Irish Open - Here's The Deal......

[Royal Flush]

Paul would your opinion be diffrent if you played for a living?

You have an income to fall back on, a lot of players don't so to be able to secure an extra years income by just saying yes is normally the sensible thing to do, infact i think most accountants would recomened it!

[Dingdell]

I think there can never be a hard and fast rule on this - it will depend on how you have been doing lately, what your bank roll is looking like, how your luck has been that day etc etc.

JP is a NO DEAL man and decided to deal at Luton because he just wasn't getting anywhere. This is a guy who does incredibly well, has (I imagine) a very acceptable bank roll now, but decided on the day that there was no point in going on.

Every one is entitled to their opinion but to be completely immovable at any time on this one may not pay out in the long run.

I enjoy heads up more than anything, to me thats like the icing on the cake, I would rather play heads up all day that 9 handed, but if its all going pear shaped and I'm in the poop I'll deal if it means coming out with more than 2nd.


 

[AndrewT]

Poker is a game in which luck has a huge effect in the short term. Over the course of the few dozen hands which the final few players would battle over, it is entirely possible for the best player, who makes all the correct decisions, to lose. Now, if you were a really good player, and were playing in the final 3 of a ranking event, with hundreds of thousands of prize money, every single weekend, you'd be happy to let your greater skill win out in the end - the better player doing a deal (assuming an even cash split when chip counts are even) is -EV long term.

However, most players do not make major finals every week. By dealing they are reducing their variance, which is better for them in the short term (particularly if it is a large amount of money relative to the player's bankroll).

Ronnie O'Sullivan doesn't have this problem, because over the course of 19 frames of snooker, the good will out. The better player on the night will win the trophy and top prize - luck is highly unlikely to be able to affect the outcome enough to deny the better player's victory. So snooker players would never deal (ignoring any betting dodginess), as the better player would be giving up too much.

Essentially, poker players dealing is like taking insurance, they are insuring against any misfortune which may befall them due to events outside of their control.

Having said all this, I think that in televised events, there should always be a sizable chunk of the prize money left on the table for players to battle for. They can quite happily flatten the payout between themselves, but I feel strongly that competitive poker should be played through to the conclusion. Otherwise we won't get any more televised live poker, which means the sport is less visible, which means fewer new players, therefore less money coming into our games.

[M3boy]

Paul would your opinion be diffrent if you played for a living?

You have an income to fall back on, a lot of players don't so to be able to secure an extra years income by just saying yes is normally the sensible thing to do, infact i think most accountants would recomened it!

NO It wouldnt!!

I have ALWAYS been competitive, and ALWAYS will.

[Royal Flush]

Paul would your opinion be diffrent if you played for a living?

You have an income to fall back on, a lot of players don't so to be able to secure an extra years income by just saying yes is normally the sensible thing to do, infact i think most accountants would recomened it!

NO It wouldnt!!

I have ALWAYS been competitive, and ALWAYS will.

The only reason i see for not dealing here is a matter of principle, and principle's cost people a lot of money.

[M3boy]

The only reason for dealing here is MONEY!! Pure and Simple.

With plenty of play, what other reason can there be?!?

Oh, and he is a lovely quote from the winner (from Blonde's home page)  :

“Its not about the money for me, its about the title,”  - make of that what you will.

[M3boy]

The only reason i see for not dealing here is a matter of principle, and principle's cost people a lot of money.

Another Elitist view. So you are saying that someone in that situation who DOESNT want to deal is wrong?!?

I dont see anything wrong with wanting to win.

[charmaine]

You really need to get to bed earllier Paul !!!  think of the fun you could of had if only you had stopped debating and crawled into bed earlier 

[M3boy]

    

[AdamM]

you said it right earlier M3boy. there is pressure to deal even before the terms are discussed. when I'm at a final table at Notts and the short stacks start dropping I start to brace myself for the deal argument. I don't see the point chopping a £20/£30 comp but some do. as soon as you decline a deal you set yourself up as the main target of the remaining players and sometimes soft play.

I understand (though don't necessarily agree with) the argument that until sponsors are adding money players can please themselves but in this instance paddy power DID add money and people are still saying it's up to the players, it's their money.

it seems likely to me that sponsors are less likely to put money in while deals are going on. if deals stop the money is more likely to come in in the future.

The game is as big as it is now because of the extensive TV coverage over the last 5 years. I think TV companys like Sky have earned a say in the running of big games like this because they have helped grow the game beyond measure (though obviously for their own benefit, rather than ours).

[AdamM]

thats not to say Sky should be able to dictate terms, just have a say

[action man]

id like to see what all the players on here, who object to deals would do if the other two offered 200K a piece and play for the rest?
  would be interesting to see who would play on, i think deals all boil down to who needs the money and who doesn't!
     remember and extra 100k euros can take you to a good few other festivals and keep you in action.

[AdamM]

if the worst case scenario is 100k, which is major life changing to me I wouldnt deal, I'd mentally accept thatn as the worst case and play for the win.

No Deal Noel

[action man]

unless i thought i was a massive favourite to win 3 handed i would take the deal, you would still get the credit and glory of winning and the trophy....

 DEAL NOEL

[Colchester Kev]

I seem to recall the main event in luton in luton a year back where we got down to 3 players... M3boy, Vic Kanwar , Simon Nowab.

A deal was discussed when Simon had a good chip lead, M3boy agreed to the deal.
only intervention by Vic's investors stopped the deal going ahead.

What im saying is that despite peoples moral standpoint on this subject, sometimes a deal is the right thing to do.