blonde poker forum

Having just read the thread re: day 3 in the WPT main event in Paris it was interesting to read about the confusion regarding an agreement that was made between Carlos De Silva and Peter Heighway and the spliting of the 18th prize money if they were both knocked out in a three handed showdown.

Whilst it's appears this situation is being sorted I just wondered what bad experiencs you guys have either had or heard off in similar deal situations. Also with many casino's adopting a no involvement policy in deals is it not probable that more problems will occur more frequently in the future.

Just thought this thread would serve as a good warning to less experienced players who are unfamilar with such situations.

If a comp was set to pay a certain way it should be done that way, I would never want to be involved in a deal because a good friend of mine once told me they "are bad business".

The WPT should rule on this problem, it is their comp and should be played by their rules not the "hometown rules".

Why are deals made, I consider it cheating and breaking the rules.

Are rules made to be broken? You see this point here in a major comp, what a terrible situation for everyone >:(

DEALS ARE BAD BUSINESS AND CAN ONLY LEAD TO PROBLEMS W/ ONE PARTY UNHAPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can anyone clarrify to me why DEALS should be allowed??? And please don't say they make sense or are needed!!!!

I don't know where but I read a great article by the Camel about this and if DC had his say there would be no QESTION on this subject.

DC simply says that deals relieve pressure and that changes the final outcome of a comp due to this fact, I agree 100%!

I was offered a deal at the final of the WSOP and because I agree w/ DC I said no, all I would have done after that was second guess the results weather it would have been good or bad ;D

PLAY THE GAME THE WAY IT WAS STARTED, TO BE VERY BITTER END AND LIVE W/ THE OUTCOME, GOOD OR BAD ;D ;D ;D

The didn't actually do a deal according to Peter although it appears Carlos is going to split anyway.

Confusion arose because local rules are to split the prize but wpt rules are higher chips get higher place when 2 go out in same hand.

Too many different rules.

Sandy

Yes WSoP, I am sure that in a perfect world we would all agree with your viewpoint, but we don't live in a perfect world...we live in a world where prize structures are top heavy and particularly as we approach the crapshoot end of the final table with potentially large blinds relative to stack sizes, many players are going to compromise their ideals for what they see as a reasonable guaranteed return after many hours of play

Camel's point about slicing off the top to give to bubble boy is different and one I have a lot of sympathy with

I guess I like a perfect world and if the prize structures need to be changed and most people are not happy w/ the top end getting to much $$$ then something should be done before a comp is started. I do agree w/ what you have said but I don't steal from the goverment because I feel taxes are unfair????

Im not being a smart ass, if change needs to be made then someone should make it. When I sit down to play I want to know the "rules and payouts".

I play the entire comp based on the "rules and payouts", not just the last short handed part.

If the final 6 should split the $$$ and play for the title then start the comp w/ this pay structure ;D

I know this WPT situation was "crazy" but I just wanted to express my opinion on deals in general.

I agree w/ you, changes just need to be made to the comps before they start not at or near the end when everyone wants to $$$$$$$$$$.

I worry about the $$$$ from the 1st hand and that goes into every decision I make during the comp from the very start, not just the end ;D

I really dislike deals too, but I have been in situations where I look very likely to finish 5th for say 450 and I can do a deal to get 1500

Deals are difficult if not impossible to prevent, and are encouraged by top heavy prize structures

I have playes in tornaments with 80+ runnere where a 7th place finish didnt get you your entry fee + i rebuy back, you can move 4 places up the 'ladder' to gain another 150

while prize structues remain so top heavy deals will remain common

I would rather see just 5 places paid, with 'proper' increments between the places, than the crap shoots we get now

About ten or twelve years ago when I started playing tournament poker in Nottingham and Derby

There were only three prizes paid. 60%/30%/10%. No matter how many players !

Fourth place was the worst place in the world to finish.

Deal-making became a skill, and still is although the flatter payout structures have evolved considerably.

I'm sure there will always be folks who want to do deals and those who don't.

just want to add another angle here, personally i'm (and most) more inclined to do a deal purely for financial reasons, morally i'm with you wsop, in a perfect world etc.
If i'm heads up in a comp and first prize is 1000 and second is 600 we are level in chips and the fella says wanna deal then i will, simply because i'm guaranteed that 800, BUT if i were an eccentric millionaire i won't, that i think is the real reason for deals.
I absolutely understand DC's stance and it obviously has played on his mind for these last few years about the bracelet in 2000 but i'm guessing he can afford not to deal whereas the majority of us can't.
Ian

but why play to a winner??

I feel I will win more than lose in these situations!

Before the WSOP I chopped 1 time and it was stupid to do!

The largest "live"  ( larger $$$ on the net)  $ I had before the WSOP was $25,000 ;D, I do not have alot of $$$ in the bank, $170,000 was a ton of $$ to me then and now, but I work hard and earn every $$$ I get

The difference between 1st and 2nd was $170,000 (1st 370,000, 2nd 207,000), I made no deal and I feel many things happened because of no deal:

1) I had mental edge because I rejected deal, I really feel this is true
2) my game is all about pressure, a deal takes away pressure
3) I use my headsup skill and experience to win it all
4) How many times do you have the chance to win, if you take it all more than 50% you are ahead
5) There will never be a question about the purity of the victory
6) People will know I do not do deals, this is also an edge, pressure

I played a sit n go 2 days before my WSOP event began. I was heads up w/ Dan Harrington for over an hour w/ no deal. Everyone said why not offer Dan a deal, you had him 3-1?????

I wanted to play a great player and learn from him and the situation. If everyone always does a deal how do you learn about pressure, concepts, how do you work on your short handed game??? Dan came up to me the next day and told me I played great and not to listen to all the "talk" from people around me.

I guess my point is that evryone has to do things based on themselves, I just think deals are "bad Business" for all the reasons I have already covered.

You can afford not to deal, If you do not deal I think you will be much better off in the long run ;D

so how do we stop em Brian?

I'd like to think in that position i'd reject a deal too, $207,000 is a lot of money and would pay off my mortgage, but then i'd think the extra $85,000 from a deal would give me a huge bankroll (in my world).
Do you see my point?
I'm not pro deals or anti deals i just look at things purely financially at the moment and hopefully one day i won't need to, all your points are valid and i have no argument.
Obviously you can look past the money aspect but i just simply can't.
Ian

dont know, but if changes need to be made on payouts that is something to take up w/ the organizers

I don't really care to stop them, I would just like the people to think about and understand what they are doing prior to a deal being made

and I dont want to hear "bad deal stories" , please, never

I once saw someone take more than 1st prize. Now that was a deal. Rather funny, but also rather SAD.

Just ran our last Big Weekend with 30% to the winner. Both comps got chopped. Where next 25%. Deals are made because everyone is so used to making them.

It seems like players run scared when they hit the last 5 or 6. Not wanting to miss out on a deal rather than playing to win. Of course I'm on the outside looking in.

Yogi

nice very nice

Surely though Brian its our money, and if we want to chop it that should be allowed?

Clearly we cant get evreyone to agree on a payout structure pre comp, but if the last 4 can agree on one that they all think is fair then why shouldnt they be allowed to do it?? it is afterall thier money

Sometimes i will deal, sometimes i wont, purely depends on the deal that is offered :D

Of course i understand that for a WSOP bracelet there is that added bit of glory!

Agreed, this is the main cause. If people weren't so scared about losing out on a big chunk of winnings just because of 1 placing, then they would be more comfortable with completing the comp.

I beg to differ Snoopy.

They still look at the prize breakdown, and then say its only so much between the top 4/5 then play to there and split it. It doesnt matter how much it is. They just wanna get far enough to get a decent pay day then take what they can. It's the way they are. Most of the players play several times a week, and need to get paid as and where they can.

Its not all about winning the competition its about making money.

Yogi

I only play the 10 ebuy tourneys but I play to win.  I'll either bust out early or go deep because I'm trying to win.  However, money is very tight and if I was in a bigger tourney and was offered a deal I'd probably take it because it would allow me to play a lot more often than I can afford to now.

In principal I agree with WSOPin06 but in reality I agree with ifm until I have built my bank roll.