DTD's new policy on deals

[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?

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.

I'm referring to my previous suggestion of a choice of payout structures.

[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?

No

Regards

M

Top quotage.

Autocracy rules.

[FUN4FRASER]

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.

I'm referring to my previous suggestion of a choice of payout structures.

Too complicated to give players a payout choice, then count votes ,and then implement....

As with the army... If there is a structure in place , everybody knows their role /the score , which in turn reduces problems later on in the battle.

[Skippy]

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.

I was a bit confused what you meant, but I think I've worked it out now.

What you are saying is that

* the DTD live stream is a marketing tool,
* banning deals will make it a more exciting tournament for spectators, and such the live stream will be a better marketing tool
* Players will still turn up anyway since it's such a great comp even if they don't like the change.

therefore:

* DTD should ban deals.

(am I right?- sorry if I am misrepresenting you)

You might be right that it's a good move by DTD from a business standpoint, but I'd rather they didn't pretend it was good for the players.

[George2Loose]

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.

I was a bit confused what you meant, but I think I've worked it out now.

What you are saying is that

* the DTD live stream is a marketing tool,
* banning deals will make it a more exciting tournament for spectators, and such the live stream will be a better marketing tool
* Players will still turn up anyway since it's such a great comp even if they don't like the change.

therefore:

* DTD should ban deals.

(am I right?- sorry if I am misrepresenting you)

You might be right that it's a good move by DTD from a business standpoint, but I'd rather they didn't pretend it was good for the players.

It's not good for the players. It's fucking great idea! Grow some balls and play for it all. If you didn't want to why did you enter? Nothing tilts me more than deal merchants waiting for their chance to pounce

[Karabiner]

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.

I was a bit confused what you meant, but I think I've worked it out now.

What you are saying is that

* the DTD live stream is a marketing tool,
* banning deals will make it a more exciting tournament for spectators, and such the live stream will be a better marketing tool
* Players will still turn up anyway since it's such a great comp even if they don't like the change.

therefore:

* DTD should ban deals.

(am I right?- sorry if I am misrepresenting you)

You might be right that it's a good move by DTD from a business standpoint, but I'd rather they didn't pretend it was good for the players.

It's not good for the players. It's fucking great idea! Grow some balls and play for it all. If you didn't want to why did you enter? Nothing tilts me more than deal merchants waiting for their chance to pounce

Are you suggesting that making the tourney winner take all would be a good idea?

If so how do you think this might impact on numbers?

[smashedagain]

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.

I was a bit confused what you meant, but I think I've worked it out now.

What you are saying is that

* the DTD live stream is a marketing tool,
* banning deals will make it a more exciting tournament for spectators, and such the live stream will be a better marketing tool
* Players will still turn up anyway since it's such a great comp even if they don't like the change.

therefore:

* DTD should ban deals.

(am I right?- sorry if I am misrepresenting you)

You might be right that it's a good move by DTD from a business standpoint, but I'd rather they didn't pretend it was good for the players.

It's not good for the players. It's fucking great idea! Grow some balls and play for it all. If you didn't want to why did you enter? Nothing tilts me more than deal merchants waiting for their chance to pounce

sorry loling but i have this picture in my mind of you in your onesies doing this  

[George2Loose]

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.

I was a bit confused what you meant, but I think I've worked it out now.

What you are saying is that

* the DTD live stream is a marketing tool,
* banning deals will make it a more exciting tournament for spectators, and such the live stream will be a better marketing tool
* Players will still turn up anyway since it's such a great comp even if they don't like the change.

therefore:

* DTD should ban deals.

(am I right?- sorry if I am misrepresenting you)

You might be right that it's a good move by DTD from a business standpoint, but I'd rather they didn't pretend it was good for the players.

It's not good for the players. It's fucking great idea! Grow some balls and play for it all. If you didn't want to why did you enter? Nothing tilts me more than deal merchants waiting for their chance to pounce

Are you suggesting that making the tourney winner take all would be a good idea?

If so how do you think this might impact on numbers?

Now I didn't say that now did I Ralph? Would be fun tho

[FUN4FRASER]

  " It's fucking great idea! Grow some balls and play for it all "    +1

                       Mr Bedi on Fire

[shipitonetime]

It is ridic how many live events deals take place. I dont think DTD should remove them completely but definitely impose some more restrictions on what the players can do. E.g. keep a certain amount for 1st like stars do and also maybe stop massive multiway deals and keep it to last 4/3/2. Think thats a fair compromise.

[Karabiner]

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.

I was a bit confused what you meant, but I think I've worked it out now.

What you are saying is that

* the DTD live stream is a marketing tool,
* banning deals will make it a more exciting tournament for spectators, and such the live stream will be a better marketing tool
* Players will still turn up anyway since it's such a great comp even if they don't like the change.

therefore:

* DTD should ban deals.

(am I right?- sorry if I am misrepresenting you)

You might be right that it's a good move by DTD from a business standpoint, but I'd rather they didn't pretend it was good for the players.

It's not good for the players. It's fucking great idea! Grow some balls and play for it all. If you didn't want to why did you enter? Nothing tilts me more than deal merchants waiting for their chance to pounce

Are you suggesting that making the tourney winner take all would be a good idea?

If so how do you think this might impact on numbers?

Now I didn't say that now did I Ralph? Would be fun tho

So in that case you agree that the payout structure would have an impact on the number of attendees in a "no deals" tourney?

[DTD-ACES]

Hi All

Lively thread as expected.

When we first opened we didnt allow deals or savers. We stuck to our guns re savers but decided no deals was too radical and hard to get players to accept. Now 4 years on our Deepstack guarantee has gone from £25,000 in Feb 2008 to £250,000 in March 2012. Imagine what the fields would be if we didnt guarantee them and therefore if we think the best experience in the long run will be to establish outright winners getting paid as per our payout schedule are we not entitled to do that?

Yes, many of our players have been given a fantastic opportunity for a big return on as little as a €2 investment via one of our online satellites but once they min cash at £750 i am sure the majority feel anything more is a bonus and it is a real thrill to ladder to the final table, ok, previously they could deal and get £10,000+ 5 way but how are you ever going to learn to win if you keep chopping events and you will never get that buzz of playing heads up for the first place and prize.

I have a thread on FB re this subject that has had 121 replies mostly in favour of our brave stance. As always we like to lead and inevitably others will immitate, we make tough decisions but usually we get it right and i believe this is the right thing to do.

Cheers

ACES

[tikay]

Quit with the spam Mr Trumper.

Oh, wait.......

Umm, as you were, carry on.

[Woodsey]

I reckon you will settle on a stars style xxx must be left for the winner to play for as a compromise at some point down the line  

[h]

Hi All

Lively thread as expected.

When we first opened we didnt allow deals or savers. We stuck to our guns re savers but decided no deals was too radical and hard to get players to accept. Now 4 years on our Deepstack guarantee has gone from £25,000 in Feb 2008 to £250,000 in March 2012. Imagine what the fields would be if we didnt guarantee them and therefore if we think the best experience in the long run will be to establish outright winners getting paid as per our payout schedule are we not entitled to do that?

Yes, many of our players have been given a fantastic opportunity for a big return on as little as a €2 investment via one of our online satellites but once they min cash at £750 i am sure the majority feel anything more is a bonus and it is a real thrill to ladder to the final table, ok, previously they could deal and get £10,000+ 5 way but how are you ever going to learn to win if you keep chopping events and you will never get that buzz of playing heads up for the first place and prize.

I have a thread on FB re this subject that has had 121 replies mostly in favour of our brave stance. As always we like to lead and inevitably others will immitate, we make tough decisions but usually we get it right and i believe this is the right thing to do.

Cheers

ACES

dont know how you can ever police it
if 6 left 5 dtd reg quiet word in card park (between the 5 ) deal between them selves possible colude to take none reg out atleast chip count deals are open