DEAL OR NO DEAL

[robyong]

Vote away, the question needs to be "if I owned Dusk Till Dawn" , because if i did a poll saying "should Dusk till Dawn do a £1M freeroll every Monday afternoon at 2pm"................we know what the vote would be from the players!

I have taken out evening comps on Option 2 because they are our most reg/local based comps where players are less likely to get taken advantage of/less arguments etc, where as even at Super 50 and above there is a massive increase in the travelling player % (70%+)

We will PR this vote to all Dusk Till Dawn club members as well as Blondepoker members

[Rotty]

As per question if I owned DTD I would want it to be no deals, as a player I might see it differently if I was ever in a big money situation but at least a no deal rule would focus me on the game

[EvilPie]

To be totally honest if I owned DTD I'd probably be on a beach in the Bahamas and wouldn't give a shit either way.

Kudos to you for actually caring

[JK]

Voted money aside.

However, I reckon if you set a guarantee and the comp has overlaid, there should be no deals. I thought thats what you meant when you first put out the no deals policy, and agreed with it completely.

[WotRTheChances]

I'm just not sure a no deals policy is possible to police. It will surely lead to a lot more collusion and people making deals away from the table etc. I don't mind either way, but it seems likely that would be what would happen. Definately prefer the tournaments to have a winner a playing for £X.

As per question if I owned DTD I would want it to be no deals, as a player I might see it differently if I was ever in a big money situation but at least a no deal rule would focus me on the game

Why would you want it to be no-deals? Surely it just means more staff hours spent on the tournament, if deals are done, tournaments end early and staff requirements are reduced. Also means more people playing the comps for longer unable to jump onto the cash tables.

[Raman]

I don't like to deal, I am all for playing it out but I think we have to accept that there is a deal culture and with that being the case and for us wanting to see a winner I have voted that deals were X is kept for winner and comps played out to a conclusion.  That way both venue and player get the best of it.

I hate the arguement thats been used in the past of its the players money, that tilts me so much.  Once the prizepool is collected that money no longer belongs to the players.

[robyong]

I'm just not sure a no deals policy is possible to police. It will surely lead to a lot more collusion and people making deals away from the table etc. I don't mind either way, but it seems likely that would be what would happen. Definately prefer the tournaments to have a winner a playing for £X.

As per question if I owned DTD I would want it to be no deals, as a player I might see it differently if I was ever in a big money situation but at least a no deal rule would focus me on the game

Why would you want it to be no-deals? Surely it just means more staff hours spent on the tournament, if deals are done, tournaments end early and staff requirements are reduced. Also means more people playing the comps for longer unable to jump onto the cash tables.

PRINCIPLE/ETHICS FOR ME, NOT FINANCIAL DECISION, PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS ON OTHER THREAD, DONT WANT TO REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN AND GET BORING

[chiphungry]

Deals with a % of the prizepool going to 1st place.

[MC]

NO DEALS EXCEPT CHIP COUNT
DEALS - % MONEY KEPT FOR 1ST PRIZE

^^Maybe a combination of both of these?

[gatso]

However, I reckon if you set a guarantee and the comp has overlaid, there should be no deals. I thought thats what you meant when you first put out the no deals policy, and agreed with it completely.

this makes zero sense to me. if you've got a £50 comp guaranteed at £5k with 99 runners you'd have different rules than if it had 100 runners?

what if the comp has 2 start days? anyone playing day 1 would have no clue what rules they were playing by as it'll be a day until the guarantee is hit or not

NO DEALS EXCEPT CHIP COUNT
DEALS - % MONEY KEPT FOR 1ST PRIZE

^^Maybe a combination of both of these?

and +1 to this

[The Camel]

I've spent longer deciding which way to vote on this than who to vote for in the general election!

[MC]

I only recall doing a deal once before, and what we did is flatten the payout structure 4-handed and played on as normal, which I think worked out well. Seems like a potentially fair solution but I don't know how practical it is.

1st  €12,500     
2nd   €9,000     
3rd    €8,000   
4th    €7,000   
5th    €3,500

[The Camel]

I only recall doing a deal once before, and what we did is flatten the payout structure and played on as normal, which I think worked out well. Seems like a potentially fair solution but I don't know how practical it is.

1st  €12,500     
2nd   €9,000     
3rd    €8,000   
4th    €7,000   
5th    €3,500

They flattened the payouts at the Mirage in Vegas a few years ago.

People still tried to do deals.

[Kevish]

I don't understand how you could ever enforce any kind of restrictions on deals. People will simply deal away from the table. By putting any club enforced restrictions, all you will do is make the deals more 'under the table', and thus increase potential for people getting grimmed, misunderstandings and all the other dangers that arise from large amounts of money being passed around under the radar. It is in the interest of the players that all payouts are made officially by the club.

Personally, I think something DTD could take a strong lead in is policing deal negotiations. I make it a policy that I never do a deal for the bubble. It would be great if as soon as I've made my position clear, I could rely on the TD and staff to protect me somewhat from abuse and persistent nagging I sometimes get from other players (tbh I've never made a DTD bubble, so I don't know how good/bad you guys are in these spots, but it's definitely a problem in poker in general). Again this 'policing' wouldn't involve enforcing a chip count deal or preventing someone from willingly taking a deal that may seem bad for them (although maybe if some new person was totally overwhelmed, discretion could be used), but it would prevent people being bullied into taking deals they don't want to, or at least being given a hard time about it.

[Doobs]

NO DEALS EXCEPT CHIP COUNT
DEALS - % MONEY KEPT FOR 1ST PRIZE

^^Maybe a combination of both of these?

Why no ICM deals?  Isn't chip count inherently unfair?  

So chip count+percentage for first would be more so?  I feel it must be.  Couldn't you also get the situation where the combination gives more than the first prize too.

What about limiting the percentage that can be dealt to 50% of the remaining prize fund or similar?  I haven't seen it anywhere else, but it strikes me as you keep the integrety of the competition and it gives people the opportunity to lock a big score.