blonde poker forum

We're playing a £1,000 freeroll, which the top 18 players in a league have qualified for. The top 3 get paid £500/£300/£200.

We're down to the final table and there are 6 of us left and naturally someone mentions that they think everyone on the table should get paid. Now I think this is daft so veto this, but I do think top 3 from 18 is a tad harsh, and suggest top 4 instead, paying £400/£300/£200/£100 (which to my knowledge is the payout you'd get on a 18man stars sng).

So we agree to change the payouts to top 4. But the other guys still want 5th/6th to be paid. They come up with the idea of paying savers to each other, but not to me, and not me to them. The solution they come up with is to get the payout %s for 5 players and pay their respective positions based on that. Eg, if I finish 1st then their total pot is £600. 2nd will get 1st place money using their %s. 6th will get 5th place money.

I was a little bit uncomfortable by this. I also felt that I was being made out as the bad guy for not wanting to do savers, which I think is unfair as this is entirely my right. The fact that they essentially had a different payout structure did give a me vs them mentality which I didn't really like.

Anyone experienced this sort of thing before? Am I right in thinking this was a bit of a weird arrangement?

And fwiw I finished 5th and got nothing lol. Obv I'm not bothered by this or I'd have agreed to pay top 6.

Seems a bit weird to me - I would have thought all players involved would have to agree to the deal for it to go ahead. I can see they could argue that you would not be affected money-wise by whatever they chose to do if you finished top 4, but agreeing savers still changes the dynamics, which would have been a valid reason for you to object.  What happened?

I have no problem being the bad guy if I think I have an edge. Rather than any kind of negotiation just say no! Make your point to the dealer or TD and don't get too involved in the others discussions. As soon as you say no, any competant TD should move it straight on, and you don't get drawn into the uneasy chat!

You also pick on those playing to cash . . . . Obv

That's the thing though. The deal didn't involve me, and didn't involve changing the actual payouts. It was a private deal between the five of them using whatever money they got. So I didn't need to agree to it.

I woulda just gone with the flow and accepted it, its not like it's huge amounts of money. Also was there lots of chips left in play to have a proper game of poker? if not then I would have definatly agreed to savers.

still doesn't seem right to me. it's like they're saying 'sod you if you don't want to do savers, we're going to do them anyway'. As outrageous said, the TD should have stepped in and said 'no deals if the whole table doesn't agree to them'. If they want to do something out of their own pockets, then they should sort that afterwards.

Can't see any problem with this at all.

If they want their own little reduced prizepool let them have it. You're still playing for the original agreed prizes. That's what you paid for and that's what you're getting.

The other players have nothing more to gain from knocking you out early than they did before so it shouldn't affect their play. Obviously watch for any signs of collusion but I really don't think it'll be a problem.

but it's not really about players trying to knock Nana out. If the shorter stacks are desperate to try to ladder to the money, they'll tighten up and be easier to bully. Once they've got a few quid locked up in a saver, they could be more inclined to call a bet with a marginal hand and gamble, so the dynamics change.

Disagree Mr Russell, Sir. All players should agree a deal or not at all. Seen this exact same thing happen in a sat for the gukpt @ brighton in january and caused a lot of bad feeling.

I played at gala on Saturday, we were down to 5 handed and would of all got £1.2k if we had chopped! One guy who was short stack disagreed as he was sharing 50/50 with a friend! He wanted to play on! I went out next for £550! Diagf sir as he went on to chop 3 handed taking £1900 and the other 2 players got £1500 each! Sigh!

Have to agree here, as long as you get paid what was agreed for the four prizes, let them do what they want...Best of all of course would have been to disagree with any deal at all, leaves little scope to argue about which deal should be done.

But they aren't actually doing a deal are they? It's a saver that comes out of their own pockets.

And Claire says they should sort it afterwards. Well they are sorting it afterwards, they've just agreed to it now.

BUt surely once they have agreed savers between themselves it changes the way they are going to play? Become more gambly knowing the are going to get paid regardless? Chamges the whole dynamics of the game imo.

if they continue to discuss a deal after getting a definite no they should be warned and then penalised. simple, there's no grey area here imo

No chops and no savers Charles... The standard of play was obv. terrible... You have an edge over most players there... however if you all had 5bb each then maybe it would have been better to deal

this will now lead to 5 players playing agaiant you to maximise there profit
which means you need to bring the TD into this
you should now be awarded first prize and they can chop the rest of the money as they see fit
i believe yogi did this back in blackpool a few years back

I still think the initial problem is agreeing to do a deal. Once you've done that it leaves you open.

You are happy to do a deal, but not the deal that everyone else at the table wants.

To that end the rest have agreed to do a deal with everything else except what you win. I'm not for one minute condoning what happened, its crass and close to bullying but you have in principle agreed to a deal.

I still maintain it is best to not talk about a deal (especially any savers, as is pointed out it changes the dynamics of the game) until all those that are left are part of it. That way if the other players do talk about a deal without you then what Gatso and Ironside have said would be correct.

Maybe a lesson learned CF, but a good point to bring up nonetheless!

Once one player doesn't agree to the terms of a deal, I was always under the impression that the deal was off.

:dontask:

Total bs imo, if everyone doesn't agree to a deal then the original payout structure should stand.

One of the number of advantages you have over these numpties, is that are totally clueless in adapting there games to different payout structures. Letting them have their own prizepool is totally ridic as they can play now without fear of "bubbling", taking away your ability to bully them into submission. Which therefore reduces your ev.

i would have kicked up a stink about this Charles. If one doesn't agree then there is no deal imo.

There is definitely a deal addiction in Leeds (although i did do one myself on Friday in Leeds lol) its like people can't stand to miss out on min cashes and stuff

Agree. If you disagree they have NO right to suddenly creating a prize structure of their own

somet similar was done to me in vegas. i played some 60/70man tourney and on the bubble of 8 left and 7 gettin paid they wanted to deal. i said no and they all put 20 dollars into a cup and used it as a saver excluding me from the pot obviously. this killed the bubble and in my mind took my fold equity that i would often chip up in a live weak tourney with.  dont seam fair to me as shud be all agrea or no deal play on. anything that changes the schedule of the payout is some what collusion if everybody isnt involved and agreed to the changes of payout.

Isn't this the same as them all having a % of each other.

Do people think that shouldn't happen ??????

I tend to think one says no deal, then there should be no deal. But they haven't agreed a deal they have agreed a % of each other or not??? I'm confused.

The same happened in what i believe was a Festival event some years back in the Vic.  There were 3 or 4 players left and someone refused to discuss a deal.  The others tried to work something out themselves and so Jeff stepped in and awarded the non-dealer 1st place and split the remainder between the others.

By the way I was in playing in the Flamingo on the strip recently and it had some $2k freeroll for regulars.  I heard someone comment that they always chopped it with 2 tables left for $100 each!

I really wish i'd played a few hours there earlier in the trip so I could have got involved and tried to make them play for their money  :)

I dont really think this is a huge problem as I think it would increase your edge CF?

Shorties would be happy with their saver and call/shove light.
Anyone working together could land themselves in a right mess.

Personally though I do like the DTD rule on this.

Deals if everyone agrees no problem.
Savers if everyone agrees your all barred.

Players aren't even allowed to agree private savers between themselves?

I don't agree with this Stu.

Surely we want them to play tighter around the bubble, so we can push them about. I suppose it is dependent on your chip position but in a crapshoot as this sounds give me a tight table any day of the week.

Yeah I see your point Mark.
Actually something I should change my thinking on, I know how to exploit the bubble but for some reason I still love that arrange a saver and the shorty busts the next hand cus they have £12 locked up.

Unless it has changed in the last month this is definately DTD policy.
If a deal is done that creates a prize for someone who would otherwise not have been paid in the normal structure you will all be barred.

DTD are definitely spot on in this.  It's an absolutely horrendous situation to be in.  Having been on the bad side of it myself I must say it's one of the things I hate most in poker, the whole table ganging against u.

Last time I had it was in Caesar's Palace, 5 paid and they all wanted to put $40 in each for 6th.  I was not happy as chipleader albeit a small one since it was a turbo but as the min cash was 3x the buyin the bubble was huge!  Nevertheless the TD said if players want to make an arrangement on the side then it's none of his business so they all went and put $40 in.  As I saw there was nothing I could do about this rather than seem like the bad guy I decided to go along with it.  It was totally redic since the shortie had 4bb's and was a near certainty to bubble, especially as he was folding to death.  In the end I really felt this cost me around $500 from being able to steal the next 10 pots in a row and secure a top two spot no probs.

It shouldn't be allowed and TD's should be far more active and just put the foot down when a player says no.  Remember NO means NO!