Chopping it at Luton

[Heid]

Say I had qualified for a tourney, spent 30 quid.

Made deep into the money.

Had stack, BUT there were a lot of good players in with me. If I was offered a deal that gave me more than my chips were worth at that point - I'd take the money.

I'd love to think that I had gone so far and would make the  top spots, BUT I'd get as much as I could out of a deal.

Don't know when i am goign to be abck in that spot again, so I would do the deal.

[RED-DOG]

But if the prize structure was flatter, everyone would be less inclined to deal

If its £300 for 6th and £8000 for first, deals are more likely

[jimjamjay]

This sure is an interesting topic - I am surprised to read that so many are against deals..........

I would class myself as a casual player and have to admit that when I have been at final tables I am one of the first to look for a deal - the main reason for me is that I don't like the idea of a bad beat costing me 3k....

The other factor is that I haven't mastered very short or heads up play yet and so am unlikely ever to WIN outright - hence a deal in 3rd or 4t spot works for me !!

[RED-DOG]

But if there wasn't so much money difference between the places, wouldn't you be more inclined to play on?

[jezza777]

I have never been in a live situation where a deal was a problem ( If my game keeps going the way it's going it never will be) so I cant really comment but I would like to think that I would never deal .

[jimjamjay]

If the structure was flatter then yes I would play on because I would not be risking so much money at a time in the tourney when luck plays the biggest part as the blinds increase to a push or fold level ...

BTW - I have never been in this situation live only online on Stars where deals seem to be very commonplace.

If I ever do get in the situation live I would like to think that I could hold my own in the negotiations which seems to be a required skill in poker these days..

[jimjamjay]

Has there ever been deals in the main event WSOP ??  I know that the organisers don't support but they cant stop the players right ?

Just wondered if the headlines you read like 7.5m to Joe Hatchem are true or is there a different figure in reality .....

[Jim-D]

Not sure but i know Moneymaker asked farha to deal but Farha said no and ended up losing

[jimjamjay]

Not sure Ifully understand wha the problem with deals is

You know the payouts when you start a tourney - the BIG 1st place prize draws the people and boosts the pot ...........  so if your a player who dosen't deal then if your chip leader with 5 left and go out in 5th thats your choice.  If your a more conservative player and a deal is offered you get your flatter payout structure ........if no deal is offered you can try and broke one but failing that you knew at the start what you would get based on your finish.

The only problem is that it takes the pressure out of the situation and causes an anti climax to what can be a long tourney - I have never done a deal where there is not money left on the table for the winner that is not worth playing for - hence you still get some game at the end but everyone get a nice slice of the pie

[jimjamjay]

Sorry IFM just realised that was pretty much what you said 

[RED-DOG]

Thats all very well until you are in 6th with a small stack and you know the other 5 are waiting for you to go out before doing the business

[jimjamjay]

But Dog - If you are in that position you are in no spot to deal anyway.......

either you could have tried to deal earlier or just start shoving your chips in and see what happens - if you double the situation changes pretty quick

and the other point still holds - you knew what you would get for 6th right at the beginning and so there should be no expectation to get more money just because you are in that spot right now

[RED-DOG]

yes, I knew what I would get, but as I said at the start, the majority of players want a flatter structure, and I object to cardrooms dictating how money that the playerd themselves have put up is devided

By your argument, if snooker players were allowed to stab each othe during a match, you couldn't complain that it was a bad rule because the players knew about it before hand

[jimjamjay]

I don't see how that is related to my point ? There is no outside interference in the game itself ........

Its just a perception thing I guess - I would rather play a tourney that gives me a shot at $150k for 1st just in case I get in a position to win it - rather than a flatter structure to start with becuase I can engineer that flat structure with a deal at the end if things haven't progressed so well in the final stages.

I think for me its the lure of paying of a chunk of mortgage that brings me to the game...........  if the structure was flatter to begin with then I wouldn't be there at the game and yes the pros may get what they want but the game would not have as many fish / dead money players at the table ...............  then the prize pool would drop etc.....

[ifm]

yes, I knew what I would get, but as I said at the start, the majority of players want a flatter structure, and I object to cardrooms dictating how money that the playerd themselves have put up is devided

By your argument, if snooker players were allowed to stab each othe during a match, you couldn't complain that it was a bad rule because the players knew about it before hand

The snooker analogy is a bit OTT!!
As for the majority thing, didn't Rob try this at Notts and reverted back because the majority were not happy? (not sure TBH).
I know Danny polled Walsall regulars and was told that they didn't want flatter pay structures (i'm sure he could enlighten us).