DEAL OR NO DEAL

[GreekStein]

i voted, deal (players decide) its a good skill being able to gauge how much you can get from the oppos. Always been this way in Poker and i dont see why it should change. I mean you can leave 2k up top but no-one will really care for it, and obv changes the whole dynamic. Also peoples games would improve if there was a no deal policy, and the games are hard enough as it is

this is a really good post imo - agree with it all.

[Knottyhunk]

Sorry for ignorance, if some one already expressed similar opinion in this 8 page long  thread as I have read  only 1st and last page,

My suggestions - I have voted for no deal,

 if eventually  DTD allows deal ,  either on chip count or  keeping money away for 1st place, I may suggest,  something on the line of only after half of final table vanished ( just to make sure some game will be played on final table before deal idea is even introduced)  and deal voting will be done by tournament director at the beginning of every new level, through closed method and penalty for players asking each other whether they would like to enter a deal or not!! -  asking each other players among themselves on entering deal or not , - itself causes enormous bias and group creation!!  Solely my opinion, ignore if  you do not agree..

[MC]

Very good debate this, enjoying reading the feedback.

Just be be clear, I define a "deal" as when the players agree and negotiate the details for each of them of the prize pool distribution, when we had 'no deals except chip count' I didn't consider players were dealing, it was just 2 different fixed payout options the players remaining had to choose from.

We have emailed out every single club member this evening to have their say, either on the Facebook vote Or the blonde vote.

I agree the details of this policy are important, as I beleive it will be copied, therefore have implications in other venues, so I'm no knee jerking here, I'm really making sure we get every bit of feedback possible.

What I can and will commit to now, is that players will not be 'deal making' ie negotiating a flexible payout structure between eachother, at DTD from 1st march. I also wouldn't expect 3 mates on our 15 comp to play till 6am either, and then chop it up anyway, it all about the rules that we put in place which I will make a final decision on when I feel I have enough information. I'm very pleased with the response so far, on Facebook and blondepoker.

Trust me, every comment on here and Facebook is being printed off and read and filed, whatever the final details are on the new policy, everyone will have contributed, but ultiimatley, I have to make a clear decision with Simon and whatever we do, it looks like we are going 50% are going to disagree, but more will disagree if we keep things the same, from both votes, that is crystal clear, as PLAYERS DECIDE BETWEEN EACHOTHER is not very popular so far.

As for this escrow argument, I firmly beleive when we guarantee the prize pool in our licensed venue and publish the rules, legally have a duty of care to our customers etc etc that argument doesn't hold water. As a player, I would personally have no problem abiding by the rules if the venue gte's the prize, but this in my personally opinion.

Simon Trumper likes to walk round the house in high heels and a nighty

lolz

[bobAlike]

Flattening the structure pah, you may as well buy some grey slacks and settle down to your life of mediocrity.

It may be greed or ambition, but whenever I play a tournament I play in the belief that I can take it down with my eyes well and truly focussed on that top prize. I'm not aiming to come second or third. By flattening the structure it's like saying I'll play but I don't expect to win.

Where's the fighting spirit??

I don't know, but the facts suggest that far & away most Tourneys end in "business". Why do you think that is so?

Note, I'm really (personally) not fussed one iota what the decision is, honestly, I'm not. But we cannot ignore the historical facts. Nobody forces players to chop it up - but more often than not, they do.

In a nutshell - it's easier to do a deal

[outragous76]

One thing which hasnt been addressed (i dont think), is why people deal, and there are numerous reasons:

1. Fear of money jumps
2. Cant be bothered to play another 1-2 hours as they have work the next day
3. Playing with someone they like
4. They believe that they can negotiate a good deal from a good/bad chips position (good players)
5. People feel outclassed and believe that a deal is likely to net a good/better result than hoping to get lucky (inexperienced players)


Im sure there are more, but the above shows 5 very different reasons why people MIGHT want to deal. Having deal veto's stops peoples ability to strike a deal for the right/wrong reasons. In my time I have dealt for all of the above reasons.

[SuuPRlim]

If I owned DTD I would say this...

Deals will not be authorized by DTD, however if players wish to discuss a different payout to the official one we will allow a 5minute pause on the clock ONLY IF EVERYONE AT THE TABLE REQUEST's IT. Deals done are the responsibility of the players and not DTD, however we reserve the right to issue penalty's to anyone who is considered to be acting in any way that is threatening or intimidating.

I think deals are fine, If I think my equity in a comp is £50k and I think I can deal for £57.5k I'm loving life, like trigg says it's a skill in itself.

However if I owned DTD I'd not want to be officially involved in deals as it would be tilting for me, but if players wanna look at ICM or chip distribution then I'd do that for them as part of the service, but comps need to be played out and the official payouts/finishing positions stand.

[bobAlike]

If deals are to be allowed, why not get the TD to ask each player, in confidence, before the FT starts if they are prepared to deal if asked. If anyone says no then TD should announce before FT starts that no deals shall be discussed as 1 or more players have chosen not to deal. If players persist in trying to find out who said no then a penalty could be given.

I'm still in the no deals camp BTW.

[MLHMLH]

If deals are to be allowed, why not get the TD to ask each player, in confidence, before the FT starts if they are prepared to deal if asked. If anyone says no then TD should announce before FT starts that no deals shall be discussed as 1 or more players have chosen not to deal. If players persist in trying to find out who said no then a penalty could be given.

I'm still in the no deals camp BTW.

I personally don't understand why someone would commit to an outright no at the beginning of a final table.  Deals are entirely situation dependent at any given time and are influenced as the FT progresses due to blind increases, players going out, chip movement etc.  Would even the best of players who felt they had a huge skill edge over their opponent want to take a flip for £20k when each player had 10 big blinds?

[gatso]

Very good debate this, enjoying reading the feedback.

Just be be clear, I define a "deal" as when the players agree and negotiate the details for each of them of the prize pool distribution, when we had 'no deals except chip count' I didn't consider players were dealing, it was just 2 different fixed payout options the players remaining had to choose from.

We have emailed out every single club member this evening to have their say, either on the Facebook vote Or the blonde vote.

I agree the details of this policy are important, as I beleive it will be copied, therefore have implications in other venues, so I'm no knee jerking here, I'm really making sure we get every bit of feedback possible.

What I can and will commit to now, is that players will not be 'deal making' ie negotiating a flexible payout structure between eachother, at DTD from 1st march. I also wouldn't expect 3 mates on our 15 comp to play till 6am either, and then chop it up anyway, it all about the rules that we put in place which I will make a final decision on when I feel I have enough information. I'm very pleased with the response so far, on Facebook and blondepoker.

Trust me, every comment on here and Facebook is being printed off and read and filed, whatever the final details are on the new policy, everyone will have contributed, but ultiimatley, I have to make a clear decision with Simon and whatever we do, it looks like we are going 50% are going to disagree, but more will disagree if we keep things the same, from both votes, that is crystal clear, as PLAYERS DECIDE BETWEEN EACHOTHER is not very popular so far.

As for this escrow argument, I firmly beleive when we guarantee the prize pool in our licensed venue and publish the rules, legally have a duty of care to our customers etc etc that argument doesn't hold water. As a player, I would personally have no problem abiding by the rules if the venue gte's the prize, but this in my personally opinion.

Simon Trumper likes to walk round the house in high heels and a nighty

lolz

mr herbert should probably retire from the forum now as it's unlikely he will ever make a better post

[Cf]

If I owned DTD I would say this...

Deals will not be authorized by DTD, however if players wish to discuss a different payout to the official one we will allow a 5minute pause on the clock ONLY IF EVERYONE AT THE TABLE REQUEST's IT. Deals done are the responsibility of the players and not DTD, however we reserve the right to issue penalty's to anyone who is considered to be acting in any way that is threatening or intimidating.

I think deals are fine, If I think my equity in a comp is £50k and I think I can deal for £57.5k I'm loving life, like trigg says it's a skill in itself.

However if I owned DTD I'd not want to be officially involved in deals as it would be tilting for me, but if players wanna look at ICM or chip distribution then I'd do that for them as part of the service, but comps need to be played out and the official payouts/finishing positions stand.

Disagree with this. I think it's much better when the venue acknowledges the deal and pays out accordingly. Saves a lot of hassle and potential grimming.

From Guy's list my main reason for dealing is number 2. Especially if it's a cheap tournament i'm usually just fed up and want to go to bed. Which is what i'm going to do right now actually

[smashedagain]

Very good debate this, enjoying reading the feedback.

Just be be clear, I define a "deal" as when the players agree and negotiate the details for each of them of the prize pool distribution, when we had 'no deals except chip count' I didn't consider players were dealing, it was just 2 different fixed payout options the players remaining had to choose from.

We have emailed out every single club member this evening to have their say, either on the Facebook vote Or the blonde vote.

I agree the details of this policy are important, as I beleive it will be copied, therefore have implications in other venues, so I'm no knee jerking here, I'm really making sure we get every bit of feedback possible.

What I can and will commit to now, is that players will not be 'deal making' ie negotiating a flexible payout structure between eachother, at DTD from 1st march. I also wouldn't expect 3 mates on our 15 comp to play till 6am either, and then chop it up anyway, it all about the rules that we put in place which I will make a final decision on when I feel I have enough information. I'm very pleased with the response so far, on Facebook and blondepoker.

Trust me, every comment on here and Facebook is being printed off and read and filed, whatever the final details are on the new policy, everyone will have contributed, but ultiimatley, I have to make a clear decision with Simon and whatever we do, it looks like we are going 50% are going to disagree, but more will disagree if we keep things the same, from both votes, that is crystal clear, as PLAYERS DECIDE BETWEEN EACHOTHER is not very popular so far.

As for this escrow argument, I firmly beleive when we guarantee the prize pool in our licensed venue and publish the rules, legally have a duty of care to our customers etc etc that argument doesn't hold water. As a player, I would personally have no problem abiding by the rules if the venue gte's the prize, but this in my personally opinion.

Simon Trumper likes to walk round the house in high heels and a nighty

lolz

mr herbert should probably retire from the forum now as it's unlikely he will ever make a better post

Or be allowed back in at Dtd

[dreenie]

If i owned DTD poker club, my policy woud be deals with a percentage for the outright winner. Reason being, is I feel that the gtee's are generous and to final table one of the decent tournaments would be a life changing sum of money to a lot of people. However I still feel that flagship events should have an outright winner for the publicity of the club and the prestige of the tournament. I feel this way, it would keep all concerned happy.

[typhoon13]

No deals, and i don't give a shit who moans at me.

Playing poker.

If you want a deal buy a corner shop.

[cambridgealex]

If i owned DTD poker club, my policy woud be deals with a percentage for the outright winner. Reason being, is I feel that the gtee's are generous and to final table one of the decent tournaments would be a life changing sum of money to a lot of people. However I still feel that flagship events should have an outright winner for the publicity of the club and the prestige of the tournament. I feel this way, it would keep all concerned happy.

I agree with this. I think this should only apply to the flagship events however and the nightly comps should be allowed deals but be policed better to avoid intimidation and collusion issues.

[aaron1867]

Might be something to add onto this discussion that there are perhaps people voting on this poll that have perhaps never been to DTD or played the deepstacks, so even though this poll might seem reasonable enough, we still might not be getting a reasonable and realistic reply.

Also, like people have said there can always be anomosity when one person doesn't agree to the deal, so I would really like to see a way in which a person can decline the deal in privacy, because the whole game and people's attitude can change when one person is know to have declined the deal.