blonde poker forum

Released last night, as follows

"as from March 1st 2012, tournaments where the prize pool is guaranteed by Dusk Till Dawn will subject to a “no deals policy”.

"“When Dusk Till Dawn first opened, we had a “no deals policy” for all of our tournaments, however, over time, this lapsed. We have created many big prizepools for our players, mainly through taking risks with guaranteeing the prize pool ourselves, but the most important and exciting part of the tournament - the final table, has sometimes been an anti-climax to the event, with disruptions in play while deals are trying to be negotiated, not only between the players at the final table, but with players who have taken stakes in a particular player, a trend which we have seen growing. On occasions, we have seen lesser experienced players, in particular, those players that have qualified through our satellites, not always receiving fair equity and situations have arisen where deal negotiations have created some animosity, especially when one player has refused to agree to a deal that the majority of players want to do. These are the primary reasons, however, we are also keen supporters of poker being recognised as a “sport”, and part of promoting and supporting this concept is that there is an outright winner of a poker tournament. Of course, there can be a significant element of luck in winning a poker tournament, but we believe that the ability to negotiate deals should have no influence on how the prize pool is distributed. We believe this is in the best interests of poker players who choose to play tournaments at Dusk Till Dawn.”"

http://www.dusktilldawnpokerclub.com/news.php?id=2217


thoughts?

Pleasing news for you I'm sure, Tighty...

So, having read that a few times now, does it mean they're enforcing a 'no deals policy' from now on in all comps?

yes, for some reason the statement misses out this bit

as from March 1st 2012, tournaments where the prize pool is guaranteed by Dusk Till Dawn will subject to a “no deals policy”

It says "we had a no deals policy" and now" there has to be a winner."..but doesnt say "there can be no deals"

Am I missing something ?

it does say that, I've added it to the post above

as from March 1st 2012, tournaments where the prize pool is guaranteed by Dusk Till Dawn will subject to a “no deals policy”.

FYP

Ahhh...I see now cheers .

I think a no deal policy is never a bad thing  and can stop soft  play however it is likely verbal deals will still happen amongst familiar players .

Still... a good initiative by DTD in my opinion .

Pros:
-Higher profile victory's
-Looks better for poker to have winners.
-No people taking advantage of others in a deal situation
- No bad blood.

Cons:
- Flippies for lots of money. Flippies for peoples monthly salary, always fun.
- No way to lower variance, Deepstack final table appearances are rare and people can lower variance through deals (excludes Nick Hicks obv)
- Underhand deals may take place
- Longer work for dealers = higher costs (daily £50 f/os could take a few hours longer due to new policy)
- Higher costs = more rake, longer hours = more staff needed
- Players may either: not turn up. or turn up expecting deals to be allowed, because they are everywhere...

Speaking as a recreational player, on the rare occasion I final table, I hate the atmosphere created when players are desperate to deal. Really does tilt me.

I for one applaud this decision and hope I get to experience it first hand. (not likely on current form)

I imagine this is entirely because of the live stream. People wanna see a final played out and they wanna see a winner.

Don't see why they can't allow cash deals but say x% of the prizepool must be left over for the winner.

I never do deals anyway.


[   open goal    ]

I wish more people in life made their mind up as quick as Rob does.

Rob "right let's make the next deepstack £250k".
Simon " I'll have a look at the numbers and what we clash with to avoid a massive overlay"
Rob " sod it I've said it now so next month is £250k gtd we are all agreed then"

I know he was not too impressed on the live stream last night and asked for opinions.

I never do deals unless it benefits me more.

Edit: I also try to avoid refusing deals to not look greedy and karma usually bites the guy not wanting to deal right in the arse

How would someone not wanting to deal have anything to do with Karma, what have they done wrong ?

Just flatten the payout structure - dilutes the desire to deal.

As long as everyone knows before hand then i cant see the problem. Does take away the opportunity to reduce varience but with Simon mentioning the clock will be rolled back to an average of 50BBs for the 250k guaranteed there should be plenty of play to start with.

I have made nearly 200 live finals and the amount of times someone refuses a deal then is soon knocked out is unreal. The only people it does not se to happen to are Lawrence Gosney and Alli Mallu. I played some shocking school night comps on Yorkshire where they woul usually chop the final ten ways. One night in Sheffield 88 runners paid ten and with 17 runners left Keith Littlewood wants to chop £11k up Ffs. (and this man was leading the wsop after day 1 one year)

Cold that you ran bad in the other 20 live comps that you've played  ;)

Just thought you where maybe suggesting they where due bad karma for not dealing, obv someone not dealing isn't greedy.

You try refusing a deal in Bradford at 4am on a cold winters night :)

It's a problem I rarely encounter.

Yes thankfully I don't have too so much these days.  When you final the Sunday million what would your thoughts on doing a deal be?

I would've done a deal in Monte Carlo 3 handed but Jack didn't want to, which was obv fair enough and I'd have done the same if I was him. If I thought a deal was good for me I would do it, if not I'd play and try not to be effected by the amount of money at stake. I say try because I don't think anyone can say they wouldn't be effected by it unless they've been in that position. My mentallity for the Monte Carlo was I'd be much more devastated if I played weak and had a chance to win the lot and didn't take it than if I lost a 70/30, or chopped a 97% vs .5% and didn't hold :)

Interesting to read the guys comments in the update thread today, congrats to him and it's a great result but I'd hate to have that feeling he seems to have today, that would hurt me much more than a bad beat.

This and...


...this.

Also dilutes the desire to play

Do not flatten the payouts. May as well just allow deals

Seems silly to include all the 50£ers in this.

They should just have no deals on the flagship streamed events.

Do agree with this

Yep...I am with this.

Always a laugh in my local on fts with 10 players and 8 prizes how they want to give 9th and 10th some money which totally ruins the bubble and game dynamic. No deals is the nuts! It's not often you can get muffed for £25k but it sounds like kinda exciting.

If Rob or Simon read this can we have a round of each event sometime please??.

Cheers

i don't make finals anyway ...........anyone wanna do a 56 way deal then I'm your man

Scotland sounds like the place to be for you mate.

If they want a winner instead of ending the tournament via a deal, why can't they just do what pokerstars do on some of their tournament where x amount of the prizepool has to be left for the tournament winner. Then everyone is happy, deals can be made for like 90% of the prize pool and all players have something to play for and DTD get a winner of every tournament!

Yea I'm not a fan, I'm in the "it's the players money let them do what they like with it" camp.

Maybe if there's an overlay or value added it could be implemented? Else the "must play for x% for 1st" sounds good.

They havent done anything wrong Ray but we all know that sometimes people are lambasted for wanting to play a tournament to the death , and perhaps deemed "greedy" by players who want to agree an early split ( as they could really do with the money ) .

Sometimes people can feel obliged to do the "right thing " and deal which as Jason mentioned will hopefully result in some kind of positive Karma .

Think the people who badger u for a deal or saver deserve the bad karma personally

Agreed George...but thats the reality of a final table .

Of course...DTDs new policy should eradicate all this nonsense .

Dtd are victims  of their own success. They have given the average poker player ( the majority in the deepstack are recreational players rather than full time players) a shot at massive payouts for a relatively small buy in. £10k means credit cards paid or new car to these players and they can't be blamed if their arseholes start going towards the later stages of a tourney :)

Yeah I know, I got shit from a few people in a local donkament a little while ago when I wouldn't do a deal, inc one calling me a fucking wanker, I lol'd, then busted him, dat karma.

Poor old Chompy. The lucky bugger went to Vegas today, I bet some mug purchased half his action, too.....

Thats why any player worth their salt should be entering (and re entering if necessary ) especially now with the higher buy ins and guarantees .

It amazes me at the standard of player and am even more amazed that the recognised pros don't play Dtd too often. Compare the field with a gukpt or even the star city game this weekend and it's pretty much a no brainer

Pros don't enjoy playing live games such as these jase.comps like these are run online every week

u know what, i only worry the problems if i  an make the FT,

i dont make many FTs anyway, so cant comments.

Dunno if this has been mentioned, but wouldnt this mean ONLY when there an overlay?

No any guaranteed comp. So all of them

i think this is fine and totally understandable when DTD are offering guarentees and putting a lot of effort in to staging really good events and promoting coverage.

It doesn't happen that often but on occasions where I have managed to make a FT, people are almost always pressing for a deal. I always say no and people tend to give me a look of pure hatred. I never seem to have any friends at a FT afterwards so I think its quite a good idea to be honest because now I can blame it on DTD and I might make a few friends.

Pretty unenforceable as unofficial/verbal deals will always be done

I think this puts some people in potentially dangerous situations whereby they have to "trust"/rely upon people they don't know to honour their word if they want to do a deal.

That said Grosvenor have never facilitated deals and always left it to the players to sort it out amongst themselves after the money is paid out

I like Tony's idea of X% has to be left on the table for the winner

I think the "no deals" policy would be okay if DTD allowed the players to choose their preferred payout structure.

A poll or 3/4 different payout schedules would add a little democracy to proceedings.

It is the player's money after all.

Oh right. I had no idea this was the reason. I thought Rob had upset em all :)

I think it's a terrible change for the worse.

Firstly, people are still going to want to make deals, and will merely attempt do it under the table. Sooner or later, this is going to result in someone being grimmed for tens of thousands of pounds by someone who agreed to a chop then "won" the tournament and now has done a runner. Is this the kind of situation you want in your cardroom?

As for "less experienced players" it seems to me whenever I've played on a final table*, the less experienced players are always the ones keenest to do a chop, and that certainly seems to be the case on the final table of DTD's monthly Deepstack event from what I read on the updates. It's surely no coincidence that the past two Monte Carlos, which many top professionals have made the final have gone all the way through heads-up, but most deepstacks where there are many weekend players get chopped up rather than forcing people to flip for half their yearly salary. In the last SkyPoker tour event which I made the final table** a gentleman who I might suggest was not a full time professional was campaigning to get everyone together to arrange a saver for 25th when they were paying 24 places!

Finally, whether people find final table poker a spectacle is irrelevant. I've got no problem with you filming it, putting my hole cards up on the internet, commentating on it, doing live updates on it and so on but as someone who has paid the reg fee and provided my portion of the prizepool, I should not be messed around for the sake of railbirds who have paid £0.00 towards the cost of the event. If it turns out to be bad to watch too bad. If the recent Australian Open tennis was a £10,000 entry fee of which the entry fees made up the prize pool but spectating was free, I'd have no problem with Djokovic and Nadal deciding that they were tired after 4 sets and that they'd just chop up first and second prizes and go home, and it would be too bad if the spectators didn't get see a great tennis match concluded.


* subtle
** really subtle

You know what, I'm not sure I agree with this bit, which is repeated oft in these kind of discussions.
When I'm sat looking up at the payout screen early in a live tourney (obviously the only point I can do this), I don't sit thinking 'that's my money, that is'.
In reality it is money that belongs to the tournament, which has a responsibility to distribute it as advertised.

As long as I know what the payout structure is when I enter, (i.e. as long as the cardroom don't make changes / take from the pot / mislead), then I enter on this basis.
I don't see why any player thinks that they automatically have the right to change this at any point.

I understand that from a custom and practice angle, this is what happens at most venues, but it doesn't mean that someone can't do it differently.
If people don't like it, then don't play. If this lowers numbers, then the venue has to rethink. Simple.

There are plenty of tournaments /casino groups /card clubs  etc that already have a" no deal " policy in place and they operative relatively problem free. You are always going to get the odd chancer that will try and rip another player off  by not honouring a deal or not paying a staker /percentage etc . This doesnt happen too often as word soon gets round ,so any players choosing to circumvent the "no deal " policy only have themselves to blame should things go " tits up. "

Couldn't disagree more. DTD put up huge guarantees which is how it markets itself. The live stream is a marketing tool. As with everything if people don't like it they can vote with their feet- I doubt too many will with a 250k gte on a 500 quid comp that provides a 30k starting stack PLUS rolling back the blinds on the final table.

Anyone know what went on when regarding the accusations that last months winner of the deepstack and not paying someone who was 10% with him?

I'm generally in favour.
When I was younger I was strictly NO DEALS myself, much to the frustartion of many final table companion.
I mellowed over the years and have taken a few 2-4 way chops at 3am-4am.

For me though, there's nothing worse than the atmosphere when someone at a final has declined a deal and other players turn on them.

A fair deal can be achieved by doing it strictly on chip count, but that still doesn't stop the problem above when a player with lower chips feel they have an edge and want to play on, only to find themselves up against a newly formed team.

And when Final tables are being chopped without a single card being dealt, that just feels against the spirit of the game.

Yep, all for it I think.

Well said George

So do you not think it would be reasonable for the players to have some input on how this money is distributed?

Hardly comparable unless we are now classing poker as a sport ! If that is the case maybe we should start a campaign to get it into the London 2012 Olympics  ?

Once the tourney has started, I don't think players have an automatic right to change the structure.
If a venue supports deals, then I am ok with that, and if a venue is 'no deals' I am fine with that too.

I'm referring to my previous suggestion of a choice of payout structures.

Top quotage.

Autocracy rules.

Too complicated to give players a payout choice, then count votes ,and then implement....

As with the army... If there is a structure in place , everybody knows their role /the score , which in turn reduces problems later on in the battle.

I was a bit confused what you meant, but I think I've worked it out now.

What you are saying is that

* the DTD live stream is a marketing tool,
* banning deals will make it a more exciting tournament for spectators, and such the live stream will be a better marketing tool
* Players will still turn up anyway since it's such a great comp even if they don't like the change.

therefore:

* DTD should ban deals.

(am I right?- sorry if I am misrepresenting you)

You might be right that it's a good move by DTD from a business standpoint, but I'd rather they didn't pretend it was good for the players.

It's not good for the players. It's fucking great idea! Grow some balls and play for it all. If you didn't want to why did you enter? Nothing tilts me more than deal merchants waiting for their chance to pounce

Are you suggesting that making the tourney winner take all would be a good idea?

If so how do you think this might impact on numbers?

sorry loling but i have this picture in my mind of you in your onesies doing this  ;madasahatstand;

Now I didn't say that now did I Ralph? Would be fun tho :)

  " It's fucking great idea! Grow some balls and play for it all "    +1

                       Mr Bedi on Fire

It is ridic how many live events deals take place. I dont think DTD should remove them completely but definitely impose some more restrictions on what the players can do. E.g. keep a certain amount for 1st like stars do and also maybe stop massive multiway deals and keep it to last 4/3/2. Think thats a fair compromise.

So in that case you agree that the payout structure would have an impact on the number of attendees in a "no deals" tourney?

Hi All

Lively thread as expected.

When we first opened we didnt allow deals or savers. We stuck to our guns re savers but decided no deals was too radical and hard to get players to accept. Now 4 years on our Deepstack guarantee has gone from £25,000 in Feb 2008 to £250,000 in March 2012. Imagine what the fields would be if we didnt guarantee them and therefore if we think the best experience in the long run will be to establish outright winners getting paid as per our payout schedule are we not entitled to do that?

Yes, many of our players have been given a fantastic opportunity for a big return on as little as a €2 investment via one of our online satellites but once they min cash at £750 i am sure the majority feel anything more is a bonus and it is a real thrill to ladder to the final table, ok, previously they could deal and get £10,000+ 5 way but how are you ever going to learn to win if you keep chopping events and you will never get that buzz of playing heads up for the first place and prize.

I have a thread on FB re this subject that has had 121 replies mostly in favour of our brave stance. As always we like to lead and inevitably others will immitate, we make tough decisions but usually we get it right and i believe this is the right thing to do.

Cheers

ACES

Quit with the spam Mr Trumper.

Oh, wait.......

Umm, as you were, carry on.

I reckon you will settle on a stars style xxx must be left for the winner to play for as a compromise at some point down the line  :)

dont know how you can ever police it
if 6 left 5 dtd reg quiet word in card park (between the 5 ) deal between them selves possible colude to take none reg out atleast chip count deals are open

As with a backed player or somebody having a percentage this is not official and outside of DTDs policy hence they are not  answerable...the same can be said of any " under the table deal " if anybody gets involved and it goes " tits up " then they have to suffer the consequences.

As regards collusion well thats a whole different thread....

Think it's a tremendous decision that has to be applauded. Favours those who are brave enough to go for the win.

I've stated my opinion's before on this subject, but I find the animosity shown towards people who don't wish to deal to be a disgrace. People shouldn't be put under severe pressure to do a deal just because it benefits others.

George is my hero...

Gosh, I remember that night, I was one of the final table and at that point I didn't know Keith that well and wasn't sure if he was serious or not, but he genuinely was.

i said on the Facebook page that it's good that there is a no deals policy, because surely as gamblers/poker players, you have to have some ambition and want some limelight, not to take a deal? You only live once!

I am not fussed on deals, I never make them, just listen in and if I think it's an OK deal, then that's fine. The only thing about deals is that sometimes you can make enemies by declining them and it's annoying really. Not also to mention there are lots of people who will not deal with certain people because they simply do not like them (I am one of those).

welcome to Blonde sir. one thing tho, please dont come on here confirming my tales. some people like to think i'm full of shit  rotflmfao

For a few years, I seem to recall that DTD had a policy that Deals at the Final Table could ONLY be done if they represented chip equity.

As a suggestion, where does that stand, between "do as you like", & "no deals"? I guess the answer would be 50% for, 50% against, & 50% not fussed. (Let's see if Herbie spots the error there).

Also.....

What are players views on people not involved in the Final - being friends, railers, or most specifically, investors - being consulted by the player during the play? "I'll have to go & ask my mate, be right back".

I have read these comments with interest. Myself and Simon differ in our core reasons for agreeing that "no deals" in the way forward, we had a long meeting about this subject this evening, Simon is a poker purist, he wants players to improve their game playing short handed and the trophy means as much to him if not more than the 1st prize, he polishes his poker trophies each morning and night  ;)

My personal reason for wanting a no deals policy is;

1. The protection of inexperienced players, which DTD has a disproportional amount to traditional casinos, due to our satelitte programs and £15 FO evening comps

2. The atmosphere and ambience of the club, promoting good relationships between our members, whether local regs < 30 miles (30% footfall) or travelling players + 30 miles (70% footfall)

Here are a list of facts;

1. Streamed events were not invented when we opened, DTD opened its doors with a no deal policy

2. The no deals  policy will cover every comp at DTD that we GTE the prize pool, approximately 50 comps per month, of which between 1 and 4 will be  streamed

3. Every deal at DTD has been looked at over the least 14 months, all deal details are all logged at DTD, there is a clear pattern of non club regulars and/or satelitte qualifiers agreeing to extremely bad equity deals

4. Myself and simon have personally witnessed at least 20 incidents of aggressive player behaviour (swearing, shouting, personal insults or worse) regarding deals

5. Myself and Simon have personally witnessed at least 6 incidents of threatening behaviour as a result of the negotiation of deals

6. Simon can name 15 deals that he had to intervene where he believed a inexperienced player was about to agree to a grossly unfair deal relative to chips and the deal was renegotiated

7. A no deals policy will cost DTD money, through more dealer and supervisor hours, and less cash game action

8. Simon has been told on at least 4 occasions by stakeholders in a player at the final table that a deal cannot be agreed to without their approval

9. Simon has been verbally abused on at least 3 occasions when trying to mediate a deal

10. Deals volumes in Super £50 or higher events have doubled over the last 14 months (no real change in £15 comps), I believe (my view only) this is partly due to the growth in player staking, you would expect the opposite, especially if players are in make-up, therefore I believe backers/not players are influencing the dynamics of the final tables if their player is in make up - of course, prize pools have grown, so this would also be a reason for the increase

On the basis of the above, I don't see how we advocate deal negotiation between players, whether that be chop up x % of the pot or chop up the lot, and anyone that thinks we would make such a controversial decision that we didn't really believe was right for our members, just 4 weeks before £250,000 GTE event, well, god bless you, is all I can say

Cheers Rob

PS. Can I add that I believe that our members are on the whole very well behaved, more than any other venue that I know, but some of the incidents we remembered when we were going through the tourney sheets were just so out of character we were like "can you believe so and so said that" when recounting the situations

Item 10 - enboldened - that's a surprise, to me, at least. Staked players are MORE inclined to want a deal? I'd have assumed the opposite.

TK

Example:

Player A is in make up for £2000 and on a 50% deal, chips are fairly even

1st Prize is £3000
2nd Prize is £2000
3rd Prize is £1000

Deal done £2000 each, backer receives £2000, player receives £0

No deal done, player finished 1st £3000, backer receives £2,500 (+£500 better than a deal), Player A receives £500 (£+500 better than a deal)

Player finished 2nd, backer received £2,000 (same as deal), player receives £0 (same as deal)

Player finished 3rd, backer receives £1000(-£1000 worse than a deal), player recieves £0 (same as deal)

If players are of equal ability, no brainer for backer to encourage a deal and extra pressure to do deal on backed player and other players

Cheers Rob

Ahh, I see. Players being in make-up is something a bit alien to me, like playing on credit, so it's not a subject I much understand, or care for. I guess it would influence the thought processes though.

Unless I've missed it ... When dtd first opened chip count deals where allowed but no other
Is this still the case?

NO deals

I repeat

NO MORE DEALS

again

No deals


Wp DTD

When it first opened, there were no deals at all. Then it moved to chip count for a bit, then anything. I'm a DTD £50FO regular and I'm ambivalent about deals. I like playing to the end, but the thought of locking up a few hundred with 3 or 4 to go usually means I end up agreeing to deals if something fair is proposed. I don't think I've ever proposed a deal personally though.

Tough one this.

While all those points Rob makes are excellent and very valid reasons for not allowing deals (in particular I hate the bullying of players to agree to deals. I was once invited "outside" by a regular at Blackpool when I refused to agree to a saver in a GUKPT event) I am not altogther comfortable with a cardroom telling players what they can and can't do with their money (the prizepool is, after all, the players money, not the casinos).

If there was added money in a tournament, I'd absolutely agree with the no deals policy. I guess limiting the no deals policy to guaranteed events is a halfway house.

Interesting to see what hapens - hope deal making isn't forced "underground" which would lead to even more intimidation and be impossible to police. (This happened in a cardroom I used to go to in Portsmouth).

everyone gets given a queen and a king. If they want to deal they put the queen in the hat facedown, if they don't they put the king.

if there is one king in the hat then play goes on till the end. anyone who complains gets a 1 round penalty.

That's good on the question of 'deal or no deal' - but if people don't mind the concept of a deal but aren't happy with the precise deal that others are suggesting then it still leaves a lot of the problems described before.

Just looking at the dtd website and isn't every comp guarenteed?

I don't mind either way if you go somewhere knowing there is a no deal policy then you have made that choice when you step in the door to follow their rules.However I do think deals will be done on occasions outside.Im personally happy to do deals but I don't get out as much as I'd like so when I do get deep in a comp I'm happy with whatever I get lol.

I was talking to Rob about the whole matter on the 'phone last night, & he indicated that was one of his main reasons for his new stance - there had been quite a bit of that.

doesnt this help stop that though Tikay?

I'm a good negotiator, with a lifetime's experience at making deals. (Through business, not poker). I know that to get the best deal, you often have to have to push as hard as you can, I mean get right in someone's face, and defend your corner vigorously and vocally.

I don't mind this in business, business men understand it. As soon as the deal is done it's all forgotten, but I don't want to be brow-beating some boor kid or some old dear who has never had to negotiate a deal in their lives.

There is enough confrontation in this world. I don't want to walk into a card room and have someone newbie hold a grudge because they think was bullying them or I ripped them off. By the same token I don't want experienced players getting narked because I didn't chop it when they wanted to.

On the rare occasions when I do make a final table, I am never the first to mention a deal, but I can't help being distracted by constantly calculating and re calculating how much I would want if a chop is offered. I think I would be much more relaxed and focused on actually winning the bloody thing if chopping it were not an option.

So basically, I guess I'm in the 'No deals' camp.

Lastly, my congratulations to all those involved in making these tough decisions at DTD. The vast majority of players realise that it they us who will ultimately benefit, and are hugely grateful for the hard work you put in.

In theory, yes, in practice, no. It would be quite clear who was happy or unhappy, & if the "vote" went the wrong way, the moaning would soon start again, & you'd very soon know who was on what side.

My solution to the whole thing would be completely different to anything I can recall being suggested here, & I'm pretty sure I'd get booed off the park, though I'd be right. Obv. If so many Tourneys end in business - & I estimate 90% do - then it does suggest to me something pretty obvious. Flatter payout structures. That is not a personal wish or desire, just a statement.

Booooooo

AndrewT suggested flatter payouts earlier ITT and so did I.

I also suggested players voting on a choice of payout structures before they enter a "no deals" tourney which makes perfect sense to me but seemingly not to anyone else.

Please, no flatter payout structures. Payout structures are the way they are these days for a good reason- they reward aggressive poker, playing for the win, and getting on with it, rather than laddering and trying to fold to success.

As for removing deals because in the past some people made a bad deal is like removing the reverse gear from cars because someone reversed into a lamp post once. By removing options from your tournaments, you are making your tournaments less useful.

To repeat myself, the people you are trying to "protect" are the keenest ones to do deals and are going to be the most upset with your new policy.

As for intimidation, being unpleasant at a poker table is already an offence that carries penalties. Every DTD final table I've played on* has had a TD watching over it every hand. If someone is being an arse, give 'em a round penalty.

One other change you could make is not stopping the clock or even carrying on dealing while negociations are in progress.

Finally, I going to sound like Herbie here, but as for making people practise their heads-up skills and short handed play, most of these donkeys who are snivelling for deals at the final table of the £500 are never going to make another final table in their life. Lightning has struck once. It's not going to happen again. Give 'em their £10,000 payday, rather than make them flip for £40,000 or £1000, if that's what they want.

* exceedingly subtle.

Intimidation at the poker table doesn't have to be obvious, it can be done very subtly. I have turned down a deal before, all the guys went to the loo and it was obvious when they came back they had all agreed something. Nothing was said but then all the play was against me, it had obviously changed but it would have been difficult to prove - and i would have looked like a wanker. 

At Ntn last week i didn't want to deal but kept quiet while everyione else had their say - luckily someone else didn't want to either - so I was saved from having to say anything.

Well done DTD - it's one of the reasons you were so exciting at the beginning - having to play until the death. Love it.

Don't stop the clock- if they want to all go to the loo together steal their blinds! Seriously, though it's a good point.

100% agreed, totally.

So, why do so many Finals end in business?

I hope soft play is going to bne punished and policed against aggressively.

One of the times I almost always agree to a deal is when I'm playing against 2 or 3 regualrs who are obviously friends with each other.

No deals means if the friends soft play each other, they are at a considerable advantage against the outsider.

Soft play is alot more dangerous to the integrity of a poker tournament than deal making imo.

that's it skippy you tell it how it is mate.  You just can't go around calling people donkeys tho.  (you should have seen the tourney report from last night titled playing with the fishes I spent an hour on today. I have to say it was one of my best pieces ever. But in this new age of brotherly love and being nice to each other I hit delete instead of send.
Now would you like to self exclude for 24 hours to cool down or shall we just go straight to the 1 week ban.

Hi Keith,

I was with you on "its the players money and they can do what they want" when I was playing the poker circuit full time, although the only time I can ever remember dealing is when a well known player followed me downstairs at the old Luton casino and showed me a bailiffs letter when I refused to deal, there was the infamous time at Gala Nottingham when I had a massive fall out over a deal which was discussed on here, when 3 players refused to play on unless I dealt, and then announced that they were doing a deal anyway with or without me, I was threatened at the Aviation Club by one of the nicest guys around when I refused a 3 way chop, I couldn't believe this was the same guy I had just been to lunch with before the final!

I've also got egg on my face when I've not dealt - to the other players delight, the 'karma' factor I guess you can call it, on the Poker Den televised crapshoot when I was playing all or nothing for £50K and the guy offered me a £38k : £12K deal, I turned it down and ended up losing with a 5-1 chip lead.

As a player, I still always felt it was the players money so deals were fine, part of the game, I could take the odd threat and animosity, its didnt really bother me, I've been a hardened gambler since I was 18, but that's not the case at Dusk Till Dawn, we have a very mixed clientèle, swayed towards non hardened gamblers, on average, at least 50% of our fields, no matter what the buy-in, are either satelitte qualifiers to purely recreational players, and I feel they need some protection and our poker needs to move forward, no - I don't agree with Simon that poker is a sport, but I think deal making will go at some point, no operator has had the balls to get rid of it, but I think others will follow us in time, on the back of us getting loads of flack for it! So many players, especially women, senior citizens and teenage players, have come to me and told me they come to Dusk Till Dawn because they feel safer than other venues, even one incident is one too much.

However, since seeing the other side, as a poker operator, I have seen the countless problems that deals have caused in my venue, where I believe our members behaviour is actually better than any other venue I have ever played in, the straw that broke the Camel's (no pun intended) back was the deal done at this weekends £500 Deepstack, without my intervention (by getting Simon Trumper out of the commentary box to mediate the deal), the result of the deal would have been significantly different, I don't blame players for trying to negotiate the best deal for themselves and using the "it could all change in one hand" line, but I am I fed up with Simon having to even the playing field when it comes to negotiation, often to some players disappointment! Simon cannot be at the club 24-7 for every final table tournament, and if just one of my members agrees to a very bad/unfair deal because he doesn't have as much experience or understanding on deal making than the other players, that is one player too many. This us the umpteenth time this has happened, and I am sick of it, do prize payouts at DTD rely on me poking my nose in and bring Simon in to mediate?

Should i put on the bottom of our payout structure

*this is probably the payout at Dusk Till Dawn, but it may change depending on which players make the final table and negotiate a deal, and it may also change again if Rob or Simon think its unfair!

We publish our payout % at each finishing place based on a prize pool that is GTE's d by Dusk Till Dawn, is not the most ethical, honest and straightforward action for us as an operator to just execute these payments accordingly? I think we have to be brave and take the flack and hold our nerve. I also think we attract different clientèle so maybe its a rule that is better for us rather that other venues, players who like to get more equity through deal making have loads of choice in live poker nowadays, maybe they are not my target customer - I dunno, this just feels well overdue to me when i've seen first hand the problems deals making has caused in Dusk Till Dawn and other venues.

Hope u are well mate, I would be interested to see you debate this with Simon over a cup of tea actually, you're both pretty vocal and have loads of experience in poker and deal making, myself and Simon agree on "no deals", but for different core reasons.

Rob

Pmsl. The day you stop being brave and lose your bottle will be the day I keep my mouth shut. :)

Excellent post by Rob.

Is there anything in place to try and stop underhand deals?  I know this sounds silly, but making sure that all (or most) FTistx can't all be in the same place during the breaks? 

I can't see how that could work say 4 people smoke and go to the smoking area are you going to tell them only 1 can go out there at a time? Seems like a lot of extra work!

I was going to ask actually say you found out from someone that people had done a deal outside what would be the punishment?

only thing I can think of is having a TD within earshot but again this seems silly but might be the only way to police it?

doesn't DTD only give 10k in cash max and the rest by Bank Transfer/Cheque?  I can understand that it will be very very rare for people to grim people when they are paid out in cash, but if its in cheque and once it hits their account they will think of the money as theirs and I can def see some issues arising then

A cardroom or casino shouldn't be in the business of telling players how they should be approaching the game, they should simply facilitate the game. Comments from the venue itt like novice players should go for the win or how will they ever learn are inappropriate imo because it's not a venue's place to tell anybody what attitude they should have when gambling with their own money.

I also find the idea that enforcing no deals is to protect the novice player perplexing because the novice player is a big outsider to actually win anyway. So it appears the solution to prevent novice players being forced into a -EV deal is to force them into a -EV deal by making them play on, and the reason being given is because it's for their own good. I'm not a big fan of deals but I am a big fan of choice. Everybody making comment about how it's a good idea to remove that choice have no doubt exercised their freedom to make that choice and deal at some point in their poker careers.

pretty sure dtd aren't going to have staff following players to the toilets/to nandos/ around the carpark

Thanks for the reply Rob.

I can definitely see your point of view over this. In the days I used to make big finals (a long tme ago for sure!), I rarely did a deal. As long I was sure there wasn't going to collusion against me, I prefer to play it out.

Certainly shouldn't be for Simon to have to intervene in deal making discussions.

The one thing I hope you'll be clamping down is a case like this:

Three handed in a big final: Player A and player B are DTD regulars and often seen at the bar together. Player C is an online qualifier who has never played live before.

A nod and a wink between A and B, and from then on, neither raises the other blinds unless they have a monster hand and instead both concentrate on attacking the bb of the newcomer.

Do you not agree this is far worse for Player C than letting the 3 of them do a deal?

As long as you are strong in policing cheating (and yes, this is definitely cheating) like this, then no deals is a great policy.

I'm not much of a tea drinker, but put a pint of lager in front of me, and I'll debate deals for as long as you and Simon want :)

Deals in tournaments are always going to be a topic of discussion.

I, and I'm sure a lot of people on here, would consider myself to be in the group of players that Rob is trying to protect. I'm an amateur player, most likely to satellite into the £500 deepstack for as cheaply as possible. I work full time in an office and earn approx £15,000 a year. I know how to play poker, but I'm not the best in the world and I don't make a lot of money from it. It is not very likely that I will make the final table, but I'll have a lot of fun trying. Most importantly, the money is worth something to me. It's not a life changer, but would make life a lot easier.

I make the final table and I don't have the big stack, I'm hanging on in there. We're 4 handed and the average stack is say 20bb's. The payout structure is as follows (taken from the most recent deepstack):

£46,556.25
£27,217.50
£16,330.50
£11,460.00

The difference between 1st-4th is just over £35,000.

To me, this is 2 years wages!

I really do not want to be flipping for 2 years wages! However, I agree that I don't want to be bullied into a -EV deal. If this actually happened, and deals were allowed, the first thing I would be doing is heading over to a computer and loading up a cEV (chip ev) calculator as I believe this has been shown to be the fairest way to deal. (Disclaimer: This may be wrong.)

Definitely agree with this, people will concentrate more on playing their game rather than working out what they could ladder to on a deal (which happens all the time), I only final tabled the Deepstack once, I come to table as chip leader with 1/3 of chips in play and was coolered twice in huge hands. As soon as I went out 5th they did a 4 way chop 12k,12k,10k & 9k I think it was! But i was there to win not deal or fold and ladder!

Even though saying all that, I am normally up for a fair deal but I like the stance! at least players know before entering what the score is!

My only reason for dealing is if I'm desperate to get home or to the bar or if it's an absolute crap shoot.

As a recreational player sometimes it makes sense for me to deal as it locks up a few quid and let's me get an early night. I'm not bothered about sacrificing a bit of EV over some supposedly worse players. In most comps it's just bingo by that stage anyway so forcing it to play out seems a little bit ott.

I understand that they are going to roll the blinds back to 50bbs which helps remove the crap shoot element but I assume this is just for bigger events. If it's for all events then unfortunately I'll probably never play another midweek comp as finishing at 4am is out of the question for me.

Why not just go back to the previous policy of no deals other than chip count deals? This seemed to work quite well and was obviously fair to everyone.

I can understand the 'no deal' policy on the bigger live streamed events but for the midweek normal games I think it's pushing it a bit too far.

I'd say they more reward winning flips - the skill needed to win a tourney from 5 left is far less than that needed to get to the final 5, and yet it's that last bit where the money jumps in big increments.

Also, if most tourneys end in deals, then the payout structures are not the way they are - they're just meaningless numbers on a screen. The actual payout structure (what players seem to want to get paid) is that which is written on the back of structure sheets in bookie's pens.

Okay,

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=56734.0

Lets see what overall opinion is

Rob

A lot of good arguments for and against in this thread, gotta say I think it comes down to how DTD pitch their reasoning for the change whether they can justify it to me. At first it looked like they were doing it because their live stream got spoilt, and I agree with skippy's post using the example of tennis where the participants are paid by the millions of spectators and therefore it is a 'sport' where people are entitled to see a sporting conclusion, whereas in poker there are a handful of spectators but the players are paying for the tournament prizepool and running costs themselves and so imho are entitled to decide it however they like.

However, Rob's posts itt make a very convincing argument that this change is for 'the players' or 'the good of the game' etc. Point-by-point: (link to rob's post (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=56711.msg1505189#msg1505189))

1&2: OK yeah obviously this isn't about the live stream:

3,4&5: I agree with everyone else that people who push too hard for deals, become aggressive, offensive and threatening are dickheads and imo should be banned after perhaps 1 warning. Alternatively, completely banning deals is also a solution to this problem, however I think this is the 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' approach. If the dealer were to resume dealing cards at the first time someone says "no" and the TD were to aggressively penalise anyone who won't let it drop I think that would solve all the intimidation problems, possibly after a couple of people have been banned/DQ'ed.

6: I have several problems with this point and Simon's attitude in general towards "fair deals":

A) Chip count deals are NOT always fair. 4-handed in the Monte Carlo that Alex went on to win Simon was all ready to wave through a deal that cost Alex's share £3k in equity by my calculations and I had to step in to put a stop to it. I tried to explain it to Simon at the time but it was difficult to explain verbally, hopefully an example should make it clear:

4 handed with payouts of £10k, £5k, £3k and £2k, 1 player has 97% of the chips in play and the other three players have 1% each. They're all guaranteed £2k each leaving £12k to play for which the shortstacks will get 1% (£120) each, so according to a chip-count deal the short stacks all get £2120 and the chip leader gets the remainder of the prize pool: £13,640, i.e. £3640 more than 1st place.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but the equity going from short to big stacks effect happens in chip-count deals even with relatively small spread of chip distribution, so ironically by stepping in to prevent "unfair" deals in some cases Simon would have just been unwittingly screwing someone over.

B) Chip equity, even ICM equity, is NOT the same as real equity. All models to calculate dollar equity assume equal skill levels since in reality these things are incalculable. Good players do generally overestimate the effect of skill edge but it's possible that again by banning deals to prevent 'professionals taking advantage' and forcing an amateur player to play on, the amateur will end up worse off in the long run.

C) Utility. I won't waste anyone's time spelling this out but basically it's what sharplea's post describes, i.e. for some people the difference between £5k and £20k is much the same as the difference between £20k and £50k, so it's perfectly rational for them to want to lock up the 1st £15k at the expense of the 2nd £30k, and preventing them from doing so will not only cost them that utility but may also cost them equity if they play scared money on the final because of it.

So basically to sum up wrt to point 6, I disagree completely that 'protecting weaker players from doing bad deals' is a valid reason to ban deals.

8: I wouldn't ever propose to Simon that I could tell him what to do, but in a way this point is actually true, if our horse needs our approval to agree to a deal, and Simon needs all the players to agree to a deal, then indirectly our approval is needed to do a deal. However, if our horse were dead set on agreeing to a deal without our consent and would be happy to suffer the consequences, then the deal will go ahead despite our protestations, so we have no real power to veto, and wouldn't try to insist to Simon that we do.

9: Wield the banhammer some more.

10: The thought never crossed my mind that as a backer I ought to prefer deals, and as I said before the only deal input I have ever had as a backer is to prevent a deal, but your maths (in a follow-up post) is compelling. TY for that :)

So in summary I don't think deals should be banned outright, the status quo is that anyone can veto a deal and play on with the prize structure as is so nobody ought to be an unwilling 'victim to a bad deal'. I think the problems with intimidation could be solved by enforcing existing rules more rigorously and warning+banning persistent bullies. I think this would also have a positive effect on the club as a whole actually, as intimidation doesn't only happen at the final table and prominently outlawing it and banning persistent offenders could go some way to de-machoing the whole atmosphere imo. So if you don't NEED to ban deals, I think you ought to keep them because they have the positive effect of allowing recreational players to lock up decent money a bit earlier and maximise their utility, and finally I do actually agree with the oft-maligned "it's the players' money" ethos.

As a solution, I think ensuring all deals have to leave, say, 3-5% of the remaining prize money for 1st would be a good idea, and also look at flattening the payout structure. The GSOP Live tournaments have gone 2 seasons without a multi-way chop and their fields are very much made up of satellite qualifiers, the flat payout structure is I think the overriding factor behind the no-deal culture on this tour. Their payout structure (with annoying typo) can be seen here (http://www.gsoplive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/GSOP-Live-Price-Structure.pdf)

Nice post Keys.

One thing though, there was a chop in Salzburg 3-handed. (I'm just not allowed to officially report it, I can't remember if there was one in Prague but all the others have been played out to the best of my recollection) I still like their prize structure set-up though.

Although i think that, in an ideal world, the 100% no deals policy makes good sense, i believe that in reality the 'behind the scenes' deals would quite likely still take place.
 With the 100% no deals policy in place, i think there is a much greater chance of the three friends soft playing  against each other, with or without any verbal agreement, until the 'stranger' has been taken out.
 The same goes for any casino in the country, so i'm not having a go at DTD, which is my favourite poker venue by a mile.
 So, although a 100% no deal policy would be ideal, if it could be enforced, and may help some of us, who grab the deal too readily, to improve our endgame poker ability, i think it could actually work, albeit unintentionally, against the inexperienced / lone stranger etc.
 It's a tough call though, and fair play to Rob for discussing the matter.

I would go for:-
                       1. Any deal must be agreed anonymously by all players (using the red card / back card system)
                       2. At start of deal talks, all players are given a list of the possible payouts based on current chip stack count.
                       3. If a deal is vetoed, play on until at least one more player is eliminated, or until the end of the level.
                       4. The player finishing first, whether based on a chip count or if played out to a finish, must receive at least
                        xx% more than the second placed finisher