Grosvenor Grand Challenge at Luton MAIN EVENT DAY 2

[12barblues]

Thanks for the updates guys 'n gals.  Much appreciated.

[RobS]

Nice updates, but it's completely farcical that after the amount of effort and man (and woman) hours Blonde have put into two days of updates that you aren't allowed to report the payouts that the top five finisher's received.

Since the legislation changed so that casino's cannot officially acknowledge any deals this has caused more problems than it has solved and makes the whole deal making business seem shady, and this can't be good for the image of the game.

[Triple X]

Great updating guys -

i have been in the final 4 of some tournies this year and only once was a deal done.  It was 5 out and i wasnt particularly happy, but thought why make myself unpopular and sods law will probably mean getting outdrawn and coming out next.

In another tourney - i came 4th where the prize money for the top 4 was c. £100,000.  I got £10k and 1st got £50k.  At no point did we ever talk about a deal even tho we had pretty much similar chips (in fact i was CL - oops!!!)

The problem is purely in the payout structure - 40%-20%-13%-9% for the top 4 in the tourney above is just too big a leap.  If you want to stop deals happening then this gap needs to be bridged.  Especially as more and more are coming from satellites on and off-line, and are pontentially playing above their buy-in comfort level.

As someone said, I dont particularly have a problem with players wanting deals, but it can be avoided by altering the structure.  Lets not forget there is a bit of luck to this game and 4 out sometimes the CL can still come 4th (!!!)

[AndrewT]

People often talk of the payout structure being the problem at the end of tournaments. Whilst this is partly true, I think deals come about more because the end of tournaments descend into all-in blind stealing fests, where you're relying on the luck of a) getting dealt good cards and b) having them hold up.

Whilst I applaud Rob's intentions in this regard, I just can't see how he can make it happen, unless every biggish tournament's final table happens the next day, with blinds reduced (maybe this is what he's thinking - if so, it's a great idea).

I certainly with Rob on savers - only the wimpiest of the wimps look to scrape their entry fee back on the bubble.

[AlrightJack]

The luton blind structure is slow by comparison to most and is probably not the reason for deals at that establishment. Although I was ill last night and could not make it to the venue, I am almost certain that with 5 players left, it was NOT a crapshoot. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[M3boy]

It all comes down to the money for most people.

That final was certainly NOT a crapshoot. Luton main events have the best structures I have played in. Another reason maybe the length of time?? I mean 50 people came back for day 2 and played 12 hours?!? I wasnt there so I dont know.

I watched the Omaha final, which business WAS done. 3 players I believe, with circa 200k in chips each. Blinds 1500 3000 - Certainly NOT a crapshoot.

I myself have ALWAYS said I wont do deals. Yes the money is good, but if I have played for 2 days, I wanna WIN the damn thing!!

I dont see how to avoid deals being done though. If you flatten the structure too much, people will have the opinion of "why play for another 4 hours cos if I win, I wont get much more than if I deal"

I personally think deals will ALWAYS be part of poker - but not while I am on the final table they wont be!!

Maybe, void ranking points if a deal is done?!? I dont know

[AndrewT]

I wasn't specifically referring to yesterday's Luton tournament (I wasn't really following the event as it went along), I was making a more general point about deals and structures. I just posted it in this thread because Rob made the post about deals at his club.

We saw the opposite end of things in yesterday's $500,000 tournament on Crypto, which had the flattest payout structure I have ever seen in a cash tournament ($57,500, or 11.5% of the prize pool, to the winner). This was obviously done because of the large number of satellite qualifiers for the event. If you have a large proportion of the field who are playing for way bigger stakes than they usually are, everyone rocks up and just tries to make the next money level (and, in a live event, looks to cut deals) - a flatter payout makes this less likely to happen. (It was also structured this way to keep more money in the network - one player winning a big amount would withdraw, whereas more, smaller, winners are more likely to play poker with their winnings and give the cash back in rake).

M3boy makes a good point - if the payout is too flat, people will deal just so they can go home. If you ban deals, players will just come up with furtive ways to circumvent this.

In addition to ranking points (which a local satellite winner is not going to care about anyway), maybe there could be some sort of non-cash prize for first (trophy, bracelet, entry to another event) which is simply not awarded if there is a deal done? If the chip leader wants to cut a deal, he loses the chance to win this extra prize?

It's a thorny one.

[TightEnd]

I can confirm that the final table was most certainly not a crapshoot

at the time the deal was concluded blinds were 4000-8000 and there were 1,400,000 chips in play


the shortest stack had about 20x BB

this happened to be Paul Parker

add to the fact that the chip leader was a local satellite qualifier unconcerned with points

and you have the recipe for an early deal

[thediceman]

this is exactly why I will be lobbying for Dusk Till Dawn to be a "no-deals allowed under any circumstances"poker club. Obviously the payout structure will be different to the current climate. It would be a risky decision to make but we hear the same comments inside and outside of the casino by the players in nearly every major final in the UK.

I've been vocal for a flatter pay out structure for sometime to encourage play to a conclusion but even with a flatter pay out structure there will always be certain circumstances where a deal is appropriate ie crapshots, etc. The issue is that most people are naturally going to air on the side of caution and evaluate the risk/return situation. Just watch deal/no deal. Having played down from a field of say 200 plus and your in the last 5 surely most people are going to start looking at the best return they can get. For some this is will be an attitude of playing for the win, for others it will be protecting a % and not risking it on an bad beat.

I was very surprised to read of two deals being made in situations where I thought no deals would happen. The first was at Rob's last home game where Beppe and another made a deal. This was especially surprising as pre the event it was stated that no deals could be made. It was also surprised to read that a deal was made at the blonde poker bash between Aces and AJ. I'm not sure if this was a result of a chip count but if it wasn't I can't understand why two poker pro's would make a deal in a low buyin friendly comp where it more about the bragging rights. Then again maybe there was good reasons for these deals that I am not aware of.

The simply fact is whilst it's the players OWN money at stake they are going to look to get the best £££ return they can so they can maintain as bigger bankroll as possible.

Flatter structures is the only control I can see that can be implemented that will REDUCE the current situation of almost every comp ending in a deal but deals will continue to occur however flat a structure is. 

[Dingdell]

I dont like deals but I have done them in the past - mainly heads up - for one reason only - pure exhaustion - if I have played for hours and for whatever reason am so knackered that i cant get that last bit of thinking power then i'll deal - its better to get more than second....

But if I'm in the zone - no deal - very difficult thought when the rest of the table wants to deal and you dont - can be a cause of table colusion if they all know each other.......and the casinos dont easily detect of prove it so wont deal with it.

So -  a reason for a deal - dead on your feet.

[AndrewT]

Going back a bit in the discussion, Tighty said that the amounts of the deal were to be kept secret.

Details of tournament results and prize monies are publicly available. Those finishing 6th and below in the event can't request that the amount of cash they took out of the prize pool be kept secret. Is there not an argument for saying that deals (which tamper with the prize structure that all entrants agreed to take part under) should be just as public as the rest of the prizes?

[Ironside]

the casinos dont pay out the deal amounts they pay the advertised structure so can only make that public

if the 5 players dont want to tell anyone how much they took out the deal how can the deal be published

because no one knows who took what apart from the players

[not gus]

Hey everyone - never posted here before but I hope you might find my take on the whole deal thing to be of interest. As has been said, i qualified in a satellite for £30 and whatever the outcome, I was headed for by far the biggest payday of my short poker career. My reasons for doing the deal were, in order of importance, as follows: 1 - the deal was done according to chip counts, which meant (without giving too much information away) that I was getting the largest cut, significantly better than 2nd place money, guaranteed. 2 - In my judgement the most dangerous player to me was the Norwegian guy and he was sat on my left. With my inexperience at this level I felt his positional advantage over me 4 and 3 handed would be very telling. 3 - I was starting to get very fuggy-headed after playing 20 hours of poker on 3 hours sleep, coffee and nicotine.
I agree with almost everything said on this forum about deals, especially the skewing of the prize structure. I have a structure to propose for 18 place payouts which I believe is a fairer distribution of the cash and would discourage alot of deals.
Having said that, hammering out a deal that one thinks is favourable to oneself is surely a part of tournament play and money management and as such can and should never be stopped. If tournament organisres wish to ban dealing from their competitions, they are free to do so and players who are prone to dealing wouldnt enter those comps.
Finally, a word about Paul Parker. A lovelier bloke to play poker with you will never meet. Those of you who have had the pleasure will verify that he is hilarious and keeps everyones spirits up. Yes, he initiated talks about the deal, but everyone was up for dealing or it wouldnt have happened. As it happens, and again I dont want to give too much away if the others want the details kept secret, but suffice to say that it was Norwegian guy, not Paul, that brokered the best deal for himself.
I would be happy to answer any more questions anyone has about this or any other stuff to do with this amazing ride I have been on this weekend.

Cheers all.

[bundle]

 hey Not Gus   &

Glad to have you here. great first post and congrats on the result....

[not gus]

Suggested prize structure as mentioned before, along with payouts as they would have been for this main event using these perentages.

18 Players

position                      % of pool                   £ in main event

1st                               25 %                            35,000
2nd                              20 %                            28,000
3rd                               15 %                            21,000
4th                               10 %                            14,000            
5th                                6 %                              8,400
6th                                4.5%                            6,300
7th                                 3 %                             4,200
8th                                2.5%                            3,500
9th                                 2%                              2,800
10-11th                          1.75%                          2,450
12-13th                          1.5 %                           2,100
14-15th                          1.25%                          1,750
16-18th                           1 %                             1,400

I think people would be much more willing to play on for titles, points etc if there was not so much financial risk attached. This smooths out the curve somewhat and even gives a small profit for 10-18th, instead of the preposterous situation of them beating 120+ players over 2 days and losing forty quid for doing so. Also, i see no reason why 10th cant get a little more than 18th.
Personally, I would like to see 9 player payouts a little less top heavy too, something like 30, 20, 15, 10, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 %