DEAL OR NO DEAL

[bullitpete]

As  the majority of tournaments I play are online I think there is nothing more perfect than a 'deals allowed' final table, say on party or stars. If this anonymous deal 'yes or no' voting system can somehow be translated to DTD's final table it would be perfect imo. This way the tournament would only be stopped for players to discuss a deal when all players are ready and willing. Also if anonymous then intimidation cannot take place and if so called loud aggressive personalities wish to flush out the 'non dealers' then a ten minute warning should be given.
If during the flagship tournaments where the final table is live streamed maybe DTD could announce prior that deals are permitted but so much has to be put aside for champion, so at least it is played out to conclusion.

Pete Haslam

[PizzicatoXev]

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?

Fwiw I would probably commit to a no deal before a final table starts 95% of the time

[tonytats]

Prime example last weekend tenth 2 k ish ? 1 st place 61 k obviously if u get that far you hope to win it but a bit of bad luck could see u with only 2 k for 2 long days grind personally I would like to lock something more up and leave a reasonable amount to still play for
But who deceides? The club or the players ?
There is no easy answer maybe deal when only 5 remain and leave a good amount for eventual winner ?

[aaron1867]

Tony, the problem is that you can never leave a decent amount for the winner. Deals are usually co-ordinated by chopping up regarding stacks and what's left in the PP, so you can hardly leave much aside for the eventual winner really. If someone agrees to take £50k on a deal, then it's really silly to be leaving 2-3k for the winner tbh.

As for talk to TD before final table to tell if you want a deal or not is pretty silly imo. People's opinions on dealing will change throughout the FT regarding chipstack and remains of PP. An example being at the start of FT the CL may not want a deal for obvious reason, but then with 5 left he is no longer CL and perhaps will want a deal.

The only way I think to stop anomosity is to give each other cards when a deal has been 'set' and if you want to deal chuck a black card in, if not throw the red one in, all face down of course, so you don't know has agreed and who hasn't.

I just want to add to this, because I have sometimes been one to decline deals and I am only 21 years old. I decline them for very good reason, but because I am 21, I can often be patronised or bullied into dealing and so on. I play the 20r and 50r in Sheffield and can sometimes be hot and miss towards a deal or not.

[FUN4FRASER]

Play it Out !

In the long run...The Better and most Ballsy Players will Win and they will deserve it !

Why Isnt that Fair ?

If that is "fair", why do almost all Tourneys end in business?

There can be a lot of reasons why there is business done Tony...However this doesnt detract from the fact by playing the tournament to a natural conclusion...You get a fair & more "pure" result

I could not agree with you more, Fraser. But you never answered my question, which was a serious one. Who are all these anonymous people that keep doing deals & chopping it up, & why? Answer that, & you have solved the problem.

Sorry for the late reply Tony but in the mean time Guy has answered the reason some people deal almost perfectly

This...

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.  
 

[gatso]

Prime example last weekend tenth 2 k ish ? 1 st place 61 k obviously if u get that far you hope to win it but a bit of bad luck could see u with only 2 k for 2 long days grind personally I would like to lock something more up and leave a reasonable amount to still play for
But who deceides? The club or the players ?
There is no easy answer maybe deal when only 5 remain and leave a good amount for eventual winner ?

if someone is worried about being coolered in 10th spot for £2k then the answer cannot be to deal with 5 left because they will already have been out for ages

[tikay]

Play it Out !

In the long run...The Better and most Ballsy Players will Win and they will deserve it !

Why Isnt that Fair ?

If that is "fair", why do almost all Tourneys end in business?

There can be a lot of reasons why there is business done Tony...However this doesnt detract from the fact by playing the tournament to a natural conclusion...You get a fair & more "pure" result

I could not agree with you more, Fraser. But you never answered my question, which was a serious one. Who are all these anonymous people that keep doing deals & chopping it up, & why? Answer that, & you have solved the problem.

Sorry for the late reply Tony but in the mean time Guy has answered the reason some people deal almost perfectly

This...

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. 
 

This is hard work! It seems to be simple logic to me.

You have established WHY people want to deal.

You have established that players DO want to Deal.

You have established that the majority of players DO want to deal, & taken Guy's line as gospel for the moment, that the reasons include "fear of money jumps".....

So..........

[outragous76]

FWIW - i rarely deal and have often been chastised (not a dtd) for not doing so

BUT, there are times when I want the option to be able to strike a deal, and that is why I didnt vote for no deals.

I strongly believe that if any ONE player wants to play it out, then thats what should occur. In theory, this should lead to most tourneys playing out (assuming a good spread of chip counts). However given this isnt the case, it sugests that many players want to even out the variance.

Most players already know when they make a final who will and wont deal, is this is what gives people an edge in making the deal. I am strongly against chip count/icm only deal making for the reasons set out by Mr keys. Making a deal is just as skillful as playing the game, and often the most skillful deal makers are the better players. I dont like the "we need to protect the players" line at all. If someone is so frightened of the pay jumps that they are prepared to strike a terrible deal, then so be it.

[tikay]

FWIW - i rarely deal and have often been chastised (not a dtd) for not doing so

BUT, there are times when I want the option to be able to strike a deal, and that is why I didnt vote for no deals.

I strongly believe that if any ONE player wants to play it out, then thats what should occur. In theory, this should lead to most tourneys playing out (assuming a good spread of chip counts). However given this isnt the case, it sugests that many players want to even out the variance. Most players already know when they make a final who will and wont deal, is this is what gives people an edge in making the deal. I am strongly against chip count/icm only deal making for the reasons set out by Mr keys. Making a deal is just as skillful as playing the game, and often the most skillful deal makers are the better players. I dont like the "we need to protect the players" line at all. If someone is so frightened of the pay jumps that they are prepared to strike a terrible deal, then so be it.

Most of that, especially the italicised part.

I totally respect the "no-deals" camp, but it is out of touch with reality in the current circumstances, especially the way the prize pool is structured.

It is - in my experience - also always been true that if there is a SINGLE dissenter at the Final, opposed to doing a deal, then no deal is done.

And yet 80% of FT's end in business.

We must remember, too, that if Deals remain permitted, they can STILL be vetoed by a single player, so the "no Deals" camp have a safety parachute, in that not one of them will ever have to do a Deal, because Deals have to be agreed by every player.

[FUN4FRASER]

Play it Out !

In the long run...The Better and most Ballsy Players will Win and they will deserve it !

Why Isnt that Fair ?

all  was  ,
If that is "fair", why do almost all Tourneys end in business?

There can be a lot of reasons why there is business done Tony...However this doesnt detract from the fact by playing the tournament to a natural conclusion...You get a fair & more "pure" result

I could not agree with you more, Fraser. But you never answered my question, which was a serious one. Who are all these anonymous people that keep doing deals & chopping it up, & why? Answer that, & you have solved the problem.

Sorry for the late reply Tony but in the mean time Guy has answered the reason some people deal almost perfectly

This...

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. 
 

This is hard work! It seems to be simple logic to me.

You have established WHY people want to deal.

You have established that players DO want to Deal.

You have established that the majority of players DO want to deal, & taken Guy's line as gospel for the moment, that the reasons include "fear of money jumps".....

So..........

Not hard work really Tony...just arguments for and against

In the main...I am for no deals...and all I said was that Guy has offered good reasons why "some" people will choose to deal which I totally agree with .

[david3103]

If I owned Dusk Till Dawn ...

When all players want to deal I'd ask them all to write down the amount of the available prize pool that they would accept if the tournament were to end right now. No discussion, no conferring.

If the totals equate to less than the prize pool then the balance would be distributed in proportion

If the totals equate to more than the prize pool tell them not to be so optimistic and give them a second go, with the information as to how much over the top they've been. If it's still over the prize pool then the tournament continues - no ifs, no buts.

Repeat,  if all players wish it, at the end of each level or after each exit.

This allows those who don't want to deal to price their objections into the process. If you have a chip lead and a perceived edge, you simply write down the amount that reflects the prize for winning overall. Or a bit more.

[robyong]

Hi

We are almost "there" with the details/smallprint of the policy, just want to see what other views come in over next few days from our members after we sent an email out yesterday, I think by Monday we will release this to our members so everyone has plenty of notice before March 1st, which I think is important and fair. Simon and myself have a couple of small details we need to debate and come to an agreement on. What I can say is there will be significant radical changes to what we currently do now.

Cheers Rob

[AndrewT]

The dippy tart on today totally mangled it - she should have snap accepted the banker's offer of £16,200 but got greedy.

[AndrewT]

Oh wait, it's not that thread.

[Moskvich]

FWIW - i rarely deal and have often been chastised (not a dtd) for not doing so

BUT, there are times when I want the option to be able to strike a deal, and that is why I didnt vote for no deals.

I strongly believe that if any ONE player wants to play it out, then thats what should occur. In theory, this should lead to most tourneys playing out (assuming a good spread of chip counts). However given this isnt the case, it sugests that many players want to even out the variance. Most players already know when they make a final who will and wont deal, is this is what gives people an edge in making the deal. I am strongly against chip count/icm only deal making for the reasons set out by Mr keys. Making a deal is just as skillful as playing the game, and often the most skillful deal makers are the better players. I dont like the "we need to protect the players" line at all. If someone is so frightened of the pay jumps that they are prepared to strike a terrible deal, then so be it.

Most of that, especially the italicised part.

I totally respect the "no-deals" camp, but it is out of touch with reality in the current circumstances, especially the way the prize pool is structured.

It is - in my experience - also always been true that if there is a SINGLE dissenter at the Final, opposed to doing a deal, then no deal is done.

And yet 80% of FT's end in business.

We must remember, too, that if Deals remain permitted, they can STILL be vetoed by a single player, so the "no Deals" camp have a safety parachute, in that not one of them will ever have to do a Deal, because Deals have to be agreed by every player.

Yes, this seems key to me. A "no deals" rule only ever comes into effect when everyone left wants to do a deal (since as you say, if there's always someone who wants to reject a deal, then no deal gets done anyway).

In DTD's position, I don't think I'd be comfortable introducing a rule that is necessarily contrary to what all the players wanted. That really doesn't seem to make any sense.

Obviously there are problems with the deal-making process, so better to address those problems. The red card/black card thing seems like it's helpful, and restrictions on the deals that can be done could be useful too. Maybe just having one alternative, flatter, payout structure that the remaining players can vote for, in place of the original. Reduces variance (and wasted time and arguments) if that's what the players want, and ensures the tournament is played to a finish, if that's what DTD wants.