blonde poker forum

Well, Luton Grosvenor did us proud once again

The Grand Challenge was a great festival. There was a good range of buy-ins with long clocks and enough starting chips to allow for plenty of play

Competent dealers, helpful management and staff, nice surroundings, in fact, everything we needed to make it an outstanding week

What a shame the spectre of top-heavy prize structures and deals at the final table reared its ugly head yet again

Here are the simple facts

1: we have had poll after poll, and the result is always the same, the vast majority of players want a flatter payout structure

2: Grosvenor want to discourage deals at final tables

3: The only way to discourage deals is to flatten the payout structure

Come on guys, It's not rocket science

Please see the final four pages of this update thread of an excelelent discussion of many of the issues that Red Raises....

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=6174.0


I would have loved to have reported the precise details of the deal, and who gave up what to who, but was told to keep the details private by the Luton Grosvenor management.

It was fascinating to watch though

Surely it's even more dodgy if the deal is kept a secret as well??? You'd think they'd want everything open to show nothing untoward went on.

Why do they have the right to censor this info?  Why do they want to?  I simply don't understand.

If I discover the facts I will post them.  They can't kick me out of a casino I don't frequent  :D

As a matter of interest the 500k tourney on will hill last night had a very flat payout structure with 55k for 1st and 42kish for 2nd and gradual steps down to 2k for 70th.

It was discussed at a couple of tables i was on and everyone hated it. Basically people were expecting to be having a shot at 200k ish for 1st prize.

The jist was, the flat structure suits the professional and very regular players a lot more than your casual player who likes to shoot for the big one now and again.

The deal/deals is/are NOT secret . Its just that the Grovesener DO NOT do deals. As far as they are concerned, the payouts were as advertised and CANNOT be changed.

However, what goes on between the players remains the players business - if they decide to deal.

Hope that made sense

the problem as i see it is poll after poll say we dont want top heavy payouts

but on the night people turn up and see a much reduced first prize and they complain

same people will do a deal 5 way

reason they complain then do a deal is there is much more money in the pot to deal with

if they aint payout so much to the lower placed finalists

its a no win situtation

people are drawn to the first place money

but then want to deal to get best share they can

no matter how flat the structure is you will get the deals being done

how often have you seen deals being down on a wet wednesday in xxxxx

with only £2000 in the pool and people squabbling over the odd £20

so with £50,000 in the pool no matter how flat people are always going to deal

part of being a good tourny player now has to include how to barter a good deal for yourself

unless more people take the Brian Wilson approach and say no deals then this will always occur

i know when i am in the money and everyone else has aggreed they want to deal i feel a little pressured into dealing and rarely put up a fight

Good point re "pressure"

However, I  WILL NOT deal - have always said this and will remain by it.

You do, however, feel the wrath of the rest of the foe's who DO want to deal though - so be it

another problem i have when deciding to deal is that most deals are done around 2-3 am instead of playing on till 4 am when you have a long drive home this means getting home around 4 am instead of during the rush hour big plus for the deal IMHO

I will do a deal if I think it's in my favour, if one person on the table doesn't want to do a deal then I will vocally go along with that before any other decision.
You won't stop chopping though its integral to the game.

I don't understand the debate ???
If people do a deal then they have all agreed (and are presumably happy) so what is the problem?
If you personally don't want to deal then you won't, so again what is the problem?

re: top heavy payouts

Back in the day, I did some pretty heavy economic research on the national lottery, and why people play it.

Cut a long story short it, when you enter any situation with a target prize your brain misinterprets the odds of the game. First prize completely disproportionately dominates your interpretations of your expected income. Hence the larger it is the greater the perceived incentive to play, whether that makes rational sense or not. Even when you know the rational odds of such a game, you brain will still influence this expectation irrationally. Its just human nature. Big first prizes suck people in. (interestingly the exact same symptom in reverse is what incentivizes us to pay ridiculously overblown premiums for insurance).

Think about national lottery rollovers - ticket purchases rocket when the prize pool doubles, which is crazy, as its not going to make the slightest bit of difference to someone if they win 5million or 10million, its just a huuuge figure compared to their normal income either way. So why do they buy more tickets for the bigger prize? People being attracted to top heavy poker prize structures is the same affliction. The higher the first prize the greater perceived value.

As poker players play more, and hit the business end more, they can gradually rectify this situation - professional players hence start to realise a flatter structure makes far more sense to them and they overcome the hard-wired misinterpretations. To the casual player or someone who rarely makes the final table, this never happens and they continue to be subject to the irrational signals their unconcious mind is telling them.

If anyone's interested I can answer more details about it, but i'm already ranting on ;)

I think as long as we have online qualifiers at the rate we do now, as well as people who win seats via sats, then deals will carry on.

If you can buy into a big game for 30 quid, and get a chance to play in a game you would never normally be able to afford to buy into, then if you get into a position where you can win a substantial amount of money, then you are going to be more likely to do a deal rather than potentially get into a position where you lose cash, through a bad beat.

The concept of the poker economy is a really interesting thing for me at the moment, and with the huge infusion of sponsored players and the number of online qualifiers MUST be having an effect on the number of deals done. Also I am sure the old hands at doing deals are rubbing their hands in glee at the influx of new arrivals who aren'tas adept at brokering as they are.

Interesting discussion.

i bought two tickets for the euromillions this week and i don't play the lottery.  :D

If you can buy into a big game for 30 quid, and get a chance to play in a game you would never normally be able to afford to buy into, then if you get into a position where you can win a substantial amount of money, then you are going to be more likely to do a deal rather than potentially get into a position where you lose cash, through a bad beat.


I dont agree here Heid, If you pay £30 to get into a tournament then the most you can only lose £30. If you are talking deals then surley you are in the money and showing + on your investment.

Say I had qualified for a tourney, spent 30 quid.

Made deep into the money.

Had stack, BUT there were a lot of good players in with me. If I was offered a deal that gave me more than my chips were worth at that point - I'd take the money.

I'd love to think that I had gone so far and would make the  top spots, BUT I'd get as much as I could out of a deal.

Don't know when i am goign to be abck in that spot again, so I would do the deal.

But if the prize structure was flatter, everyone would be less inclined to deal

If its £300 for 6th and £8000 for first, deals are more likely

This sure is an interesting topic - I am surprised to read that so many are against deals..........

I would class myself as a casual player and have to admit that when I have been at final tables I am one of the first to look for a deal - the main reason for me is that I don't like the idea of a bad beat costing me 3k....

The other factor is that I haven't mastered very short or heads up play yet and so am unlikely ever to WIN outright - hence a deal in 3rd or 4t spot works for me !!

But if there wasn't so much money difference between the places, wouldn't you be more inclined to play on?

I have never been in a live situation where a deal was a problem ( If my game keeps going the way it's going it never will be) so I cant really comment but I would like to think that I would never deal .

If the structure was flatter then yes I would play on because I would not be risking so much money at a time in the tourney when luck plays the biggest part as the blinds increase to a push or fold level ...

BTW - I have never been in this situation live only online on Stars where deals seem to be very commonplace.

If I ever do get in the situation live I would like to think that I could hold my own in the negotiations which seems to be a required skill in poker these days..

Has there ever been deals in the main event WSOP ??  I know that the organisers don't support but they cant stop the players right ?

Just wondered if the headlines you read like 7.5m to Joe Hatchem are true or is there a different figure in reality .....

Not sure but i know Moneymaker asked farha to deal but Farha said no and ended up losing

Not sure Ifully understand wha the problem with deals is ???

You know the payouts when you start a tourney - the BIG 1st place prize draws the people and boosts the pot ...........  so if your a player who dosen't deal then if your chip leader with 5 left and go out in 5th thats your choice.  If your a more conservative player and a deal is offered you get your flatter payout structure ........if no deal is offered you can try and broke one but failing that you knew at the start what you would get based on your finish.

The only problem is that it takes the pressure out of the situation and causes an anti climax to what can be a long tourney - I have never done a deal where there is not money left on the table for the winner that is not worth playing for - hence you still get some game at the end but everyone get a nice slice of the pie

Sorry IFM just realised that was pretty much what you said  :blonde:

Thats all very well until you are in 6th with a small stack and you know the other 5 are waiting for you to go out before doing the business

But Dog - If you are in that position you are in no spot to deal anyway.......

either you could have tried to deal earlier or just start shoving your chips in and see what happens - if you double the situation changes pretty quick

and the other point still holds - you knew what you would get for 6th right at the beginning and so there should be no expectation to get more money just because you are in that spot right now

yes, I knew what I would get, but as I said at the start, the majority of players want a flatter structure, and I object to cardrooms dictating how money that the playerd themselves have put up is devided

By your argument, if snooker players were allowed to stab each othe during a match, you couldn't complain that it was a bad rule because the players knew about it before hand

I don't see how that is related to my point ? There is no outside interference in the game itself ........

Its just a perception thing I guess - I would rather play a tourney that gives me a shot at $150k for 1st just in case I get in a position to win it - rather than a flatter structure to start with becuase I can engineer that flat structure with a deal at the end if things haven't progressed so well in the final stages.

I think for me its the lure of paying of a chunk of mortgage that brings me to the game...........  if the structure was flatter to begin with then I wouldn't be there at the game and yes the pros may get what they want but the game would not have as many fish / dead money players at the table ...............  then the prize pool would drop etc.....

The snooker analogy is a bit OTT!!
As for the majority thing, didn't Rob try this at Notts and reverted back because the majority were not happy? (not sure TBH).
I know Danny polled Walsall regulars and was told that they didn't want flatter pay structures (i'm sure he could enlighten us).

it was OTT, but it was only an analogy

Let me put it another way

You represent a cardroom or a sponsor, you wan't to discourage deals

What do you think is the best way of doing it?

I really honestly don't know, you will NEVER stop deals, even if you paid everyone on a final table an equal prize you would get deals for 10th (or 11th). I just don't see why you want to?
For telly tournies you just keep deals strictly confidential (sign an agreement maybe).
Grosvenor tried to stop them by paying advertised structure only and banning deal talk on the table but it simply didn't work, actually made final tables into a farce!!

The fact is the money belongs to the people left and they can do with it as they wish.

Sorry DOG - Misinterpreted the initial question then. Perhaps flatter structures would mean less deals.....  but I thought that if a cardroom does not support deals then it is at the players risk to make a deal..............

For me that is enough to put me off dealing - If i don't have any support or backup from the organisers then I'm not dealing !!  Don't trust myself lt alone anyone else  :D

Posts: 2


   Re: Grosvenor Grand Challenge at Luton MAIN EVENT DAY 2
« Reply #312 on: Today at 10:55:25 pm » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey everyone - never posted here before but I hope you might find my take on the whole deal thing to be of interest. As has been said, i qualified in a satellite for £30 and whatever the outcome, I was headed for by far the biggest payday of my short poker career. My reasons for doing the deal were, in order of importance, as follows: 1 - the deal was done according to chip counts, which meant (without giving too much information away) that I was getting the largest cut, significantly better than 2nd place money, guaranteed. 2 - In my judgement the most dangerous player to me was the Norwegian guy and he was sat on my left. With my inexperience at this level I felt his positional advantage over me 4 and 3 handed would be very telling. 3 - I was starting to get very fuggy-headed after playing 20 hours of poker on 3 hours sleep, coffee and nicotine.
I agree with almost everything said on this forum about deals, especially the skewing of the prize structure. I have a structure to propose for 18 place payouts which I believe is a fairer distribution of the cash and would discourage alot of deals.
Having said that, hammering out a deal that one thinks is favourable to oneself is surely a part of tournament play and money management and as such can and should never be stopped. If tournament organisres wish to ban dealing from their competitions, they are free to do so and players who are prone to dealing wouldnt enter those comps.
Finally, a word about Paul Parker. A lovelier bloke to play poker with you will never meet. Those of you who have had the pleasure will verify that he is hilarious and keeps everyones spirits up. Yes, he initiated talks about the deal, but everyone was up for dealing or it wouldnt have happened. As it happens, and again I dont want to give too much away if the others want the details kept secret, but suffice to say that it was Norwegian guy, not Paul, that brokered the best deal for himself.
I would be happy to answer any more questions anyone has about this or any other stuff to do with this amazing ride I have been on this weekend.

Cheers all.

PS In the end, the casino did pay us out according to the deal amounts, we didnt have to hand cash over to each other.

Suggested prize structure as mentioned before, along with payouts as they would have been for this main event using these perentages.

18 Players

position                      % of pool                   £ in main event

1st                               25 %                            35,000
2nd                              20 %                            28,000
3rd                               15 %                            21,000
4th                               10 %                            14,000             
5th                                6 %                              8,400
6th                                4.5%                            6,300
7th                                 3 %                             4,200
8th                                2.5%                            3,500
9th                                 2%                              2,800
10-11th                          1.75%                          2,450
12-13th                          1.5 %                           2,100
14-15th                          1.25%                          1,750
16-18th                           1 %                             1,400

I think people would be much more willing to play on for titles, points etc if there was not so much financial risk attached. This smooths out the curve somewhat and even gives a small profit for 10-18th, instead of the preposterous situation of them beating 120+ players over 2 days and losing forty quid for doing so. Also, i see no reason why 10th cant get a little more than 18th.
Personally, I would like to see 9 player payouts a little less top heavy too, something like 30, 20, 15, 10, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 %

Nice work 'not gus' ...

I agree with all your reasoning for a deal - I would do exactly the same in that spot (hope I get the chance soon !!)

Well done !!!

I think that you will find it was me IFM sorry, Rob might of as well, but boy did i get berated for it. The GM went absolutely apeshit when I did it as a "trial", for that night the flatter structure took place and there was still a six way split.

Players were up in arms and i got some serious grief off the MAJORITY of players, I did explain that it was a trial, and was told by the GM to do an impromptu poll with the Broadway players giving them three options 65% went with the option of a 40% or above 1st prize.

It was just completely ironic that with the suggested prize structure voted for by 3 forums to stop deals and give a flatter payout structure, that a 6 way deal was done that night because it wasn't worth them potentially playing till 5am for the difference between prizes??

As i mentioned in another thread I would deao when I get tot he point where i am knackered - and notgus had 3 hours of sleep and was ackered - an ideal time to a deal as any further play can be costly.

Well done - I was so pleased for you and i could see you were so made up when you were buzzing around - cant wait to see it on 425.  A great result.

PS - thinking of playing any cash this week....... ;scarymoment;

Tracey

Ah - I get you.

I have a pretty strict no deals policy both online and live mainly because i feel my best game is short handed/heads up and have a huge wealth of experience of these scenarios. If i'm offered a particularly good deal where i was offered far more than my chip equity i would probably accept. If deal talk begins then i usually nip it in the bud by saying no business or i would require x amount to consider dealing which is  usually too much to facilitate a deal.

I like the look of this in general - it solves the two bits of 'idiocy' in the current Luton payouts (presumably the same across Grosvenor) - (1) people making the money & making a loss on the event and (2) fluctuating, not steadily increasing, prize increments.  I'd maybe tweak the higher payouts so that the increments weren't all 5% steps but otherwise this looks great.

I also think having 4 levels of payout between 10th and 18th place is a good thing as it makes for a better competition.  Having 9 people make a small loss out of the 18 who get paid makes for a very dull bubble period.  I think players would play a lot more positively if they knew that they had secured a profit and had a short term target by which their pay increased.

Sheriff

This deals/no deals or pay structure debates seam to be getting a bit out of hand lately.  I dont want to slate individuals or clubs but last night at the Gala Nottingham........(here we go again).......We sat down to start the tournament and there was a note on all tables stating that as of 6th Feb 06 there will be a flatter pay structure for all comps.  I wish i kept the sheet but first had gone to 30% (from 40%) and second to 20%.

This caused an absolute uproar.  It just seamed to alot of people a slap in the face.  There was no consultation with any players (that i am aware of), it was just decided by management.  Before the comp started we were told we couldnt shout and discuss this but if we wanted to take this up with them then we could individually.  What annoys me is why say this AFTER we have been TOLD what the structures will be.  I am particularly annoyed after hearing that othe casino's have polled players before making the decisions.  Why couldn't gala have done that?  Anyway there was inevitable screaming and shouting and a certain player issued with a yellow card.  I feel like i am playing in a school!  When casino's start adding money to the prizepool, then isn't this when THEY could have more say how the player's cash gets divided?

It's wierd though Chilli, every time it's asked on here most people want flatter structures, but from the sounds of it every time they try to implement it there's uproar.
 ;goodvevil;

Exactly Rod, i am so confused at the moment with all the different opinions that i dont even know what my opinion is on the issue. 

its simple imo - the people clever enough to get online and discuss it with other players tend to want a flatter structure cos it makes sense. The numpties who aren't capable of doing so tend to want big first prizes and will complain like hell if their irrational "expected value" appears to be going down.

There's no way of convincing them. Remember these tend to be the guys who will be throwing all their money onto roulette after.

Perhaps Gala realised this? Perhaps not. But I guarantee you if they'd taken a poll of the card room the loudest players would have demanded no change.

And hey, I guess  its not a democracy - they offer comps and we decide as customers whether to play them or not. And Gala know whatever they do the regulars are gonna carry on coming....

Let's all face the fact that poker is essentially a game full of selfish people, because in the end we all want to win no matter what, and if you aren't going to enter to win, then why bother?

As much as I would do a deal in certain circumstances, if I was in a position where I knew I could win, then I would want the steepest payout sched I could get my mitts on.

That quote was part of the "loud" ones argument.  They were saying that after that structure is in place then the majority simply wont turn up (yeah, right!).  Olga even said if that happened then they would "re-assess."  It's true its not a democracy but if other places consult players opinions, why not this one?

Anyway after considering my personal circumstances, a flatter pay structure suits me better.  In that i final often but dont seem to get past 4th place very often.  What i was trying to get at is the constant cycle of fighting with management and a small selection just sprouting off very loadly and upsetting most people in the process.   JUST BE ADULT  that's all i ask into cyberspace.

Lets keep the debate in the realms of the realistic shall we?




 ;hide;

<sigh>

Chili, the 30% structure was largely as a result of polls and discussions on this board as well as robs records that showed that the ACTUAL 1st prize after deals were taken into account was below 30%. When the beginners night started u-p last year Rob trialed the 30% structure on the basis that there would be a NO DEALS policy.  All future new comps where put on the new structure so about half were 30% and half 40%.

Management have obviously decided between the two and I feel it's the right choice. on Wednesday there was similar aggro from our little welsh friend, saying he's like it to go back to 60% for 1st like it used to be. there's always a lot of complaining from the NO CHANGE brigade on a wednesday because thats the no smoking night so they're all exceptionally irritable anyway.

Ok Adam, I apologise, i'm not aware of anything that happens midweek as i dont go,  maybe i sprouted off myself without background knowledge but i DO prefer the flatter structure but i dont prefer having to listen to serial arguments over and over again.  I'm solving it - i just wont play comps on Mondays x

Not all Grosvenors have such a top heavy payout structure and we do increase our payouts from 18th to 10th but only with 3 stages not 4. But I can only speak for Blackpool. 

Plus if you get paid you will make at least a small profit on your investment.

During our weekly comps we run a flattish structure, not as flat as Gala Notts. But as flat as we could make it without the death threats eminating from the poker playing fraternity. Some well thoughts of professional players actually threatened me after I ran Festival events with a 30% first prize.

So perhaps not all professional players quite understand the theory behind "Flatter Payouts"

Also, the comment about it's your money. Some people, who work in the casino industry, will argue hard and long against that. To Quote. "It's not their money until they are knocked out." Not my opinion but one that is still around and being used.


Yogi

I wrote this a week or two back. Conincidentally, the topic has cropped up at Luton. I feel quite strongly about deals in poker. They really bug me. Anyhow, this is what I wrote. Although referring to a much smaller comp, I still think it's relevant here.

-----------

I am beginning to detest deals. There is a real nasty side to the process of striking deals at the table, and I, for one, would be happy to back a no-deal policy within all tournaments. Unfotunately, you can't stop people from discussing them, it's their money after all. However, that still doesn't mean that I have to like them.

So why do I feel that they have become a cancerous part of poker?

(i) If deals are being made, it probably means that the structure of the comp is too top-heavy.
(ii) Youngsters, women, newbies, and so are often pressured into deals and sometimes even swindled.
(iii) The majority of deals seem to lead to incessant and petty bickering, if not a heated argument.
(iv) Declining a deal makes you a target. Your popularity declines and players may team up to eliminate you.
(v) Giving a saver not only takes potential money away from the chip leaders and best players, but can also change the structure and outcome of the comp.

I experienced point (v) yesterday afternoon at the Gala £30 freezout comp.

11 players left, I was the chip leader with a tasty stack in front of me. My table was full of short stacks who were all trying to hang in, if anything, just to tell their mates that they made the final.

Being very aware of this, I started raising virtually every hand, and picked up a shed load in blinds.

Then, one of the youngsters suggested a £40 saver for 11th. Everyone quickly agreed, eager to have a few coppers to show for their afternoon's work. I then said something along the lines of 'Well, that's not great for me though is it?' The table went quiet and I could feel a few snarls moving in my direction.

Predictably, one fella's response was 'It's only £40 though'. He gave me a dry look as if he couldn't believe that I'd been so petty about a couple of scores.

Not wanting to make any enemies, I accepted the offer for a saver and carried on playing. Unsurprisingly, I was unable to nick the blinds and within a few hands we were down to ten.

Okay, maybe £40 isn't much, but when you combine it with the potential chip lead I could amass by the final, that £40 becomes a hell of a lot more. It's a 20 minute clock with blinds of around 1500/3000. Now they really are worth nicking, and if no one's going to defend them because they're too scared of bubbling, I have a huge advantage.

Anyhow, I'm not overly pissed off, but these situations crop up at all levels, and I don't like it. You shouldn't feel obliged to accept any deal, but, sometimes, because of the points highlighted at the start of this rant, it probably works out best if you go with the flow.

I just think that if I'd rejected the deal, I'd have more chips going into the final table

chilli do a search for posts by nightfly (the notts guys) and you will see that the 30% structure was debated and voted on

"  11 players left, I was the chip leader with a tasty stack in front of me. My table was full of short stacks who were all trying to hang in, if anything, just to tell their mates that they made the final.

Being very aware of this, I started raising virtually every hand, and picked up a shed load in blinds.

Not wanting to make any enemies, I accepted the offer for a saver and carried on playing. Unsurprisingly, I was unable to nick the blinds and within a few hands we were down to ten.

Okay, maybe £40 isn't much, but when you combine it with the potential chip lead I could amass by the final, that £40 becomes a hell of a lot more. It's a 20 minute clock with blinds of around 1500/3000. Now they really are worth nicking, and if no one's going to defend them because they're too scared of bubbling, I have a huge advantage."

Snoopy, you make a compelling point here against bubble deals. However, I still believe that deals on the final table between the last 3,4 or 5 players are a result of payout structures.

You are talking about a different entity entirely my four legged friend, it has no relevence to the discussion bud.
Bubble deals encourage the shortstack to "go for it" and that is the problem with those, tuff s**t you agreed (i wouldn't, but then i don't care if i offend :D).
No offense intended but you either need to be stronger or not whine about it :D

(iv) Declining a deal makes you a target. Your popularity declines and players may team up to eliminate you.


This is probably even more evident the fewer players that are left.

A wise man once told me that it's not a good idea to make enemies in the cardroom. I think he was right.

No offence taken.

Savers do run the discussion onto a different tangent, but they are still a part of the deal-making process.

I think these points still remain relevant though.

-----

So why do I feel that they have become a cancerous part of poker?

(i) If deals are being made, it probably means that the structure of the comp is too top-heavy.
(ii) Youngsters, women, newbies, and so are often pressured into deals and sometimes even swindled.
(iii) The majority of deals seem to lead to incessant and petty bickering, if not a heated argument.
(iv) Declining a deal makes you a target. Your popularity declines and players may team up to eliminate you.

It's not just pay-out structures. It's blind structures too.

Apologies if that point has already been made.

May i ask why you don't like it if 5 players did a deal at Luton?

I'm not sure I could comment on that specific situation because I wasn't there.

Speaking more generally though, I've witnessed too many times newbies, females, youngsters, timid players, and so on be either pressured or sweet talked into a deal.

Also, and if I recall correctly with the rob yong thread (apologies if I am mistaken), there is the potential for other players to team up on you if you decline the offer.

I remember Nightfly writing up a full analysis. Even though the majority of live players disagree with a flatter structure, it was the flatter structure that was ultimately payed out via chip counts.

Pokerstars $215  500k gtd tourny on sunday was won by a player who qualified from  a $3 rebuy satellite.
He got $163 k  NO DEALS.

to be honest i think we all have done research in this matter, you were quite right IFM we done a customer questionarre about 6 to 9 months ago. the results were very conclusive. players at walsall disapproved of a flatter stucture. there was a vast majority that was happy with the current structure, i know this may seem hard to belive but some even wanted it more top heavy. so sorry guys our structure is staying the same

snoopy has raised some good points about both deals and savers. I feel quite strongly that both are bad for poker but it's usually not in my interests to argue the point too strongly because as snoopy said, you become a target.

Links to the polls/previous debates can be found here (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=530) and also here (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=1359)

Warning: Both are quite involved and take some serious reading :)

A good, well-reasoned & thoughtful Post by Yogi, as always.

But the final para troubles me.

It IS the players money, until & unless a sponsor puts some in, & I believe strongly that the players have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do what they want. As to "what they want", well, thaht's another story altogether, & I fancy there will never be agreement on that!

As long as all casinos publish their payout structure before the event begins, players can decide whether or not they wish to enter that particular tournament based on the structure. If this structure is not to their liking, they can elect not to take part.

Players agreeing to the established structure (by paying the entry fee) and then deciding to change it once the event gets to the final table is a bit off to me.

I hear the "it's the players money argument alot and I dont think it washes. once players hand over their entry fee it is no longer their money. it is the prize pool. it's not the last five players' money yet, it's the prize pool made up of theirs and the other 100+ eliminated players entry fees. only on elimination does any of  it become their money.

deals quite often lead to players being cohersed into accepting terms they dont like. saying no to the saver for 11th makes you the villain and makes you very unpopular and arguing about the valet tip when you've had 1 luke warm coffee in 4 hours makes you a skinflint.
 
I enjoy short handed play, infact I think Im good at it but as soon as you get 5 handed the talk turns to deals and you risk it becoming 4 v 1 for the rest of the game if you say no. I think a no deals policy protects players who would rather not deal but feel obliged to.

The Final Paragraph troubles me also Tikay. But it is there because it's not only poker players attitudes to get past it's also certain casino employee's.

Altho I did find that even with such a flat structure "Pro Players" were the ones most eager to deal.

Yogi