Chopping it at Luton

[Heid]

Let's all face the fact that poker is essentially a game full of selfish people, because in the end we all want to win no matter what, and if you aren't going to enter to win, then why bother?

As much as I would do a deal in certain circumstances, if I was in a position where I knew I could win, then I would want the steepest payout sched I could get my mitts on.

[Chili]

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....

That quote was part of the "loud" ones argument.  They were saying that after that structure is in place then the majority simply wont turn up (yeah, right!).  Olga even said if that happened then they would "re-assess."  It's true its not a democracy but if other places consult players opinions, why not this one?

Anyway after considering my personal circumstances, a flatter pay structure suits me better.  In that i final often but dont seem to get past 4th place very often.  What i was trying to get at is the constant cycle of fighting with management and a small selection just sprouting off very loadly and upsetting most people in the process.   JUST BE ADULT  that's all i ask into cyberspace.

[TightEnd]

As much as I would do a deal in certain circumstances, if I was in a position where I knew I could win, then I would want the steepest payout sched I could get my mitts on.

Lets keep the debate in the realms of the realistic shall we?




 

[Heid]

<sigh>

[AdamM]

Chili, the 30% structure was largely as a result of polls and discussions on this board as well as robs records that showed that the ACTUAL 1st prize after deals were taken into account was below 30%. When the beginners night started u-p last year Rob trialed the 30% structure on the basis that there would be a NO DEALS policy.  All future new comps where put on the new structure so about half were 30% and half 40%.

Management have obviously decided between the two and I feel it's the right choice. on Wednesday there was similar aggro from our little welsh friend, saying he's like it to go back to 60% for 1st like it used to be. there's always a lot of complaining from the NO CHANGE brigade on a wednesday because thats the no smoking night so they're all exceptionally irritable anyway.

[Chili]

Chili, the 30% structure was largely as a result of polls and discussions on this board as well as robs records that showed that the ACTUAL 1st prize after deals were taken into account was below 30%. When the beginners night started u-p last year Rob trialed the 30% structure on the basis that there would be a NO DEALS policy.  All future new comps where put on the new structure so about half were 30% and half 40%.

Management have obviously decided between the two and I feel it's the right choice. on Wednesday there was similar aggro from our little welsh friend, saying he's like it to go back to 60% for 1st like it used to be. there's always a lot of complaining from the NO CHANGE brigade on a wednesday because thats the no smoking night so they're all exceptionally irritable anyway.

Ok Adam, I apologise, i'm not aware of anything that happens midweek as i dont go,  maybe i sprouted off myself without background knowledge but i DO prefer the flatter structure but i dont prefer having to listen to serial arguments over and over again.  I'm solving it - i just wont play comps on Mondays x

[Yogi-Bear]

Not all Grosvenors have such a top heavy payout structure and we do increase our payouts from 18th to 10th but only with 3 stages not 4. But I can only speak for Blackpool. 

Plus if you get paid you will make at least a small profit on your investment.

During our weekly comps we run a flattish structure, not as flat as Gala Notts. But as flat as we could make it without the death threats eminating from the poker playing fraternity. Some well thoughts of professional players actually threatened me after I ran Festival events with a 30% first prize.

So perhaps not all professional players quite understand the theory behind "Flatter Payouts"

Also, the comment about it's your money. Some people, who work in the casino industry, will argue hard and long against that. To Quote. "It's not their money until they are knocked out." Not my opinion but one that is still around and being used.


Yogi

[snoopy1239]

I wrote this a week or two back. Conincidentally, the topic has cropped up at Luton. I feel quite strongly about deals in poker. They really bug me. Anyhow, this is what I wrote. Although referring to a much smaller comp, I still think it's relevant here.

-----------

I am beginning to detest deals. There is a real nasty side to the process of striking deals at the table, and I, for one, would be happy to back a no-deal policy within all tournaments. Unfotunately, you can't stop people from discussing them, it's their money after all. However, that still doesn't mean that I have to like them.

So why do I feel that they have become a cancerous part of poker?

(i) If deals are being made, it probably means that the structure of the comp is too top-heavy.
(ii) Youngsters, women, newbies, and so are often pressured into deals and sometimes even swindled.
(iii) The majority of deals seem to lead to incessant and petty bickering, if not a heated argument.
(iv) Declining a deal makes you a target. Your popularity declines and players may team up to eliminate you.
(v) Giving a saver not only takes potential money away from the chip leaders and best players, but can also change the structure and outcome of the comp.

I experienced point (v) yesterday afternoon at the Gala £30 freezout comp.

11 players left, I was the chip leader with a tasty stack in front of me. My table was full of short stacks who were all trying to hang in, if anything, just to tell their mates that they made the final.

Being very aware of this, I started raising virtually every hand, and picked up a shed load in blinds.

Then, one of the youngsters suggested a £40 saver for 11th. Everyone quickly agreed, eager to have a few coppers to show for their afternoon's work. I then said something along the lines of 'Well, that's not great for me though is it?' The table went quiet and I could feel a few snarls moving in my direction.

Predictably, one fella's response was 'It's only £40 though'. He gave me a dry look as if he couldn't believe that I'd been so petty about a couple of scores.

Not wanting to make any enemies, I accepted the offer for a saver and carried on playing. Unsurprisingly, I was unable to nick the blinds and within a few hands we were down to ten.

Okay, maybe £40 isn't much, but when you combine it with the potential chip lead I could amass by the final, that £40 becomes a hell of a lot more. It's a 20 minute clock with blinds of around 1500/3000. Now they really are worth nicking, and if no one's going to defend them because they're too scared of bubbling, I have a huge advantage.

Anyhow, I'm not overly pissed off, but these situations crop up at all levels, and I don't like it. You shouldn't feel obliged to accept any deal, but, sometimes, because of the points highlighted at the start of this rant, it probably works out best if you go with the flow.

I just think that if I'd rejected the deal, I'd have more chips going into the final table

[Ironside]

chilli do a search for posts by nightfly (the notts guys) and you will see that the 30% structure was debated and voted on

[not gus]

" 11 players left, I was the chip leader with a tasty stack in front of me. My table was full of short stacks who were all trying to hang in, if anything, just to tell their mates that they made the final.

Being very aware of this, I started raising virtually every hand, and picked up a shed load in blinds.

Not wanting to make any enemies, I accepted the offer for a saver and carried on playing. Unsurprisingly, I was unable to nick the blinds and within a few hands we were down to ten.

Okay, maybe £40 isn't much, but when you combine it with the potential chip lead I could amass by the final, that £40 becomes a hell of a lot more. It's a 20 minute clock with blinds of around 1500/3000. Now they really are worth nicking, and if no one's going to defend them because they're too scared of bubbling, I have a huge advantage."

Snoopy, you make a compelling point here against bubble deals. However, I still believe that deals on the final table between the last 3,4 or 5 players are a result of payout structures.

[ifm]

You are talking about a different entity entirely my four legged friend, it has no relevence to the discussion bud.
Bubble deals encourage the shortstack to "go for it" and that is the problem with those, tuff s**t you agreed (i wouldn't, but then i don't care if i offend ).
No offense intended but you either need to be stronger or not whine about it

[snoopy1239]

You are talking about a different entity entirely my four legged friend, it has no relevence to the discussion bud.
Bubble deals encourage the shortstack to "go for it" and that is the problem with those, tuff s**t you agreed (i wouldn't, but then i don't care if i offend ).
No offense intended but you either need to be stronger or not whine about it

(iv) Declining a deal makes you a target. Your popularity declines and players may team up to eliminate you.


This is probably even more evident the fewer players that are left.

A wise man once told me that it's not a good idea to make enemies in the cardroom. I think he was right.

[snoopy1239]

No offence taken.

Savers do run the discussion onto a different tangent, but they are still a part of the deal-making process.

I think these points still remain relevant though.

-----

So why do I feel that they have become a cancerous part of poker?

(i) If deals are being made, it probably means that the structure of the comp is too top-heavy.
(ii) Youngsters, women, newbies, and so are often pressured into deals and sometimes even swindled.
(iii) The majority of deals seem to lead to incessant and petty bickering, if not a heated argument.
(iv) Declining a deal makes you a target. Your popularity declines and players may team up to eliminate you.

[snoopy1239]

It's not just pay-out structures. It's blind structures too.

Apologies if that point has already been made.

[ifm]

May i ask why you don't like it if 5 players did a deal at Luton?