Grosvenor Midlands Medley - Day 2

[Karabiner]

Just to throw a little spanner in the works as is my wont:

If casinos such as Grosvenor say that they do not recognise deals and only pay out according to the structure.

Does this mean that one must trust those with whom we do the deals to honour them ?

Tim Flanders took the trophy and "official" 1st prize and having met him, I'm sure he's an honourable guy.

But the other two in the deal only had his word that he was going to make up their £41500.

Had he been of a certain ilk he could easily have walked off with the full first place cheque for £70k and there would have been no recourse.

Let's face it, the way things are it's only a matter of time before something like this happens so I don't blame Tim for wanting 1st prize.

[RED-DOG]

Yes Ralph you're right, you have to trust the others, and you have no recourse (except a lump of wood with a nail in the end) If they don't pay you

[ifm]

Which is why it's a daft rule Grosvenor brought in.

[snoopy1239]

Why's it a daft rule that the Grosvenor have brought in?

I think the daftness is the way the rule is implemented rather than the rule itself.

[ifm]

Why's it a daft rule that the Grosvenor have brought in?

I think the daftness is the way the rule is implemented rather than the rule itself.

2 reasons:-

firstly, WTF has it got to do with them?, it's not their money how can they tell us what to do with it?

secondly as has been previously mentioned it is open to abuse, what if someone agrees a deal and runs out the casino with the cash? You have no recourse because as far as the casino are concerned they paid out the right money to the right people.

[snoopy1239]

Why's it a daft rule that the Grosvenor have brought in?

I think the daftness is the way the rule is implemented rather than the rule itself.

2 reasons:-

firstly, WTF has it got to do with them?, it's not their money how can they tell us what to do with it?

secondly as has been previously mentioned it is open to abuse, what if someone agrees a deal and runs out the casino with the cash? You have no recourse because as far as the casino are concerned they paid out the right money to the right people.

So you would prefer Grosvenor to sort out the money resulting from a deal?

[RED-DOG]

Why's it a daft rule that the Grosvenor have brought in?

I think the daftness is the way the rule is implemented rather than the rule itself.

2 reasons:-

firstly, WTF has it got to do with them?, it's not their money how can they tell us what to do with it?

secondly as has been previously mentioned it is open to abuse, what if someone agrees a deal and runs out the casino with the cash? You have no recourse because as far as the casino are concerned they paid out the right money to the right people.

So you would prefer Grosvenor to sort out the money resulting from a deal?

I would, casino's used to take down the details of a deal, check that everyone agreed, and pay accordingly, now, is you go out in 5th say, you still have to wait for your money even if there are no shenanagans

[snoopy1239]

Why's it a daft rule that the Grosvenor have brought in?

I think the daftness is the way the rule is implemented rather than the rule itself.

2 reasons:-

firstly, WTF has it got to do with them?, it's not their money how can they tell us what to do with it?

secondly as has been previously mentioned it is open to abuse, what if someone agrees a deal and runs out the casino with the cash? You have no recourse because as far as the casino are concerned they paid out the right money to the right people.

So you would prefer Grosvenor to sort out the money resulting from a deal?

I would, casino's used to take down the details of a deal, check that everyone agreed, and pay accordingly, now, is you go out in 5th say, you still have to wait for your money even if there are no shenanagans

I would prefer it too. However, if we say 'it's our money, we do what we want with it', then we can't moan if we agree a deal and then have to divide it among ourselves.

What I don't like is the way they put this rule in place, but still ackowledge deal making. If they're going to implement the rule, they have to ignore any hint of deals.

For example, how can they object to deals, but still pause the clock while the players discuss a chop. Sounds like a contradiction to me.

[ifm]

When they first brought it in you couldn't discuss the deal at all, you were warned that you would be kicked out of the comp if you were overheard!!
The fact is there is no real way to police the rule, though they still do not acknowledge deals, you still have to play the comp out and they will only pay the advertised payout.

I had a funny one the other week, Con "dazzler from smethwick" and myself were chipleaders on a full final table with 10 mins till the chipcount, Con says will everyone take £100 and me and him split the rest, it was quickly agreed (because of the impending chipcount) but there is a problem...........
There are league points at stake, so "who needs the points?"
About 3 people say they do and there then ensues a quite comical but totally rediculous chipdumping session, with each person who doesn't need points raising almost allin then folding to a reraise!!
It was silly and all because of the rule.

[snoopy1239]

When they first brought it in you couldn't discuss the deal at all, you were warned that you would be kicked out of the comp if you were overheard!!

Ian

Did this work or did it go belly up?

This is what I'd like now. At the moment, they have a rule, but are not really enforcing it, which, in my opinion, defeats the point of having a rule.

[ifm]

Exactly Snoops, it is uninforceable (is that a word?).
The end of the day you just all stand up and go to the toilet to discuss a deal, but in reality people just did it at the table and the staff couldn't do anything about it so now they just wait patiently while a deal is discussed, then everyone goes allin every hand.
People who make these rules have no idea what it takes to actually enforce them or whether they were needed at all.

[I KNOW IT]

A situation arose after the £300 f/o which pissed me off big time.
When there were 11 players left I suggested instead of 2 players losing money i.e £300 return £325 entry. We make 11th & 10th £525 to atleast cover the entry for the £500 f/o. Everyone agreed as £225 xtra wasnt going to make everyone change their normal style of play.
 I go out 11th and because of Grosvenors rule I have to trust the players and wait till the finals over to get the £225.
About an hour into the £500 comp I went to the final of the £300 and told the remaining 4 players and Dani that i was on table 12 (about 20feet away) behind the partition and not to forget Ive got money to come off the top. EVERYONE present aknowledged me and said ok.
Another hour passes and everyone has left the final after doing a deal with out me being paid.

I returned on the day of the main event expecting to see the players and get my money. How wrong was I.
Respect goes to ED Giddins who gave me £50 towards it as he was one of the 4, also Respect to Julian who gave £25 even though a finalist wasnt one of the 4 who did a deal.
The guy who had the biggest share gave £50 after a bit of memory jogging but the other £100 is gone forever methinks.
All this hassle because of a ludricous rule of not paying anything apart from the stated prizes. What if we had saved an xtra 1k for 11th &10th.
This rule needs looking at badly

[Exorcism]

This debate reminds me of the all-seater stadium argument in football. The die-hards, Luddites and neanderthals wanted to keep the terracing so they could continue with their right of freedom to move around, jump about and have a craic whatever the safety issue. But football had to move on if it was to be taken seriously as an entertaining sport and one where safety to spectators came before the selfish wishes of the cavemen.

So it is with poker. If it is ever to gain widespread acceptance as a "sport" in the same vein as darts, snooker etc, then the tournaments have to run their courses to determine a true winner, runner-up and so on. Deals in poker are the terraces in football. The diehards still want them but all it does is sustain the image of poker as a backroom activity. Any deal is collusion designed to alter the natural course of the game, and that cannot be justified, even if it is a partial chop with only a rump being played for.

As for Walsall, that tournament was fine until the deal was made. Then it became a sham. There is a long way to go before the "sport" becomes respectable and mainstream in the true sense, while the old practices prevail.

Yes, the good thing about poker is that a nobody can be in the same final as a superstar. A deal may be financially prudent for the nobody but it is done at the expense and reputation of poker as a "clean sport". If the nobody wants to compete at the same table as the superstar, he/she should accept that he/she will have to suffer the emotions of playing for the prizes and possibly missing out on bigger money. He/she should not have the cake and eat it.

It would probably help if participants in tournaments that are promoted as a "Main Event" or "Important Tournament For The Benefit Of This Casino's Reputation" were required to sign an entry form that specified that winnings will be forfeit in the event of a deal being agreed. Hopefully then, players and casinos could agree on a structure that suits both parties.

[ifm]

Interesting post Excorcism, total twaddle but an interesting opinion.
To say a deal is collusion is just silly and insulting to probably every poker player in the world (cuz i'm sure most have done a deal at some point).
As for signing something to ensure no deals, well if the casino put up the prize fund they can do this but seeing as NONE of it is their money they can't really have a say can they?
Until all of us "nobodies" become very wealthy people we are going to be attracted by a £40,000 profit just by saying "yes".

[snoopy1239]

Weekend prizes:

69k
36k
19.5k

I'd go 4 something like:

56
40
28.5

much more chance if being played out.

but greedy if 56k isnt enuf 4 u.

the deal only gave 1.5k above my 2nd anyhow