DEAL OR NO DEAL

[thediceman]

With DTD having invested in streaming the final tables it's preferred resolution is surely to have the final table play out to winner. A stream is not going to gain many viewers if it typically ends in a five/six way deal every comp. So whilst I prefer having deals I would understand if DTD looked for an option that ensured the game was played to ensure a winner. In that case I would prefer chipcounts with amount held back for the win/2nd rather than pure no deals unless a flatter structure was in place.

[DEVIL]

Deals should be allowed.  It's similar to the TV game show in that the more money involved the greater tendancy a deal would be struck, so introducing a rule for different buy ins would not seem fair to me.

The things that I dislike are
when a solitary player who says "No Deal" gets slated and treated like a leper
deals slow the game down and change the dynamic of the way the final table is played, if you introduce a rule where players can only negotiate a deal when a player is eliminated or when the blinds go up the flow of the game would be much better.  Any other time than when the negotiations are allowed to take place deals cannot be discussed at the table or a 3 hand penalty is applied, (this would stop people saying will you do a deal at the next break).

 

[gatso]

if you introduce a rule where players can only negotiate a deal when a player is eliminated or when the blinds go up the flow of the game would be much better.  Any other time than when the negotiations are allowed to take place deals cannot be discussed at the table or a 3 hand penalty is applied, (this would stop people saying will you do a deal at the next break).

disagree with this, it's situation dependent. for example blinds go up 4 handed but you have a huge chip leader who says he isn't willing to deal at that point with the way the stacks are, the other 3 want to deal. now the cl takes 2 big hits straight away and the stacks are pretty much even leaving you with all 4 players who want to deal but now they're not allowed to, they have to wait 55 minutes for the blinds to go up again by which point the stacks have changed again and the new chip leader doesn't want to deal

if it's obvious that everyone at the table wants to deal then let them

[MANTIS01]

One of my mates does a lot of sports betting. He is at his happiest when he's got money on both teams in a game and wins no matter what the result. I don't know why he puts money on the other team thou, I mean how will he ever learn to 'go for the win' when betting? All this ironing out variance is for cowards. Really bookies should introduce rules to stop their customers backing both sides in a game because this way the result would be more 'pure'.

[MLHMLH]

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

I'm intrigued to know why you consider a vote for "No Deals - except chip count" to be a vote for No Deals? 

[DEVIL]

The main thing I'd change which would reduce the number of deals is change the prize structure.  
I finished in the top 3% in the UKIPT (23rd out of 1058) and received £2645 (the entry was £560), this is a 470% return on my money.
If I finished 3rd (out of 120) in last weekends £268 buy in I would have got £4030, this is a 1500% return on my money.

1st place should be capped to X times the buy in, let's say 100 times the buy in. Gareth Walker would have only received £50k instead of £109k but the rest of the players in the money get a reasonable pay day.

The bigger the tournament the greater the variance.  There's only 1 event I would not have capped prize structure and that's the WSOP main event.

If i wanted to play a lottery I'd buy a ticket for the euro millions.

[George2Loose]

The main thing I'd change which would reduce the number of deals is change the prize structure.  
I finished in the top 3% in the UKIPT (23rd out of 1058) and received £2645 (the entry was £560), this is a 470% return on my money.
If I finished 3rd (out of 120) in last weekends £268 buy in I would have got £4030, this is a 1500% return on my money.

1st place should be capped to X times the buy in, let's say 100 times the buy in. Gareth Walker would have only received £50k instead of £109k but the rest of the players in the money get a reasonable pay day.

The bigger the tournament the greater the variance.  There's only 1 event I would not have capped prize structure and that's the WSOP main event.

If i wanted to play a lottery I'd buy a ticket for the euro millions.

Let's just pay the top 90% of the field. That way we're all winners

[Ironside]

The main thing I'd change which would reduce the number of deals is change the prize structure. 
I finished in the top 3% in the UKIPT (23rd out of 1058) and received £2645 (the entry was £560), this is a 470% return on my money.
If I finished 3rd (out of 120) in last weekends £268 buy in I would have got £4030, this is a 1500% return on my money.

1st place should be capped to X times the buy in, let's say 100 times the buy in. Gareth Walker would have only received £50k instead of £109k but the rest of the players in the money get a reasonable pay day.

The bigger the tournament the greater the variance.  There's only 1 event I would not have capped prize structure and that's the WSOP main event.

If i wanted to play a lottery I'd buy a ticket for the euro millions.

Let's just pay the top 90% of the field. That way we're all winners

can you make it 95% so I can get paid some times

[cambridgealex]

The main thing I'd change which would reduce the number of deals is change the prize structure. 
I finished in the top 3% in the UKIPT (23rd out of 1058) and received £2645 (the entry was £560), this is a 470% return on my money.
If I finished 3rd (out of 120) in last weekends £268 buy in I would have got £4030, this is a 1500% return on my money.

1st place should be capped to X times the buy in, let's say 100 times the buy in. Gareth Walker would have only received £50k instead of £109k but the rest of the players in the money get a reasonable pay day.

The bigger the tournament the greater the variance.  There's only 1 event I would not have capped prize structure and that's the WSOP main event.

If i wanted to play a lottery I'd buy a ticket for the euro millions.

Let's just pay the top 90% of the field. That way we're all winners

can you make it 95% so I can get paid some times

Or 90% of the prize pool goes to those that mincash so George is happy.

[George2Loose]

The main thing I'd change which would reduce the number of deals is change the prize structure. 
I finished in the top 3% in the UKIPT (23rd out of 1058) and received £2645 (the entry was £560), this is a 470% return on my money.
If I finished 3rd (out of 120) in last weekends £268 buy in I would have got £4030, this is a 1500% return on my money.

1st place should be capped to X times the buy in, let's say 100 times the buy in. Gareth Walker would have only received £50k instead of £109k but the rest of the players in the money get a reasonable pay day.

The bigger the tournament the greater the variance.  There's only 1 event I would not have capped prize structure and that's the WSOP main event.

If i wanted to play a lottery I'd buy a ticket for the euro millions.

Let's just pay the top 90% of the field. That way we're all winners

can you make it 95% so I can get paid some times

Or 90% of the prize pool goes to those that mincash so George is happy.

Actually why the fuck didn't I think of that?

[DEVIL]

George2Loose: Let's just pay the top 90% of the field. That way we're all winners

The way I'm playing at the moment that's probably a good idea   

[TopTen]

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

I'm intrigued to know why you consider a vote for "No Deals - except chip count" to be a vote for No Deals? 

^^^^^Already said this myself^^^^^

And to echo somebody else's previous comment. . . . . . . The vote shows that 78% of voters want some kind of choice.

[GMan]

2 situations i would like to add into my futile poker experiences.

Firstly approx 6-7 years ago played my first big event for me somehow made the final table, 1st prize 28k, was 4th with 4 left in chips but literally very few bbs between all four stacks , im thinking mine for the taking as nothing to loose but if a deal was proposed i would have listened and acted accordingly if i wanted to deal , knew none of the players on the table, a break came up. Upon return im all pre on the button somehow all 3 players call then checked down to river and q 5 wins....

Im like stunned confused, not yet sunk in that 3 players have just colluded and knocked me out, first time id experienced this and lesson learned for future events and situations at tables to watch out for.

Secondly i know of a player who is heads up in a big event but needs to win it due to league points which would lead to that player been giving more opportunities, sponsership, media coverage, staking etc etc, to be fair he is chip leader but again during break approaches second player and offers him a deal with cash from his pocket, but the player declines as the player doesnt think the deal is in his favour which he was correct and they carry on and the player needing the win, wins by default anyway.

I know of no casino, cardroom being able to stop underhanded play so why not let deals by propsed by the players if they so seem fit, too many times have i seen local players gang up on short stacks call the all in of the short stacked opponets check it down then go outside and chop it up.

None of these players who have damaged the credibilty of the game in its principals have ever been caught or peanalised in any way as their seems to be no authourity outside a casino-cardroom to stop or prove any alegations made by a poker player, all authorty is in house, yes cheats have been caught and barred but this is neglible as rare and far between.

The scandals of past and recent online poker sites is again proof and the big players walk away and play somewhere else with our money.

Unfortunatley whatever decision is made over this it cant be enforced off the table , so i beleive if players at the time and place on a final table can make an amicable deal of some sort and were all happy let us make that decision and keep coming back to your establishments to play.

What needs to be done internationally is a set of rules or a governing body produced so the basic game of poker plays the same in all venues and no venue give a different ruling over the same hand scenario... baffling how this happens, yes your decsisons will be final but that dont make you right.

[Azza]

I played the regular £50 last night and was basically forced in to a deal I didn't want to do! I was chip leader but wasn't really allowed to have in say in the deal it was £678 each a straight chop between the 7, as I didn't think this was fair I refused and got called all names under the sun!

Ok I only ended up with £200 due to me tilting as the table got to me because I'm not a regular!

Also one thing I would like to add the missus was watching a bloke standing behind me telling a player on the table cards I had folded as he could see them! I didn't even realise there was someone behind me till I was knocked out and she told me!

I love playing DTD but last night has really got to me.

[tikay]

I played the regular £50 last night and was basically forced in to a deal I didn't want to do! I was chip leader but wasn't really allowed to have in say in the deal it was £678 each a straight chop between the 7, as I didn't think this was fair I refused and got called all names under the sun!

Ok I only ended up with £200 due to me tilting as the table got to me because I'm not a regular!

Also one thing I would like to add the missus was watching a bloke standing behind me telling a player on the table cards I had folded as he could see them! I didn't even realise there was someone behind me till I was knocked out and she told me!

I love playing DTD but last night has really got to me.

If someone is sufficiently dumb or ill-mannered enough to stand right behind you when you are playing, you should ALWAYS either ask them, politely, to step away, or ask the Dealer to ask them. They have no right to stand there.