Deal Making at Final Tables

[GreekStein]

Not that this is ever likely to affect me but....

there have been a few situations recently in EPTs where that have got me thinking about deal making.

Should people be allowed to consult the rail? Make phone calls etc?

How long is a reasonable time to discuss a deal? Are there rules in place for this or is it at the TD's discretion?

Today at the EPT one of the players was nearly offered what is effectively insurance from an outside party. The proposed deal therefore almost fell through because another party was entering into the fray. The other guy's deal is therefore jeopardised and he is forced to play. Is this fair?

I have been thinking about it a lot and don't know where I stand on it. Keen to hear more thoughts.

[willrobrobu]

I'd prefer only the players at the table to be involved in the discussion but with the number of people backed in these bigger events I can't see any way around it when yr talking about 6figure sums for the parties involved.

[cambridgealex]

It seemed a tad unfair on the Italian that Jack had a guy on the rail offer him the deal as insurance so Jack got the deal effectively (plus playing for a bit) but called off the official deal.

Obviously it worked out great for him in the end though...

[SuuPRlim]

I think it shouldn't be allowed personally, means player X can play for way different amounts than player Y, I guess if you're backd or n big MU or w/e that's kinda the same thing but then that can't be helped and that was the case going into the comp.

Defo allows certain players to realise equity more efficiently than others with is against the spirit of the game a bit, although its not that bad cos the upsides for those affected are very high too.

[scotty77]

Totally agree it shouldn't be allowed.  Should just clear the rail and make sure no phones allowed while deals are going ahead. Very easy to be policed live.

[action man]

It seemed a tad unfair on the Italian that Jack had a guy on the rail offer him the deal as insurance so Jack got the deal effectively (plus playing for a bit) but called off the official deal.

Obviously it worked out great for him in the end though...

who was the insurance guy? hes done 300k in cold blood

[cambridgealex]

Martin Finger took 75% of it and 25% was Jacks (or between Jack and his backers/swappers). It was pretty boss how he rocked up and just snap offered to take it.

On the rail 9 hours later he was in bits tho!

[George2Loose]

How did this insurance work exactly?

[pokerfan]

PAYOUTS 1.25 AND .750, deal amount was 1.05.

His mates pay him the 1.05 rather than official chop. Or more likely his % of 1.05 depending how much of his own action he head.

Everyone still in the green.

[cambridgealex]

How did this insurance work exactly?

 A simple example is say me and you are heads up in a comp with £1k for first and £500 for second. We are even in chips and discuss a deal where we both get £750.

I'm massively under it and don't want the variance but my rail tell me you're a massive donk so I shouldn't deal.

So Keith rolls in and says he'll give me the £250 difference and I play on.  

Then if I beat you, you get £500 2nd place. I get my £750 and Keith profits £250.

If I lose, you get the £1k, I get the £500 and Keoth gives me £250 from his own pocket.

In this case Jack wanted to keep some of the action so it'd be like Keith taking £200 instead of £250, So I'd either get £800 or £700.

[Amatay]

Didn't a similar thing happen with Middy?

[Rexas]

I'd prefer only the players at the table to be involved in the discussion but with the number of people backed in these bigger events I can't see any way around it when yr talking about 6figure sums for the parties involved.

To my mind (obviously I would check first) if you're being backed into an event then the people staking you should have faith in your ability to discuss a deal. They have, after all, backed your judgement for a bunch of other decisions, and so they should for this. Deal making is fine imo, but should be entirely down to the people at the table.

[cambridgealex]

I had a spot a couple years back where I wanted to deal and a backer who had a large share was in the room discussing the deal with the TD / other players, and he said "we're not taking that deal". It felt really wrong and I would've massively resented him for that had it not worked out ok

I think the situation needs examining anyway, something's not right.

[pokerfan]

Didn't a similar thing happen with Middy?

Yeah, same deal.

[mulhuzz]

I'd prefer only the players at the table to be involved in the discussion but with the number of people backed in these bigger events I can't see any way around it when yr talking about 6figure sums for the parties involved.

To my mind (obviously I would check first) if you're being backed into an event then the people staking you should have faith in your ability to discuss a deal. They have, after all, backed your judgement for a bunch of other decisions, and so they should for this. Deal making is fine imo, but should be entirely down to the people at the table.

This for me as well.