blonde poker forum

Liam Flood, who did such a good job as Tournamemt Co-Ordinator at the Paddy Power Irish Open, has just called me up.

Mindful that we record Poker 425 tomorrow, which features the Irish Open, he wanted me to be aware that the last 3 players "did business". I doubt if Poker In Europe, who compile the Rankings, will be aware of this in time, but we will make them aware in due course.

Obvious after that  Kh Qh call all in.

Indeed Nem - EXACTLY what I said at the time

Surely then he'd call with the Q9 though? :dontask:

Who knows.

Any details of what was done?

The deal MUST of been done AFTER that hand.

I would like to have a say on this subject,,,,, knowing that it probably wont be popular, but thats never stopped me in the past, so here goes....................

I for one (along with many other poker players) have been screaming for better structure MTT's. And here we had one - which was also the FIRST ever live final (I think) on TV.

To me, by the hands that were played, ie the Q9 laydown to the KQ call , this deal seems to have been made when the players were approx equal in chips with around 30 BB's each = CERTAINLY not a crapshoot, so why deal??

Money?? Well 3rd would of got what? around £40k?? and the deal would of pushed this up to what £65k??? Hardly live changing.

So again, why deal?!? All three of them were playing some great poker. Put me in that position and I WOULD NOT have done a deal (and yes I have been there, not live on TV I know, but for serious money)

If I was a tournament director, why oh why would/should I bother to ensure a GREAT structure, and that the final table IS NOT a crapshoot if people are going to deal anyway?!?!

This was the FIRST ever Live Poker final on TV - why would they bother to do another one? I dont think I would.

Ok, thats my say - slate me if you want, but we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Correct me if i am wrong but wasnt 1st something like 350k? How would they each have only got 65k?

Also its not the first live final on telly....

pay out was

1st    350k
2nd   180k
3rd    100k


Now if the three of them had agreed to deal for 200k each and play on for 30k and the trophy .... ;)

€100,000=£69,000

lol cheers kev, how is that 65k each! and when did u get to a situation like that with so much to first!

Yes Paul, you ARE entitled to hold that view, & if we disagree, we sure won't get excited about it.

Personally, I don't see why the guys should not do a deal if they so wish.

What right for Peter is wrong for, well, Paul, in this case.....

I am a bit bemused at the "Thou shalt not deal" stuff that we see so often. Why should players not do a deal if they want to? If ONE players says "no deal" it's no deal. I just don't really understand why it's deemed to be almost an offence to the poker community to do a deal.

Sometimes I accept a deal, others times I politely decline. Like all poker questions, the answer is "it depends". But I sure as hell would not feel any guilt for dealing, or feel that I was answerable to anyone for so doing. I pay my own entry Fees, & for that, I will make my own decisions, generally with regard to my financial health & bankroll, & the "value" (i.e., fairness) of the deal.

Like most of us, though, I have never been in the situation those 3 lads were on Monday night. That was a whole lot of money they were playing for.

Look at it laterally. If the Payout Sructure had been flatter, then maybe........

I'm fairly sure that distinction goes to the inaugural Poker Million event that John Duthie won.

OK My figures were slightly wrong, but James remember they are in Euro's. And my point remains, that whatever the deal, 3rd place was not going to get a live changing amount by dealing, and it was certainly not a crapshoot.

Tikay, I am not saying that people cannot deal if they wish - like you say, they pay their money and its up to them what they do.

My point was, why as a Tournament Director, would you strive to get a better structure if people will deal anyway?

It is a "reverse" argument, if you wish, as to why me (as a tournament director) is not too bothered about structure - and in no way detremental/derrogative to the players involved.

Maybe this was not clear from my first post, but I hope it is now.

I do not think flatter structures will prevent deals, and that is not the reason I campaign for them. I just think players should get a fair reward for the position they achieve

Plus, if a deal is offered, they will be in a better position to negotiate

Preventing deals should not be the reason for flatter structures

What about sponsors adding money?

Do they have a right to demand no deals (although that would be hard to enforce)?

What if they only added a small % of the total prize pool?

Yeah i think there have been a few poker millions, and i know of at least 1 in the states, as i watched it when i was over there.

Paul €210 for a chop is about £140k, no chop and its £70k. Thats quite a diffrence, would change my life!

James, as ever, just argue with whatever I say, and take every oppotunity to try and belittle me.

In answer to your question. I have already said my figures were slightly wrong, and by in the same situation, I mean the last 3 of a major tourney - I already said not quite the same stakes - but by not being a crapshoot was what I meant - as I think you already know.

my fault i thought u meant playing for €350k!!

Not many players would turn down a deal last 3 with a 250k diffrence...

Whatever.

I remain committed to this position.

I will consider doing business based on the folowing criteria.

The value/fairness of the deal.

My bankroll at that moment in time.

My general financial position. (6 figure numbers are pretty heavy stuff).

I will not pay any consideration whatsoever to.....

What the TD thinks.

What anyone else thinks.

Because, given that I don't owe anyone any money, I don't allow anybody to tell me how I may or may not manage my finances.

However, if I had a Sponsor (how wonderful would THAT be?) I would do whatever he said!

One other factor comes into play here wth me. If I've had a great Tourney, and a Final Table played in a lovely atmo, then I may do a deal that's NOT good value to me - an example was the Sunday Night Freezeout at Cincins on bB2 weekend. There's more to poker than pure money, in my view, though I accept that puts me in a minority.

Nothing gives me greater pleasure than trying to bust my special mates, like Thewy or Red - but if there were half a mill at stake, & I was up against one of them, I'd offer a deal in a flash. Their friendship, & each of us having a whopping payday, means more to me than the extra (say) $50k or $100k. Those numbers would be life-changing to either of them, as it would to me.

On another note , was great being able to watch everything as it was happening  :blonde: lets hope there will be more  :)

I am not keen on deals.
As a viewer it takes away part of the enjoyment of the tournament. Especially if as in this case the deal may have affected the way the game was played. Whether the structures could be better and whether deals should or could be barred is a different argument. But to me it does take away something away from what was a good tournament.

I hear you, but the players owe no duty to the spectators, they pay their own entry fees, so what viewers may or may not think is not relevant. Now, if Sky say "here's an extra half million, but play it out like good boys so we have a nice show", well, that's a different story. But they did not, and despite what Sky may think, the players owe them nothing.

 ;iagree;

You only agree because you are in awe of me.

He only agrees cos your name isnt Paul Garnham!!   ;goodvevil;

I know it isn't the first time this has been debated and look forward to the next 425 show to hear more on this. I would stress that I am not critiscising the players involved. However I still feel that the viewers are important here. If we are treated like mugs we will soon lose interest, along the lines of "they allways take deals I won't bother watching".
I do agree with Tikays past comments though that TV companies have a part to play here. Can you imagine Sky expecting to show the football without paying for it and expecting the clubs to pay an entry fee.

I'm happy to debate this on 425 when we record tomorrow. But I just don't see that the players owe the spectators anything, nothing at all, I just don't. But if Sky pay a fee which percolates down to the players, well that's different. And I sit on all sides of this fence - player, spectator, & Z-list tv blokie chappie.

And because what he says makes sense.

Yellow Card for Flushy.

He's putting on weight.

James, I could go back and find the post you made re "Bankroll" and Prizes a while back, where you slated someone for folding a hand they shouldnt of, just so that they could get into the money.

My Argument there was that that prize for them was a great achievement cos they got in on a cheap satelite.

Your argument was that they shouldnt be playing cos their bankroll couldnt handle the buy in, so by your own argument, 2 of those last 3 shouldnt of been there anyway!!   ;goodvevil; ;goodvevil;

You have the last word if u wish (course you will!!) I am done with this subject as far as you are concerned anyway lol

Yellow Card for M3Boy too.

His wife is too delicious by far.

lol TK (already gave myself a yellow card, but couldnt resist  :D)

I do not know the financial situation of any of the final table players.

However its a safe bet thats the case, hardly any of the players in these large field big buyin events are correctly bankrolled. In the EPT you could probably fit them all on 3 tables!

Sorry TK it looked like a chip dump to me......... how do you call for all your chips with nothing?

Well, yes, I do agree there were some "eccentric" plays, but "chip-dumping", no, I don't think so.

Remember, not too many of us have been exposed to "Live TV - Every Hand" type situations. Hard to imagine what the guy was thinking, but if he'd been ahead, & his oppo on a pure bluff, he'd hve been called a wonderful player......

I think he was thinking "I should have called last time" so called this time to make up for the mistake...  :blonde:

as for tennis @ snooker not doing deals they dont need to ,

sponsors pay a lot of there way ,they dont have to buy in for tournys either

a poker player must pay his /her way unless your sponsored .

thats why there is more dealing done .

it costs an arm and legg to go on the circute ,so most of the time a deal will get you

into 4 or 5 more comps ,put your self in there situation 200k or 100k

i know were id be laying my hat

No deals in snooker? You would be surprised

You miss one important point Axeman.

In poker - uniquely amongst the Events you compare it with - the PLAYERS put up the Prize Pool. (Although in this, rare, instance, the Sponsors, Paddy Power, put up €50,000).

And those who punt on it? Sorry, that's caveat emptor.

 None of the Punters money finds it's way to the players via a Levy, so why should the players be bothered one iota about what happens to punters. It ain't their problem.

As it happens, I have rarely, if ever, asked to do "business", but I have agreed to scores, maybe hundreds, of deals. Why should I not? It's my money, which I invest, and if a Deal is offered, I may well take it. Peeps seem to think a deal is like swearing in church. It ain't! Nobody, nobody ever, is FORCED to strike  deal. So if 3 peeps agree to a deal, it's fair to say that all 3 of them WANT to do a Deal. Which, & I'll defend this to the very end, is their absolute right. And if one player says "no", no it is. I don't see the problem.

And I belong to the flatter prize structure camp. You don't. That's OK, nothing wrong with a lttle divergence of opinion. Each side of the argument has the same rights.

Few of us have been in a position where "the deal" involves 6 figures, & I fancy many of us, placed in that position, may well elect to Deal. That does not make us bad peeps, "soft", or anything else. We are managing our Bankrolls.

well red you know the score ,

youve been there loads of times .

whats your oppinion would you do a deal like this .

Like the Dublin one you mean? Yes, I think I would have to, I'd like to leave a little more to play for though

youve got to other wise its crazy ,one bad beat @ thats it

doesnt matter how many chips youve got .

btw dont you lot ever sleep

I am asleep

lol

I Fail to see why you HAVE to deal!!

That quote is neally as bad as saying "no deals ever!!"  -  which as it happens is my point of view lol

Using that logic, you don't HAVE to breath, but its usualy a good idea

Im with you on this Axe.

And i have said it before,, if I play for 2/3/4 days and make a final table, I WANNA WIN THE DAMN THING!!!!

Yes the money is nice, but the money at that stage or a tourney is nice anyway.

I would hazzard a guess, that 2, if not all 3 of them will ALWAYS now think,,, what if............................

What?!?!?!? - well i guess it is VERY late lol

m3boy your just want to be funny ,

how long have you been on the circute

if youve been on there for a full year youll see how much it costs

if you have the sort of purse that some people have ,what dont need to win comps

fair enough .but some people need to do deals .

in total last year with the comps from sheffield /notts manchester ,plus the ranking tourneys

my winnings came to nearly 200k

my outlay with hotels and buy ins was in excess ov 160k not much profit there

Whaaat?

if they put moneys into the game ,it wont make any difference

youll still get people dealing ,this very rarelly gets done any way

No Vinny, I am not just trying to be funny (thats Flushy's department)

I have my own opinion and am entitled to it.

Your quote about people "HAVE to do deals" is as single visioned as mine is of "no delas"

You are nor right, I am not right, its a debate.

Yes I know how much it costs, which is why I dont play that many events. I play them as and when I can.

 So your thinking isnt everyone's thinking is all I am saying.

::)

That hits the nail right on the head for me  :goodpost:

Well it seemed to me he was stating what you Have to do rather than what you think sensible to do. Of course you don't have to deal, and if you don't want to, no one can make you, so don't worry

axeman iv come to the conclution that you dont know what your on about

not having the bottle to carry on ,thats total rubbish

believe me if you havnt got the bottle to carry on what are you doing in the game

its just sense to pick up good money when its offered

Oh and Vinny, I fail to see what your quote about "one bad beat and thats it" has to do with anything.

This can happen at ANY state of a tourney - so with that thinking maybe you (and I dont mean you personally, cos your bigger than me lol) shouldnt enter any poker comps at all?

(warning - irony in the above post)

Tom, come on, thats very nieve of you. You have I am sure seen the sort of pressure people can put on you at a final table when they want to deal and you dont, it almost turns into you against them.

im not saying you have to do it but if its offered to you ,

lets say if its a deal what would put you into another 10 comps

or in this case nearly all year would you take it i would

Ok if I can do a deal for 30% of the prizemoney early in the comp i will, otherwise I will just heve to accept the bad beat at that stage

Warning, irony in this post too!

I wouldnt, my stand would be, win it and I can play for the next 3 years.

btw, Irony, but no malice

Enough for me for one night - Im off to bed.

listen to be offered a deal ov this proportion @ turn it down

then go in with aa v ak @ lose i know what i would think

id be gutted ,as for dont play no more comps lol

i hope im sat on your table next time it will be interesting

It IS me against them

Irony etc etc

same here im going to bed to ,need  my sleep

see yer red

whats the them bit im not against any one

on my own as ussual

No Barry, I was quoting Mboy, Oh nevermind.

My dad used to say, "If you're not in bed by midnight, come home!"

lol

Apologies for the missing X.......

The snooker players do not put up all the Prize Money, they simply pay an entry fee, as golfers do. As you know.

I am sorry if I misread (a habit of mine) the "punting" point. But I have to say, I aint overly worried about bookies getting caught out - generally speaking, they can look after themelves! I'd never imagine a situation where I felt I could/should not deal because it means a bookie, who I have no knowledge of or care about, may lose a few bob. That's a matter between him & his Client, nowt to do with me.

If Deals are so terrible, why do players do them? Because they WANT to! It's a mystery to me why that should bother anyone except those involved in the deal. And they must all want to deal, because they are not forced to deal.

Poker is a players game, & the spectators, unless they start to pay to watch it - either directly, or via the TV companies actually putting some money in - have no rights whatsoever.

But the knife (or is it an Axe, or even an Axxe?) really goes in deep when you say I don't want poker to evolve. There are a multitude of more important matters to resolve than players doing deals. You are entitled to your view, & I to mine, but it's s bit sad when I get accused of not wanting poker to evolve. C'est le via, as someone said to me only this evening....

xx

well put i couldnt have put it better ,

it doesnt matter what is said on this forum

you can argue till the cows come home it will never stop it .

Bugger you lot,,, now I cant bloody sleep!!!!! lol

Tikay, as I have said to Tom in a previous post, some people ARE forced into a deal, or made to feel VERY uneasy about not doing one. In that situation I have been a few times. I got the comments like "I hope you go out next" and "we will see to it that you DO go out next" etc.. etc...

Its like life, the minority is ALWAYS made to feel the bad person.

I have to admit though, I am loving this debate!! Even though it is keeping me awake at 3.14am!!!!

no one should be forced into a deal

thats bad i had that tried on me by 6 asians in manchester ,

told them where to go. never let anyone force you to do anything

Yes Paul, it's a cracking debate.

We are all entitled to our views.

No, I have never been forced into a deal, and I NEVER will.

BUT I can honestly say that I believe those tourneys would of turned out different had those others involved not wanted a deal either

This happened to me in Salford. I gave in and made a deal, didn't fancy my chances playing 4 against 1.

Nobody's mentioned yet that another reason people like to deal is that they have little to no experience of playing short-handed poker. Players who play live MTT's by definition spend almost all their playing time 8-10 handed. So it is understandable when on the rare occasions they get down to the final few players they want to deal rather than play a short-handed game in which they have little experience.

Paul would your opinion be diffrent if you played for a living?

You have an income to fall back on, a lot of players don't so to be able to secure an extra years income by just saying yes is normally the sensible thing to do, infact i think most accountants would recomened it!

I think there can never be a hard and fast rule on this - it will depend on how you have been doing lately, what your bank roll is looking like, how your luck has been that day etc etc.

JP is a NO DEAL man and decided to deal at Luton because he just wasn't getting anywhere. This is a guy who does incredibly well, has (I imagine) a very acceptable bank roll now, but decided on the day that there was no point in going on.

Every one is entitled to their opinion but to be completely immovable at any time on this one may not pay out in the long run.

I enjoy heads up more than anything, to me thats like the icing on the cake, I would rather play heads up all day that 9 handed, but if its all going pear shaped and I'm in the poop I'll deal if it means coming out with more than 2nd.


 

Poker is a game in which luck has a huge effect in the short term. Over the course of the few dozen hands which the final few players would battle over, it is entirely possible for the best player, who makes all the correct decisions, to lose. Now, if you were a really good player, and were playing in the final 3 of a ranking event, with hundreds of thousands of prize money, every single weekend, you'd be happy to let your greater skill win out in the end - the better player doing a deal (assuming an even cash split when chip counts are even) is -EV long term.

However, most players do not make major finals every week. By dealing they are reducing their variance, which is better for them in the short term (particularly if it is a large amount of money relative to the player's bankroll).

Ronnie O'Sullivan doesn't have this problem, because over the course of 19 frames of snooker, the good will out. The better player on the night will win the trophy and top prize - luck is highly unlikely to be able to affect the outcome enough to deny the better player's victory. So snooker players would never deal (ignoring any betting dodginess), as the better player would be giving up too much.

Essentially, poker players dealing is like taking insurance, they are insuring against any misfortune which may befall them due to events outside of their control.

Having said all this, I think that in televised events, there should always be a sizable chunk of the prize money left on the table for players to battle for. They can quite happily flatten the payout between themselves, but I feel strongly that competitive poker should be played through to the conclusion. Otherwise we won't get any more televised live poker, which means the sport is less visible, which means fewer new players, therefore less money coming into our games.

NO It wouldnt!!

I have ALWAYS been competitive, and ALWAYS will.

The only reason i see for not dealing here is a matter of principle, and principle's cost people a lot of money.

The only reason for dealing here is MONEY!! Pure and Simple.

With plenty of play, what other reason can there be?!?

Oh, and he is a lovely quote from the winner (from Blonde's home page)  :

“Its not about the money for me, its about the title,”  - make of that what you will.

Another Elitist view. So you are saying that someone in that situation who DOESNT want to deal is wrong?!?

I dont see anything wrong with wanting to win.

You really need to get to bed earllier Paul !!!  ;) think of the fun you could of had if only you had stopped debating and crawled into bed earlier  ;D

 ;iagree;    ;tightend; ;tightend;

you said it right earlier M3boy. there is pressure to deal even before the terms are discussed. when I'm at a final table at Notts and the short stacks start dropping I start to brace myself for the deal argument. I don't see the point chopping a £20/£30 comp but some do. as soon as you decline a deal you set yourself up as the main target of the remaining players and sometimes soft play.

I understand (though don't necessarily agree with) the argument that until sponsors are adding money players can please themselves but in this instance paddy power DID add money and people are still saying it's up to the players, it's their money.

it seems likely to me that sponsors are less likely to put money in while deals are going on. if deals stop the money is more likely to come in in the future.

The game is as big as it is now because of the extensive TV coverage over the last 5 years. I think TV companys like Sky have earned a say in the running of big games like this because they have helped grow the game beyond measure (though obviously for their own benefit, rather than ours).

thats not to say Sky should be able to dictate terms, just have a say

id like to see what all the players on here, who object to deals would do if the other two offered 200K a piece and play for the rest?
  would be interesting to see who would play on, i think deals all boil down to who needs the money and who doesn't!
     remember and extra 100k euros can take you to a good few other festivals and keep you in action.

if the worst case scenario is 100k, which is major life changing to me I wouldnt deal, I'd mentally accept thatn as the worst case and play for the win.

No Deal Noel

unless i thought i was a massive favourite to win 3 handed i would take the deal, you would still get the credit and glory of winning and the trophy....

 DEAL NOEL

I seem to recall the main event in luton in luton a year back where we got down to 3 players... M3boy, Vic Kanwar , Simon Nowab.

A deal was discussed when Simon had a good chip lead, M3boy agreed to the deal.
only intervention by Vic's investors stopped the deal going ahead.

What im saying is that despite peoples moral standpoint on this subject, sometimes a deal is the right thing to do.

No sh1t sherlock, and when you play the game for a living that is the idea......dealing gives me a freeroll for a whole year i take it....



How is that elitist?


That may be the case in your local game where all the players know eachother, this however is probably the first time these 3 have played together and collusion is highly unlikely, add in all the hands are shown on TV and cheating is highly unlikely.

NO WAY DID I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When A deal was mentioned, I walked away and sat on my own, ask anyone who was there!

 :goodpost: This is always an interesting debate, rarely does anyone add anything new to the argument, but I thought your post summed it up perfectly Andrew.

Now maybe I am on my own here, but to me, no one won that tourney.

If it had been me there and done a deal (which I would never do) and then I went on to "win" (using the term loosely) I would never feel like I had actually won!! It would niggle at me , weather I could of won it or not.

Yes Swish, this is always a good debate, with both parties having strong views.

BTW Tikay, why the change of heart? Didnt you say on 425 about that Luton UK Open something like, "Praise must go to the organisers, who put on a good tourney with a good structure, meaning there was no delas, or no business done, thats what we want to see, a major final played to a proper conclusion?"

I may well have said that Paul, I don't recall, but your example of this misses the point entirely.....

If players want to deal, they should - & always will - be able to.

I completely fail to understand why this makes them, in the eyes of some, "lesser players". It's my right to deal. It's your right not to deal. 

And, as to whether it's right or wrong to Deal, the answer is blindingly obvious, as it is to almost every poker "hand analysis" question - "It Just Depends".....!.

What's the problem with both parties accepting the other's viewpoint? I accept without a word of argument your right to refuse to deal - & one "objector" in the Proposed Deal is all it takes.  Why can't you accept my right to do a deal if all other parties are happy (& ONLY if they are happy) to deal?

We are about to record 425 - if Gouldy ever turns up - so I fancy this subject may just get a mention.....!

There ought to be room in our little Poker World to accommodate views from all sides.

Finally, like all other things, "supply & demand", or call it what you will, answers this question once & for all. Are deals done frequently? If yes, then you have your answer - it's what the players want.

Right, Gouldy has breezed in, with THE most dreadful tie on. Watch it tonight & be embarrassed for the man's fashion sense.

Tony, u must have mis understood me.

I never fail to see someone else's argument/point.

And I do agree, if people want to deal, then it is their right to deal, just as mine is not to deal. My point was that if you are the one who DOESNT want to deal, when the others do, you are made to feel like the outsider.

And yes, you did say that - believe me I've watched that DVD just a few times!! lol

Looking foward to Poker 425854 even more than ever!!

I have never seen this happen in a festival event

There is only one case where a deal was enforced as far as I know. 4 players left and 3 want to deal but chip leader wants to much so no deal is struck. The 2 shortstacks then shake hands over the table and agree to split their winnings. This was seen as collusion by the cardroom manager and he made a very difficult ruling- deal now or you are both disqualified was the jist of the ruling. The chip leader got the silly ammount he was asking for and the 2nd chip leader now asked for a lot more which the 2 shorties had to agree to or face disqualification. There was a lot of debate over what exactly was said between the 2 shortstacks but the ruling was made and I thought it was the correct one at the time to avoid soft play/collusion.
Ive read this thread all the way through a couple of times and I basically think that M3boy has the loudest voice and is repeating himself over and over so we should all just agree with him ;) . I have had my spats on here a few times and there is obviously something going on between him and flushy which should be dealt with off forum. I feel for you Charmaine if you ever dare to disagree with anything M3 ever says as he is obviously the oracle and whatever he says should be obeyed.
My view on deals is a simple one- If you want to deal and so does everyone else then deal, if you don't then don't. Its hardly rocket science. The game that started all this nonsense- of course I would've taken the 200 large and still played for the win, 200k is a long of euros and by my very basic maths its 100k more guaranteed than a badeat and a 3rd would pay me. When you have played the circuit like barry, John and co I think it would give more weight to your oppinion. As a part timer (ie someone who doesnt rely on poker for his livelyhood) I think it is very arrogant of you to believe everyone should agree with your oppinion or listen to it over and over. If you don't want to deal then don't, let the players who are respected on the circuit have their oppinions as well- I for one value their oppinion more.

From what I have heard the deal in this case was fair enough. With the difference between 3rd & 1st €260k, getting €200k Gtd is better than getting 90k because of a bad beat/poor run of cards. I thnk Brendan got the best of it refusing to take anything less than 2nd place money even though he was the shortest stack and least experienced player. Interestingly enough he nearly never played at all, he was going to sell the ticket he won at a satellite.

It worked out nice for Rumit as he had bought a bet on Vincent and had  share of Ian.

Great to see all the blondites again, apart from chili who took €400 off me in the first hand I sat down at her cash table :)

Ariston

1) I have a point of view on a subject, i fail to see why I cannot voice it - its a forum isnt it?

2) I always try and listen to others point of views.

3) I try not to personally have a go at any one openly on a thread (exception of Flushy, but its mostly friendly banter)

4) I have also re read this thread, all I have done with subsequent posts, like I am doing here, is answering a question/point someone has raised to me - not going "on and on" as you put it

5) I never said my opinion was right I have never said that everyone has to agree with me, quite the opposite, many times I have said in this thread that its a debate, one that I enjoy, no one is right and we are all entitled to have opinions.

I was going to send you a PM as I have taken great offence to your attack on me, and the mentioning that you feel sorry for Charmaine (My personal life has NOTHING to do with you!), but as Tikay took offence to one of Axe's threads and posted that on here, I think I am entitled to do the same.

One thing I have never been good with is words, this post is in no way meant to be arrogant - and if anyone reads it and thinks that it is, please do not take it that way.

M3Boy, you are not on your own on this subject.
 :)up

Im the one that goes on and on (aristonandonandon etc). Many people have a different oppinions on many different subjects and a forum is the right place to air a lot of them. In this thread many people have voiced their oppinions and you have voiced yours over and over- every credit for sticking to your guns and not changing your mind. I wasn't meaning to be offensive about your circumstances and I apppologise if it has been taken that way but IMO you are one of those people who will never be wrong- you believe your oppinion is correct and nothing can be said to sway you any other way. This as I said is in my oppinion and isn't meant to be derogatory in any way (I too am rarely ever wrong in my own mind- even when everyone else can see I am). As for some of the stuff early on in the thread between you and flushy I got the impression there was something going on there but maybe I was reading between the lines too much. My post was part extracting the urine and part serious, until you have played the full circuit like some of the guys on here (and no I don't mean me because I haven't) your oppinion on this particular subject is not as valid to me as the guys who slog it out every week going to the glamourous places like Luton,Walsall and Sheffield (cue vinni asking whats wrong with Sheffield lol).

No need to feel for me Ariston , i happen to be very in love with my Husband/ partner .
I'm so pissed off with you but havent the vocabulery to put it into words  cept F*** Y**,  dont ever bring me into anything again

nice.
Speaking your mind sure causes problems but oh well, never been one to worry about speaking my mind. I know neither of you so am not particularly bothered to be honest. I took the time to appologise above  if offence had been taken to  what was a micley take response. Good luck with the rest of this- I have said my bit and wont be posting on this thread again. Abuse and swear at me as much as you feel fit.

Okay guys, this has gone completely off topic now and has no relevance to the thread. In which case, we'd appreciate it if you kept your personal comments towards each other off board and allow this thread to return to it's original topic.

cheers

Now... back to that K-Q call

?!?!?!

What was he thinking??

I don't care if there was a deal done... they still had some dosh, trophy, and credibility to play for...

Madness.

Exactly, on tv as well!

It made me cringe sooooooooooo much. I have to confess to having a subterranean dislike for deals when they cause people to move in with hands like K-Q and Q-8, but, at the same time, we have to remember that the Broadway and Vienna main events endured in excess of 7 hours of heads-up play.. even though big deals had been made.

I think sometimes it just depends on the players involved.

Just thought i should say myself and Paul have no problem with eachother. However i know sometimes thats how it appears. We are both part of the MMM group of poker friends, and are just that friends. Its because we are friends that we can discuss our view so heavily.

I think all of us have come to poker from many diffrent avenues and so to all of us the deal represents something diffrent. For me the extra cash to allow me to 'freeroll' for a year is very important as i have no outside income.

However if we take someone, say Rob Yong (hope he doesnt mind, lol) who has financial intrests outside of poker to rely on then a deal may well be wrong for him.

James, no you have shattered the theory!!! lolol

(I echo those words though)

speaking of which, are you coming to Blackpool? I have your new MMM shirt...

I'm going to Blackpool.

When can I have an Eminem shirt??

I've been asking for bloomin' ages.

What's a man gotta do??

Can I have one, Peanut M&M are my fav thanks

Sorry to take this off topic again........but what is MMM?

It's what Dewi says when he has a peanut butter M&M

MMM is Flushies Poker Crew.

MMM stands for MINI Marketing Machine. In the Gloomy world of Cars
 
I have never played in a Big tournament, but when you read about those games
where it's $1M winner takes all prize. Suppose If you land heads up V one of the big names someone
Like Helmuth,Harrington,Kendall,Juanda etc and they offer a 50/50.And you are even on chips.

Unless you've had a bang on the head, your going to have a deal.

Regards

M   

i was there when mp3 boy accepted the deal in luton

didnt realise it was him lmao

Very funny Vinn. Me thinks Kev has been pulling your chain  ;goodvevil;

The MMM is a dark and mysterious force that sails through the poker universe......

.....darkly & mysteriously accumulating huge stacks, & then darkly & mysteriously grasping defeat from the jaws of victory.

rotflmfao rotflmfao

I'm about to leave work to go home in time for poker 425.....I have to give myself a bit of time to find it as I have to go through all the adult channels first to get there!

that paticular night i had 5% with simon nowab

if you remember we walked you to the car with the money,

you were gutted that no deal was done as you would have had more

i dont need to lie ,end of lol

like i said, ha ha.

Yes u did walk me to the Car. The only thing i was gutted about was not getting heads up with Simon.

Simon was the ONLY person who asked me about a deal, and I said "no way". That was the only talk about a deal to me.

Enough of this, its getting booring now.

As usual this has been a hot topic ... and always hotly debated whether on this forum or another one.

But I have a simple solution (Bracing myself for abuse!?) ...

1. If sky run and profit(?) off a televised event they should contribute a relatively small sum to the prize pool (as has been the case with many other sponsored events).

2. This sum should be allocated to first ... or maybe split between top 2/3

So for example if they had stumped up 50-100k euros this would be added to first place ... but would not be available for any deal. The players could have then done a deal for around 200k each, but be forced to play to the 'death' for the sponsors money.

Despite doing a deal for the 'players' money no one is going to spurn the chance of winning an extra 50k+ by making stupid calls with poor cards ... it should play to a fair and exciting climax.

SKY would be happy, players would be happy, the viewers would be happy ... and even M3Boy might crack a smile  :D

Just a thought

Excellent forum, great community

Regards

Jon.

Just pushes a deal "underground" mate, details of a deal should be known for ranking point purposes.

I think if it is set into stone and produced as a seperate cheque/cash sum this shouldn't be the case. If SKY added 50k and the payouts were as follows;

350k + 50k

180k

100k

Then doing a deal for 210k each (players pool money) and playing on for the 50k (sponsorship and title!) would result in all players playing their A-game to the bitter conclusion, at the same time being content with the money they have earned for their efforts in getting thus far.

I have often taken a deal and stumbled off home wondering but what if ... frequently after the money has been split the game breaks, or every one agrees to go all-in the next hand to claim the winners bonus of casino points, or some other gratuity ... after playing for a number of hours I would often prefer to play out the final few hands ... just so I know.

But hey ... that's just as bad as rabbit hunting if no one takes it seriously

Jon

Just to stray a little of topic.  Glad you introduced yourself to me Luckyblind after everyone deserted our table.  I think you produced the funniest quote of the weekend for me regarding that hand i won off you.

"I didnt believe you because i have read your tournament reports. I'm not usually such a fish!"

You did see me give it all back though didnt you? And then spectacularly knocking the little drinks table over that had a pint of coke on it.  Most embarrasing exit from a cash table from me  :D

What I like about JonBoy's Post is the concept of Sky (or the TV company) putting up some money.

The Premier League SELL their product, players benefit.

The LTA dito

The RFU ditto

F1 ditto

The ECC & MCC ditto

Now it's time for poker to get itself organised & do the same.

Live Poker is a stunning idea - but they have to pay.

And I dread to think how Matchroom, (apart from charging the players for the "benefit" a'la Poker Den) will dumb it down. Please please PLEASE Nice Mr Hearn - don't ruin this oportunity to really get poker covered properly! We don't need dumb clebs, cartoon characters (I'm not refering to Mad Marty here....) & such-like - just proper, not messed-about with poker.

Keep it simple!

I forget the hand but if I remember rightly it would have given me another reason to not drop my hand earlier :) It was a shame you had to rush off to get the plane as that table became very good and profitable, loose Dutch & German players with money to burn....

Nah Mike, she's a Fish.

I am indeed - especially after 10 hours sleep in 3 nights.  No excuses though. I think 7 10 against A K is  a great hand.

Ops, thought she would be tucked up in bed by now......

Interestingly at the WPT there is a no deal policy. Its in the terms and conditions and if you agree a deal and they find out about it then you may not be allowed to play in other wpt events. Because the events are televised they want the play to be as good as possible.

I also notice that Stars are now offering bonuses for their players that get to final tables etc and again their terms and conditions stipulate no deals - but in their case they are putting extra money in to pay for the no deal condition - which I thik is ok.

Thats fine as you read the contract before you play and sign it.

People have had issues with the WPT and they did change things.

I watched the 425 show last night and Tikay asked how much viewers had paid to watch the show. My answer would be that I pay £500 per annum to watch Sky as well as the rest of viewers. Also they have advertising revenue and looking at Sky's accouints they aren't doing too badly.
What i am confused on is this, does Sky pay someone to show the tournament? If so who do they pay and what happens to this money. Or does Paddy Power pay them to broadcast it as part of their sponsorship deal for the tournament?

Good Post.

My point, perhaps, & seemingly, not put across terribly well, was do Sky (or the TV Company) pay money that reaches the players.......?

I think they should. Thats how it works in Football, Rugby, Tennis, Cricket, F1. Why not Poker?

I am sorry if I failed to make the point properly, it (the Recording) was all a bit rushed yesterday, & I don't express myself too well when I'm rushed. Or even when I'm not rushed....

But glad you watched the show - wondered who the other viewer was. I not seen it myself yet!

Someone out there must know, if not we need to recruit a mole at Sky. I don't think it was down to the way you have put it accross, I think it just shows that we don't really know who is profiting here.

PS The other viewer is my wife and she didn't agree with your comments on Stillhair's attire, she thought he looked very smart! :D

Yeah, he did actually, but I can't let him know that.

He really is a top bloke, professional, amazingly so, helps me out no end. A pleasure to work with.

There are numerous Blondites who would know better than me, but the impression I got was that (in general) the sponsor pays for the production and the TV company gets it for free.

Exactly. When football clubs pay their players £100,000 a week, a proportion of that money is Sky money trickling down to the players. The Premier League get their cut, so do the clubs, and so do the players.

With football, TV companies want to show it so much that the Premier League can simply put it up for auction to the highest bidder. With horse racing (for example) we are reaching the stage where Channel 4 actually want to charge racecourses/bookmakers to televise their sport on a Saturday afternoon as they feel they are doing the sport a service by showing it when it would be a lot cheaper to show old films instead (with no reduction in viewing figures). When it comes to poker, the question is, who gets most benefit from televising it?

I think there is a perception among TV people that 'appearing on the telly' is a prize in and of itself, so players will accept this as the added value they get for having to stop playing for five minutes four times an hour. This may be the case for the more inexperienced players (who like the novelty of appearing on TV) or for those who wish to be sponsored (who want to get known) but for the jobbing pro, they'd much rather the extra cash in their back pocket.

That's my understanding. And the Sponsor DID put €50,000 in, so that's a start.

But my point remains valid. We have to break this barrier down.

When TV Tourneys are organised, the TV companies are freerolling. They need to remember who is paying the entry fees, & make concession to that, especially if they are gonna impose conditions on the players, as TV companies always do - "sit here, sit there, can't wear that, wait for the ads, do this, don't do that, it will be 2 hours late because we ain't organised" sorta thing.

Personally i like how poker stars handle thier bigger comps.

You can deal for the majority of the prizepool, but you must leave a decent ammount of money for the winner, this ensures people are still playing properly. IMO thats better than both the alternatives of, deal for all the cash and no deals. As both of these do damage the reputation of the game to the non-playing public and it is important we look good to them as they are the future fish! No deals is also bad as clearly people will take it underground which is even worse!

Deal for most, play for a little.

if poker players start playing for cash paid in by sponsors, tv etc (ie: not their own) wouldn't it be subject to tax? golfers, snooker players etc are subject to taxation so why not poker players?

shhhh

brings up a good point though. the hatrder we push for poker to be seen as a game of skill and not gambling, the more likely we are to end up paying tax on it. I dont personally object to that being a bit of a lefty but I can see a few people wishing htey'd kept their mouths shut when we're paying 10% at the cash desk.

HINT HINT KEV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hypothetical Question,

 Let’s say I’m in a EPT event , paid my own way in and make the final table, what obligation do I have to let the TV audience see my cards on their screens. I have paid this myself, I own them or the TV Company nothing, in fact I would probable make a stand here or is this T & C of entering these events?

I’m just interested to see how this would pan out.   

you have to sign your life away before they let you play.

Yes - you sign it all before you play the first hand right at the beginning of the game - no form no game.

when they put the form in front of me i would sign it with disapearing ink then when i make the final table i will ask them to show me the form i signed

Yeah I thought this must be the case, it just all seems so very wrong. So who in fact are you signing off to, The casino or the EPT itself ?

 :blonde: Only you! ;-)

The EPT - the casino is only the venue - the EPT runs the comp and any televised part of it. (I am only talking from perspective of WPT - but I assume its the same)

i used to do my homework in disapearing ink and teacher always had to tell me she lost it

i reported her for picking on me after she lost it for the 3rd time

Neither - it's generally the TV Company, bit sometimes the EPT ask you to sign as well.

Nobody reads the form. I usually give my name a D. Duck, & sign illegibly.

What they gonna do, shoot me?

Well you are never going to reach an EPT final so its no problem!

OOps that was me!

Like we did not know......

You must have to have an Equity card now tikay, with the amount of time you appear on TV.

Worse is to come, you got another 4 hours a week of me starting next week, on another channel......

do you have a week with another four hours in it?

Ok, what's the sp?

Yeah come on , spill the beans  ;tk;

pokerzone innit?

Amazingly, ifm gets it right for once.

He WAS overdue

Very.

Great - lets get the email questions and wind ups ready in advance......invented names that when read out sound a bit dodgy......come one everyone - an opportunity for fours hours of wind ups - has to be the best tv on that night!

Wasn't it ironside who wound them up last time?

This is going to be good - anyone else sad enough to join me????

Im in, big time

Pokerzone approached me too, but what with my already busy TV schedule, and my commitment to mending my lawnmower, I had to decline.

So when Tikay gets an email question from Miss Reid... it'll be a windup?  ;ifm;

Excellent - I think we shoudl set up a private forum for this............they will never have had so many viewers!

Red - do you know where I could get a goat - my lawn mower doesn't work unless i start it and that aint gonna happen so I was thinking of alternatives.

According to the shenanigans at Brighton, It seems that you are already quite adept at getting people's goats.

I've visions of Blondeites emailing & calling in - then being like Bart Simpson calling Moe's...  rotflmfao

Every time.......you floor me...... ;tightend;  8)

Groan..........

Actually, it MIGHT just liven up the show, you never know....

My first appearance will be Wednesday May 3rd, with Dr Tom Sambrook - a very quick-witted guy - as Anchorman, & yours truly as "commentator".

Just don't tell Couch-Kev, ffs.

Talking of which,  had something of an "aggressive" e-mail from Mr Patten, who's evidently pretty cross with me for the 425 Luton Coverage. Such is life. I've replied & asked him to comment on his Brighton performance. It's not fair to debate the issue on 425 if there is no "balance".

There should always be balance - and I for one have put Brighton down to the booze talking and its all water under the bridge. Life is too short - I look forward to my pocket aces and his all in call - as I do with any player!

Why would he be cross over the luton coverage - I can't remember you saying anything bad about him - the fact that JP couldn't play him would be a compliment wouldn't it? Oh that I could get the same comment.....

Now Tikay, would we really do that to you?  :)up

You know he's really begging us to........this will be sooo good we will get our own show!

Does anyone remember the programme with women sitting around talking about sewing and cooking over a coffee many years ago? There will be a blonde programme very similar about poker, hosted by Kev, with us all there adding our own bits. Cameras going everywhere as the producer doesn't know which camera Kev is looking at.....it will be a hoot.

LOL Kev's World... with Snopony as Garth. Pie of the Month spot. A Tribute to Norkage & the all-important All Day Breakfast Review.

loose Women?

No - thats recent - I'm talking when I was young - about 30 years ago (oh my god that makes me feel really old)

I thought the Luton coverage was fair - but then I would, wouldent I?

The thing was, J P Kelly is the best young player in the UK - probably - & a damn tough opponent, so Luke had it all on to beat him, & I believe I said as much. It is what it is.

Tk - pm'd you.

Not arrived. Do you know who I am?

Ahhh an opp to parise him.......

You are the most honest/honourable/fair minded/train addicted man I know...shame about the no booze and yes to smoking approach....if you could turn that round........????  :-*

I am looking forward to your first Tv duet with james browning, who will win the battle of words???

Regards to luke vs Jp, how can anyone be upset at losing to him and being told that it is a tough  ask to beat him! Many better players have lost to him, and many better players will... Jp will win a wsop wpt etc when he is old enough lol!(the shame of being old!)

On another note, i had a betting tip through my email today for tips for wsop bracelets... As i was scrolling down i noticed an Anthony Kendall - WSOP seniors event. I personally did'nt think he was old enough.

 :goodpost: ;iagree;I cant wait for JP to go and play at the wsop - give us a chance over here while he's gone! :D

Who will win the battle of words with James? No contest! I don't take on battles I can't win. Unless it's Heads-Up.

I have 5 Wedneday's lined up - all of May, as a Trial I guess - and my Co-Peeps are, respectively, Tom Sambrook, Lynsay, Mark Banin, Michelle, & Barry Martin. So as it happens, I don't get to dance with James. Which is a shame really, because I think he fronts that show with great professionalism.

Tikay and Barry.....FIGHT!  ;goodvevil;

I owe Paul (M3Boy) an apology, earlier in this thread I stated that he wanted to do a deal in Luton when down to 3 on the final table.

After speaking to Simon Nowab, I realised that I had made a mistake, and Simon confirmed that paul was quite vocal in his opinion that he wasnt going to do any deal.

So there ya go, my mistake and i apologise unreservedly.

TY Kev.

Apology accepted

I'm going to bring along a heap of watches to my next final table.

If someone suggests a deal, I'll get em oot, and we can start bartering.

Knew it was you all along  :D

I have 5 Wednesday's lined up - all of May, as a Trial I guess - and my Co-Peeps are, respectively, Tom Sambrook, Lynsay, Mark Banin, Michelle, & Barry Martin. So as it happens, I don't get to dance with James. Which is a shame really, because I think he fronts that show with great professionalism.
[/quote]

You are on a show with Michelle "Night Nurse" Orpe!

Do you need a goafer on the night?  :)up

Hehe, I think I'll cope thank you......

(http://bestsmileys.com/crying/13.gif)

Oh well, worth a try. Do you know which poker sites you will be commentating on? Might be tempted to get on a game to see what you have to say on my play.
 :D
 

No, I'm afraid I don't. If I can find out, I will let you know.

I decided to join the Poker Zone Forum this morning, just to introduce myself to the regulars. but I got very confused - the Forum works "upside down" (relative to ours) with the latest Posts at the top of the page. Now there's a thought......

And they have taken to me already. "You should do well as a commentator. You already talk a lot of bullshit". Ahh, they know me then.

late thirties.........LMAO

You can click on "oldest first" at the top to turn the forum the right way up.

Shut it ifm. They don't know how old I am, & when they see me, well, I reckon I can carry it off, if the lighting guy & the make-up department gets a bit creative.

He means he was born in the late 30s I think although I wouldve said nearer to the 20s

1820's?
The makeup department need to be trained plasterers............

I have my Blonde forum set up as latest post first. bit of a pain when there's loads of catching up to do but when it's a case of reading as they go up I prefer it