DEAL OR NO DEAL

[littlemissC]

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.

Pretty sure dtd have never let people do a saver on the bubble thank god!

[PizzicatoXev]

I personally don't do deals very often (maybe two or 3 times ever) but I do think that the ability to deal has become entrenched in poker and I don't necessarily think its a bad thing...

I think that ensuring players have to play for X%/X£ for first regardless of the deal for flagship tournaments (Super 50, Deepstack, MC etc) is a good one and does strike a fairly decent balance between the two options. The daily evening tournaments should continue to allow for full chops.

One thing I would like to see is an actual system to decide wether the chop should take place or not. A growingly popular solution is for every player to be dealt a red card and a black card and for the players to return a black card to vote for chop and red card to vote no chop. The cards are then shuffled and placed face up for the vote count. This ensures that there can be no 'bullying' and/or collusion against the one or two players that do not want to chop. There also needs to be some kind of limit as to how long before the next vote can be held (ie player bust out or 30 mins etc).

[outragous76]

*In my dreams I will make a final table*

When I get there, although I am not one for deals, I can easily see scanarios where I would deal providing I can negotiate in in my interests.

Therefore I think deals should be allowed but with % retained for 1st

[The Camel]

I personally don't do deals very often (maybe two or 3 times ever) but I do think that the ability to deal has become entrenched in poker and I don't necessarily think its a bad thing...

I think that ensuring players have to play for X%/X£ for first regardless of the deal for flagship tournaments (Super 50, Deepstack, MC etc) is a good one and does strike a fairly decent balance between the two options. The daily evening tournaments should continue to allow for full chops.

One thing I would like to see is an actual system to decide wether the chop should take place or not. A growingly popular solution is for every player to be dealt a red card and a black card and for the players to return a black card to vote for chop and red card to vote no chop. The cards are then shuffled and placed face up for the vote count. This ensures that there can be no 'bullying' and/or collusion against the one or two players that do not want to chop. There also needs to be some kind of limit as to how long before the next vote can be held (ie player bust out or 30 mins etc).

In theory this is great. In reality this wouldn't work.

The vocal ones will always hunt out the dissentors.

I want to change my vote lol.

I think no deals is best after all, but a close eye must be kept on collusion when the final gets short handed.

[FallenAngelAlex]

chip count deals really do not have to be complicated and include percentages etc. A very simple way to ensure this would be 'ok we play this out till this time or the end of this blind and then payout as the payout structure states' still classed as dealing as you are putting restrictions on the amount of time however your not messing about with the payout structure. Its clear its simple and everyone knows where they stand.

[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.

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

I'm not saying it's a financial decision for you. I was asking the other guy why he thinks if he was owner he would want it to be no-deals.... because obviously it's not of any benefit to you. I understand your position Rob, just not 'Rotty's'

[Reggie]

In my experience of deals and i have seen it happen at DTD, is that if a deal is suggested and one player refuses, then the other players seem to target that player, if there was a rule stating no deals under any cicumstances, then the subject would never be raised. As in other casino's were savers are permitted for the bubble etc, this was banned from DTD at the very start, thus it never gets raised. I think a no deal policy is the way to go, it also gives players experience of playing to the death and winning the tornement correctly, thus improving your final table game.

[zerofive]

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.

This.

From a business standpoint, I think you might lose numbers when players realise that without deals, they'll potentially be at Dusk until 3am playing the £50 freeze outright. Recreational players who need to be up at 8am to get to work obviously can't justify this, especially if they end up grinding an extra 2 hours to exit fourth for a bowl when a chop would make four players very happy.

Obviously with bigger buyin comps, especially those that don't make the guarantees, this should be more in your hands. Stars' tried and tested method of "x must be left for first and must be played out, but final table deals are allowed." Obviously savers are a bit of a joke, and one deepstack not so long ago there were discussions of a 12-way chop - again, ridiculous. Chops should definitely be allowed towards the end of big comps, especially given that the structure is top heavy anyway. From a neutral standpoint, yes going to the races with A5 vs KQ blind on blind for what is effectively a £20k flip is exciting, but for those who have paid and played for 3 days might not feel the same way.

Much in the same way as Stars, % deals should also be possible. Just pause the clock innit

[skolsuper]

don't want to repeat myself either, but have made a long post in the other thread here.

tl;dr: I think banning deals is unnecessary, better to enforce the rules on intimidation, flatten the payout structure (a lot) and allow any deals people want to agree to while leaving 3-5% of the remaining prize pool for 1st.

[zerofive]

In my experience of deals and i have seen it happen at DTD, is that if a deal is suggested and one player refuses, then the other players seem to target that player, if there was a rule stating no deals under any cicumstances, then the subject would never be raised. As in other casino's were savers are permitted for the bubble etc, this was banned from DTD at the very start, thus it never gets raised. I think a no deal policy is the way to go, it also gives players experience of playing to the death and winning the tornement correctly, thus improving your final table game.

The immediate counter-argument is that under-the-table deals will take place if official deals are not allowed. Appreciate what you're saying about "improving your game," but anyone serious about improving will realise that volume is required and that you need to play online in order to achieve this.

[andystoke81]

Does a poker club really have a right to stop people deciding to equally share their prize money??

[George2Loose]

Does a poker club really have a right to stop people deciding to equally share their prize money??

Yes

[skolsuper]

Does a poker club really have a right to stop people deciding to equally share their prize money??

Yes

Yes of course, jakally made the point in the other thread that as long as everyone is aware of the policy before they buy in then by buying in they agree to be bound by it.

[Karabiner]

chip count deals really do not have to be complicated and include percentages etc. A very simple way to ensure this would be 'ok we play this out till this time or the end of this blind and then payout as the payout structure states' still classed as dealing as you are putting restrictions on the amount of time however your not messing about with the payout structure. Its clear its simple and everyone knows where they stand.

Then you get the chip-leaders stalling over every decision for the last half-hour or so.

[andystoke81]

OK fair point... Just seems a little controlling that's all