WCOOP is LAME when deals are made

[thetman]

I'm not a big enough player to participate yet, but all the deal making is lame if you ask me. An otherwise great tourney gets down to 4,5 or whatever and then the players decide to quit and split the money. PokerStars needs to outlaw deals next year and give the events some integrity.

[thetman]

I'm not even saying I wouldn't do one.

[durron597]

What I think is even more lame is kingori threw away the solid chip position when there was no longer any money on the table.

[thetman]

Yep, no intergrity to the conclusion tonight at all!

[Atropos]

Well he said several times he was in a hurry and would get late to work. I can fully understand that playing for bracelet is not worth losing his job for him.

[z32fanatic]

I would definitely make a deal. If I was comfortable playing heads up for $80k, I would play those stakes. When you get to the final 5 of a WCOOP event, I'll enjoy watching you not take a deal and play it out. The deal between the final 7 players in one of the events was clearly advantageous to everyone. 3 of the players were getting 2nd place money. Who could pass up a 2nd place finish with 7 players left if many of you are close in chips?

[The Ocho]

Deal-making does not ruin the integrity of an event. Sure, it does ruin viewing pleasure of the railbirds, but that is not what an event is designed for. The event is there so that players can make money, and I believe the players are entitled to do whatever they want with said money.

Poker is not a spectator sport. Players do not play for your enjoyment.

Integrity of an event comes from how well it is run, the structure, caliber of players, etc. Not how players divvy up the top prizes amongst themselves.

[davidross]

I won't argue with what you said, but I love to see an event where someone (Daniel Negreanu for example) just says no to the deal. There is a real art to being able to close out a tournament, and this is the only time where individual decisions are made for life changing amounts of money. I think this is what big money poker is about. I wish they would ban deals too.

[Tosh]

I wish they would ban them as well, mainly because I nearly always take them.
1) Because its the safe option.
2) I feel like a jerk if I reject it.

I think I prefer Party not allowing them, at least I know where I stand.

[Sponger15SB]

i just think they need the final table payouts to be flatter, just look at the WCOOP, almost every table a deal has been made.

who wants to play heads up for $60,000? i don't, even if say i had an 80% chance of winning, i'd rather just split the $30,000. its just too much to play for in such a short ammount of time.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars needs to outlaw deals next year and give the events some integrity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you are really using the term "integrity" properly.

-----------------
integrity

\In*teg"ri*ty\, n. [L. integritas: cf. F. int['e]grit['e]. See Integer, and cf. Entirety.] 1. The state or quality of being entire or complete; wholeness; entireness; unbroken state; as, the integrity of an empire or territory. --Sir T. More.

2. Moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence or motive; -- used especially with reference to the fulfillment of contracts, the discharge of agencies, trusts, and the like; uprightness; rectitude.
-----------------

If the deal is made between all of the remaining players, where is the lack of integrity? There is nothing immoral, dishonest, or corrupting about all of the players agreeing about what to do with their money.

However, it is clear you don't like deals. However, it is not really because they lack integrity. It is because it ruins the fun of watching for you, is my guess.

When somebody other than the players puts up the prize money, and they tell the players that no deals are allowed, THEN there would be a lack of integrity if a deal were made. Here, there is no rule or any other constraint against making a deal. The only ethical boundary is that ALL of the remaining players need to be involved and agree to the deal. If less than all of the player's make a deal, then those who made the deal will have a reason to collude against the non-participants, even if they did not overtly agree to do so. That is the only kind of deal which needs to be outlawed.

Until somebody else is putting up the money.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[SenorBeef]

Deals are appealing because of the extremely top-heavy nature of tournaments. Despite winning one, I would prefer a flatter payout structure at least among the final table.

When you can outlast 800+ people, and the difference in money you're playing heads up for is almost double what second place gets, deals make a lot of sense. The blinds are huge by that time and there's just so much variance with that high payout structure that it can make sense to lower the variance for all involved.

If payout structures were flatter and more (what I think is) fair, I wouldn't be so eager to do a deal and many others would feel the same I'd imagine.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
The deal between the final 7 players in one of the events was clearly advantageous to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this defy the laws of logic?

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
Deal-making does not ruin the integrity of an event. Sure, it does ruin viewing pleasure of the railbirds, but that is not what an event is designed for. The event is there so that players can make money, and I believe the players are entitled to do whatever they want with said money.

Poker is not a spectator sport. Players do not play for your enjoyment.

Integrity of an event comes from how well it is run, the structure, caliber of players, etc. Not how players divvy up the top prizes amongst themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said.

[Tosh]

Winning the tournament SHOULD pay considerably more than 2nd. People can deal if they want but first has to be top heavy.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Winning the tournament SHOULD pay considerably more than 2nd. People can deal if they want but first has to be top heavy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? There's no reason in theory that first place should pay 70% more than second. The only really important thing is that all players know in advance (or are able to find out) what the payout structure is (or how it will be determined).

The cardroom or site offering the tournament does usually have a promotional advantage in offering as large a first-place prize as possible, but that is it.

[Tosh]

Don't misunderstand, I am not saying thats the rule and we must have that structure. Just that is a better structure. Flat payouts are weak, 1st is a much much bigger deal than 2nd, the winner being rewarded is no bad thing.

[thetman]

Integrity probably isn't the right word, but I can't think of the right one. I'll just say that deals taint the whole tourney. I'm not saying there's dishonesty or cheating involved, but isn't the goal to outlast and outplay everybody else?

[jwvdcw]

if you are in and you want to deal, then deal. If not, then don't deal. The only people it really matters to is the people in it, so why does this affect you or anyone else? If you don't like deals, then don't make them when you get to the final table. As someone else said- its about the players, not the spectators.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Deal-making does not ruin the integrity of an event. Sure, it does ruin viewing pleasure of the railbirds, but that is not what an event is designed for. The event is there so that players can make money, and I believe the players are entitled to do whatever they want with said money.

Poker is not a spectator sport. Players do not play for your enjoyment.

Integrity of an event comes from how well it is run, the structure, caliber of players, etc. Not how players divvy up the top prizes amongst themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more. We're not talking about a Friday night tourney in someone's basement, we're talking about a highly touted and highly visible event that is billed as the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP of online poker. Pokerstars is definitely not organizing this event "just" for the players.

They can and should ban deals, not because there is anything wrong with a player who makes a deal, but because there is something wrong with the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP being affected by a deal. Stars won't let you make a deal for the title, but they will let you make a deal for all the money and play for the title and a nominal sum, which cheapens the title in the exact same way. The other night the chip leader in one of the events cut a deal and then went all in because he had to go to work. Try and tell me that doesn't make the title any less impressive.

Everything Greg Raymer said is true, but it's not the integrity of the PLAYERS that is being questioned here, it is the integrity of the EVENT. Why were no deals allowed in the televised events at the WSOP? Because ESPN wants to be able to honestly advertise things like "ONE OF THESE MEN WILL WALK AWAY WITH FIVE MILLION DOLLARS." The publicity is great for the game, which means it is +EV for all of us, so if the price is not allowing deals in a few championship-level events a year, so be it.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Why were no deals allowed in the televised events at the WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, deals were permitted at the WSOP. It's the WPT events which have a no-deal policy.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Why were no deals allowed in the televised events at the WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Gavin the 2+2er who won the pot limit on last weeks show said they indeed did have a deal and played for the bracelet.

But I don't like deals myself. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do one in fact I would prefer if they weren't allowed to eliminate the temptation. Every tornament I enter I look at first place money and that is my goal.

[Ghazban]

Gavin Griffen said in the UB chat that they did cut a deal at the final 3 of the pot limit holdem WSOP event, then played it out for the bracelet and a smaller amount of money. I think Greg said something at one point about possibly cutting a deal in the big one but didn't because he had an agreement not to with his backers, not because it wasn't allowed.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't misunderstand, I am not saying thats the rule and we must have that structure. Just that is a better structure. Flat payouts are weak, 1st is a much much bigger deal than 2nd, the winner being rewarded is no bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tosh, what makes that structure "better" in your opinion? Is it simply an aesthetic preference?

My view is that neither structure is objectively better or worse; rather I think it would be good if some cardrooms offered tournaments with a flatter structure for the top places, while others offered tournaments with a steeper structure. That way players would have the choice.

However, I am open to persuasion. You might be able to convince me that the steeper structure is objectively better. But when we are talking about a "better" tournament structure, let's be precise about whose perspective we are using. For example, a player who is an excellent shorthanded and headsup player obviously would prefer the steep structure, while a player good at full tables but terrible shorthanded would prefer the flatter structure.

In general, from the perspective of a positive-EV tournament player, one of the most important aspects of tournament structure is, will it attract a lot of fish to buy in. On that point, it is not clear to me which way the flatter-final-table-structure cuts.

You could also look at it from the perspective of the cardroom. For example, at the WSOP, generally the top 9% got paid, but the bottom half of the in-the-money players got little more than what they bought in for. I am pretty sure that up until a few years ago, they did it differently: only the top 5% or something got paid, but then everyone who got paid would receive at least twice their buyin. It could be that one reason the tournament organizers made this change was they figured more people would come back next year, when they could get a 'refund' by placing in the ninth percentile. Myself I do not like that structure aesthetically although I can't think of any logical arguments against it.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, from the perspective of a positive-EV tournament player, one of the most important aspects of tournament structure is, will it attract a lot of fish to buy in. On that point, it is not clear to me which way the flatter-final-table-structure cuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a steeper structure will attract more fish as they'll see "1st place pays XXX!!!" and it will look like they're playing for a lot of money (never mind that the true fish will have absolutely no chance of winning). Often, though, they advertise via the total prize pool offered so, in this respect, it shouldn't matter. I do, however, believe that after-the-fact advertising (for next year's event, for example) can benefit from the steeper structure as they can advertise what first place was worth the prior year and just not mention that the players actually accepted less when a deal was made.

[The Ocho]

I understand the publicity factor, but the title of "world champion" of poker can be bestowed by any casino or tourney. A casino can name it's tournament whatever they please. We have the World Series of Poker, the World Poker Finals, and numerous other tournaments that basically are named a variation on the same "world poker champion" theme. The history of each is the only real fundamental difference that distinguishes this tourney from that tourney.

There is no sactioning body in the poker world. No leagues, no commisioner, etc. A tournament can be deemed deal-free if the hosting body chooses to make it so. That is their choice and players have the choice whether to play or not play in a non-dealing tourney. I don't care if you do or don't deal for whatever reason. It can't be denied that it is more exciting for the viewing audience to see guys play heads up for 1.5 million bucks. If a player is worried about his/her title being tainted by a deal being made, all that player has to do is simply deny the deal and play it out. Nobody can force you to make a deal, and by the same token I'm not convinced I have the right to tell you that you CAN'T make a deal when it's YOUR money that is on the line.

[fnurt]

I 100% agree it is up to the host. My own opinion is that Stars would give more credibility to their titles if they didn't allow deals. But as long as deals are permitted, I'm not saying there is anything ethically wrong with making one, and I might very well do so myself.

[dogmeat]

That was a lot of money involved for anybody to pass up a split. The very first decent money finish I had came on a split. It was heads-up and I had about 30% of the chips against a player much better than me and we split 60-40. I was thrilled.

The last tournament I played and made the final 6, the whole table wanted to make a deal. I declined the offer for three hands, and you never saw such a mean bunch of players, all gunning to knock me out now, and I caved and took the split. It's really tough to say no. In a tournament like we are talking about, I'd have jumped at the chance.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[The Ocho]

It seems to me that players are being drawn effectively to the Stars events and the prizes are pretty damn big. Players seem happy with how things are going. I don't know what this "credibilty" of titles really gains for 'Stars by disallowing deals in this situation. It appears that their goals for the tournament (as I envision them) are being met.

The players are playing and the money is big. What's the problem? Is anything really broken here? Does bestowing the title of 'online poker champion' to an anonymous moniker really mean anything?

[Tosh]

I just prefer it, thats all. I have immense respect for people who play to win it, and none at all for people who try desperately to scrape into the money. No matter how good you are, you won't win a major tournament all that often. IMO its just something that needs to be hugely supported by the money too.