blonde poker forum

Not that this is ever likely to affect me :) but....

there have been a few situations recently in EPTs where that have got me thinking about deal making.

Should people be allowed to consult the rail? Make phone calls etc?

How long is a reasonable time to discuss a deal? Are there rules in place for this or is it at the TD's discretion?

Today at the EPT one of the players was nearly offered what is effectively insurance from an outside party. The proposed deal therefore almost fell through because another party was entering into the fray. The other guy's deal is therefore jeopardised and he is forced to play. Is this fair?

I have been thinking about it a lot and don't know where I stand on it. Keen to hear more thoughts.

I'd prefer only the players at the table to be involved in the discussion but with the number of people backed in these bigger events I can't see any way around it when yr talking about 6figure sums for the parties involved.

It seemed a tad unfair on the Italian that Jack had a guy on the rail offer him the deal as insurance so Jack got the deal effectively (plus playing for a bit) but called off the official deal.

Obviously it worked out great for him in the end though...

I think it shouldn't be allowed personally, means player X can play for way different amounts than player Y, I guess if you're backd or n big MU or w/e that's kinda the same thing but then that can't be helped and that was the case going into the comp.

Defo allows certain players to realise equity more efficiently than others with is against the spirit of the game a bit, although its not that bad cos the upsides for those affected are very high too.

Totally agree it shouldn't be allowed.  Should just clear the rail and make sure no phones allowed while deals are going ahead. Very easy to be policed live.

who was the insurance guy? hes done 300k in cold blood

Martin Finger took 75% of it and 25% was Jacks (or between Jack and his backers/swappers). It was pretty boss how he rocked up and just snap offered to take it.

On the rail 9 hours later he was in bits tho!

How did this insurance work exactly?

PAYOUTS 1.25 AND .750, deal amount was 1.05.

His mates pay him the 1.05 rather than official chop. Or more likely his % of 1.05 depending how much of his own action he head.

Everyone still in the green.

 A simple example is say me and you are heads up in a comp with £1k for first and £500 for second. We are even in chips and discuss a deal where we both get £750.

I'm massively under it and don't want the variance but my rail tell me you're a massive donk so I shouldn't deal.

So Keith rolls in and says he'll give me the £250 difference and I play on.  

Then if I beat you, you get £500 2nd place. I get my £750 and Keith profits £250.

If I lose, you get the £1k, I get the £500 and Keoth gives me £250 from his own pocket.

In this case Jack wanted to keep some of the action so it'd be like Keith taking £200 instead of £250, So I'd either get £800 or £700.

Didn't a similar thing happen with Middy?

To my mind (obviously I would check first) if you're being backed into an event then the people staking you should have faith in your ability to discuss a deal. They have, after all, backed your judgement for a bunch of other decisions, and so they should for this. Deal making is fine imo, but should be entirely down to the people at the table.

I had a spot a couple years back where I wanted to deal and a backer who had a large share was in the room discussing the deal with the TD / other players, and he said "we're not taking that deal". It felt really wrong and I would've massively resented him for that had it not worked out ok ;)

I think the situation needs examining anyway, something's not right.

Yeah, same deal.

This for me as well.

How can it be stopped ?

If they start trying to then people would just discuss it pre ft, on breaks, etc etc.

When the deal is discussed players cannot be on phones or consult the rail?

This would reduce it massively. Hard to discuss deals on breaks when no numbers are on the table, and deals like this would be almost impossible to agree on on a break as chip counts could swing massively at any point of course.

Not saying I think this should be a new rule as there's obviously some very fair discussions that should be allowed, eg 20 year old Alex Spencer asking his Dad whether he should take the deal.

Just saying that those insurance deals seem unfair, especially as the Italian definitely didn't understand that is what was going on. Imagine he'd be massively pissed off if he came 2nd and then later found out Jack had basically done the deal he wanted anyway just at no benefit to him.

This is in no way a slight on Jack or anything by the way, I'd have done the same and there's nothing wrong with what he did. Just think the rules need looking at.

What's the difference between this and winning at satellite and selling half? You're just selling equity for cash.  Sure only people with the right connections are going to be able to do this, therefore giving them an advantage.  At the same time you could be facing a billionaire who doesn't care about the money therefore giving him an edge, is that unfair? It's not pretty and I don't know why they insist on showing stuff like this being discussed all of a sudden (I'm sure it's gone on for years but never shown).  At the end of the day it's just business.

Not being able to talk to the rail is a ridiculous suggestion. They're trying to organise a multi-million euro deal and you don't think players should be able to discuss with other people? You'd be a fool if you didn't esp after you've been playing in an intense poker game for a week and several hours that day alone.

You dont potentially take ev directly away from another player when you sell half your action after satty qualification though. And this would be extremely hard to control whereas preventing the rail from helping out one player in deal discussions is actually a possibility (although a poor one imo). I dont really like how these insurance deals come about and I'm not sure saying its just business is an adequate response when someone is getting screwed because of their lack of financial connections.

People get screwed in every sector of business by not having as good financial connections as other rivals in their sector.  That's just life.

+1

easy to say this is wrong when sitting infront of a computer

Oh well if they do it everywhere else I'm firmly persuaded against it...

I think poker could be better than that. Probably just naivety.

yeh, what people massively forget when discussing the ettiquette of deals, and why its absurd that middy got so much stick for his deal negotiations, is that a deal on a poker FT is just like playing a poker hand and everyone is trying to get the best side of every spot. IDK exactly what happened about the Monte deal but the way every talked about middy's deal was like the 4 other players were all agreeing to a deal out of the goodness of their hearts trying to do the fair and gracious thing... NO NO NO, they all wanted to deal because that was what was best for them (they all were uncomfortable playing for this much money and were all well aware middy was the best player, hence why they all snapped his dick off when he siad he wanted 15k off everyone). If one of them thought for any reason it was against there best interests to deal then they wouldn't have agreed to it in principal. Then situations change and it's in certain players best interests to do something different so he does it.

At the end of the day when you enter a poker tournament (like an EPT for e.g) you know full well that the pay jumps between 6 - 1 are going to be significant, so if you're going to be completely uncomfortable if and when you get to that position and are forced to play it out then playing the comp in the first place is prolly a bad idea.

when i first read this thread I thought it was suggesting that open insurance should be offered to everyone on a FT and everyone should know about it...

Who's giving Middy or Jack stick? Certainly not me.

Im doing the same as them, whatever is in my best interests,same as everyone else.

Im referring to the twitter nonsense after Middy's EPT was shown on TV...

What happened was a group of respectful gamblers were doing the fair an honourable thing by dividing the equity up equally, so they'd all made a few quid and were happy, till some selfish professional gambler decided he wanted more equity than everyone else so ruined it for them all.

Bollocks lol.

how do you directly take ev away from another player (apart from less financial pressure on you - the same as selling pieces pre tourney albeit on a smaller scale)?  No one is getting screwed, the tourney is still being played out with the advertised payout structure.  Your choosing to do business with someone offering to do insurance over doing business with the other player because its a better deal for you.  

*unfairly take EV

To infer you're having no effect on those left in the comp is just plain wrong. I'm not a fan of insurance. I understand why u may have to discuss deals with backers but to be able to effectively offer someone a free roll is hugely unfair imo.

Spose you get HU I a comp where winner is 100k and second is 60k and you offer a good/fair deal for the other guy, he says ok np but then his backer says "you're in 120k MU don't deal" is that unfair? Cos it's basically the same thing IMO.

Unshackling one's self from the constraints of ICM is quite a large advantage. Not the case with Jack as he was HU

Wonder if we'll ever see the day of two players contorting between themselves to mug the 'insurance' off

Nowhere near the same thing unless  being stupid. In one scenario you're guaranteed to win the se amount of money win or lose sometimes without the other party even knowing it.

So selling action should also be banned, cos if I have 100% and you have 50% then you're playing for half the money so have an advantage? Argument makes no sense....

I'm not debating this from a what's correct or not btw, I see the points as to why it seems unfair and agree with most of them to an extent...but the claims that this takes EV away from some players and gives EV to those that can take insurance is just straight up incorrect and there's no debate there.

Idk about the Monte Carlo situation but I'd imagine the most +EV thing jack could have done HU was play it out as he was the better player (no disrespect at all to the winner who played a great final by all accounts)

I don't see it as the same thing at all.

Dealmaking etc should be discussed with backers/investors beforehand imo. Just like playing hands, it should be the guy who is in the tournament that is discussing deals. When I buy in someone for a tournament I don't just buy in their ability as a player. I buy into their trustworthyness, their judgement etc which includes their decision making in any deal discussion.

I just think it's unfair that a deal can be effectively made between 2 parties and someone else on the rail can profit from it when it's potentially at the expense of one of the parties who is still playing.


^^ also this.

Which is partly why I raise the point. I would have done exactly the same as Jack or Middy given the situation but I think this is way better for me the pro, than an amateur.

For example, I make the final of a big tournament and I'm heads up vs a non-pro, a school teacher, let's call him 'Amatay'.

There is 1mil for 1st and 600k for 2nd. Yes I might be the better, more experienced player but playing heads up with not deep stacks for 400k isn't something I particularly want to do. Me and Amatay discuss a deal where we're happy to take 800k each. Now suddenly some pro friend of mine with a huge bankroll, let's call him 'cambridgealex'sdad' turns up and says, I'll lock in your 820 and you just play.

Now the school teacher, who is a recreational player doesn't get his deal and naturally noone wants to offer him any kind of insurance is forced to play a heads up match where he'll effectively win or lose a few hundred K. To me that just doesn't seem fair. Pro now has his deal locked, feels much more comfortable and is probably able to play a little better because of it whilst mr rec doesn't have a deal and has to play on in a match where he's not really playing for the same amount his opponent is.

I realise there are a few holes in my argument, and that these conversations etc can't really be stopped when players are on breaks etc. The same way you can't prevent players from being ghosted online but there are ways to try and stop it and at least not allow third parties to immediately interfere in deal proceedings.

My mind is just still far from made on this one and I want to be convinced further one way or the other.

I think your points above are defo very valid cos, it's a kinda tough spot... One thing though, and the point I was making is that 'Amatays' EV does not decrease when you do that, it might be a case that he loses the equity he was gonna gain from the deal but he EV in the comp is the same (he hasn't 'lost') anything.

You (in your example) have gained EV over the deal you were taking (you've almost certainly sacrificed EV by agreeing to a deal - unless the guy offering insurance makes a mistake) because his gained equity comes from you, not your opponent...

It's basically like an auction, you, as the better player offer to sacrifice equity to lower variance...someone comes along and outbids that player for the equity...nothing to stop Amatay then saying, "ok you can take 840 if we deal"

Do you think if one of Amatays rich doctor friends came along and said " yo Amatay il secure you're 820 go crush this guy" he would refuse? I severely doubt it, it's just a case of your options are greater because you're the better player and there is no rule against superior cardsmanship offering you an advantage on the poker table...

Everyone is out for the best for themselves on these finals, which everyone seems to forget - if jacks opponent had had a better offer in the monte HU I would have been very surprised if he'd have refused it.

I think the thing with jacks deal is he new he wanted to sell some of the action for playing on to 2 guys but they wouldn't give him enough time to work out the exact numbers with these guys. Also 1 of the guys wasn't on the rail and he wanted sometime to confirm the other guy was deffo taking the action.

I think it's completely reasonable and pretty outrageous not to be given the time by staff. It could've put Jack in an awkward situation assuming he has a deal for a lot of money but not confirmation 

There was nothing stopping the other guy contacting some of his friends at the time and offering them a piece of the HU action also

Amatay hasn't got any Rich doctor friends, just a few people with low grade jobs in Watford like Scotch

Poor Amatay