Deal Making at Final Tables

[mondatoo]

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.

How can it be stopped ?

If they start trying to then people would just discuss it pre ft, on breaks, etc etc.

[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.

How can it be stopped ?

If they start trying to then people would just discuss it pre ft, on breaks, etc etc.

When the deal is discussed players cannot be on phones or consult the rail?

This would reduce it massively. Hard to discuss deals on breaks when no numbers are on the table, and deals like this would be almost impossible to agree on on a break as chip counts could swing massively at any point of course.

Not saying I think this should be a new rule as there's obviously some very fair discussions that should be allowed, eg 20 year old Alex Spencer asking his Dad whether he should take the deal.

Just saying that those insurance deals seem unfair, especially as the Italian definitely didn't understand that is what was going on. Imagine he'd be massively pissed off if he came 2nd and then later found out Jack had basically done the deal he wanted anyway just at no benefit to him.

This is in no way a slight on Jack or anything by the way, I'd have done the same and there's nothing wrong with what he did. Just think the rules need looking at.

[hatthehole]

What's the difference between this and winning at satellite and selling half? You're just selling equity for cash.  Sure only people with the right connections are going to be able to do this, therefore giving them an advantage.  At the same time you could be facing a billionaire who doesn't care about the money therefore giving him an edge, is that unfair? It's not pretty and I don't know why they insist on showing stuff like this being discussed all of a sudden (I'm sure it's gone on for years but never shown).  At the end of the day it's just business.

Not being able to talk to the rail is a ridiculous suggestion. They're trying to organise a multi-million euro deal and you don't think players should be able to discuss with other people? You'd be a fool if you didn't esp after you've been playing in an intense poker game for a week and several hours that day alone.

[rfgqqabc]

You dont potentially take ev directly away from another player when you sell half your action after satty qualification though. And this would be extremely hard to control whereas preventing the rail from helping out one player in deal discussions is actually a possibility (although a poor one imo). I dont really like how these insurance deals come about and I'm not sure saying its just business is an adequate response when someone is getting screwed because of their lack of financial connections.

[arbboy]

People get screwed in every sector of business by not having as good financial connections as other rivals in their sector.  That's just life.

[action man]

What's the difference between this and winning at satellite and selling half? You're just selling equity for cash.  Sure only people with the right connections are going to be able to do this, therefore giving them an advantage.  At the same time you could be facing a billionaire who doesn't care about the money therefore giving him an edge, is that unfair? It's not pretty and I don't know why they insist on showing stuff like this being discussed all of a sudden (I'm sure it's gone on for years but never shown).  At the end of the day it's just business.

Not being able to talk to the rail is a ridiculous suggestion. They're trying to organise a multi-million euro deal and you don't think players should be able to discuss with other people? You'd be a fool if you didn't esp after you've been playing in an intense poker game for a week and several hours that day alone.

+1

easy to say this is wrong when sitting infront of a computer

[rfgqqabc]

People get screwed in every sector of business by not having as good financial connections as other rivals in their sector.  That's just life.

Oh well if they do it everywhere else I'm firmly persuaded against it...

I think poker could be better than that. Probably just naivety.

[SuuPRlim]

What's the difference between this and winning at satellite and selling half? You're just selling equity for cash.  Sure only people with the right connections are going to be able to do this, therefore giving them an advantage.  At the same time you could be facing a billionaire who doesn't care about the money therefore giving him an edge, is that unfair? It's not pretty and I don't know why they insist on showing stuff like this being discussed all of a sudden (I'm sure it's gone on for years but never shown).  At the end of the day it's just business.

Not being able to talk to the rail is a ridiculous suggestion. They're trying to organise a multi-million euro deal and you don't think players should be able to discuss with other people? You'd be a fool if you didn't esp after you've been playing in an intense poker game for a week and several hours that day alone.

+1

easy to say this is wrong when sitting infront of a computer

yeh, what people massively forget when discussing the ettiquette of deals, and why its absurd that middy got so much stick for his deal negotiations, is that a deal on a poker FT is just like playing a poker hand and everyone is trying to get the best side of every spot. IDK exactly what happened about the Monte deal but the way every talked about middy's deal was like the 4 other players were all agreeing to a deal out of the goodness of their hearts trying to do the fair and gracious thing... NO NO NO, they all wanted to deal because that was what was best for them (they all were uncomfortable playing for this much money and were all well aware middy was the best player, hence why they all snapped his dick off when he siad he wanted 15k off everyone). If one of them thought for any reason it was against there best interests to deal then they wouldn't have agreed to it in principal. Then situations change and it's in certain players best interests to do something different so he does it.

At the end of the day when you enter a poker tournament (like an EPT for e.g) you know full well that the pay jumps between 6 - 1 are going to be significant, so if you're going to be completely uncomfortable if and when you get to that position and are forced to play it out then playing the comp in the first place is prolly a bad idea.

[SuuPRlim]

when i first read this thread I thought it was suggesting that open insurance should be offered to everyone on a FT and everyone should know about it...

[cambridgealex]

Who's giving Middy or Jack stick? Certainly not me.

Im doing the same as them, whatever is in my best interests,same as everyone else.

[SuuPRlim]

Who's giving Middy or Jack stick? Certainly not me.

Im referring to the twitter nonsense after Middy's EPT was shown on TV...

What happened was a group of respectful gamblers were doing the fair an honourable thing by dividing the equity up equally, so they'd all made a few quid and were happy, till some selfish professional gambler decided he wanted more equity than everyone else so ruined it for them all.

Bollocks lol.

[hatthehole]

You dont potentially take ev directly away from another player when you sell half your action after satty qualification though. And this would be extremely hard to control whereas preventing the rail from helping out one player in deal discussions is actually a possibility (although a poor one imo). I dont really like how these insurance deals come about and I'm not sure saying its just business is an adequate response when someone is getting screwed because of their lack of financial connections.

how do you directly take ev away from another player (apart from less financial pressure on you - the same as selling pieces pre tourney albeit on a smaller scale)?  No one is getting screwed, the tourney is still being played out with the advertised payout structure.  Your choosing to do business with someone offering to do insurance over doing business with the other player because its a better deal for you.  

*unfairly take EV

[George2Loose]

To infer you're having no effect on those left in the comp is just plain wrong. I'm not a fan of insurance. I understand why u may have to discuss deals with backers but to be able to effectively offer someone a free roll is hugely unfair imo.

[SuuPRlim]

Spose you get HU I a comp where winner is 100k and second is 60k and you offer a good/fair deal for the other guy, he says ok np but then his backer says "you're in 120k MU don't deal" is that unfair? Cos it's basically the same thing IMO.

[Pinchop73]

Unshackling one's self from the constraints of ICM is quite a large advantage. Not the case with Jack as he was HU

Wonder if we'll ever see the day of two players contorting between themselves to mug the 'insurance' off