DTD's new policy on deals

[PeeJay]

It doesn't happen that often but on occasions where I have managed to make a FT, people are almost always pressing for a deal. I always say no and people tend to give me a look of pure hatred. I never seem to have any friends at a FT afterwards so I think its quite a good idea to be honest because now I can blame it on DTD and I might make a few friends.

[Dry em]

Pretty unenforceable as unofficial/verbal deals will always be done

I think this puts some people in potentially dangerous situations whereby they have to "trust"/rely upon people they don't know to honour their word if they want to do a deal.

That said Grosvenor have never facilitated deals and always left it to the players to sort it out amongst themselves after the money is paid out

I like Tony's idea of X% has to be left on the table for the winner

[Karabiner]

I think the "no deals" policy would be okay if DTD allowed the players to choose their preferred payout structure.

A poll or 3/4 different payout schedules would add a little democracy to proceedings.

It is the player's money after all.

[smashedagain]

Pros don't enjoy playing live games such as these jase.comps like these are run online every week

Oh right. I had no idea this was the reason. I thought Rob had upset em all

[Skippy]

I think it's a terrible change for the worse.

Firstly, people are still going to want to make deals, and will merely attempt do it under the table. Sooner or later, this is going to result in someone being grimmed for tens of thousands of pounds by someone who agreed to a chop then "won" the tournament and now has done a runner. Is this the kind of situation you want in your cardroom?

As for "less experienced players" it seems to me whenever I've played on a final table*, the less experienced players are always the ones keenest to do a chop, and that certainly seems to be the case on the final table of DTD's monthly Deepstack event from what I read on the updates. It's surely no coincidence that the past two Monte Carlos, which many top professionals have made the final have gone all the way through heads-up, but most deepstacks where there are many weekend players get chopped up rather than forcing people to flip for half their yearly salary. In the last SkyPoker tour event which I made the final table** a gentleman who I might suggest was not a full time professional was campaigning to get everyone together to arrange a saver for 25th when they were paying 24 places!

Finally, whether people find final table poker a spectacle is irrelevant. I've got no problem with you filming it, putting my hole cards up on the internet, commentating on it, doing live updates on it and so on but as someone who has paid the reg fee and provided my portion of the prizepool, I should not be messed around for the sake of railbirds who have paid £0.00 towards the cost of the event. If it turns out to be bad to watch too bad. If the recent Australian Open tennis was a £10,000 entry fee of which the entry fees made up the prize pool but spectating was free, I'd have no problem with Djokovic and Nadal deciding that they were tired after 4 sets and that they'd just chop up first and second prizes and go home, and it would be too bad if the spectators didn't get see a great tennis match concluded.


* subtle
** really subtle

[jakally]

It is the player's money after all.

You know what, I'm not sure I agree with this bit, which is repeated oft in these kind of discussions.
When I'm sat looking up at the payout screen early in a live tourney (obviously the only point I can do this), I don't sit thinking 'that's my money, that is'.
In reality it is money that belongs to the tournament, which has a responsibility to distribute it as advertised.

As long as I know what the payout structure is when I enter, (i.e. as long as the cardroom don't make changes / take from the pot / mislead), then I enter on this basis.
I don't see why any player thinks that they automatically have the right to change this at any point.

I understand that from a custom and practice angle, this is what happens at most venues, but it doesn't mean that someone can't do it differently.
If people don't like it, then don't play. If this lowers numbers, then the venue has to rethink. Simple.

[FUN4FRASER]

There are plenty of tournaments /casino groups /card clubs  etc that already have a" no deal " policy in place and they operative relatively problem free. You are always going to get the odd chancer that will try and rip another player off  by not honouring a deal or not paying a staker /percentage etc . This doesnt happen too often as word soon gets round ,so any players choosing to circumvent the "no deal " policy only have themselves to blame should things go " tits up. "

[George2Loose]

I think it's a terrible change for the worse.

Firstly, people are still going to want to make deals, and will merely attempt do it under the table. Sooner or later, this is going to result in someone being grimmed for tens of thousands of pounds by someone who agreed to a chop then "won" the tournament and now has done a runner. Is this the kind of situation you want in your cardroom?

As for "less experienced players" it seems to me whenever I've played on a final table*, the less experienced players are always the ones keenest to do a chop, and that certainly seems to be the case on the final table of DTD's monthly Deepstack event from what I read on the updates. It's surely no coincidence that the past two Monte Carlos, which many top professionals have made the final have gone all the way through heads-up, but most deepstacks where there are many weekend players get chopped up rather than forcing people to flip for half their yearly salary. In the last SkyPoker tour event which I made the final table** a gentleman who I might suggest was not a full time professional was campaigning to get everyone together to arrange a saver for 25th when they were paying 24 places!

Finally, whether people find final table poker a spectacle is irrelevant. I've got no problem with you filming it, putting my hole cards up on the internet, commentating on it, doing live updates on it and so on but as someone who has paid the reg fee and provided my portion of the prizepool, I should not be messed around for the sake of railbirds who have paid £0.00 towards the cost of the event. If it turns out to be bad to watch too bad. If the recent Australian Open tennis was a £10,000 entry fee of which the entry fees made up the prize pool but spectating was free, I'd have no problem with Djokovic and Nadal deciding that they were tired after 4 sets and that they'd just chop up first and second prizes and go home, and it would be too bad if the spectators didn't get see a great tennis match concluded.


* subtle
** really subtle

Couldn't disagree more. DTD put up huge guarantees which is how it markets itself. The live stream is a marketing tool. As with everything if people don't like it they can vote with their feet- I doubt too many will with a 250k gte on a 500 quid comp that provides a 30k starting stack PLUS rolling back the blinds on the final table.

[smashedagain]

Anyone know what went on when regarding the accusations that last months winner of the deepstack and not paying someone who was 10% with him?

[AdamM]

I'm generally in favour.
When I was younger I was strictly NO DEALS myself, much to the frustartion of many final table companion.
I mellowed over the years and have taken a few 2-4 way chops at 3am-4am.

For me though, there's nothing worse than the atmosphere when someone at a final has declined a deal and other players turn on them.

A fair deal can be achieved by doing it strictly on chip count, but that still doesn't stop the problem above when a player with lower chips feel they have an edge and want to play on, only to find themselves up against a newly formed team.

And when Final tables are being chopped without a single card being dealt, that just feels against the spirit of the game.

Yep, all for it I think.

[bobAlike]

I think it's a terrible change for the worse.

Firstly, people are still going to want to make deals, and will merely attempt do it under the table. Sooner or later, this is going to result in someone being grimmed for tens of thousands of pounds by someone who agreed to a chop then "won" the tournament and now has done a runner. Is this the kind of situation you want in your cardroom?

As for "less experienced players" it seems to me whenever I've played on a final table*, the less experienced players are always the ones keenest to do a chop, and that certainly seems to be the case on the final table of DTD's monthly Deepstack event from what I read on the updates. It's surely no coincidence that the past two Monte Carlos, which many top professionals have made the final have gone all the way through heads-up, but most deepstacks where there are many weekend players get chopped up rather than forcing people to flip for half their yearly salary. In the last SkyPoker tour event which I made the final table** a gentleman who I might suggest was not a full time professional was campaigning to get everyone together to arrange a saver for 25th when they were paying 24 places!

Finally, whether people find final table poker a spectacle is irrelevant. I've got no problem with you filming it, putting my hole cards up on the internet, commentating on it, doing live updates on it and so on but as someone who has paid the reg fee and provided my portion of the prizepool, I should not be messed around for the sake of railbirds who have paid £0.00 towards the cost of the event. If it turns out to be bad to watch too bad. If the recent Australian Open tennis was a £10,000 entry fee of which the entry fees made up the prize pool but spectating was free, I'd have no problem with Djokovic and Nadal deciding that they were tired after 4 sets and that they'd just chop up first and second prizes and go home, and it would be too bad if the spectators didn't get see a great tennis match concluded.


* subtle
** really subtle

Couldn't disagree more. DTD put up huge guarantees which is how it markets itself. The live stream is a marketing tool. As with everything if people don't like it they can vote with their feet- I doubt too many will with a 250k gte on a 500 quid comp that provides a 30k starting stack PLUS rolling back the blinds on the final table.

Well said George

[Karabiner]

It is the player's money after all.

You know what, I'm not sure I agree with this bit, which is repeated oft in these kind of discussions.
When I'm sat looking up at the payout screen early in a live tourney (obviously the only point I can do this), I don't sit thinking 'that's my money, that is'.
In reality it is money that belongs to the tournament, which has a responsibility to distribute it as advertised.

As long as I know what the payout structure is when I enter, (i.e. as long as the cardroom don't make changes / take from the pot / mislead), then I enter on this basis.
I don't see why any player thinks that they automatically have the right to change this at any point.

I understand that from a custom and practice angle, this is what happens at most venues, but it doesn't mean that someone can't do it differently.
If people don't like it, then don't play. If this lowers numbers, then the venue has to rethink. Simple.

So do you not think it would be reasonable for the players to have some input on how this money is distributed?

[FUN4FRASER]

I think it's a terrible change for the worse.

Firstly, people are still going to want to make deals, and will merely attempt do it under the table. Sooner or later, this is going to result in someone being grimmed for tens of thousands of pounds by someone who agreed to a chop then "won" the tournament and now has done a runner. Is this the kind of situation you want in your cardroom?

As for "less experienced players" it seems to me whenever I've played on a final table*, the less experienced players are always the ones keenest to do a chop, and that certainly seems to be the case on the final table of DTD's monthly Deepstack event from what I read on the updates. It's surely no coincidence that the past two Monte Carlos, which many top professionals have made the final have gone all the way through heads-up, but most deepstacks where there are many weekend players get chopped up rather than forcing people to flip for half their yearly salary. In the last SkyPoker tour event which I made the final table** a gentleman who I might suggest was not a full time professional was campaigning to get everyone together to arrange a saver for 25th when they were paying 24 places!

Finally, whether people find final table poker a spectacle is irrelevant. I've got no problem with you filming it, putting my hole cards up on the internet, commentating on it, doing live updates on it and so on but as someone who has paid the reg fee and provided my portion of the prizepool, I should not be messed around for the sake of railbirds who have paid £0.00 towards the cost of the event. If it turns out to be bad to watch too bad. If the recent Australian Open tennis was a £10,000 entry fee of which the entry fees made up the prize pool but spectating was free, I'd have no problem with Djokovic and Nadal deciding that they were tired after 4 sets and that they'd just chop up first and second prizes and go home, and it would be too bad if the spectators didn't get see a great tennis match concluded.
* subtle
** really subtle

Hardly comparable unless we are now classing poker as a sport ! If that is the case maybe we should start a campaign to get it into the London 2012 Olympics  ?

[jakally]

It is the player's money after all.

You know what, I'm not sure I agree with this bit, which is repeated oft in these kind of discussions.
When I'm sat looking up at the payout screen early in a live tourney (obviously the only point I can do this), I don't sit thinking 'that's my money, that is'.
In reality it is money that belongs to the tournament, which has a responsibility to distribute it as advertised.

As long as I know what the payout structure is when I enter, (i.e. as long as the cardroom don't make changes / take from the pot / mislead), then I enter on this basis.
I don't see why any player thinks that they automatically have the right to change this at any point.

I understand that from a custom and practice angle, this is what happens at most venues, but it doesn't mean that someone can't do it differently.
If people don't like it, then don't play. If this lowers numbers, then the venue has to rethink. Simple.

So do you not think it would be reasonable for the players to have some input on how this money is distributed?

Once the tourney has started, I don't think players have an automatic right to change the structure.
If a venue supports deals, then I am ok with that, and if a venue is 'no deals' I am fine with that too.

[MPOWER]

It is the player's money after all.

You know what, I'm not sure I agree with this bit, which is repeated oft in these kind of discussions.
When I'm sat looking up at the payout screen early in a live tourney (obviously the only point I can do this), I don't sit thinking 'that's my money, that is'.
In reality it is money that belongs to the tournament, which has a responsibility to distribute it as advertised.

As long as I know what the payout structure is when I enter, (i.e. as long as the cardroom don't make changes / take from the pot / mislead), then I enter on this basis.
I don't see why any player thinks that they automatically have the right to change this at any point.

I understand that from a custom and practice angle, this is what happens at most venues, but it doesn't mean that someone can't do it differently.
If people don't like it, then don't play. If this lowers numbers, then the venue has to rethink. Simple.

So do you not think it would be reasonable for the players to have some input on how this money is distributed?

No

Regards

M