Deals

[mikkyT]

i agree with russ on the colluding front

now for the deal part russ what you would want from this deal if you were CL and what would you want if you were 2nd or 3rd

If I'm sitting with nearly 80% of the chips on the table, I'd be looking to take the first prize, no less (unless I was feeling generous and/or I had a friend on the final table). But I'd still pretty much want the first prize. There is a fair bit of comeradery in Glasgow and very often you will see big chip leads giving a lot of slack for deals they don't need to make, just to be fair.

On a side note, how did the prize structure manage to become 550, 275, 175. I thought they would have kept the Riverboat 50%, 30% 20% structure.

If I was 2nd or 3rd, in this situation i would be looking for an even split between us. If I could make chip lead drop to £500, that would leave £250 each for 2nd and 3rd, that's probably the best I'd hope for, and in that situation I'd rather fancy my chances at doubling up and taking down first prize, unless I really had to be somewhere else.

Rod, who was 1st prize BTW?

[ariston]

Deal part- if I had that many chips I would take a monkey and let them do what they want with the rest. If I was second or 3rd I would offer the chip leader 400 and let him talk his way up to 450. Deal making is important and if the chip leader wanted more than 450 I would play on and take my chances. If I am chip leader I like to control the deal by saying you take this, you take that and I will have x. If you do the math on the situation (which is how all deals should be approached) 500 is a fair figure if I am leading. Just work out if you played the game 10 times from now how many times you would expect to win, how many times you would finish 2nd and how many times 3rd giving you an average return of x per game (I would actually expect to win from here 8 times and finsh 2nd 2 times so that would actually give me less than 500 but the other 2 wouldnt know this). If we were to play on I think the allin blind tactic would be employed showing my GAMBOL and if you happen to get a few more chips you usually find the guy desperate to chop lol.
One thing I would never do is collude- never never never never never never

[thediceman]

The most disgusting part of the thread is the suggestion that 2 players collude to try and gang up on the player. Its amazing whats said in gents toilets?? If this suggestion was made to me anywhere I would tell the person he is a lowlife cheat and never associate with him again. Many people who play the circuit swap percentages with each other- does that mean we soft play each other? It certainly does not.

I wasn't actually suggesting that they collude and gang up on the leader as I stated in my first reply was that they should just play it out and had nothing to lose and everything to win by playing for first prize rather than just giving it up. My flippant remake "surprising what is said in the toilets" was in response to Ironside comment that they did have something to lose as third would only win £175 rather than taking £250. My view is that 2nd and 3rd was not getting any real incentitve in not playing the game out as the chip leader was not giving up any of the first prize. I have always played out to the finish unless the casino states that the competition has to come to an end due to the time.

Re: the swapping of percentages (imo) I think this is a very negative thing in the game for whilst you state you would never slow play anybody even if you had done a deal/percentage swap with them sadly this doesn't always happen. Far to frequently you see friends making iffy moves as against eachother suggesting they are looking after eachother interests. Should this happen NO, does it happen YES, can anything be done to stop it, DIFFICULT but I hope so. Swapping %'s is a negative to the game and can lead to problems. Did not Paul Maxwell find him in a situation where he was playing in the final 3 against two guys who had swapped %'s and it was interesting how these two's only got in hands against Paul and not eachother game hoping they could take him out and guarantee the big pay day.

[ariston]

Swapping percentages is commonplace more as an insurance than anything. If you play a lot of live events it costs fortunes and you can go months without a big result- the savers keep you ticking over while waiting for the result. this is done between friends who regularly play the same events but I can promise they still do their best to knock each other out. I myself have been backed for a few events in the last 12 months by a friend when I am in a rough patch and will be backed in the future as well- this in effect means I am playing for only 50% of myself- does this mean I don't try to knock out my backer? Ask him after I have put him on the rail if there is any malice or bad feeling, he understands his chips are worth the same to me as anyone elses. If I soft played him in any way I think it would be a reason not to back me for future events- when I sit down I play to win at any cost. I have traded percentages in a few events this year with certain members of this forum and I have knocked a few of them out as well ( I dont always crash and burn early before someone says it lol).

[thediceman]

I'm aware why players exchange %'s and that most will play as normal without any suggestion of playing soft against eachother. However there are a number of players who do not share such ethics and do team play. It has been suggested that Meng "the master" and his little group are often seen to play as a team to ensure the best possible financial result for the team.  Swapping %'s maybe nothing more than an insurance for most players for those swings in fortune but you have to agree that some people who do swap %'s do collude to ensure their best interests.

[Teacake]

i agree with russ on the colluding front

now for the deal part russ what you would want from this deal if you were CL and what would you want if you were 2nd or 3rd

If I'm sitting with nearly 80% of the chips on the table, I'd be looking to take the first prize, no less (unless I was feeling generous and/or I had a friend on the final table). But I'd still pretty much want the first prize. There is a fair bit of comeradery in Glasgow and very often you will see big chip leads giving a lot of slack for deals they don't need to make, just to be fair.

On a side note, how did the prize structure manage to become 550, 275, 175. I thought they would have kept the Riverboat 50%, 30% 20% structure.


Rod, who was 1st prize BTW?

TBH Mikky anything they do that is different from Riverboat is prolly a good thing 
Payout was announced after re buy period & I was expecting a 50/30/20 but it was said that deals were allowed as long as they were done in a civilised manner with no raised voices.
Winner was a Turkish fella called George.
 I remember you played at the same table as me at Riverboat on my first & last appearance there (it really was an appalling standard & structure). Next time I'm in CinCin I'll have a word & you can let in on the various nuances of Glasgow poker that I obviously need to learn quickly.

BTW where do you live?

[mikkyT]

i agree with russ on the colluding front

now for the deal part russ what you would want from this deal if you were CL and what would you want if you were 2nd or 3rd

If I'm sitting with nearly 80% of the chips on the table, I'd be looking to take the first prize, no less (unless I was feeling generous and/or I had a friend on the final table). But I'd still pretty much want the first prize. There is a fair bit of comeradery in Glasgow and very often you will see big chip leads giving a lot of slack for deals they don't need to make, just to be fair.

On a side note, how did the prize structure manage to become 550, 275, 175. I thought they would have kept the Riverboat 50%, 30% 20% structure.


Rod, who was 1st prize BTW?

TBH Mikky anything they do that is different from Riverboat is prolly a good thing 
Payout was announced after re buy period & I was expecting a 50/30/20 but it was said that deals were allowed as long as they were done in a civilised manner with no raised voices.
Winner was a Turkish fella called George.
 I remember you played at the same table as me at Riverboat on my first & last appearance there (it really was an appalling standard & structure). Next time I'm in CinCin I'll have a word & you can let in on the various nuances of Glasgow poker that I obviously need to learn quickly.

BTW where do you live?

Yeah but the 3 prizes only is a bag of shite. If you are going to change it (in this case to, what 60, 35, 15?) you might as well make it a decent structure! IMO there should be a prize per 10 players as the fairest compromise. The reason that there is only 3 prizes is because many greedy people complained about their prize being too small. IMO, 80 players = 8 prizes. And you would end up with less deals, and your actual prize would still be bigger because instead of spliting 3 grand equally between 6-7 people, you'd end up with people playing slightly looser at the final table and then taking the prize they are given.

Im currently living in Paisley.

[Teacake]

i agree with russ on the colluding front

now for the deal part russ what you would want from this deal if you were CL and what would you want if you were 2nd or 3rd

If I'm sitting with nearly 80% of the chips on the table, I'd be looking to take the first prize, no less (unless I was feeling generous and/or I had a friend on the final table). But I'd still pretty much want the first prize. There is a fair bit of comeradery in Glasgow and very often you will see big chip leads giving a lot of slack for deals they don't need to make, just to be fair.

On a side note, how did the prize structure manage to become 550, 275, 175. I thought they would have kept the Riverboat 50%, 30% 20% structure.


Rod, who was 1st prize BTW?

TBH Mikky anything they do that is different from Riverboat is prolly a good thing 
Payout was announced after re buy period & I was expecting a 50/30/20 but it was said that deals were allowed as long as they were done in a civilised manner with no raised voices.
Winner was a Turkish fella called George.
 I remember you played at the same table as me at Riverboat on my first & last appearance there (it really was an appalling standard & structure). Next time I'm in CinCin I'll have a word & you can let in on the various nuances of Glasgow poker that I obviously need to learn quickly.

BTW where do you live?

Yeah but the 3 prizes only is a bag of shite. If you are going to change it (in this case to, what 60, 35, 15?) you might as well make it a decent structure! IMO there should be a prize per 10 players as the fairest compromise. The reason that there is only 3 prizes is because many greedy people complained about their prize being too small. IMO, 80 players = 8 prizes. And you would end up with less deals, and your actual prize would still be bigger because instead of spliting 3 grand equally between 6-7 people, you'd end up with people playing slightly looser at the final table and then taking the prize they are given.

Im currently living in Paisley.

Totally agree re payout strucure.

How do we get this changed?

[mikkyT]

Totally agree re payout strucure.

How do we get this changed?

At the Riverboat, you annoy Michelle enough so that she is prepared to put her job on the line telling management that they suck. Or you annoy management enough times so that they change it themselves. But until other players see it as a problem then nothing will be done about it.

There's a few festivals coming up and perhaps some of the big pros (if any attend) should comment about how shit it is Albeit the prize structure will change for the big events though :/

At Cincinnati, best bet is to pester Sinky... but again, until other players mention it, its not likely to be changed. Wabash also follows the 3 prize policy. Thats what has pissed me off about the new clubs. New venue, same old shite. Nobody is willing to provide something different, but rather be carbon copies of one another with the addition of money added to the pot.