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

[Royal Flush]

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

No sh1t sherlock, and when you play the game for a living that is the idea......dealing gives me a freeroll for a whole year i take it....

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.

How is that elitist?

as soon as you decline a deal you set yourself up as the main target of the remaining players and sometimes soft play.

That may be the case in your local game where all the players know eachother, this however is probably the first time these 3 have played together and collusion is highly unlikely, add in all the hands are shown on TV and cheating is highly unlikely.

[M3boy]

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.

NO WAY DID I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When A deal was mentioned, I walked away and sat on my own, ask anyone who was there!

[swish]

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.

  This is always an interesting debate, rarely does anyone add anything new to the argument, but I thought your post summed it up perfectly Andrew.

[M3boy]

Now maybe I am on my own here, but to me, no one won that tourney.

If it had been me there and done a deal (which I would never do) and then I went on to "win" (using the term loosely) I would never feel like I had actually won!! It would niggle at me , weather I could of won it or not.

Yes Swish, this is always a good debate, with both parties having strong views.

BTW Tikay, why the change of heart? Didnt you say on 425 about that Luton UK Open something like, "Praise must go to the organisers, who put on a good tourney with a good structure, meaning there was no delas, or no business done, thats what we want to see, a major final played to a proper conclusion?"

[tikay]

Now maybe I am on my own here, but to me, no one won that tourney.

If it had been me there and done a deal (which I would never do) and then I went on to "win" (using the term loosely) I would never feel like I had actually won!! It would niggle at me , weather I could of won it or not.

Yes Swish, this is always a good debate, with both parties having strong views.

BTW Tikay, why the change of heart? Didnt you say on 425 about that Luton UK Open something like, "Praise must go to the organisers, who put on a good tourney with a good structure, meaning there was no delas, or no business done, thats what we want to see, a major final played to a proper conclusion?"

I may well have said that Paul, I don't recall, but your example of this misses the point entirely.....

If players want to deal, they should - & always will - be able to.

I completely fail to understand why this makes them, in the eyes of some, "lesser players". It's my right to deal. It's your right not to deal. 

And, as to whether it's right or wrong to Deal, the answer is blindingly obvious, as it is to almost every poker "hand analysis" question - "It Just Depends".....!.

What's the problem with both parties accepting the other's viewpoint? I accept without a word of argument your right to refuse to deal - & one "objector" in the Proposed Deal is all it takes.  Why can't you accept my right to do a deal if all other parties are happy (& ONLY if they are happy) to deal?

We are about to record 425 - if Gouldy ever turns up - so I fancy this subject may just get a mention.....!

There ought to be room in our little Poker World to accommodate views from all sides.

Finally, like all other things, "supply & demand", or call it what you will, answers this question once & for all. Are deals done frequently? If yes, then you have your answer - it's what the players want.

Right, Gouldy has breezed in, with THE most dreadful tie on. Watch it tonight & be embarrassed for the man's fashion sense.

[M3boy]

Tony, u must have mis understood me.

I never fail to see someone else's argument/point.

And I do agree, if people want to deal, then it is their right to deal, just as mine is not to deal. My point was that if you are the one who DOESNT want to deal, when the others do, you are made to feel like the outsider.

And yes, you did say that - believe me I've watched that DVD just a few times!! lol

Looking foward to Poker 425854 even more than ever!!

[Royal Flush]

And I do agree, if people want to deal, then it is their right to deal, just as mine is not to deal. My point was that if you are the one who DOESNT want to deal, when the others do, you are made to feel like the outsider.

I have never seen this happen in a festival event

[ariston]

There is only one case where a deal was enforced as far as I know. 4 players left and 3 want to deal but chip leader wants to much so no deal is struck. The 2 shortstacks then shake hands over the table and agree to split their winnings. This was seen as collusion by the cardroom manager and he made a very difficult ruling- deal now or you are both disqualified was the jist of the ruling. The chip leader got the silly ammount he was asking for and the 2nd chip leader now asked for a lot more which the 2 shorties had to agree to or face disqualification. There was a lot of debate over what exactly was said between the 2 shortstacks but the ruling was made and I thought it was the correct one at the time to avoid soft play/collusion.
Ive read this thread all the way through a couple of times and I basically think that M3boy has the loudest voice and is repeating himself over and over so we should all just agree with him . I have had my spats on here a few times and there is obviously something going on between him and flushy which should be dealt with off forum. I feel for you Charmaine if you ever dare to disagree with anything M3 ever says as he is obviously the oracle and whatever he says should be obeyed.
My view on deals is a simple one- If you want to deal and so does everyone else then deal, if you don't then don't. Its hardly rocket science. The game that started all this nonsense- of course I would've taken the 200 large and still played for the win, 200k is a long of euros and by my very basic maths its 100k more guaranteed than a badeat and a 3rd would pay me. When you have played the circuit like barry, John and co I think it would give more weight to your oppinion. As a part timer (ie someone who doesnt rely on poker for his livelyhood) I think it is very arrogant of you to believe everyone should agree with your oppinion or listen to it over and over. If you don't want to deal then don't, let the players who are respected on the circuit have their oppinions as well- I for one value their oppinion more.

[luckyblind]

From what I have heard the deal in this case was fair enough. With the difference between 3rd & 1st €260k, getting €200k Gtd is better than getting 90k because of a bad beat/poor run of cards. I thnk Brendan got the best of it refusing to take anything less than 2nd place money even though he was the shortest stack and least experienced player. Interestingly enough he nearly never played at all, he was going to sell the ticket he won at a satellite.

It worked out nice for Rumit as he had bought a bet on Vincent and had  share of Ian.

Great to see all the blondites again, apart from chili who took €400 off me in the first hand I sat down at her cash table

[M3boy]

Ariston

1) I have a point of view on a subject, i fail to see why I cannot voice it - its a forum isnt it?

2) I always try and listen to others point of views.

3) I try not to personally have a go at any one openly on a thread (exception of Flushy, but its mostly friendly banter)

4) I have also re read this thread, all I have done with subsequent posts, like I am doing here, is answering a question/point someone has raised to me - not going "on and on" as you put it

5) I never said my opinion was right I have never said that everyone has to agree with me, quite the opposite, many times I have said in this thread that its a debate, one that I enjoy, no one is right and we are all entitled to have opinions.

I was going to send you a PM as I have taken great offence to your attack on me, and the mentioning that you feel sorry for Charmaine (My personal life has NOTHING to do with you!), but as Tikay took offence to one of Axe's threads and posted that on here, I think I am entitled to do the same.

One thing I have never been good with is words, this post is in no way meant to be arrogant - and if anyone reads it and thinks that it is, please do not take it that way.

[Indestructable]

M3Boy, you are not on your own on this subject.
 

[ariston]

Im the one that goes on and on (aristonandonandon etc). Many people have a different oppinions on many different subjects and a forum is the right place to air a lot of them. In this thread many people have voiced their oppinions and you have voiced yours over and over- every credit for sticking to your guns and not changing your mind. I wasn't meaning to be offensive about your circumstances and I apppologise if it has been taken that way but IMO you are one of those people who will never be wrong- you believe your oppinion is correct and nothing can be said to sway you any other way. This as I said is in my oppinion and isn't meant to be derogatory in any way (I too am rarely ever wrong in my own mind- even when everyone else can see I am). As for some of the stuff early on in the thread between you and flushy I got the impression there was something going on there but maybe I was reading between the lines too much. My post was part extracting the urine and part serious, until you have played the full circuit like some of the guys on here (and no I don't mean me because I haven't) your oppinion on this particular subject is not as valid to me as the guys who slog it out every week going to the glamourous places like Luton,Walsall and Sheffield (cue vinni asking whats wrong with Sheffield lol).

[charmaine]

No need to feel for me Ariston , i happen to be very in love with my Husband/ partner .
I'm so pissed off with you but havent the vocabulery to put it into words  cept F*** Y**,  dont ever bring me into anything again

[ariston]

nice.
Speaking your mind sure causes problems but oh well, never been one to worry about speaking my mind. I know neither of you so am not particularly bothered to be honest. I took the time to appologise above  if offence had been taken to  what was a micley take response. Good luck with the rest of this- I have said my bit and wont be posting on this thread again. Abuse and swear at me as much as you feel fit.

[snoopy1239]

Okay guys, this has gone completely off topic now and has no relevance to the thread. In which case, we'd appreciate it if you kept your personal comments towards each other off board and allow this thread to return to it's original topic.

cheers