Grosvenor Midlands Medley - Day 2

[Exorcism]

ifm

I think you are missing my point. It's the reputation of poker as a game played to the finish that is at stake. Until that is the norm, it will not be a true sport.

Your point about players putting in their own money is important though. TV companies, casinos have a lot to do to help.

[ifm]

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

The trouble here is the bigger the prize fund, the more likely the deal.
Even with your structure a deal would be likely because £12,000 is a hell of a lot of money, with a smaller comp i think a lot would refuse to deal.

Excorcism, as for finishing comps......how do you feel about chipcounts, where the casino in effect make a deal for you?

[Exorcism]

Excorcism, as for finishing comps......how do you feel about chipcounts, where the casino in effect make a deal for you?

I'm talking about what should happen if poker is to be taken seriously as a "sport". Important tournaments should play to a true finish. Chipcounts are not a good way to finish either. It's like ending a football match after 70 minutes and taking the score at that point to determine who wins the cup.

Or maybe you don't think it's important? Maybe the status quo is fine. Mine is only an opinion. I don't have the answers but it's an interesting debate.

[ifm]

My opinion is that the players involved on a final table have the right to do with their money as they wish, if they want to deal they should be allowed to without stigma, likewise if they don't.
I have both accepted and refused deals in the past.
Deals will always be done because for the majority of people it makes sense (financially) to take the guaranteed extra money, don't think they aren't done in other sports either.
You mentioned darts, Eric Bristow used to back Phil Taylor years ago, when they played each other in a major final the prize fund was split regardless of the outcome, likewise Taylor now backs a young lad from stoke, the same thing is likely if they both meet in a final.

[Exorcism]

Fair enough from a player's practical viewpoint, but do you not think ending a tournament early makes a nonsense of it as a serious sport? No one actually won. The "title" being given as a condition of doing a deal is farcical. 

[ifm]

I do agree with what you say but how do you avoid it?
The difference between 3rd and first was £50,000!!, the only people who won't deal are either very wealthy, have agreements with sponsors or genuinely think they are the class act in that game, though we all know one bad beat and you are out no matter how good you are.
Maybe if casinos/sponsors offered a first prize seperate from the entrance funds then people would at least play it to a proper finish, but the chances of that are remote at the moment.

[Exorcism]

Agree, therein lies the conundrum. The steep structure is one issue. The time factor another.

[Simon Zach]

It's easy to blame the players for making a deal, but the crux of the problem was touched on earlie by Paul Jackson. The prize structure goes double, double between 3rd and 2nd, and 2nd and 1st. This is not true in other sports. If 1st prize collected 32%, 2nd prize collected 25% and 3rd prize collected 20% then the likelyhood of a deal would be considerably less. I'm afrad it's about time that Tournament organisors started changing the percentages so that 2nd 3rd and 4th places took a higher cut from the pool.

Having said that, making a deal where getting the trophy is part of the deal is pathetic. How do you ever know if you would have won it fairly?

 

My vote goes 100% with this quote, Also if ever in a deal situation i try to encourge the pther players to leave money in the pot for the winner, although not the ideal solution it make s the game truer for me and win seem real whatever level of comp it is.
 Dont know if it was a repeat or not but i thought TK got some good points across well about certain failings in the sport on 425 last night.

[NoflopsHomer]

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.

Luddites were people who destroyed machinery because they feared it would eventually replace them and cost them their jobs in the long term, not for the reasons you stipulated.

[onespeedo]

The prize money structure really needs looking at for a tournament of this nature. If (and it's a big if I know) I came third in this tournament, I would feel devastated to take £50,000 less than 1st place. I would feel even worse if the 2 remaining players did a deal after knocking me out.

Has to be looked at I feel. I would also like to know why this rule of not acknowledging deals has been brought in? Is it just Grosvenor or is it every British casino? If it's a Gaming Board thing I would like to know the reasoning of it as their opinions normally lean towards transparency for the PLAYERS. When I first started playing, the card room supervisor listened to the deal being made, ensured everyone agreed and adjusted the payout sheets accordingly. As a new player, I was fully confident and at ease with this agreement as I didn't have to rely on other players that I didn't know very well - basically it all seemed "above board". Imagine a new player now being told "Don't worry, I'll give you the £500 when I get paid". Very underhand I feel. According to I Know It, even an experienced player who most people know doesn't get what is agreed sometimes.

I was also told today of a much smaller tournament at Walsall a few weeks ago where all remaining players agreed for an equal split but one player just walked out with above the average that had been agreed on. Nothing the other 5 or 6 could do except split what was then left.

Totally, totally wrong. Although this example is down to an individual idiot, it is certainly contributed to by Dolly Parton Payout structures (top heavy) and the head in the sand ruling of casinos not acknowledging deals.

[I KNOW IT]

The prize money structure really needs looking at for a tournament of this nature. If (and it's a big if I know) I came third in this tournament, I would feel devastated to take £50,000 less than 1st place. I would feel even worse if the 2 remaining players did a deal after knocking me out.

Has to be looked at I feel. I would also like to know why this rule of not acknowledging deals has been brought in? Is it just Grosvenor or is it every British casino? If it's a Gaming Board thing I would like to know the reasoning of it as their opinions normally lean towards transparency for the PLAYERS. When I first started playing, the card room supervisor listened to the deal being made, ensured everyone agreed and adjusted the payout sheets accordingly. As a new player, I was fully confident and at ease with this agreement as I didn't have to rely on other players that I didn't know very well - basically it all seemed "above board". Imagine a new player now being told "Don't worry, I'll give you the £500 when I get paid". Very underhand I feel. According to I Know It, even an experienced player who most people know doesn't get what is agreed sometimes.

I was also told today of a much smaller tournament at Walsall a few weeks ago where all remaining players agreed for an equal split but one player just walked out with above the average that had been agreed on. Nothing the other 5 or 6 could do except split what was then left.

Totally, totally wrong. Although this example is down to an individual idiot, it is certainly contributed to by Dolly Parton Payout structures (top heavy) and the head in the sand ruling of casinos not acknowledging deals.

[snoopy1239]

Watching the three finalists throw each other chips was a joke in my opinion and a complete anti-climax.

Keeping some dosh behind, as they did at the Broadway would have been much better.

And look at the top notch heads-up display that it gave us.

[sofa----king]

LDOODKDF JUST A TEST TO SEE HOW I LOOK LOL