blonde poker forum

Myself & Rod cashed in the 10 quid rebuy at Cincinattis in Glasgow last night. Top 3 were getting paid 550, 275, 175.

Big stack had approx 65 to 70k, I had about 18k & Rod about 15k. We decided to do a deal but all it amounted to was Rod & myself splitting 450 (230 & 220) between us that we were already getting.

I know we got this wrong but it was a combination of inexperience & relief at cashing.

What SHOULD we have done. I dont know if this is relevant but I had no need to re buy & Rod re bought twice. Dave tells me Big Stack re bought approx 10 times!

I am curious for your responses as this is something I want to be better prepared for next time & the opinions on here always worth taking on board.

i would have asked for a 500/250/250 split but would have been happy with the 230/220 split

problem is your and rod are 2 indiviuals yes friends but over the table you were basically emermys

so the dea was between you 2 and you were conseeding first to the other guy

if I was the other guy I wouldn't be interested in less than 550 there.

same here but i would offer him 500 first and see what he says

That was more or less what happened. I asked for 50 from the big stack but he was reluctant & I dont really blame him as it was my first time at the club & Rods 2nd or 3rd so he would expect to pick up the 550.

I would never have taken the 450 split if it equalled 2nd = 3rd. Don't forget that if the chip leader only needs to double you up once for you to be close to even.

I don't see the point in conceeding the first prize as you may as well take your chances and pay for it. It only takes one double up and it's a totally different game. What are you gaining out of a deal where you are giving up the full first prize. 500/250/250 sounds about right to me. The chip leader may have a healthy lead but it is still no guarantee he will win. If he wants to play safe and take as much as he can in a deal it is he who has to make some allowance and offer me a good deal.

that should be 2nd + 3rd.

well if he came 3rd he would only get 175 so he was gaining £85 now if he and rod turned round and said lets chop what ever we get when the were sat with 3 left that would amount to the 2 of them playing against the chip leader and then it would be classed as cheating

personally if i was in 2nd or 3rd i would be looking for 500/250/250 if i was in first i would have been looking for £550

this is where being a good deal maker would come in

Your right ironside.

Me & Rod are mates & are also new to the club so it wouldnt have been a good idea for us to soft play each other &  target the other guy for the sake of $50 between us.
These things never appear to be cut & dried & each should be taken on their own merits.
BTW I'm not complaining about the deal just want to be better prepared for the future.

well if he came 3rd he would only get 175 so he was gaining £85 now if he and rod turned round and said lets chop what ever we get when the were sat with 3 left that would amount to the 2 of them playing against the chip leader and then it would be classed as cheating
[/quote]

I aware of the £85 difference but considering second and third was to be split between friends they could have done business to ensure 2nd & 3rd was split between them whatever and why not to a punt at the chipleader and go for a bigger prize.

They would be in a no lose situation. You can agree with regards to the ethics of them making such a deal and yes it would be cheating but when it is a no lose deal it would be vey tempting. It's amazing what two blokes talk about during a toilet breck away from the tables.

I aware of the £85 difference but considering second and third was to be split between friends they could have done business to ensure 2nd & 3rd was split between them whatever and why not to a punt at the chipleader and go for a bigger prize.

They would be in a no lose situation. You can agree with regards to the ethics of them making such a deal and yes it would be cheating but when it is a no lose deal it would be vey tempting. It's amazing what two blokes talk about during a toilet breck away from the tables.
[/quote]

i would never advocate cheating and feel that if they had done this they would have felt like they had cheated and the bad karma would live with them

possible £300 vs possible bad karma

£300 pays for alot relaxation therapy  ::)

Is this a windup??

I dont mean to be harsh, looking at the chips there was about a 100k in play, now this guy has 65-70%. I would at max let him take £500, 0.7 x the diffrence between the 2nd and first prize + 2nd prize, and this assumes that there is 0 chance of him coming 3rd. Like i said it was a max. I would do that if i felt he was outplaying me, if it was a worse or equal player i wouldnt let him out with more than £470

Surely they could renegotiate the prizes for 2nd and 3rd and then play on to see who gets them?

I can't see a situation where i'd want to take a deal where 1st place doesn't have to give up any money.

If you do a deal in Glasgow, you don't play on. That's the way its always been, thats the way it will always be. And this three prizes pish really pisses me off an all. In my mind, if there are 100 runners there should be 10 prizes. 30 runners, 3 prizes. In this situation they where already down to the last 3, so in my mind, NO DEAL. Take your chances, and if you don't double up, the chances are that you and your mate will split it anyway (without actually saying so, so without actually cheating).

I was in Cincinnati on Wednesday waiting for the cash game after crashing out in flames at the Riverboat, couldn't be arsed waiting any longer and left. Wish I had carried on watchin now :)

Well if you see me in there come up and say hello - unfortunately I look quite like the cariacture in my avatar  ;D. We can argue who said Bevvy first, the scousers or the Scots  ;D

Re the deal, other considerations were it was 2am on a school night, (WHY can't we get earlier starts on a school night in Glasgow?). Dave was driving & Teacake was with him, so we were keeping him back (not that he'd mind, but still), and I was just relieved at making the money after being short-stack for practically the whole final table.


Re ganging up on the chip leader, Teacake & I are too competitive to help eachother (as witnessed by his slowplaying a straight to me in the early stages & causing a buy-in  >:( ). Also I agree it would be cheating & I'm pretty sure it would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

IMO

in a deal situation you should always work out what you would be likely to win should the game pan out the way you think it will given the players left and the status and pattern of the game.  if you feel like you have the chips to press home an advantage and win the comp then do so.  if you are a low stack and feel you are a little outclassed and out muscled then a deal is probably best for you but anything can happen late in a tourney when the blinds are large so i am always reluctant to deal unless i am getting a big chunk more than the minimum. 

The best and fairest way to do a deal is just ask the card room manager to give you a rough calculation of what a chip count deal would leave you with - as this is usually the fairest way to do a deal.  Never accept a deal unless you have got it clear in your head and make sure you are happy with it. - I have seen the nicest men in the world turn in to proper horrible nasty fellas when a deal is being discussed.

If the card rooms flattened the structurs a bit more and didn't shove the blinds up so fast and so much then deals would be less popular or necessarry.

(http://photos33.flickr.com/35321419_cd5372a624.jpg?v=0)

Which are you then? :D

I'm behind you.... on the other table at that point.

Was player to the dealers right on the final table. Bald bloke in a St Pauli (Skull & Crossbones) T-shirt.

Okay, how about this one then.

(http://photos29.flickr.com/35322841_7ea465a461.jpg?v=0)

suspect rod is the guy standing up inymca fashion on right at back with gery tee shirt

i also suspect guy on left at bottom of stairs wearing denim is dave and the guy on the right of the stairs head down passing the lasd is teacake all posters on here

I also suspect i should learn to type.... ;D, nice pictures by the way as i have not had the chance to get in yet!

Nope - that aint me... Mikky you've managed to miss me both times  ;D

Think you're right about the other 2.

oh yes, that is me at the left of the stairs and Teacake at the right of the stairs, at the first break!

I have only just read this thread (how did I miss it?) and find a couple of points quite disturbing. Firstly you should never deal without the first place man giving up some money, if you aren't confident of turning round a chip defecit the you shouldn't be playing. You are guaranteed a nice profit anyway so take your shot at a big payday. Strange things can happen at the end of tournaments- Gary Bush once lost heads up after having a 74-1 chip lead (it was a big tournament and a lot of money was involved).
The most disgusting part of the thread is the suggestion that 2 players collude to try and gang up on the player. Its amazing whats said in gents toilets?? If this suggestion was made to me anywhere I would tell the person he is a lowlife cheat and never associate with him again. Many people who play the circuit swap percentages with each other- does that mean we soft play each other? It certainly does not. Any suggestion of soft play/collusion should be dealt with immediately by the card room manager/tournament director. This year I have knocked many good friends out of competitions (probably cost myself money in some people eyes because of loss of percentages) but that is the nature of the game. If you bump heads with me in a comp I dont care wether we have traded 5% 10% 50% or whatever I will still take you out at the first opportunity and blondites will vouch for this, anything less would ammount to cheating and thats something no ammount of money would make me do.
End of rant.
Rant over.

Ariston is right! - he is so committed to not colluding that he often makes moves that take himself out of comps quick as a flash  :D :D.

nice post russ

i agree with russ on the colluding front

now for the deal part russ what you would want from this deal if you were CL and what would you want if you were 2nd or 3rd

We'll need to write off letting the chip leader away with the full prize to experience.... Newbies & learning.

Also from my posts above :

It's not something we'd a) do b) want to be party to. We actually commented earlier about being a bit worried how everyone seemed to know eachother (I was sitting next to 2 brothers) & we both were concerned about it. But they all played hard against everyone & we were delighted with that. The point of playing (for me anyway) is that I enjoy the game - cheating would take the fun out of it.

If I'm sitting with nearly 80% of the chips on the table, I'd be looking to take the first prize, no less (unless I was feeling generous and/or I had a friend on the final table). But I'd still pretty much want the first prize. There is a fair bit of comeradery in Glasgow and very often you will see big chip leads giving a lot of slack for deals they don't need to make, just to be fair.

On a side note, how did the prize structure manage to become 550, 275, 175. I thought they would have kept the Riverboat 50%, 30% 20% structure.

If I was 2nd or 3rd, in this situation i would be looking for an even split between us. If I could make chip lead drop to £500, that would leave £250 each for 2nd and 3rd, that's probably the best I'd hope for, and in that situation I'd rather fancy my chances at doubling up and taking down first prize, unless I really had to be somewhere else.

Rod, who was 1st prize BTW?

Deal part- if I had that many chips I would take a monkey and let them do what they want with the rest. If I was second or 3rd I would offer the chip leader 400 and let him talk his way up to 450. Deal making is important and if the chip leader wanted more than 450 I would play on and take my chances. If I am chip leader I like to control the deal by saying you take this, you take that and I will have x. If you do the math on the situation (which is how all deals should be approached) 500 is a fair figure if I am leading. Just work out if you played the game 10 times from now how many times you would expect to win, how many times you would finish 2nd and how many times 3rd giving you an average return of x per game (I would actually expect to win from here 8 times and finsh 2nd 2 times so that would actually give me less than 500 but the other 2 wouldnt know this). If we were to play on I think the allin blind tactic would be employed showing my GAMBOL and if you happen to get a few more chips you usually find the guy desperate to chop lol.
One thing I would never do is collude- never never never never never never

I wasn't actually suggesting that they collude and gang up on the leader as I stated in my first reply was that they should just play it out and had nothing to lose and everything to win by playing for first prize rather than just giving it up. My flippant remake "surprising what is said in the toilets" was in response to Ironside comment that they did have something to lose as third would only win £175 rather than taking £250. My view is that 2nd and 3rd was not getting any real incentitve in not playing the game out as the chip leader was not giving up any of the first prize. I have always played out to the finish unless the casino states that the competition has to come to an end due to the time.

Re: the swapping of percentages (imo) I think this is a very negative thing in the game for whilst you state you would never slow play anybody even if you had done a deal/percentage swap with them sadly this doesn't always happen. Far to frequently you see friends making iffy moves as against eachother suggesting they are looking after eachother interests. Should this happen NO, does it happen YES, can anything be done to stop it, DIFFICULT but I hope so. Swapping %'s is a negative to the game and can lead to problems. Did not Paul Maxwell find him in a situation where he was playing in the final 3 against two guys who had swapped %'s and it was interesting how these two's only got in hands against Paul and not eachother game hoping they could take him out and guarantee the big pay day.

Swapping percentages is commonplace more as an insurance than anything. If you play a lot of live events it costs fortunes and you can go months without a big result- the savers keep you ticking over while waiting for the result. this is done between friends who regularly play the same events but I can promise they still do their best to knock each other out. I myself have been backed for a few events in the last 12 months by a friend when I am in a rough patch and will be backed in the future as well- this in effect means I am playing for only 50% of myself- does this mean I don't try to knock out my backer? Ask him after I have put him on the rail if there is any malice or bad feeling, he understands his chips are worth the same to me as anyone elses. If I soft played him in any way I think it would be a reason not to back me for future events- when I sit down I play to win at any cost. I have traded percentages in a few events this year with certain members of this forum and I have knocked a few of them out as well ( I dont always crash and burn early before someone says it lol).

I'm aware why players exchange %'s and that most will play as normal without any suggestion of playing soft against eachother. However there are a number of players who do not share such ethics and do team play. It has been suggested that Meng "the master" and his little group are often seen to play as a team to ensure the best possible financial result for the team.  Swapping %'s maybe nothing more than an insurance for most players for those swings in fortune but you have to agree that some people who do swap %'s do collude to ensure their best interests.

TBH Mikky anything they do that is different from Riverboat is prolly a good thing  ;)
Payout was announced after re buy period & I was expecting a 50/30/20 but it was said that deals were allowed as long as they were done in a civilised manner with no raised voices.
Winner was a Turkish fella called George.
 I remember you played at the same table as me at Riverboat on my first & last appearance there (it really was an appalling standard & structure). Next time I'm in CinCin I'll have a word & you can let in on the various nuances of Glasgow poker that I obviously need to learn quickly.

BTW where do you live?

Yeah but the 3 prizes only is a bag of shite. If you are going to change it (in this case to, what 60, 35, 15?) you might as well make it a decent structure! IMO there should be a prize per 10 players as the fairest compromise. The reason that there is only 3 prizes is because many greedy people complained about their prize being too small. IMO, 80 players = 8 prizes. And you would end up with less deals, and your actual prize would still be bigger because instead of spliting 3 grand equally between 6-7 people, you'd end up with people playing slightly looser at the final table and then taking the prize they are given.

Im currently living in Paisley.

Totally agree re payout strucure.

How do we get this changed?

At the Riverboat, you annoy Michelle enough so that she is prepared to put her job on the line telling management that they suck. Or you annoy management enough times so that they change it themselves. But until other players see it as a problem then nothing will be done about it.

There's a few festivals coming up and perhaps some of the big pros (if any attend) should comment about how shit it is ;) Albeit the prize structure will change for the big events though :/

At Cincinnati, best bet is to pester Sinky... but again, until other players mention it, its not likely to be changed. Wabash also follows the 3 prize policy. Thats what has pissed me off about the new clubs. New venue, same old shite. Nobody is willing to provide something different, but rather be carbon copies of one another with the addition of money added to the pot.