Chopping it at Luton

[snoopy1239]

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

I'm not sure I could comment on that specific situation because I wasn't there.

Speaking more generally though, I've witnessed too many times newbies, females, youngsters, timid players, and so on be either pressured or sweet talked into a deal.

Also, and if I recall correctly with the rob yong thread (apologies if I am mistaken), there is the potential for other players to team up on you if you decline the offer.

I remember Nightfly writing up a full analysis. Even though the majority of live players disagree with a flatter structure, it was the flatter structure that was ultimately payed out via chip counts.

[I KNOW IT]

Pokerstars $215  500k gtd tourny on sunday was won by a player who qualified from  a $3 rebuy satellite.
He got $163 k  NO DEALS.

[Dani Versace]

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).

to be honest i think we all have done research in this matter, you were quite right IFM we done a customer questionarre about 6 to 9 months ago. the results were very conclusive. players at walsall disapproved of a flatter stucture. there was a vast majority that was happy with the current structure, i know this may seem hard to belive but some even wanted it more top heavy. so sorry guys our structure is staying the same

[AdamM]

snoopy has raised some good points about both deals and savers. I feel quite strongly that both are bad for poker but it's usually not in my interests to argue the point too strongly because as snoopy said, you become a target.

[Nightfly]

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

Links to the polls/previous debates can be found here and also here

Warning: Both are quite involved and take some serious reading

[tikay]

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

A good, well-reasoned & thoughtful Post by Yogi, as always.

But the final para troubles me.

It IS the players money, until & unless a sponsor puts some in, & I believe strongly that the players have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do what they want. As to "what they want", well, thaht's another story altogether, & I fancy there will never be agreement on that!

[AndrewT]

It IS the players money, until & unless a sponsor puts some in, & I believe strongly that the players have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do what they want. As to "what they want", well, thaht's another story altogether, & I fancy there will never be agreement on that!

As long as all casinos publish their payout structure before the event begins, players can decide whether or not they wish to enter that particular tournament based on the structure. If this structure is not to their liking, they can elect not to take part.

Players agreeing to the established structure (by paying the entry fee) and then deciding to change it once the event gets to the final table is a bit off to me.

[AdamM]

I hear the "it's the players money argument alot and I dont think it washes. once players hand over their entry fee it is no longer their money. it is the prize pool. it's not the last five players' money yet, it's the prize pool made up of theirs and the other 100+ eliminated players entry fees. only on elimination does any of  it become their money.

deals quite often lead to players being cohersed into accepting terms they dont like. saying no to the saver for 11th makes you the villain and makes you very unpopular and arguing about the valet tip when you've had 1 luke warm coffee in 4 hours makes you a skinflint.
 
I enjoy short handed play, infact I think Im good at it but as soon as you get 5 handed the talk turns to deals and you risk it becoming 4 v 1 for the rest of the game if you say no. I think a no deals policy protects players who would rather not deal but feel obliged to.

[Yogi-Bear]

The Final Paragraph troubles me also Tikay. But it is there because it's not only poker players attitudes to get past it's also certain casino employee's.

Altho I did find that even with such a flat structure "Pro Players" were the ones most eager to deal.

Yogi