DTD's new policy on deals

[Jon MW]

everyone gets given a queen and a king. If they want to deal they put the queen in the hat facedown, if they don't they put the king.

if there is one king in the hat then play goes on till the end. anyone who complains gets a 1 round penalty.

That's good on the question of 'deal or no deal' - but if people don't mind the concept of a deal but aren't happy with the precise deal that others are suggesting then it still leaves a lot of the problems described before.

[littlemissC]

Just looking at the dtd website and isn't every comp guarenteed?

I don't mind either way if you go somewhere knowing there is a no deal policy then you have made that choice when you step in the door to follow their rules.However I do think deals will be done on occasions outside.Im personally happy to do deals but I don't get out as much as I'd like so when I do get deep in a comp I'm happy with whatever I get lol.

[tikay]

Tough one this.

While all those points Rob makes are excellent and very valid reasons for not allowing deals (in particular I hate the bullying of players to agree to deals. I was once invited "outside" by a regular at Blackpool when I refused to agree to a saver in a GUKPT event) I am not altogther comfortable with a cardroom telling players what they can and can't do with their money (the prizepool is, after all, the players money, not the casinos).

If there was added money in a tournament, I'd absolutely agree with the no deals policy. I guess limiting the no deals policy to guaranteed events is a halfway house.

Interesting to see what hapens - hope deal making isn't forced "underground" which would lead to even more intimidation and be impossible to police. (This happened in a cardroom I used to go to in Portsmouth).

I was talking to Rob about the whole matter on the 'phone last night, & he indicated that was one of his main reasons for his new stance - there had been quite a bit of that.

[pleno1]

Tough one this.

While all those points Rob makes are excellent and very valid reasons for not allowing deals (in particular I hate the bullying of players to agree to deals. I was once invited "outside" by a regular at Blackpool when I refused to agree to a saver in a GUKPT event) I am not altogther comfortable with a cardroom telling players what they can and can't do with their money (the prizepool is, after all, the players money, not the casinos).

If there was added money in a tournament, I'd absolutely agree with the no deals policy. I guess limiting the no deals policy to guaranteed events is a halfway house.

Interesting to see what hapens - hope deal making isn't forced "underground" which would lead to even more intimidation and be impossible to police. (This happened in a cardroom I used to go to in Portsmouth).

I was talking to Rob about the whole matter on the 'phone last night, & he indicated that was one of his main reasons for his new stance - there had been quite a bit of that.

everyone gets given a queen and a king. If they want to deal they put the queen in the hat facedown, if they don't they put the king.

if there is one king in the hat then play goes on till the end. anyone who complains gets a 1 round penalty.

doesnt this help stop that though Tikay?

[RED-DOG]

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.

[tikay]

Tough one this.

While all those points Rob makes are excellent and very valid reasons for not allowing deals (in particular I hate the bullying of players to agree to deals. I was once invited "outside" by a regular at Blackpool when I refused to agree to a saver in a GUKPT event) I am not altogther comfortable with a cardroom telling players what they can and can't do with their money (the prizepool is, after all, the players money, not the casinos).

If there was added money in a tournament, I'd absolutely agree with the no deals policy. I guess limiting the no deals policy to guaranteed events is a halfway house.

Interesting to see what hapens - hope deal making isn't forced "underground" which would lead to even more intimidation and be impossible to police. (This happened in a cardroom I used to go to in Portsmouth).

I was talking to Rob about the whole matter on the 'phone last night, & he indicated that was one of his main reasons for his new stance - there had been quite a bit of that.

everyone gets given a queen and a king. If they want to deal they put the queen in the hat facedown, if they don't they put the king.

if there is one king in the hat then play goes on till the end. anyone who complains gets a 1 round penalty.

doesnt this help stop that though Tikay?

In theory, yes, in practice, no. It would be quite clear who was happy or unhappy, & if the "vote" went the wrong way, the moaning would soon start again, & you'd very soon know who was on what side.

My solution to the whole thing would be completely different to anything I can recall being suggested here, & I'm pretty sure I'd get booed off the park, though I'd be right. Obv. If so many Tourneys end in business - & I estimate 90% do - then it does suggest to me something pretty obvious. Flatter payout structures. That is not a personal wish or desire, just a statement.

Booooooo

[Karabiner]

Tough one this.

While all those points Rob makes are excellent and very valid reasons for not allowing deals (in particular I hate the bullying of players to agree to deals. I was once invited "outside" by a regular at Blackpool when I refused to agree to a saver in a GUKPT event) I am not altogther comfortable with a cardroom telling players what they can and can't do with their money (the prizepool is, after all, the players money, not the casinos).

If there was added money in a tournament, I'd absolutely agree with the no deals policy. I guess limiting the no deals policy to guaranteed events is a halfway house.

Interesting to see what hapens - hope deal making isn't forced "underground" which would lead to even more intimidation and be impossible to police. (This happened in a cardroom I used to go to in Portsmouth).

I was talking to Rob about the whole matter on the 'phone last night, & he indicated that was one of his main reasons for his new stance - there had been quite a bit of that.

everyone gets given a queen and a king. If they want to deal they put the queen in the hat facedown, if they don't they put the king.

if there is one king in the hat then play goes on till the end. anyone who complains gets a 1 round penalty.

doesnt this help stop that though Tikay?

In theory, yes, in practice, no. It would be quite clear who was happy or unhappy, & if the "vote" went the wrong way, the moaning would soon start again, & you'd very soon know who was on what side.

My solution to the whole thing would be completely different to anything I can recall being suggested here, & I'm pretty sure I'd get booed off the park, though I'd be right. Obv. If so many Tourneys end in business - & I estimate 90% do - then it does suggest to me something pretty obvious. Flatter payout structures. That is not a personal wish or desire, just a statement.

Booooooo

AndrewT suggested flatter payouts earlier ITT and so did I.

I also suggested players voting on a choice of payout structures before they enter a "no deals" tourney which makes perfect sense to me but seemingly not to anyone else.

[Skippy]

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.

[Skippy]

As for removing deals because in the past some people made a bad deal is like removing the reverse gear from cars because someone reversed into a lamp post once. By removing options from your tournaments, you are making your tournaments less useful.

To repeat myself, the people you are trying to "protect" are the keenest ones to do deals and are going to be the most upset with your new policy.

As for intimidation, being unpleasant at a poker table is already an offence that carries penalties. Every DTD final table I've played on* has had a TD watching over it every hand. If someone is being an arse, give 'em a round penalty.

One other change you could make is not stopping the clock or even carrying on dealing while negociations are in progress.

Finally, I going to sound like Herbie here, but as for making people practise their heads-up skills and short handed play, most of these donkeys who are snivelling for deals at the final table of the £500 are never going to make another final table in their life. Lightning has struck once. It's not going to happen again. Give 'em their £10,000 payday, rather than make them flip for £40,000 or £1000, if that's what they want.

* exceedingly subtle.

[Dingdell]

Intimidation at the poker table doesn't have to be obvious, it can be done very subtly. I have turned down a deal before, all the guys went to the loo and it was obvious when they came back they had all agreed something. Nothing was said but then all the play was against me, it had obviously changed but it would have been difficult to prove - and i would have looked like a wanker. 

At Ntn last week i didn't want to deal but kept quiet while everyione else had their say - luckily someone else didn't want to either - so I was saved from having to say anything.

Well done DTD - it's one of the reasons you were so exciting at the beginning - having to play until the death. Love it.

[Skippy]

Intimidation at the poker table doesn't have to be obvious, it can be done very subtly. I have turned down a deal before, all the guys went to the loo and it was obvious when they came back they had all agreed something. Nothing was said but then all the play was against me, it had obviously changed but it would have been difficult to prove - and i would have looked like a wanker. 

Don't stop the clock- if they want to all go to the loo together steal their blinds! Seriously, though it's a good point.

[tikay]

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.

100% agreed, totally.

So, why do so many Finals end in business?

[The Camel]

I hope soft play is going to bne punished and policed against aggressively.

One of the times I almost always agree to a deal is when I'm playing against 2 or 3 regualrs who are obviously friends with each other.

No deals means if the friends soft play each other, they are at a considerable advantage against the outsider.

Soft play is alot more dangerous to the integrity of a poker tournament than deal making imo.

[smashedagain]

As for removing deals because in the past some people made a bad deal is like removing the reverse gear from cars because someone reversed into a lamp post once. By removing options from your tournaments, you are making your tournaments less useful.

To repeat myself, the people you are trying to "protect" are the keenest ones to do deals and are going to be the most upset with your new policy.

As for intimidation, being unpleasant at a poker table is already an offence that carries penalties. Every DTD final table I've played on* has had a TD watching over it every hand. If someone is being an arse, give 'em a round penalty.

One other change you could make is not stopping the clock or even carrying on dealing while negociations are in progress.

Finally,I going to sound like Herbie here, but as for making people practise their heads-up skills and short handed play, most of these donkeys who are snivelling for deals at the final table of the £500 are never going to make another final table in their life. Lightning has struck once. It's not going to happen again. Give 'em their £10,000 payday, rather than make them flip for £40,000 or £1000, if that's what they want.

* exceedingly subtle.

that's it skippy you tell it how it is mate.  You just can't go around calling people donkeys tho.  (you should have seen the tourney report from last night titled playing with the fishes I spent an hour on today. I have to say it was one of my best pieces ever. But in this new age of brotherly love and being nice to each other I hit delete instead of send.
Now would you like to self exclude for 24 hours to cool down or shall we just go straight to the 1 week ban.

[robyong]

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