DTD's new policy on deals

[smashedagain]

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

[scotty77]

Excellent post by Rob.

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

[littlemissC]

Excellent post by Rob.

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

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

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

[scotty77]

Excellent post by Rob.

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

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

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

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

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

[MANTIS01]

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

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

[gatso]

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

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

[The Camel]

Hi Keith,

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

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

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

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

Should i put on the bottom of our payout structure

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

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

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

Rob

Thanks for the reply Rob.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KarmaDope]

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

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

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

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

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

To me, this is 2 years wages!

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

[jack2off]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[EvilPie]

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

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

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

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

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

[AndrewT]

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

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

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

[robyong]

Okay,

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

Lets see what overall opinion is

Rob

[skolsuper]

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

However, Rob's posts itt make a very convincing argument that this change is for 'the players' or 'the good of the game' etc. Point-by-point: (link to rob's post)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9: Wield the banhammer some more.

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

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

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

[NoflopsHomer]

Nice post Keys.

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

[the rage]

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

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