blonde poker forum

You are heads up in the Main event of the WSOP...

The winner gets $12 million and the runner up gets $6 million and you are exactly dead even in chips.

Your opponent is totally obsessed with winning the event. He offers you first prize money if you let him win the bracelet. (ie you take 12mill and he gets 6).

Would you take this deal? And is it immoral to accept this deal?

Personally i wouldn't deal, but i dont think it's immoral if somebody did

Probs not. You cant say the money dosent matter but 6m is enough to retire and have any life you want so imo not really much point in not taking your shot to be the world champion.

If it was 3m (£1.5m english) for 2nd place it would change my decision.

Assuming he has no significant edge then i would play on.

Play on if you believe you can win, You make more from the sponsorshipe and advertising deals after winning that from the prize of the tourney.

lol i was thinking about this exact thing a couple of weeks ago, and i would 100% let him have first place if i got the $12m. The reason why i was thinking of it was because I was watching a WSOP replay and all the pros were saying about how the money isn't important, they only want the bracelet, blah blah blah, and wondered if they had/would cut this type of deal in any of the side events.

As for immorality, I dont think it is

No deal for me.

Yes it is immoral to let someone win. Personally, I would be plagued by thoughts of 'what if...' for the rest of my life. And for the other guy, having the bracelet is one thing but knowing you didn't earn it is another.

Well if the player who wants to make the deal to give up the money but win because he wants to become an ambassador for the game and the guy who wants the money just wants a quiet life I can't see a problem with it. Everybody gets what they want.

Immoral & entirely wrong.

I would not do the proposed deal. Never, ever.

I don't see the problem with making the deal. Deals are made all the time at a final table of a poker tourney so I don't see why it should be a problem here. (I have been offered more money than the other guy several times but they wanted the win..Bless you and goodluck, you can have it)

If he wants to fame and "recognition" from the win then that's fine. I'd take the money everytime.

Having said that, if I am already winning 6mill I wouldn't make any deals, the last 6 mill aren't going to make a difference as 6 mill is a ridiculous amount of money to begin with.

If we were talking about a tourney were second is 10k£ and first is 50k£ I would take the deal in a second.

 i agree , dont see why you shouldnt deal ?

 extra 6 mil for nothing , that s gonna last a lot longer than a bracelet or title at the end of the day

how would you let him win ?

Call all your money with a weak ace into a straight, thats what I would do.

You don't see the problem with someone getting the recognition for winning something they didn't actually win?

And what about you, the guy who colluded to fix the result, have you really done nothing wrong?

I'm sure anyone who placed a bet on you at the bookies would have something to say about it.

A fair point well made. But winning the main event is much more than winning any old tournament, you can't have you old life back when your the world champion. And how would you propose to stop someone just calling of there chips when they knew they where beat to avoid the media attention anyway? I remember Jamie Gold floating the idea he might chuck it because he did not want the attention that comes with being the world champion, not much anyone could have done if he had gone through with it.

I understand there's an underhanded feel to the proposed scenario that makes us all feel a little uncomfortable, but at the end of the day if its works out better for all involved then its no different than so many other deals that are cut.

I would take the money and wish him all the best with his new piece of jewellery.  And no, it is not immoral.

No DEAL



 4h  Kh Nutzzzz

I'd agree to the deal and agree that i'd reraise all in on a total bluff so that he can call with any kind of made hand to make it look convincing for tv.

Then his face would be a picture when i reraise all in with the absolute nuts and watch as he calls with top pair weak kicker, take the 12 million pounds, WSOP main event bracelet and the millions of dollars of sponsorship and endorsements that will follow.

That would be immoral and would teach him a lesson to never trust a monkey :)

I'd demand the full $18m - then we'll see how little he values the money and how much he wants the bracelet.

Deal, I dont like braclets.

Did this kind of situation not come up some years ago in Paris ?

For a lot less money of course, but I heard that Surindar let some French guy win who wanted "a title".

On another note, it might be tough getting paid the $6M especially from a Gaimy Jold type  ::)

Right now I would prefer $12 million and a little bit of fame, rather than $6 million and too much fame.

But when I'm Tikays age I might want that title to bore the tits off the other people I'm in the nursing home with.

give me $6 mill thanks. Whats immoral? It's yours and his money to with what you see fit.

WSOP rules say you can't make a deal that involves the title, the braclet must be played for. If he wants the braclet, ill sell it to him if i win for what ever amount he wants, i still have the title.

I think the sponsership and the like out ways any money deal. 1st UK player as WSOP holder milk it

i refuse to answer hypothetical morality questions until my hookers been with my daily crack supply

exactly what I was thinking.  Good to see that Team Chorlton are on the same wavelength :)

I'll tell you the reason for posing this dilemma...

In the main event at Monte Carlo I was sitting next to Isabelle.

The attention she got was bordering on ridiculous. She must have her picture taken at least 200 times.

We got to talking... I said if she ever won the main event of the WSOP she couldn't set foot outside the door without being pestered. And she replied she didn't care she would give her right arm to win it, the sponsorship deals and fortune to be made as the first woman to win it would be so big.

Well, I know I'm not quite so marketable at Isa   ;hide; but to be honest I could live without peeps asking for my autograph and taking my picture etc etc. The quiet life for me.

So, we agreed if we got heads up... she could have the bracelet and I would get the $$$$$.

And everyone is happy!

Now there's the little matter of 6000 players to get past.....

I still dont see how you could definitely ensure that someone else wins without some form of collusion. Even if you need runner-runner post flop, you still can win. Unless you know you are drawing dead, and for that to happen you need to know what your opponent holds.

I understand what you're saying but i dont think that the word "colllusion" is right, i mean who are they turning over?

The greatest prize in the game, and the first thing which comes into her head when you mention it to her is 'Mmmmm, sponsorship...'

Got it!

"The 2007 WSOP Main Event Winner  - oh yeah, the one that was fixed"......

Don't kid yourself Keith. You would take the title and go to Sheffield,Walsall, Blackpool and Luton just for the addulation from the local groupies. I see the way they eye you up even now ....

I remember thinking about a similar thing before last years WSOP.
One of the on-line sites were offering to double your prize money if you won after qualifying with them.

So here is the reverse question.
You are heads up.
 $24 million ;karabiner; for 1st place   $6million for 2nd. How much do YOU offer the other player to make sure you win. 

 between 4m and 6m i would think , 4m would mean overall prize money of 10m for 2nd 20m for first which is an extension of 6m/12m    , 9m would be too much , they would be benefitting more than you by taking half the prize money but you are only getting an extra 3m , if you offered 6m however , they would be getting the guaranteed 1st prize amount and you would still be getting 1 1/2 x first prize 12/18m

 so i think it would depend how generous you felt or how greedy your opponent was.

 very good question though   ;applause;

Moral issues apart, I would play on because to all intents and purposes I would not really notice the difference between 6 million and 12 million. Both sums are more then I could ever spend or even realistically comprehend.

I love some of the replies saying "play on" - whilst some may well do, it is amazing how many players on forums would turn down locking in $6m but every time I make a final table someone wants to start talking about doing a deal 6 handed to lock in £500.....

I accept the argument that $6m is as surreal as $12m so play on, and I accept some are "no deals whatever" - but that still leaves a boat load of players that would be interested in doing an extra $20k "saver" 5 tables out...

If deals are allowed, then fine, do the deal.  If they aren't, don't.  I wouldn't have a problem asking the guy for $13m or more if there was a good reason to believe he valued 1st even higher.  I am not putting a gun to his head, if he thinks it is value he can do the deal, if he doesn't, he can play on.

I am not deal-averse, not at all, heaven knows how many Deals I've agreed to. (Though I have never proposed one).

But the point here is someone, in effect, is "buying" the WSOP Main Event title. That degrades the thing totally.

If i have already made $6 million it wouldn't make any difference if i was offerred the $12 million in a deal, what would I do with the extra $6 million? Perhaps a better deal is if he offerred the full $18 million in exchange for first place. I would still say no deal, although to be honest i am more likely to be the saddo offerring $18 million to be the winner.  :D

Surely it only degrades it for the buyer, not the seller.....

at one time i offered carl lewis a shedload of cash if he would finish 2cnd to me in a televised race. he declined with the i suppose quiet understandable reasoning that he couldnt run that slow as it would be obvious he was walking.

seriously though, the thought of obtaining the bracelet through deception would surely mean
living the rest
of your life as a liar. i dont think any ammount of money can compensate for that.

i maybe wrong but i believe this actual scenario occured when puggy pearson threw the
title due to the tax implications he thought he would face if he won. so when heads up a deal was done. i cant remember offhand the winner,though j moss or j strauss come to mind.

Yes, for the buyer, & more importantly, the Event.

Exactly.

take the deal and win it next year

DEAL!

Show me the money!!

There are people who think playing poker in the first place is "immoral" so to hell with anyone who would call this deal immoral. We play for money in the first place so obvioulsy I'd take a deal where I get $12 million and the other guy gets $6 million and a silly wee bracelet.

I am still waiting to hear how you could engineer it so that you definitely lost, without some form of communication of hand strength between the two players.

because as far as I can see, if you can find a menthod that means you  guarantee that you definitely lose, then coming up with a a guaranteed method to win shouldnt be too difficult eh ?

it's very easy

I raise

he re raises

I fold

I raise

he re-raises

I fold

etc...........

no TD would allow that to go on for any length of time, surely.

and eventually you got to get all your remaining chips into the middle - and you might win !

so, back to the start again ?

I'd offer my opponent the deal saying I just wanted the bracelet, then after he threw it heads up i'd do a Jamie Gold and deny any deal and completely tarnish he's reputation.

Of course if my opponent wasn't American i'd play fair.

;karabiner;  play on and tell him to flip that coin. You now have that edge.

I think if someone was that desperate you have to ask what their motivation is. At the end of the day both players are sorted financially for life. Poker is about competition and fun - not just money and fame.

Sure it would be good to be to get some recognition but would you sell your soul to become famous as the world champ.

The way the poker community works is that if the player doesnt have a strong showing in follow up tournaments then they get no real respect. Look at Joe Hachem - he now gets more respect due to his follow up wins at the WPT etc.

There are the real poker snobs that take this further and even someone like Phil Hellmuth doesnt get all round recognition as most of his bracelet wins have come in NL Holdem and not Omaha, Stud , HORSE etc.

Would love to be in a position to have to make this decision but I would definitely play on.

ive not looked through all the posts im just answering the first question of the post,

GIMME THE MONEY! honstly who cares about that being the world champ if ur gettin top prize? thats what ur playing for?

 question or general observation ?

 imo you could have a far better time with 6mil than doing interviews and autographs for the rest of your puff

i said money earlier but i have now decided i would play on regardless, wouldnt do the deal, this is because of a number of reasons

1- My God, your guaranteed 6 million (roughly 3.2 million pound i think) tax free anyway so the day is not going to end badly for you.

2- From a poker players point of view just imagine the perks that will come from winning, never have to buy yourself into a tournament again, even more female adulation than i get now, and a big step in the right direction to earning yourself respect in the poker community.

3- Personally i wouldnt like the fame side of it but for all the downsides to it, i bet there are a hell of a lot of upsides.

4-I dont wear jewellary but if i were to start wearing it, i think it would be nice for it to be a WSOP championship bracelet (i'd probably lose it after a week anyway!)

Get you to play the Heads Up game?  ;scarymoment;