dissentors.

I want to change my vote lol.

I think no deals is best after all, but a close eye must be kept on collusion when the final gets short handed.

chip count deals really do not have to be complicated and include percentages etc. A very simple way to ensure this would be 'ok we play this out till this time or the end of this blind and then payout as the payout structure states' still classed as dealing as you are putting restrictions on the amount of time however your not messing about with the payout structure. Its clear its simple and everyone knows where they stand.

I'm not saying it's a financial decision for you. I was asking the other guy why he thinks if he was owner he would want it to be no-deals.... because obviously it's not of any benefit to you. I understand your position Rob, just not 'Rotty's'

In my experience of deals and i have seen it happen at DTD, is that if a deal is suggested and one player refuses, then the other players seem to target that player, if there was a rule stating no deals under any cicumstances, then the subject would never be raised. As in other casino's were savers are permitted for the bubble etc, this was banned from DTD at the very start, thus it never gets raised. I think a no deal policy is the way to go, it also gives players experience of playing to the death and winning the tornement correctly, thus improving your final table game.

This.

From a business standpoint, I think you might lose numbers when players realise that without deals, they'll potentially be at Dusk until 3am playing the £50 freeze outright. Recreational players who need to be up at 8am to get to work obviously can't justify this, especially if they end up grinding an extra 2 hours to exit fourth for a bowl when a chop would make four players very happy.

Obviously with bigger buyin comps, especially those that don't make the guarantees, this should be more in your hands. Stars' tried and tested method of "x must be left for first and must be played out, but final table deals are allowed." Obviously savers are a bit of a joke, and one deepstack not so long ago there were discussions of a 12-way chop - again, ridiculous. Chops should definitely be allowed towards the end of big comps, especially given that the structure is top heavy anyway. From a neutral standpoint, yes going to the races with A5 vs KQ blind on blind for what is effectively a £20k flip is exciting, but for those who have paid and played for 3 days might not feel the same way.

Much in the same way as Stars, % deals should also be possible. Just pause the clock innit ;)

don't want to repeat myself either, but have made a long post in the other thread here (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=56711.msg1505485#msg1505485).

tl;dr: I think banning deals is unnecessary, better to enforce the rules on intimidation, flatten the payout structure (a lot) and allow any deals people want to agree to while leaving 3-5% of the remaining prize pool for 1st.

The immediate counter-argument is that under-the-table deals will take place if official deals are not allowed. Appreciate what you're saying about "improving your game," but anyone serious about improving will realise that volume is required and that you need to play online in order to achieve this.

Does a poker club really have a right to stop people deciding to equally share their prize money??

Yes

Yes of course, jakally made the point in the other thread that as long as everyone is aware of the policy before they buy in then by buying in they agree to be bound by it.

Then you get the chip-leaders stalling over every decision for the last half-hour or so.

OK fair point... Just seems a little controlling that's all

Mods, can we merge these 2 threads together so we've got it all in one place but with a poll.

I don't live close enough to play regularly midweek, but I'd want some form of deal-making to be possible on 'school night's', BUT, I agree with the no- deals idea with keeping a % for 1st as my alternative under the Single Transferrable Vote system.

How do I vote?

When I first started playing at DTD it was only ever NO DEALS. I wasn't sure to begin with whether it was a good thing - turned out I liked it. DTD is a one of a kind club (that's why we play there) and this rule, in a typically deal-minded norm, made a nice change. Rarely were deals done in the car park and if they were, so what? I expect that whatever decision you make Rob that people, who appreciate the club, will still play. C

Here's thing Rob... Can I really answer the question? No, I'm NOT the owner, However, I advice business owners everyday, it's what I do.  But before I offer my opinion, and let's face it, opinions are like backsides, everyone has one. I need to tell you I took a deal at one of your deepstacks only a few month back, here's the details, I'm forth in chips, nine left, next one out gets less then £2K.  The deal on the table chip leader gets £10k the rest £9k. At the time I was in agreeing to a chip deal. The lowest stack was offered about 6K and said no. The chip leader then asked if we would all take the 9 and give him the 10. After a lot of phone calls and talks with sponsors, friend and families which took about 20 mins everyone agreed but not everyone was happy. Would I do a deal again, not sure, if one of the players was skint, and gave me the hard luck story. I would, would I the club to take this option away, no, but make it a chip count and keep 5% of your guarantee back for the winner and make then play on.

That said, here goes.... If I was the owner of dtd... It's my club... my rules... I would want a conclusion to the final table... So I could market it to the tv, Internet media. I would want to tell my third party customers, UKIPT,  EPT, Blackbelt and maybe even a EWSOP that there will be a winner at DTD.  I will keep doing what I'm doing because DTD is a bloody good club....

Your turn Rob... Question: Will deal making damage the club's reputation?

ps... I am the fella that was in the smoking area with you when I told my mate to try and make a deal he was lowest in chips and £19K-£20K will change his life... as a friend how could I not give him that advice... Sorry if that conversation sparked this debate.

AKA ll4Dll
AKA Chris Forde

;yippee; i was in on this deal and you had to phone Mick Mccool first. How times change mate.
If i owned Dtd it would be a "no deals establishment" unless it affected attendance

i then let the players deal on chip count with a %age left to play for winning

And lets be honest, if more poker players had balls and said "no fucking deal lets play on" you would not be in this position. you do enough by providing £15 comps for split arses and bottlers as it is :)

Question:

This poll has been added, so are DTD thinking of going back on what they have already said?

FACT:

People will still come to DTD next month whether or not deal making is going to be allowed.

Opinion:

Deals should NOT be allowed unless the FT turns into a shitstab.

may I remind you of the last Monte Carlo winner Mr Herbert! What was his background?

Plus 'if I owned DTD' I would stop listening to all the whingers and moaners asking can you change this and that... PS, any chance of Yorkshire tea making it's way into the tea cups  ;)

 Aspades

NO DEALS.

Yes it sucks IF you are skint..... but play for the win.
Of course there are lots of arguments for and against but..... if from the outset everybody knows that it`s prize money as stated then that`s all good , play a st ratedgy to maximise your chance to win and live with the outcome.

WTF is a "shitstab"?

lol, sorry.

pretty much no play at FT.

SHEFFIELD WORDING (or perhaps my own) lol.

shitstab is like a crap shoot for people too poor to afford guns

I voted for deal with percentage held for first place but I think it is situation specific.

I have only been in a deal situation at dusk til dawn once which was the Friday night sky poker tour warm up event.
We got down to the final 4 and two of the players were playing in the sky event the next day do as it was very late, one of them proposed a deal. After a chip count, I was in 4th place which would have paid about £650 but the deal was to make me £1050 and after a £50 tip to the dealers meant I was walking away with a grand sp accepted the offer.

If I had been chip leader, I may have decided to decline the offer with a chance to take away more than double this amount armed with the knowledge that the 2 players entering the sky event the next day just wanted to goto bed.

Its never been a word in any part of Sheffield that Ive lived in.

I nearly name-dropped you but figured it would be received by everyone as a sick brag :)

Seems I went with the majority. I have done deals in the past, more recently I staunchly declare NO DEALS, although when it came down to it last but 1 ft i crumbled and agreed.
When discussing this new policy the concensus seems to be its unenforceable.

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. 

 I for one will allways do a deal more so when the prize money is top heavy like most comp. If you don"t want deals done just alter the pay outs with out the big gaps in between, and you will see not many deals even being spoke about.

Still confused by a lot of the arguments in this thread. Unless I'm missing something the bottom line is that ANY restrictions on deal making will surely lead to under the table agreements, which are fraught with potential problems.

The whole putting some money aside for 1st thing doesn't make any sense either. Aren't a high percentage of deals done HU anyway? What's to stop a deal being done 'officially' amongst the FT and then the last two unofficially agreeing to chop whatever's left once they get there. There's only two of them so it wouldn't even be hard to organise! You can argue about the prizepool being 'the players money' or not, but at the end of the day the second it gets paid out it DOES become they players money and they can pre-agree to chop it up how they like.

Everyone has the right to refuse the deal and play for the advertised prizes.

Don't try enforce the unenforceable, concentrate on making sure all deals are negotiated in an open, non-intimidating atmosphere and treat any peer pressure or ganging up on nay-sayers the same way you would treat any other form of collusion.

The last monte winner had got the biggest balls in Dtd. Neither him or 2nd place were too bothered about dealing which was a suprise because that was alleged to be the 2nd placed finishers main occupation :(

This is a very good post.

You say DTD can't enforce the unenforceable and that is fair enough. However, if DTD were to ban deals outright people would not be too enthused about dealing unofficially at all. DTD wouldn't even have to warn customers that unofficial dealing is a no no because how can anyone trust the word of a complete stranger. They will have no control over how parties will pay each other and the lack of trust in an unofficial way of dealing will mean i think people will just settle for the advertised prices and not even think about anything else. In the knowledge that if they are to try and deal they cannot guarantee their money at all.

So DTD do have the power in that they will not be available to sort out any deal so the lure of getting a safe deal is taken away.

Will mean for much better poker viewing on the stream as well.

I agree it would discourage some deals, but people don't play exclusively at DTD and the general culture of deals being a normal and acceptable thing to do throughout the country i think will mean lots still get done unofficially.

Once DTD lay down the law, people will get used to the idea of no deals and once they are on the FT they won't be wishing a deal could have been made because they've known since the start of the tournament that a deal is not allowed. As long as the structures are good, I like the idea of NO DEALS period. However, I don't see why it has to be written in stone as on occasion in the regular evening comps when they do get too crap shooty, its not a big deal if they call the TD over and ask for a deal to be made, which if he sees that there is no play left and average stack is 5-10 bb then he can agree to making a regulated chip count deal. This should be the only occasion, and car park deals should always be a no no.

As for monthly deepstacks and Monte Carlos, they should always be played to the death. Especially from the owner's perspective who should be interested in the PR of the club, chops do not make headlines..."RastaFish Wins 89k!" does <---WTF man?

The night before you return to the club for the final day of a biggie, you don't dream of making the final table and chopping, you dream of shipping every penny. You don't dream of sharing the interview, you planned your speech for you alone. You're thinking about what to do with the advertised 1st place money not 3rd place money.

I've probably made 1 final table from about 50 at DTD, but whatever, I'll argue it for the sake of watching the stream or blog after i bust and come home.

I've thought this over and over and moved my stance from initially liking the no deals set up. After hearing some great arguments for both sides, and looking back on my experiences, I voted for Deals with a % held back for 1st.

Overall I just don't feel comfortable having any options I may have, completely being taken away.  Poker tournaments are so fluid and in any given tourny that I final, I might be open for a deal 2 or 3 way or I may be up for no deal and gamble to win it all.  Its so dependant on so many things (including being staked and state of make up at the time). Might I add that any deals I have done in the past have being entirely my decision and not my backers.

Another reason for my vote is the issue of deals being done on the sly anyway if the NO DEAL policy does go through. I've been playing at DTD since they opened the doors and with the no deal policy they had at the start, people still dealt which still left some players being vulnerable to grimming/pressured/getting a bad deal with the added punishment of not having DTD to oversee or help when these issues arose.

I also don't like the idea of flipping for big sums of money at the end, which isn't so much of a big deal in the smaller comps but in the £300/£500's tourny it could be for a huge amount.

Anyway, being allowed to deal with full backing from DTD and them overseeing and being allowed to punish any bullish tactics from certain individuals surely is a good way to go? Especially if having to save a good amount to play on for for first place then DTD will also have every tourny play out to a winner.

Thats my pennys worth anyhow.  Good luck Rob/Simon, I don't envy you guys with this one.

Just an added thought for what its worth - how about only allowing deals once 5 players are left? That seams to be when deals occur most often from what I see.  Its never been done before but who cares! Thats never stopped you in the past :)

I think we should all deal at 100/200 blind level ! As that's as deep as I go then go on the piss with our dish

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.

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.

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.

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".

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. 

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

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

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  /:-|

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

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.

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

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.

YouTube classic in the making.

IMO I would prefer flatter structures and chip count deals.

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.

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

DTD might be reluctant to sacrifice that.

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?

I'm not sure that is true, Ralph.

ALL their advertising & Promos trumpet the Guarantee, but NEVER the "up top" sum. I have never once seen DTD advertise "£xx,xxx first prize".

People play Flight 1a of the Deepie or MC & don't even know what is up top (due to Flight 1b, re-entries etc) but they DO know the Guarantee. And the Guarantees are not changing, except for regular tweaking, fiffing & faffing.

Yeh that argument is poor Ralph.

they advertise a top prize in the grand prix normally

Ahh, my apologies then, I never realised that. So Ralphy Boy's argument was a fair point, then.

As a low stake player if I sat. into a big event where no deals were allowed I would be well pissed off. For the likes of me its a once in a life pay day so deals in general are what I would look for over a flip for huge amounts.

Well it is you (us!) guys that most concern me - you - we, us - are the bread & butter of poker, the bottom of the food chain if you like. Rob's Club would die if he ignored us guys, (but worry not, he won't), it's not just about the big boys playing the Headline Tourneys. Really, more of the "regular" guys need to make their voice heard here.

Nor should you be ashamed of preferring to Deal - not everyone agrees that flipping for a five figure sum makes a lot of sense.

The top 2% of the players, the Big Boyz, it's different for them, & I understand why they want "no deals" & a peaky payout, & I have no quibble with it, but you pay the same entry fee as them, never forget that.

As a % how often do u think live comps are played out to their conclusion? Less than 1%?

More than that. I'd say 10% reach a natural conclusion, to the bittter end, with abso no business, but it could be less. It matters not really - everyone with a brain knows that business is done in the vast majority of "regular" Tourneys. My belief is that we should ask ourselves why that is, not try to fix the secondary problem - fix the cause, not the effect.

It's possible there is a two-tier answer to this - the £500 & above Tourneys have a peakier, no deals thing, because dem boys like to gamble, & the "regular" Tourneys have a flatter structure, &/or business is permitted. If anyone wants to get arsey in the dealmaking, Rob's not been shy in the past at using his banstick, & he should wield it. It's not exactly difficult to argue without shouting & swearing.

So how comes there is no "flattening the payout" option in the voting?

Surely thats what deals do?

I voted for deal with % kept for first.

I think that's what happened heads up in the last grand prix, I think it was £15k each with £3k left for the winner, although when this was first suggested I believe the chip leader at the time turned it down only after the chips levelled themselves out was it agreed, I can imagine this happens quite allot when making deals.

I like the idea of the red and black card voting system so the players have the option to remain anonymous if they wish. Also I would say wait 30-40 minutes or a player has to be knocked out before a deal can be suggested after one is rejected

I seem to remember that one of the reasons for Rob deciding to start his own poker club was to do with him being targeted by the other players at a final table after he had decided against a deal...although don’t quote me on this I may have dreamt it.....lol. at the end of the day it is his club and as long as all the players know before buying into a comp what the rules are then no one can complain.

Yes Guy, but I'm pretty sure that even after a deal the original top prize is the one that is published.

This old guy talks a lot of sense. Even if they do advertise £x for first once in a while, I don't think it's that important either from a players' point of view (ah, it's only £60k for first, not £70k, not playing now?) or the club's, the lower figure to advertise won't be much lower and will still be impressive.
I voted for the deals with a % left, I rarely do deals and will probably still not do them, the option is there and I'll probably use my right to say no unless it's ridic in my favour, but I think no deals is unenforcable anyway

I think looking at flattening the payouts is a worthy idea.  In last weekend's deepstack (£560 buy in) the minimum payout was £750, which frankly is ridiculous.  It's simply not worth it.  IMHO the minimum payout should be around double the buy-in (excluding the fee) therefore in this case £1000.  If you think about the effort and time a player has to put in during the deepstack to then finish with a minimum cash, it's simply not worth your time.

Since a decent place opened in Derby, I've not actually been over to DTD since, but I voted to allow deals on the basis that, once the money is in the prize pool, its my money (and that of the other players). How we chop it up is down to us (once there are a small enough number of us for that to be either manageable or desirable).

That said, its Rob's club and he's free to do whatever he wants so long as everyone's clear before entering.

Tikay has hit the nail on the head though by pointing out that deals solve the symptom, not the problem.

I'm not suggesting the players enter a tournament with a minimum cash in mind and it doesn't really matter why you end up with a minimum cash (bad play, unlucky, too passive), whatever the reason the point is that some players WILL min cash and if you are looking at flattening the payouts, then this needs to be all the way down the payout structure.

flatterning all the price postions sounds best to me with NO DEALS

Flattening solves nothing. Deal mongers will still want to chop

Flattening the structure pah, you may as well buy some grey slacks and settle down to your life of mediocrity.

It may be greed or ambition, but whenever I play a tournament I play in the belief that I can take it down with my eyes well and truly focussed on that top prize. I'm not aiming to come second or third. By flattening the structure it's like saying I'll play but I don't expect to win.

Where's the fighting spirit??

Just being realistic.  Only one person can win the tournament.

I do think payout structures should in general be flatter. People deal because of the huge jumps and not wanting to flip for it. Flatten it out and there'll still be deals, but less off them.

Very good debate this, enjoying reading the feedback.

Just be be clear, I define a "deal" as when the players agree and negotiate the details for each of them of the prize pool distribution, when we had 'no deals except chip count' I didn't consider players were dealing, it was just 2 different fixed payout options the players remaining had to choose from.

We have emailed out every single club member this evening to have their say, either on the Facebook vote Or the blonde vote.

I agree the details of this policy are important, as I beleive it will be copied, therefore have implications in other venues, so I'm no knee jerking here, I'm really making sure we get every bit of feedback possible.

What I can and will commit to now, is that players will not be 'deal making' ie negotiating a flexible payout structure between eachother, at DTD from 1st march. I also wouldn't expect 3 mates on our 15 comp to play till 6am either, and then chop it up anyway, it all about the rules that we put in place which I will make a final decision on when I feel I have enough information. I'm very pleased with the response so far, on Facebook and blondepoker.

Trust me, every comment on here and Facebook is being printed off and read and filed, whatever the final details are on the new policy, everyone will have contributed, but ultiimatley, I have to make a clear decision with Simon and whatever we do, it looks like we are going 50% are going to disagree, but more will disagree if we keep things the same, from both votes, that is crystal clear, as PLAYERS DECIDE BETWEEN EACHOTHER is not very popular so far.

As for this escrow argument, I firmly beleive when we guarantee the prize pool in our licensed venue and publish the rules, legally have a duty of care to our customers etc etc that argument doesn't hold water. As a player, I would personally have no problem abiding by the rules if the venue gte's the prize, but this in my personally opinion.

Play it Out !

In the long run...The Better and most Ballsy Players will Win and they will deserve it !

Why Isnt that Fair ?

Fml . Whats with all the " let's flatten the payout" brigade. Rastafish beats 287 players and gets just shy of £90k, Rat Muscle beats 277 players and get £3.5k, that's life wp Rastafish ul gg Matt. Dtd has become so successful taking risks and aiming for the stars.  Please don't ever let flatten out the structure too drastically (although I agree with Tim that min cashes are pointless if they don't cover costs).

Also to those who think the prize money is theirs to do as they choose. Try getting your money back once the cards are in the air if you think it's yours.

If that is "fair", why do almost all Tourneys end in business?

I don't know, but the facts suggest that far & away most Tourneys end in "business". Why do you think that is so?

Note, I'm really (personally) not fussed one iota what the decision is, honestly, I'm not. But we cannot ignore the historical facts. Nobody forces players to chop it up - but more often than not, they do.

Simon Trumper likes to walk round the house in high heels and a nighty :)

There can be a lot of reasons why there is business done Tony...However this doesnt detract from the fact by playing the tournament to a natural conclusion...You get a fair & more "pure" result

i voted, deal (players decide) its a good skill being able to gauge how much you can get from the oppos. Always been this way in Poker and i dont see why it should change. I mean you can leave 2k up top but no-one will really care for it, and obv changes the whole dynamic. Also peoples games would improve if there was a no deal policy, and the games are hard enough as it is ;)

I could not agree with you more, Fraser. But you never answered my question, which was a serious one. Who are all these anonymous people that keep doing deals & chopping it up, & why? Answer that, & you have solved the problem.

this is a really good post imo - agree with it all.

Sorry for ignorance, if some one already expressed similar opinion in this 8 page long  thread as I have read  only 1st and last page,

My suggestions - I have voted for no deal,

 if eventually  DTD allows deal ,  either on chip count or  keeping money away for 1st place, I may suggest,  something on the line of only after half of final table vanished ( just to make sure some game will be played on final table before deal idea is even introduced)  and deal voting will be done by tournament director at the beginning of every new level, through closed method and penalty for players asking each other whether they would like to enter a deal or not!! -  asking each other players among themselves on entering deal or not , - itself causes enormous bias and group creation!!  Solely my opinion, ignore if  you do not agree..

lolz

In a nutshell - it's easier to do a deal

One thing which hasnt been addressed (i dont think), is why people deal, and there are numerous reasons:

1. Fear of money jumps
2. Cant be bothered to play another 1-2 hours as they have work the next day
3. Playing with someone they like
4. They believe that they can negotiate a good deal from a good/bad chips position (good players)
5. People feel outclassed and believe that a deal is likely to net a good/better result than hoping to get lucky (inexperienced players)


Im sure there are more, but the above shows 5 very different reasons why people MIGHT want to deal. Having deal veto's stops peoples ability to strike a deal for the right/wrong reasons. In my time I have dealt for all of the above reasons.

If I owned DTD I would say this...

Deals will not be authorized by DTD, however if players wish to discuss a different payout to the official one we will allow a 5minute pause on the clock ONLY IF EVERYONE AT THE TABLE REQUEST's IT. Deals done are the responsibility of the players and not DTD, however we reserve the right to issue penalty's to anyone who is considered to be acting in any way that is threatening or intimidating.

I think deals are fine, If I think my equity in a comp is £50k and I think I can deal for £57.5k I'm loving life, like trigg says it's a skill in itself.

However if I owned DTD I'd not want to be officially involved in deals as it would be tilting for me, but if players wanna look at ICM or chip distribution then I'd do that for them as part of the service, but comps need to be played out and the official payouts/finishing positions stand.

If deals are to be allowed, why not get the TD to ask each player, in confidence, before the FT starts if they are prepared to deal if asked. If anyone says no then TD should announce before FT starts that no deals shall be discussed as 1 or more players have chosen not to deal. If players persist in trying to find out who said no then a penalty could be given.

I'm still in the no deals camp BTW.

I personally don't understand why someone would commit to an outright no at the beginning of a final table.  Deals are entirely situation dependent at any given time and are influenced as the FT progresses due to blind increases, players going out, chip movement etc.  Would even the best of players who felt they had a huge skill edge over their opponent want to take a flip for £20k when each player had 10 big blinds?

mr herbert should probably retire from the forum now as it's unlikely he will ever make a better post

Disagree with this. I think it's much better when the venue acknowledges the deal and pays out accordingly. Saves a lot of hassle and potential grimming.

From Guy's list my main reason for dealing is number 2. Especially if it's a cheap tournament i'm usually just fed up and want to go to bed. Which is what i'm going to do right now actually :)

Or be allowed back in at Dtd :)

If i owned DTD poker club, my policy woud be deals with a percentage for the outright winner. Reason being, is I feel that the gtee's are generous and to final table one of the decent tournaments would be a life changing sum of money to a lot of people. However I still feel that flagship events should have an outright winner for the publicity of the club and the prestige of the tournament. I feel this way, it would keep all concerned happy.

No deals, and i don't give a shit who moans at me.

Playing poker.

If you want a deal buy a corner shop.

I agree with this. I think this should only apply to the flagship events however and the nightly comps should be allowed deals but be policed better to avoid intimidation and collusion issues.

Might be something to add onto this discussion that there are perhaps people voting on this poll that have perhaps never been to DTD or played the deepstacks, so even though this poll might seem reasonable enough, we still might not be getting a reasonable and realistic reply.

Also, like people have said there can always be anomosity when one person doesn't agree to the deal, so I would really like to see a way in which a person can decline the deal in privacy, because the whole game and people's attitude can change when one person is know to have declined the deal.

As  the majority of tournaments I play are online I think there is nothing more perfect than a 'deals allowed' final table, say on party or stars. If this anonymous deal 'yes or no' voting system can somehow be translated to DTD's final table it would be perfect imo. This way the tournament would only be stopped for players to discuss a deal when all players are ready and willing. Also if anonymous then intimidation cannot take place and if so called loud aggressive personalities wish to flush out the 'non dealers' then a ten minute warning should be given.
If during the flagship tournaments where the final table is live streamed maybe DTD could announce prior that deals are permitted but so much has to be put aside for champion, so at least it is played out to conclusion.

Pete Haslam

Fwiw I would probably commit to a no deal before a final table starts 95% of the time

Prime example last weekend tenth 2 k ish ? 1 st place 61 k obviously if u get that far you hope to win it but a bit of bad luck could see u with only 2 k for 2 long days grind personally I would like to lock something more up and leave a reasonable amount to still play for
But who deceides? The club or the players ?
There is no easy answer maybe deal when only 5 remain and leave a good amount for eventual winner ?

Tony, the problem is that you can never leave a decent amount for the winner. Deals are usually co-ordinated by chopping up regarding stacks and what's left in the PP, so you can hardly leave much aside for the eventual winner really. If someone agrees to take £50k on a deal, then it's really silly to be leaving 2-3k for the winner tbh.

As for talk to TD before final table to tell if you want a deal or not is pretty silly imo. People's opinions on dealing will change throughout the FT regarding chipstack and remains of PP. An example being at the start of FT the CL may not want a deal for obvious reason, but then with 5 left he is no longer CL and perhaps will want a deal.

The only way I think to stop anomosity is to give each other cards when a deal has been 'set' and if you want to deal chuck a black card in, if not throw the red one in, all face down of course, so you don't know has agreed and who hasn't.

I just want to add to this, because I have sometimes been one to decline deals and I am only 21 years old. I decline them for very good reason, but because I am 21, I can often be patronised or bullied into dealing and so on. I play the 20r and 50r in Sheffield and can sometimes be hot and miss towards a deal or not.

Sorry for the late reply Tony but in the mean time Guy has answered the reason some people deal almost perfectly

This...

One thing which hasnt been addressed (i dont think), is why people deal, and there are numerous reasons:

1. Fear of money jumps
2. Cant be bothered to play another 1-2 hours as they have work the next day
3. Playing with someone they like
4. They believe that they can negotiate a good deal from a good/bad chips position (good players)
5. People feel outclassed and believe that a deal is likely to net a good/better result than hoping to get lucky (inexperienced players)


Im sure there are more, but the above shows 5 very different reasons why people MIGHT want to deal. Having deal veto's stops peoples ability to strike a deal for the right/wrong reasons. In my time I have dealt for all of the above reasons.  
 

if someone is worried about being coolered in 10th spot for £2k then the answer cannot be to deal with 5 left because they will already have been out for ages

This is hard work! It seems to be simple logic to me.

You have established WHY people want to deal.

You have established that players DO want to Deal.

You have established that the majority of players DO want to deal, & taken Guy's line as gospel for the moment, that the reasons include "fear of money jumps".....

So..........

FWIW - i rarely deal and have often been chastised (not a dtd) for not doing so

BUT, there are times when I want the option to be able to strike a deal, and that is why I didnt vote for no deals.

I strongly believe that if any ONE player wants to play it out, then thats what should occur. In theory, this should lead to most tourneys playing out (assuming a good spread of chip counts). However given this isnt the case, it sugests that many players want to even out the variance.

Most players already know when they make a final who will and wont deal, is this is what gives people an edge in making the deal. I am strongly against chip count/icm only deal making for the reasons set out by Mr keys. Making a deal is just as skillful as playing the game, and often the most skillful deal makers are the better players. I dont like the "we need to protect the players" line at all. If someone is so frightened of the pay jumps that they are prepared to strike a terrible deal, then so be it.

Most of that, especially the italicised part.

I totally respect the "no-deals" camp, but it is out of touch with reality in the current circumstances, especially the way the prize pool is structured.

It is - in my experience - also always been true that if there is a SINGLE dissenter at the Final, opposed to doing a deal, then no deal is done.

And yet 80% of FT's end in business.

We must remember, too, that if Deals remain permitted, they can STILL be vetoed by a single player, so the "no Deals" camp have a safety parachute, in that not one of them will ever have to do a Deal, because Deals have to be agreed by every player.

Not hard work really Tony...just arguments for and against

In the main...I am for no deals...and all I said was that Guy has offered good reasons why "some" people will choose to deal which I totally agree with .

If I owned Dusk Till Dawn ...

When all players want to deal I'd ask them all to write down the amount of the available prize pool that they would accept if the tournament were to end right now. No discussion, no conferring.

If the totals equate to less than the prize pool then the balance would be distributed in proportion

If the totals equate to more than the prize pool tell them not to be so optimistic and give them a second go, with the information as to how much over the top they've been. If it's still over the prize pool then the tournament continues - no ifs, no buts.

Repeat,  if all players wish it, at the end of each level or after each exit.

This allows those who don't want to deal to price their objections into the process. If you have a chip lead and a perceived edge, you simply write down the amount that reflects the prize for winning overall. Or a bit more.

Hi

We are almost "there" with the details/smallprint of the policy, just want to see what other views come in over next few days from our members after we sent an email out yesterday, I think by Monday we will release this to our members so everyone has plenty of notice before March 1st, which I think is important and fair. Simon and myself have a couple of small details we need to debate and come to an agreement on. What I can say is there will be significant radical changes to what we currently do now.

Cheers Rob

The dippy tart on today totally mangled it - she should have snap accepted the banker's offer of £16,200 but got greedy.

Oh wait, it's not that thread.

Yes, this seems key to me. A "no deals" rule only ever comes into effect when everyone left wants to do a deal (since as you say, if there's always someone who wants to reject a deal, then no deal gets done anyway).

In DTD's position, I don't think I'd be comfortable introducing a rule that is necessarily contrary to what all the players wanted. That really doesn't seem to make any sense.

Obviously there are problems with the deal-making process, so better to address those problems. The red card/black card thing seems like it's helpful, and restrictions on the deals that can be done could be useful too. Maybe just having one alternative, flatter, payout structure that the remaining players can vote for, in place of the original. Reduces variance (and wasted time and arguments) if that's what the players want, and ensures the tournament is played to a finish, if that's what DTD wants.

If DTD was my club

I'd want to get the publicity from having a big winner not much big news 5 players chopping at the business end.

If I was in an overlay situation of £25k for a £250k Guarantee. I'd pay out the true prize pool. And re-adjust the prize money.
The only players it would effect are those who are left in. everyone else is out!

I'd keep my overlay money. The players want to change the payout why should I lose the chance of making the poker press
and still pay for it.
 
If nobody deals I'd take it on the chin. Knowing matey who takes the top prize has a good chance
making the poker news. So at least my overlay cash has got me some publicity.  

If the guarantee is met then I would allow deals I've not had an overlay and got maximum juice. How to allow deals that's down to Trumper
I'm just the owner.
 
Regards

M
  

I'd prefer no deals at all to chip count + percentage for the leader.  

Forcing them to take a terrible deal or no deal grates more than feeding the newbies to the sharks.

These are the perils of democracy and poorly worded market research.

This vote shows that you will not be able to please everyone no matter what you do, so just do what you think is best Rob, it's a no win situation.

People will adjust to whatever you decide and it will be forgotten in a couple of months time

 ;iagree;

The number of votes is a micro compared to the actual number of members of DTD.

Regards

M

Lets put the vote in perspective. . . . . . .

If it was just a straight forward question of deal or no deal, its clear that the overwhelming winner would be "deal" but because the question as been diluted down due to 5 options being available, its not that clear cut.

It's not an overwhelming winner at all.

These are the results so farm not overwhelming or conclusive, nor is 464 votes a huge sample of our 50,000 members (<1%), but the comments have been helpful:

OPTIONS                            FACEBOOK   BLONDEPOKER    ALL   VOTES   %

NO DEALS                             53            47                    100                  22%
NO DEALS - EXCEPT £15 & £50   16            18                     34                  7%
NO DEALS - EXCEPT CHIP COUNT   37            46                     83                 18%

NO DEALS                          106          111                     217                  47%

DEALS - % 1ST PLACE             67            80                    147                  32%
DEALS - PLAYERS DECIDE            61            39                    100                  22%

DEALS                                   128            119                247                  53%

TOTALS                                 234            230                464              100%

Cheers Rob

Surely the "no deal except chip count" as to be independent (at least, if not in favour of the deal brigade)

I for one, (being in favour of doing deals) would vote for this option if the only other option was no deals. I dont think I would be the only one too!!!

IMO, 2 to 1 in favour of deals.

Do you know how to add up Ken?

If it was just a straight forward question of a "yes or no" then a minimum of 2 to 1 in favour of deals.

hi rob thanks for the update on how the polls are doing. As someone who has a whole community of cabin crew to keep happy and who regularly uses the voting method i can completely understand how a clear cut result would be useful but the chances of it happening are minimal. You should bear in mind that whilst you have had a low response rate its the people that have responded that truely care about what happens so i wouldnt even worry about the people that have not voted. They have had their chance to make their voices heard and if they havent taken part in the vote then how can they possibly argue the outcome? Secondly your never going to please everyone so you would be best placed to go with the majority vote and then review it in say six months to see if it is working. Even though there will be a few cross faces about the decision should they question you about it you have the back up of the fact they had the chance to vote and you went with the majority. For the record i have voted but its not for the one that is currently winning the race however i will completely accept the outcome as the decision made and understand the reasons why. Rant over lol!

I would like to see deals done on % to winner, my reason for this is i have always felt the % to the winner is too high and should be shared out a little better between final table players.

I would also like to see/ play a bounty shootout tournament mr. Young

What the pole shows beyond doubt is the vast majority of players want options. Over three quarters of the people surveyed want to have at least some choices available when they reach the ft. The original no deals at all idea appealed to just 22% of players so it is clearly an unpopular concept.

So it's a fact we want choice, and at the moment under the traditional system there is the most choice. Every option is available to us as players and you can do exactly what you want to do. You can deal if you want to deal or you can play on if you want to play on. It's kinda inconsistent if people do want choice to advocate moving to a system where there is less choice. Or to advocate a system that only has their own preferred choice available. I don't know why players feel the need to put those restrictions on their choices or what benefits those restrictions bring. The reason given so far is that another player could get cross.

And the same proportion of people think that just leaving it to the players to decide with no restrictions is the best approach.

There are problems with having no deals at all and problems with unrestricted deal making - whatever is chosen will annoy some group of people but it seems clear that somewhere in between the two extremes is what's called for.

With DTD having invested in streaming the final tables it's preferred resolution is surely to have the final table play out to winner. A stream is not going to gain many viewers if it typically ends in a five/six way deal every comp. So whilst I prefer having deals I would understand if DTD looked for an option that ensured the game was played to ensure a winner. In that case I would prefer chipcounts with amount held back for the win/2nd rather than pure no deals unless a flatter structure was in place.

Deals should be allowed.  It's similar to the TV game show in that the more money involved the greater tendancy a deal would be struck, so introducing a rule for different buy ins would not seem fair to me.

The things that I dislike are
when a solitary player who says "No Deal" gets slated and treated like a leper
deals slow the game down and change the dynamic of the way the final table is played, if you introduce a rule where players can only negotiate a deal when a player is eliminated or when the blinds go up the flow of the game would be much better.  Any other time than when the negotiations are allowed to take place deals cannot be discussed at the table or a 3 hand penalty is applied, (this would stop people saying will you do a deal at the next break). 6c 6d 6h

 ;tk;

disagree with this, it's situation dependent. for example blinds go up 4 handed but you have a huge chip leader who says he isn't willing to deal at that point with the way the stacks are, the other 3 want to deal. now the cl takes 2 big hits straight away and the stacks are pretty much even leaving you with all 4 players who want to deal but now they're not allowed to, they have to wait 55 minutes for the blinds to go up again by which point the stacks have changed again and the new chip leader doesn't want to deal

if it's obvious that everyone at the table wants to deal then let them

One of my mates does a lot of sports betting. He is at his happiest when he's got money on both teams in a game and wins no matter what the result. I don't know why he puts money on the other team thou, I mean how will he ever learn to 'go for the win' when betting? All this ironing out variance is for cowards. Really bookies should introduce rules to stop their customers backing both sides in a game because this way the result would be more 'pure'.

I'm intrigued to know why you consider a vote for "No Deals - except chip count" to be a vote for No Deals? 

The main thing I'd change which would reduce the number of deals is change the prize structure.  
I finished in the top 3% in the UKIPT (23rd out of 1058) and received £2645 (the entry was £560), this is a 470% return on my money.
If I finished 3rd (out of 120) in last weekends £268 buy in I would have got £4030, this is a 1500% return on my money.

1st place should be capped to X times the buy in, let's say 100 times the buy in. Gareth Walker would have only received £50k instead of £109k but the rest of the players in the money get a reasonable pay day.

The bigger the tournament the greater the variance.  There's only 1 event I would not have capped prize structure and that's the WSOP main event.

If i wanted to play a lottery I'd buy a ticket for the euro millions. ;snoopy'sguns;

Let's just pay the top 90% of the field. That way we're all winners

can you make it 95% so I can get paid some times

Or 90% of the prize pool goes to those that mincash so George is happy.

Actually why the fuck didn't I think of that?

George2Loose: Let's just pay the top 90% of the field. That way we're all winners

The way I'm playing at the moment that's probably a good idea   ;kev;

^^^^^Already said this myself^^^^^

And to echo somebody else's previous comment. . . . . . . The vote shows that 78% of voters want some kind of choice.

2 situations i would like to add into my futile poker experiences.

Firstly approx 6-7 years ago played my first big event for me somehow made the final table, 1st prize 28k, was 4th with 4 left in chips but literally very few bbs between all four stacks , im thinking mine for the taking as nothing to loose but if a deal was proposed i would have listened and acted accordingly if i wanted to deal , knew none of the players on the table, a break came up. Upon return im all pre on the button somehow all 3 players call then checked down to river and q 5 wins....

Im like stunned confused, not yet sunk in that 3 players have just colluded and knocked me out, first time id experienced this and lesson learned for future events and situations at tables to watch out for.

Secondly i know of a player who is heads up in a big event but needs to win it due to league points which would lead to that player been giving more opportunities, sponsership, media coverage, staking etc etc, to be fair he is chip leader but again during break approaches second player and offers him a deal with cash from his pocket, but the player declines as the player doesnt think the deal is in his favour which he was correct and they carry on and the player needing the win, wins by default anyway.

I know of no casino, cardroom being able to stop underhanded play so why not let deals by propsed by the players if they so seem fit, too many times have i seen local players gang up on short stacks call the all in of the short stacked opponets check it down then go outside and chop it up.

None of these players who have damaged the credibilty of the game in its principals have ever been caught or peanalised in any way as their seems to be no authourity outside a casino-cardroom to stop or prove any alegations made by a poker player, all authorty is in house, yes cheats have been caught and barred but this is neglible as rare and far between.

The scandals of past and recent online poker sites is again proof and the big players walk away and play somewhere else with our money.

Unfortunatley whatever decision is made over this it cant be enforced off the table , so i beleive if players at the time and place on a final table can make an amicable deal of some sort and were all happy let us make that decision and keep coming back to your establishments to play.

What needs to be done internationally is a set of rules or a governing body produced so the basic game of poker plays the same in all venues and no venue give a different ruling over the same hand scenario... baffling how this happens, yes your decsisons will be final but that dont make you right.

I played the regular £50 last night and was basically forced in to a deal I didn't want to do! I was chip leader but wasn't really allowed to have in say in the deal it was £678 each a straight chop between the 7, as I didn't think this was fair I refused and got called all names under the sun!

Ok I only ended up with £200 due to me tilting as the table got to me because I'm not a regular!

Also one thing I would like to add the missus was watching a bloke standing behind me telling a player on the table cards I had folded as he could see them! I didn't even realise there was someone behind me till I was knocked out and she told me!

I love playing DTD but last night has really got to me.

If someone is sufficiently dumb or ill-mannered enough to stand right behind you when you are playing, you should ALWAYS either ask them, politely, to step away, or ask the Dealer to ask them. They have no right to stand there.

you should of made the td aware of the situation

Thats way the black card red card rule is the best . Surprised they allowed some 1 stood behind players on ft

"If I owned Dusk Till Dawn" DEAL OR NO DEAL?

My honest answer to the above question would be no deal. If It was my club, It would make tournaments a bit more exiting and would ensure that each one gets played till the end.

Personally, looking at my situation.  I’m a recreational player.  I have played on and off for around 5 years, and really enjoy playing both live and on-line.  I wouldn’t enjoy the lifestyle of playing poker professionally, but the buzz I get from playing and winning is fantastic (which is why I keep coming back for more)

My decisions on the above topic when playing are always circumstantial.   I have been in tournaments and agreed to deal, and have, at times (and annoyance to other players) not dealt.  It all depends on payout’s, my chips stack (v other players & average), blinds at the time, if I feel I have any edge on the remaining players on the table & finally the payout structure.

I don’t think I’ve played a tourney as yet and not been happy with my cash!

I played the £150 last weekend and had a good run. The buy in was above my normal, but managed to satellite in, which meant I got to play a higher buy in with a chance of a great pay day. 

I watched the final table when I got home (great commentary by the way), and was gutted I didn’t get to play on FT.  I was disappointed when they dealt, as I would have enjoyed watching it to a conclusion (& hear Rob slating the recreational player more  ;D), but if I were in the position of the players on the table, with me playing as ‘scared money’ with so much cash at stake, I’m pretty certain I would have taken the chop, but without being there its difficult to say.

It’s a tough one to call.  It certainly won’t stop me playing, whatever the rules are. 

I have not read the whole thread so apologies if any of this has been covered already.

I think that deals are part and parcel of poker. It does matter how flat you make a payout structure a good percentage of the time all the players want to deal. Especially when there is s decent amount being played for.

I understand from an organisers point of view that a big first prize is a good promo tool and of course if you are live streaming or filming an event then you want it to be played to a finish properly or it goes a bit flat.

If a deal is done in an event then we will not hide the fact, I think it makes a good discussion point on livestream's blogs etc.

There needs to be a balance between what the players want and what the organisers want and I am not sure if we have it 100% right yet but the policy I apply is:

1: In any deal there must be something left to play for after the deal. The amount should be relative to the size of the tournament. Normally I would insist on at least 5% of 1st prize.

2: All players must agree to the deal. Most of the time it is clear whether all the players want to deal. I would ask the question "Is anybody against doing a deal" at the point where it has started being discussed and if nobody pipes up then I would also use the red card/black card voting system to make sure no one is afraid to oppose. Sometimes it is clear that everyone wants to deal so I would not waste anyone's time with a vote in this instance.

3: The organiser should assist with the deal. Not by suggesting amounts but by calculating each persons share based on the various proposals and making sure that every player is 100% happy with the final proposal. Once everyone is agreed then we would adjust the payouts and make sure that each players is paid per the deal.

4: If at any point it is clear that there is an objector to the deal then players are warned that any further deal discussion or pressurising a player to take part in a deal will result in a penalty. If you are allowing deals then you must offer protection to players who need it.

There are plenty of good ICM calculators out there and most give various different options based on the chips stacks and payouts that are input. The one I use on my Android tablet is called dealmaker.

Why did she not mention it until afterwards?

Listen man I would forget about telling the TD or what not. The reality is you're going to a poker club to play the pokers with a bunch of ugly bastards who would like nothing better than to take your money. You aren't going to a cub scout meeting to play pat-a-cake with your best friends. So my advice is to wise up your whole approach rather than complaining about being a victim. As it stands you are exposing ur hand to people behind you don't even know are there, you reckon you had no say in the deal as chip leader, that you were forced to do things you didn't want to do, and that you tilted ur chips off. I'm afraid all of that is down to you.

Look dude, huddle up over your cards so nobody can see or turn round and tell people to gtfo if they would be so kind. Realise you ARE the guy calling the shots when CL so fight to cut yourself a better deal and make proposals you're happy with rather than just refusing the straight chop. Guess what? You weren't happy so actually there wasn't a deal and you did have that power to control things. And christ don't let other players tilt you because you made them sad by no dealing. You can achieve all this serenity with a smile on ur face as it's all part of the fun of the game. Just because you feel u didn't have control doesn't mean that control wasn't available if your approach was more deft/skillful. This is good advice btw so don't get defensive.

I think generally this thread has been pretty interesting, lots of different opinions and a good idea by Rob. But I find this what would you do if you owned the poker club question quite remarkable. It gets punters voting for what they would do if they weren't punters.

As above!

I wasn't aware anyone was behind me as they were on the lower level! If I had known you think I'm that dumb to let it happen? Totally understand where you are coming from about the deal, but when there are 6 regulars who know each other by name saying they will do straight chop deal and nothing else what am I supposed to do? Also when these players are all in your face during hands still talking about deal! Ok I shouldn't of tilted chips off I'm just a hot head what can I say that's just me I'm afraid.

Did they snap deal after you went out then. I noticed Wadey was one of the 6 so will try and get his side of the story.

I'm confused.. Did you do a deal for £678 or not?



Dealer and TD just let this happen?

Gentleman thankyou for your kind offer of an even chop. After carefully considering your terms I must sadly decline the proposal. I am the CL which is making me feel very powerful inside and my balls feel big/nice. Sadly i'm cursed with an arrogant disposition so believe I am the best player at the table and will scoop first prize, so ideally I want to carry on playing. However, I am moved by this all friends together share and share alike approach so am prepared to offer a compromise. I will take £1,146 to reluctantly end the game now. I have the most chips and i'm the only one who wants to carry on playing so I need to be adequately recompensed. This sounds like a lot but don't fret, sharing that burden equally amongst friends means each of you only need sacrifice £78 and everyone can still take £600. You will need to come 3rd or better to make that kinda money so only 2 out of you 6 will be taking more if we continue.

Maybe let them bargain you down to a bag and then go home. If play continues it will be their fault for no dealing so you should call them all the names under the sun.

Mr chip leader, you may have the chip lead ATM but we are 6 sneaky mothers and in a short while you are gonna be going out in 7th and get the abso min from the position you are in now as you are showing everyone your hand. :)

Yeah wadey was there ask him. I'll admit I did make a mistake after the lil argument. Other than that was basically ganged up on lol! Tbf tho I really don't give a flying fuck just thought I would put my point across!

To above I weren't showing my hand so shut it yeah! They were looking over my shoulder without me knowing ok.

See Azza the people you're dealing with are sneaky mothers so you need to watch your back. Need to cup them cards like ur holding a butterfly and keep looking around all paranoid. If you see any sneaky mothers appearing round the back tell them to gtfo. Only look at your cards once and only peel them up from the corners. Can;t believe we were CL and threw it all away.

Lol at all comments thanks you have made my day I'm all smiles now :)

I wasn't putting this up to start any rows was just putting my point across. See u all soon big kisses :D

All is cool. So many times chip leaders no deal and become the next guy out. We all say we will no deal until it gets down to the last few and taking the decent sum becomes attractive. The best thing to do is play along with the regs and you will get a decent deal offered when you are short. Wp last night

This all makes me smile.

Does not matter if your reg or not.

If you do not want to deal just grow some balls and tell the the rest to GET LOST, simple really.

1. Not sure about 15s but 50s MUST HAVE no deal or as a miximum HU deal rule. In some cases really even more important for TD to look at certain people soft playing (or better word NOT PLAYING) other certain people until just 3 of them left and can split winnings.

2. Depstacks (£100 - 500) - yes recent deals between 7 or 8 people didn't look great from not involved persons perspective. Still as there are huge money involved I would probably leave option to deal between top 3.

3. Anything above £500 buy inn - allow to deal for top 5(top 4?) but leave certain amount to play for each place upwards.