Chopping it at Luton

[RED-DOG]

it was OTT, but it was only an analogy

Let me put it another way

You represent a cardroom or a sponsor, you wan't to discourage deals

What do you think is the best way of doing it?

[ifm]

I really honestly don't know, you will NEVER stop deals, even if you paid everyone on a final table an equal prize you would get deals for 10th (or 11th). I just don't see why you want to?
For telly tournies you just keep deals strictly confidential (sign an agreement maybe).
Grosvenor tried to stop them by paying advertised structure only and banning deal talk on the table but it simply didn't work, actually made final tables into a farce!!

The fact is the money belongs to the people left and they can do with it as they wish.

[jimjamjay]

Sorry DOG - Misinterpreted the initial question then. Perhaps flatter structures would mean less deals.....  but I thought that if a cardroom does not support deals then it is at the players risk to make a deal..............

For me that is enough to put me off dealing - If i don't have any support or backup from the organisers then I'm not dealing !!  Don't trust myself lt alone anyone else  

[not gus]

Posts: 2


   Re: Grosvenor Grand Challenge at Luton MAIN EVENT DAY 2
« Reply #312 on: Today at 10:55:25 pm » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

PS In the end, the casino did pay us out according to the deal amounts, we didnt have to hand cash over to each other.

[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 %

[jimjamjay]

Nice work 'not gus' ...

I agree with all your reasoning for a deal - I would do exactly the same in that spot (hope I get the chance soon !!)

Well done !!!

[dik9]

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).

I think that you will find it was me IFM sorry, Rob might of as well, but boy did i get berated for it. The GM went absolutely apeshit when I did it as a "trial", for that night the flatter structure took place and there was still a six way split.

Players were up in arms and i got some serious grief off the MAJORITY of players, I did explain that it was a trial, and was told by the GM to do an impromptu poll with the Broadway players giving them three options 65% went with the option of a 40% or above 1st prize.

It was just completely ironic that with the suggested prize structure voted for by 3 forums to stop deals and give a flatter payout structure, that a 6 way deal was done that night because it wasn't worth them potentially playing till 5am for the difference between prizes??

[Dingdell]

As i mentioned in another thread I would deao when I get tot he point where i am knackered - and notgus had 3 hours of sleep and was ackered - an ideal time to a deal as any further play can be costly.

Well done - I was so pleased for you and i could see you were so made up when you were buzzing around - cant wait to see it on 425.  A great result.

PS - thinking of playing any cash this week.......

Tracey

[Rod Paradise]

Surely it's even more dodgy if the deal is kept a secret as well??? You'd think they'd want everything open to show nothing untoward went on.

The deal/deals is/are NOT secret . Its just that the Grovesener DO NOT do deals. As far as they are concerned, the payouts were as advertised and CANNOT be changed.

However, what goes on between the players remains the players business - if they decide to deal.

Hope that made sense

Ah - I get you.

[riverdave]

I have a pretty strict no deals policy both online and live mainly because i feel my best game is short handed/heads up and have a huge wealth of experience of these scenarios. If i'm offered a particularly good deal where i was offered far more than my chip equity i would probably accept. If deal talk begins then i usually nip it in the bud by saying no business or i would require x amount to consider dealing which is  usually too much to facilitate a deal.

[Sheriff Fatman]

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 %

I like the look of this in general - it solves the two bits of 'idiocy' in the current Luton payouts (presumably the same across Grosvenor) - (1) people making the money & making a loss on the event and (2) fluctuating, not steadily increasing, prize increments.  I'd maybe tweak the higher payouts so that the increments weren't all 5% steps but otherwise this looks great.

I also think having 4 levels of payout between 10th and 18th place is a good thing as it makes for a better competition.  Having 9 people make a small loss out of the 18 who get paid makes for a very dull bubble period.  I think players would play a lot more positively if they knew that they had secured a profit and had a short term target by which their pay increased.

Sheriff

[Chili]

This deals/no deals or pay structure debates seam to be getting a bit out of hand lately.  I dont want to slate individuals or clubs but last night at the Gala Nottingham........(here we go again).......We sat down to start the tournament and there was a note on all tables stating that as of 6th Feb 06 there will be a flatter pay structure for all comps.  I wish i kept the sheet but first had gone to 30% (from 40%) and second to 20%.

This caused an absolute uproar.  It just seamed to alot of people a slap in the face.  There was no consultation with any players (that i am aware of), it was just decided by management.  Before the comp started we were told we couldnt shout and discuss this but if we wanted to take this up with them then we could individually.  What annoys me is why say this AFTER we have been TOLD what the structures will be.  I am particularly annoyed after hearing that othe casino's have polled players before making the decisions.  Why couldn't gala have done that?  Anyway there was inevitable screaming and shouting and a certain player issued with a yellow card.  I feel like i am playing in a school!  When casino's start adding money to the prizepool, then isn't this when THEY could have more say how the player's cash gets divided?

[Rod Paradise]

It's wierd though Chilli, every time it's asked on here most people want flatter structures, but from the sounds of it every time they try to implement it there's uproar.
 

[Chili]

Exactly Rod, i am so confused at the moment with all the different opinions that i dont even know what my opinion is on the issue. 

[jammer]

its simple imo - the people clever enough to get online and discuss it with other players tend to want a flatter structure cos it makes sense. The numpties who aren't capable of doing so tend to want big first prizes and will complain like hell if their irrational "expected value" appears to be going down.

There's no way of convincing them. Remember these tend to be the guys who will be throwing all their money onto roulette after.

Perhaps Gala realised this? Perhaps not. But I guarantee you if they'd taken a poll of the card room the loudest players would have demanded no change.

And hey, I guess  its not a democracy - they offer comps and we decide as customers whether to play them or not. And Gala know whatever they do the regulars are gonna carry on coming....