DEAL OR NO DEAL

[tikay]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest. They give their money to Rob to hold and get ready to race. At no point does Rob own that money. He is an escrow holding Tikay and Tightend's money. After running half way round the block both distinguished Blonde's realise this is a dumb idea and decide to go for a pint instead, taking back their money. Should Rob be able to say nah lads you can't do that you gotta complete the race cos it's my money and I'm in charge of this bet.

I am still perplexed by the whole debate, in truth - why are we not examining the root cause of the problem? As several have said, if the payouts were flatter, there would be less excuse or need to deal. And I have stated that, imo, "90%" of Live Tourneys end in business. That MAY be on the high side, but I doubt by much. Ask yourself WHY so many Tourneys end in "business". There can only be one answer...... To fix a problem, start at the beginning.

Flattening the payout structure would mean that the headline first prize would not be quite so big.

DTD might be reluctant to sacrifice that.

I'm not sure that is true, Ralph.

ALL their advertising & Promos trumpet the Guarantee, but NEVER the "up top" sum. I have never once seen DTD advertise "£xx,xxx first prize".

People play Flight 1a of the Deepie or MC & don't even know what is up top (due to Flight 1b, re-entries etc) but they DO know the Guarantee. And the Guarantees are not changing, except for regular tweaking, fiffing & faffing.

[George2Loose]

Yeh that argument is poor Ralph.

[Ironside]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest. They give their money to Rob to hold and get ready to race. At no point does Rob own that money. He is an escrow holding Tikay and Tightend's money. After running half way round the block both distinguished Blonde's realise this is a dumb idea and decide to go for a pint instead, taking back their money. Should Rob be able to say nah lads you can't do that you gotta complete the race cos it's my money and I'm in charge of this bet.

I am still perplexed by the whole debate, in truth - why are we not examining the root cause of the problem? As several have said, if the payouts were flatter, there would be less excuse or need to deal. And I have stated that, imo, "90%" of Live Tourneys end in business. That MAY be on the high side, but I doubt by much. Ask yourself WHY so many Tourneys end in "business". There can only be one answer...... To fix a problem, start at the beginning.

Flattening the payout structure would mean that the headline first prize would not be quite so big.

DTD might be reluctant to sacrifice that.

I'm not sure that is true, Ralph.

ALL their advertising & Promos trumpet the Guarantee, but NEVER the "up top" sum. I have never once seen DTD advertise "£xx,xxx first prize".

People play Flight 1a of the Deepie or MC & don't even know what is up top (due to Flight 1b, re-entries etc) but they DO know the Guarantee. And the Guarantees are not changing, except for regular tweaking, fiffing & faffing.

they advertise a top prize in the grand prix normally

[tikay]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest. They give their money to Rob to hold and get ready to race. At no point does Rob own that money. He is an escrow holding Tikay and Tightend's money. After running half way round the block both distinguished Blonde's realise this is a dumb idea and decide to go for a pint instead, taking back their money. Should Rob be able to say nah lads you can't do that you gotta complete the race cos it's my money and I'm in charge of this bet.

I am still perplexed by the whole debate, in truth - why are we not examining the root cause of the problem? As several have said, if the payouts were flatter, there would be less excuse or need to deal. And I have stated that, imo, "90%" of Live Tourneys end in business. That MAY be on the high side, but I doubt by much. Ask yourself WHY so many Tourneys end in "business". There can only be one answer...... To fix a problem, start at the beginning.

Flattening the payout structure would mean that the headline first prize would not be quite so big.

DTD might be reluctant to sacrifice that.

I'm not sure that is true, Ralph.

ALL their advertising & Promos trumpet the Guarantee, but NEVER the "up top" sum. I have never once seen DTD advertise "£xx,xxx first prize".

People play Flight 1a of the Deepie or MC & don't even know what is up top (due to Flight 1b, re-entries etc) but they DO know the Guarantee. And the Guarantees are not changing, except for regular tweaking, fiffing & faffing.

they advertise a top prize in the grand prix normally

Ahh, my apologies then, I never realised that. So Ralphy Boy's argument was a fair point, then.

[Acidmouse]

As a low stake player if I sat. into a big event where no deals were allowed I would be well pissed off. For the likes of me its a once in a life pay day so deals in general are what I would look for over a flip for huge amounts.

[tikay]

As a low stake player if I sat. into a big event where no deals were allowed I would be well pissed off. For the likes of me its a once in a life pay day so deals in general are what I would look for over a flip for huge amounts.

Well it is you (us!) guys that most concern me - you - we, us - are the bread & butter of poker, the bottom of the food chain if you like. Rob's Club would die if he ignored us guys, (but worry not, he won't), it's not just about the big boys playing the Headline Tourneys. Really, more of the "regular" guys need to make their voice heard here.

Nor should you be ashamed of preferring to Deal - not everyone agrees that flipping for a five figure sum makes a lot of sense.

The top 2% of the players, the Big Boyz, it's different for them, & I understand why they want "no deals" & a peaky payout, & I have no quibble with it, but you pay the same entry fee as them, never forget that.

[George2Loose]

As a % how often do u think live comps are played out to their conclusion? Less than 1%?

[tikay]

As a % how often do u think live comps are played out to their conclusion? Less than 1%?

More than that. I'd say 10% reach a natural conclusion, to the bittter end, with abso no business, but it could be less. It matters not really - everyone with a brain knows that business is done in the vast majority of "regular" Tourneys. My belief is that we should ask ourselves why that is, not try to fix the secondary problem - fix the cause, not the effect.

It's possible there is a two-tier answer to this - the £500 & above Tourneys have a peakier, no deals thing, because dem boys like to gamble, & the "regular" Tourneys have a flatter structure, &/or business is permitted. If anyone wants to get arsey in the dealmaking, Rob's not been shy in the past at using his banstick, & he should wield it. It's not exactly difficult to argue without shouting & swearing.

[Karabiner]

Yeh that argument is poor Ralph.

So how comes there is no "flattening the payout" option in the voting?

[outragous76]

Yeh that argument is poor Ralph.

So how comes there is no "flattening the payout" option in the voting?

Surely thats what deals do?

[Jayb]

I voted for deal with % kept for first.

I think that's what happened heads up in the last grand prix, I think it was £15k each with £3k left for the winner, although when this was first suggested I believe the chip leader at the time turned it down only after the chips levelled themselves out was it agreed, I can imagine this happens quite allot when making deals.

I like the idea of the red and black card voting system so the players have the option to remain anonymous if they wish. Also I would say wait 30-40 minutes or a player has to be knocked out before a deal can be suggested after one is rejected

I seem to remember that one of the reasons for Rob deciding to start his own poker club was to do with him being targeted by the other players at a final table after he had decided against a deal...although don’t quote me on this I may have dreamt it.....lol. at the end of the day it is his club and as long as all the players know before buying into a comp what the rules are then no one can complain.

[Karabiner]

Yeh that argument is poor Ralph.

So how comes there is no "flattening the payout" option in the voting?

Surely thats what deals do?

Yes Guy, but I'm pretty sure that even after a deal the original top prize is the one that is published.

[JaffaCake]

At the next Blonde bash Tikay and Tightend have a £20 bet on who can run around the block quickest. They give their money to Rob to hold and get ready to race. At no point does Rob own that money. He is an escrow holding Tikay and Tightend's money. After running half way round the block both distinguished Blonde's realise this is a dumb idea and decide to go for a pint instead, taking back their money. Should Rob be able to say nah lads you can't do that you gotta complete the race cos it's my money and I'm in charge of this bet.

I am still perplexed by the whole debate, in truth - why are we not examining the root cause of the problem? As several have said, if the payouts were flatter, there would be less excuse or need to deal. And I have stated that, imo, "90%" of Live Tourneys end in business. That MAY be on the high side, but I doubt by much. Ask yourself WHY so many Tourneys end in "business". There can only be one answer...... To fix a problem, start at the beginning.

Flattening the payout structure would mean that the headline first prize would not be quite so big.

DTD might be reluctant to sacrifice that.

I'm not sure that is true, Ralph.

ALL their advertising & Promos trumpet the Guarantee, but NEVER the "up top" sum. I have never once seen DTD advertise "£xx,xxx first prize".

People play Flight 1a of the Deepie or MC & don't even know what is up top (due to Flight 1b, re-entries etc) but they DO know the Guarantee. And the Guarantees are not changing, except for regular tweaking, fiffing & faffing.

This old guy talks a lot of sense. Even if they do advertise £x for first once in a while, I don't think it's that important either from a players' point of view (ah, it's only £60k for first, not £70k, not playing now?) or the club's, the lower figure to advertise won't be much lower and will still be impressive.
I voted for the deals with a % left, I rarely do deals and will probably still not do them, the option is there and I'll probably use my right to say no unless it's ridic in my favour, but I think no deals is unenforcable anyway

[MLHMLH]

I think looking at flattening the payouts is a worthy idea.  In last weekend's deepstack (£560 buy in) the minimum payout was £750, which frankly is ridiculous.  It's simply not worth it.  IMHO the minimum payout should be around double the buy-in (excluding the fee) therefore in this case £1000.  If you think about the effort and time a player has to put in during the deepstack to then finish with a minimum cash, it's simply not worth your time.

[Nibbles]

Since a decent place opened in Derby, I've not actually been over to DTD since, but I voted to allow deals on the basis that, once the money is in the prize pool, its my money (and that of the other players). How we chop it up is down to us (once there are a small enough number of us for that to be either manageable or desirable).

That said, its Rob's club and he's free to do whatever he wants so long as everyone's clear before entering.

Tikay has hit the nail on the head though by pointing out that deals solve the symptom, not the problem.