DEAL OR NO DEAL

[MPOWER]

If DTD was my club

I'd want to get the publicity from having a big winner not much big news 5 players chopping at the business end.

If I was in an overlay situation of £25k for a £250k Guarantee. I'd pay out the true prize pool. And re-adjust the prize money.
The only players it would effect are those who are left in. everyone else is out!

I'd keep my overlay money. The players want to change the payout why should I lose the chance of making the poker press
and still pay for it.
 
If nobody deals I'd take it on the chin. Knowing matey who takes the top prize has a good chance
making the poker news. So at least my overlay cash has got me some publicity.  

If the guarantee is met then I would allow deals I've not had an overlay and got maximum juice. How to allow deals that's down to Trumper
I'm just the owner.
 
Regards

M
  

[Doobs]

I'd prefer no deals at all to chip count + percentage for the leader.  

Forcing them to take a terrible deal or no deal grates more than feeding the newbies to the sharks.

These are the perils of democracy and poorly worded market research.

[MTT DESTROYER]

This vote shows that you will not be able to please everyone no matter what you do, so just do what you think is best Rob, it's a no win situation.

People will adjust to whatever you decide and it will be forgotten in a couple of months time

[MPOWER]

This vote shows that you will not be able to please everyone no matter what you do, so just do what you think is best Rob, it's a no win situation.

People will adjust to whatever you decide and it will be forgotten in a couple of months time

 

The number of votes is a micro compared to the actual number of members of DTD.

Regards

M

[TopTen]

Lets put the vote in perspective. . . . . . .

If it was just a straight forward question of deal or no deal, its clear that the overwhelming winner would be "deal" but because the question as been diluted down due to 5 options being available, its not that clear cut.

[aaron1867]

Lets put the vote in perspective. . . . . . .

If it was just a straight forward question of deal or no deal, its clear that the overwhelming winner would be "deal" but because the question as been diluted down due to 5 options being available, its not that clear cut.

It's not an overwhelming winner at all.

[robyong]

These are the results so farm not overwhelming or conclusive, nor is 464 votes a huge sample of our 50,000 members (<1%), but the comments have been helpful:

OPTIONS                            FACEBOOK   BLONDEPOKER    ALL   VOTES   %

NO DEALS                             53            47                    100                  22%
NO DEALS - EXCEPT £15 & £50   16            18                     34                  7%
NO DEALS - EXCEPT CHIP COUNT   37            46                     83                 18%

NO DEALS                          106          111                     217                  47%

DEALS - % 1ST PLACE             67            80                    147                  32%
DEALS - PLAYERS DECIDE            61            39                    100                  22%

DEALS                                   128            119                247                  53%

TOTALS                                 234            230                464              100%

Cheers Rob

[TopTen]

Surely the "no deal except chip count" as to be independent (at least, if not in favour of the deal brigade)

I for one, (being in favour of doing deals) would vote for this option if the only other option was no deals. I dont think I would be the only one too!!!

IMO, 2 to 1 in favour of deals.

[aaron1867]

Surely the "no deal except chip count" as to be independent (at least, if not in favour of the deal brigade)

I for one, (being in favour of doing deals) would vote for this option if the only other option was no deals. I dont think I would be the only one too!!!

IMO, 2 to 1 in favour of deals.

Do you know how to add up Ken?

[TopTen]

Surely the "no deal except chip count" as to be independent (at least, if not in favour of the deal brigade)

I for one, (being in favour of doing deals) would vote for this option if the only other option was no deals. I dont think I would be the only one too!!!

IMO, 2 to 1 in favour of deals.

Do you know how to add up Ken?

If it was just a straight forward question of a "yes or no" then a minimum of 2 to 1 in favour of deals.

[FallenAngelAlex]

hi rob thanks for the update on how the polls are doing. As someone who has a whole community of cabin crew to keep happy and who regularly uses the voting method i can completely understand how a clear cut result would be useful but the chances of it happening are minimal. You should bear in mind that whilst you have had a low response rate its the people that have responded that truely care about what happens so i wouldnt even worry about the people that have not voted. They have had their chance to make their voices heard and if they havent taken part in the vote then how can they possibly argue the outcome? Secondly your never going to please everyone so you would be best placed to go with the majority vote and then review it in say six months to see if it is working. Even though there will be a few cross faces about the decision should they question you about it you have the back up of the fact they had the chance to vote and you went with the majority. For the record i have voted but its not for the one that is currently winning the race however i will completely accept the outcome as the decision made and understand the reasons why. Rant over lol!

[pokerchips118k]

I would like to see deals done on % to winner, my reason for this is i have always felt the % to the winner is too high and should be shared out a little better between final table players.

[tonytats]

I would also like to see/ play a bounty shootout tournament mr. Young

[MANTIS01]

What the pole shows beyond doubt is the vast majority of players want options. Over three quarters of the people surveyed want to have at least some choices available when they reach the ft. The original no deals at all idea appealed to just 22% of players so it is clearly an unpopular concept.

So it's a fact we want choice, and at the moment under the traditional system there is the most choice. Every option is available to us as players and you can do exactly what you want to do. You can deal if you want to deal or you can play on if you want to play on. It's kinda inconsistent if people do want choice to advocate moving to a system where there is less choice. Or to advocate a system that only has their own preferred choice available. I don't know why players feel the need to put those restrictions on their choices or what benefits those restrictions bring. The reason given so far is that another player could get cross.

[Jon MW]

What the pole shows beyond doubt is the vast majority of players want options. Over three quarters of the people surveyed want to have at least some choices available when they reach the ft. The original no deals at all idea appealed to just 22% of players so it is clearly an unpopular concept.

...

And the same proportion of people think that just leaving it to the players to decide with no restrictions is the best approach.

There are problems with having no deals at all and problems with unrestricted deal making - whatever is chosen will annoy some group of people but it seems clear that somewhere in between the two extremes is what's called for.