uneasy chop

[Cf]

We're playing a £1,000 freeroll, which the top 18 players in a league have qualified for. The top 3 get paid £500/£300/£200.

We're down to the final table and there are 6 of us left and naturally someone mentions that they think everyone on the table should get paid. Now I think this is daft so veto this, but I do think top 3 from 18 is a tad harsh, and suggest top 4 instead, paying £400/£300/£200/£100 (which to my knowledge is the payout you'd get on a 18man stars sng).

So we agree to change the payouts to top 4. But the other guys still want 5th/6th to be paid. They come up with the idea of paying savers to each other, but not to me, and not me to them. The solution they come up with is to get the payout %s for 5 players and pay their respective positions based on that. Eg, if I finish 1st then their total pot is £600. 2nd will get 1st place money using their %s. 6th will get 5th place money.

I was a little bit uncomfortable by this. I also felt that I was being made out as the bad guy for not wanting to do savers, which I think is unfair as this is entirely my right. The fact that they essentially had a different payout structure did give a me vs them mentality which I didn't really like.

Anyone experienced this sort of thing before? Am I right in thinking this was a bit of a weird arrangement?

And fwiw I finished 5th and got nothing lol. Obv I'm not bothered by this or I'd have agreed to pay top 6.

[Claw75]

Seems a bit weird to me - I would have thought all players involved would have to agree to the deal for it to go ahead. I can see they could argue that you would not be affected money-wise by whatever they chose to do if you finished top 4, but agreeing savers still changes the dynamics, which would have been a valid reason for you to object.  What happened?

[outragous76]

I have no problem being the bad guy if I think I have an edge. Rather than any kind of negotiation just say no! Make your point to the dealer or TD and don't get too involved in the others discussions. As soon as you say no, any competant TD should move it straight on, and you don't get drawn into the uneasy chat!

You also pick on those playing to cash . . . . Obv

[Cf]

Seems a bit weird to me - I would have thought all players involved would have to agree to the deal for it to go ahead. I can see they could argue that you would not be affected money-wise by whatever they chose to do if you finished top 4, but agreeing savers still changes the dynamics, which would have been a valid reason for you to object.  What happened?

That's the thing though. The deal didn't involve me, and didn't involve changing the actual payouts. It was a private deal between the five of them using whatever money they got. So I didn't need to agree to it.

[Acidmouse]

I woulda just gone with the flow and accepted it, its not like it's huge amounts of money. Also was there lots of chips left in play to have a proper game of poker? if not then I would have definatly agreed to savers.

[Claw75]

Seems a bit weird to me - I would have thought all players involved would have to agree to the deal for it to go ahead. I can see they could argue that you would not be affected money-wise by whatever they chose to do if you finished top 4, but agreeing savers still changes the dynamics, which would have been a valid reason for you to object.  What happened?

That's the thing though. The deal didn't involve me, and didn't involve changing the actual payouts. It was a private deal between the five of them using whatever money they got. So I didn't need to agree to it.

still doesn't seem right to me. it's like they're saying 'sod you if you don't want to do savers, we're going to do them anyway'. As outrageous said, the TD should have stepped in and said 'no deals if the whole table doesn't agree to them'. If they want to do something out of their own pockets, then they should sort that afterwards.

[EvilPie]

Can't see any problem with this at all.

If they want their own little reduced prizepool let them have it. You're still playing for the original agreed prizes. That's what you paid for and that's what you're getting.

The other players have nothing more to gain from knocking you out early than they did before so it shouldn't affect their play. Obviously watch for any signs of collusion but I really don't think it'll be a problem.

[Claw75]

Can't see any problem with this at all.

If they want their own little reduced prizepool let them have it. You're still playing for the original agreed prizes. That's what you paid for and that's what you're getting.

The other players have nothing more to gain from knocking you out early than they did before so it shouldn't affect their play. Obviously watch for any signs of collusion but I really don't think it'll be a problem.

but it's not really about players trying to knock Nana out. If the shorter stacks are desperate to try to ladder to the money, they'll tighten up and be easier to bully. Once they've got a few quid locked up in a saver, they could be more inclined to call a bet with a marginal hand and gamble, so the dynamics change.

[celtic]

Disagree Mr Russell, Sir. All players should agree a deal or not at all. Seen this exact same thing happen in a sat for the gukpt @ brighton in january and caused a lot of bad feeling.

[Girgy85]

I played at gala on Saturday, we were down to 5 handed and would of all got £1.2k if we had chopped! One guy who was short stack disagreed as he was sharing 50/50 with a friend! He wanted to play on! I went out next for £550! Diagf sir as he went on to chop 3 handed taking £1900 and the other 2 players got £1500 each! Sigh!

[The Dundonian]

Can't see any problem with this at all.

If they want their own little reduced prizepool let them have it. You're still playing for the original agreed prizes. That's what you paid for and that's what you're getting.

The other players have nothing more to gain from knocking you out early than they did before so it shouldn't affect their play. Obviously watch for any signs of collusion but I really don't think it'll be a problem.

Have to agree here, as long as you get paid what was agreed for the four prizes, let them do what they want...Best of all of course would have been to disagree with any deal at all, leaves little scope to argue about which deal should be done.

[EvilPie]

Disagree Mr Russell, Sir. All players should agree a deal or not at all. Seen this exact same thing happen in a sat for the gukpt @ brighton in january and caused a lot of bad feeling.

But they aren't actually doing a deal are they? It's a saver that comes out of their own pockets.

And Claire says they should sort it afterwards. Well they are sorting it afterwards, they've just agreed to it now.

[celtic]

Disagree Mr Russell, Sir. All players should agree a deal or not at all. Seen this exact same thing happen in a sat for the gukpt @ brighton in january and caused a lot of bad feeling.

But they aren't actually doing a deal are they? It's a saver that comes out of their own pockets.

And Claire says they should sort it afterwards. Well they are sorting it afterwards, they've just agreed to it now.

BUt surely once they have agreed savers between themselves it changes the way they are going to play? Become more gambly knowing the are going to get paid regardless? Chamges the whole dynamics of the game imo.

[gatso]

if they continue to discuss a deal after getting a definite no they should be warned and then penalised. simple, there's no grey area here imo

[marcin123]

No chops and no savers Charles... The standard of play was obv. terrible... You have an edge over most players there... however if you all had 5bb each then maybe it would have been better to deal