If I was MLG

[HoldingFolding]

(...and don't we wish we were, for one brief shining moment)
4 players left, MLG has 3m, the remaining 3 each essentially has 1m. [FWIW Mike has being stealing like one of Fagin's urchins, folding to reraises and showing down stuff that should be going clockwise in a toilet bowl.]

Payout 1st 105; 2nd 63; 3rd 39; 4th 30

[gr8vertical]

I would be pumped with 80k. However, the way things were going I would probably got greedy and said give me 90k you guys split the rest or no deal and lets keep playing /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[CardSharpCook]

This deal was so +MLG. Hard to turn down this lop-sided deal. I am generally in favor of leaving money on table, but with a deal this good...

CSC

[sirio11]

55-30-30-30 is a pretty stupid option, 4th place was 30K

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
This deal was so +MLG. Hard to turn down this lop-sided deal. I am generally in favor of leaving money on table, but with a deal this good...

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly was the final deal? If the 82-52-52-52 was a straight chip-count split, from the sound of things he might have gotten away with demanding 88-50-50-50.

[lorinda]

A chip count split when you are big chip lead is pretty amazing as it is.

Lori

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
A chip count split when you are big chip lead is pretty amazing as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. And I get the impression it's even more beneficial to the big stack when it's being split 4-ways.

[HoldingFolding]

No kidding. What a plonker. Now what would be a good breakdown that leaves something on the table to play for?

[sloth469]

I think he got a really good deal, my only problem with it was he could have gotten more. 2 of them were ready to give him 88k. Once I see that if I'm MLG I'm hardcore stubborn, that I don't care what anyone else gets but I want 88k or let's play it out. From watching the action he was running over the table, he could just as easily have run over the deal. And if Ben wanted to hold out for more I have a feeling one of the other 2 would have given him a little extra, it didn't need to come from MLG.

I also think he could have gotten away having them each take 45k him take 80k and played for the rest between 1 and 2 70/30 or so.

-sloth

[legend42]

Using the Landrum-Burns formula, and rounded off figures, MLG came out at around $84,300.

I was observing the table during the negotiation, and I think he could have gotten an 85/51/51/51 split. There was one tough case (littleben?) but even he seemed like he wanted a deal. They were all afraid of going out 4th, and playing like it, so I'm pretty sure they would have been happy with anything over $50K.

That said, I can't say I wouldn't have taken the same deal in MLG's place. Eventually, there will be some showdowns, and anything can happen then. And if one of them doubles through you, all of a sudden you're not the chip leader anymore.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
A chip count split when you are big chip lead is pretty amazing as it is.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

you mean chip count split using ICM?

[MLG]

I think this is a fair criticism. As for leavubg money on the table, I had no interest in it and here's why. These guys were obviously playing scared money, I had no desire to lock up a portion of the money and have the guys relax and start to play back at me. Either we lock it all up now when I have the monster advantage, or I want them to stay on scared money.

[MLG]

It might be a little late to ask this, but what exactly is ICM?

[TexTiger]

I don't see why they would want to give ben extra. He was 3rd in chips, yet wanted 1k more than 2nd when it was tossed up to him. I agree that MLG should have said 88 or play, and they would have come around. Either way, it was a nice pay day. My wife was watching over my shoulder saying something to the effect of if I ever win that tourney then she gets a brand new Lexus...

[Shibby]

I didn't know either, googled it:

Independent Chip Modeling

Personally, I don't put a lot of value into ICM, but regardless of what I think, it's good to know. In short, ICM is the concept of putting a real dollar value on your current stack, relative to your opponents and the total payout in the tournament.ICM is an important early on (and even in mid-stages) of a tournament because it dictates that you shouldn't make any extreme or risky plays to win a few chips, when you aren't getting a true money return on your play.

For example, if you have pocket Tens and someone who you absolutely *know* has AK pushes all-in early game, ICM dictates that you should not call this bet. In the beginning game, your stack in dollar amounts is worth your buy-in. However, if you double up, your stack is only worth 184% of your buy-in (according to ICM). So, while TT has about a 5% edge over AK, ICM actually states that by calling, you are risking more "real money" than you are winning with your edge (as opposed to just tournament chips). As such, ICM dictates that you shouldn't call with small edges.

ICM applies to the theorem of blind stealing, because from reading this article, you may get the idea to push in every single situation where you are heads-up with the BB. This will be incorrect at times however, because you don't always want to risk many chips - especially early game. In a late game situation, my feeling is that aggression is far more rewarded than timid play, so ICM does not play as big a role. So, the general rule of thumb is - don't start stealing until the blinds are at least 50/100.

If you want to explore ICM more, here is an ICM calculator. (http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~sharnett/ICM/ICM.html)

[Rick Diesel]

I think that he made a solid deal, but I would have waited for at least one more person to bust before I did it, which then hopefully he could get 90k out of it.

Also, the 55,30,30,30 should not be an option because there is NO way that any of the others would accept that deal. They already have 30 locked up, why would they agree to put the excess second and third place money on the line here when MLG has 50% of the chips in play. Dumb option.

Rick Diesel

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
It might be a little late to ask this, but what exactly is ICM?

[/ QUOTE ]

ICM is, as somebody else said, independent chip model. it's a formula that converts chip stacks to an expected cash win amount.

it doesn't have any particular claim to "correctness" but it's the only model i've heard get talked about (especially by STT people).

how did you determine what deal you were willing to accept?

congrats, btw. that's pretty awesome.

[MLG]

Thanks, it is pretty awesome. I had Lee Jones give us the numbers for a chop based purely on chip counts, you know guarenteeing everybody 4th and then splitting up the rest based on chip percentage. Then I just sort of ballparked down a little to a number I was happy with that I thought would get the deal done. I'm pretty sure the deal was still a good one for me, but as others have stated I probably could have gotten a better one.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, it is pretty awesome. I had Lee Jones give us the numbers for a chop based purely on chip counts, you know guarenteeing everybody 4th and then splitting up the rest based on chip percentage. Then I just sort of ballparked down a little to a number I was happy with that I thought would get the deal done. I'm pretty sure the deal was still a good one for me, but as others have stated I probably could have gotten a better one.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. but it's got to fall apart if there's an uber-stack (e.g., if you had 90% of the chips, it would probably give you more than 1st place money). ICM would still give reasonable results.

[MLG]

yeah, that method gives the stackasauras more money than first. if i ever have that many chips though, the chances of me dealing are slim to none anyway.

[schwza]

assuming that the chip count method always gives too much to the big stack, i guess it makes sense that you knocked a few K off of whatever that method said you should get. do you know what the exact stack sizes were? for one thing, i'd be curious to see what the actual difference between 2nd and 4th was.

[MLG]

it was really really close. I had between 3.1 and 3.2. 4th had slightly over 1, and 2 and 3rd had about 1.14 and 1.12 I think. Rough guesses.

[schwza]

estimating stacks as 3.15, 1.14, 1.12, and 1.03, ICM payouts are:

78, 53.8, 53.4, 51.8

so it looks like you did better than ICM would say. i'm surprised 2nd was willing to take the same amount as 4th even if they were quite close. he still could've squeezed out another grand or something, probably.

[MLG]

2 and 4 really really really wanted to deal. 3 was the only decent player/bargainer.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
2 and 4 really really really wanted to deal. 3 was the only decent player/bargainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting... even if you do really want to deal, you've got to try to keep that at least a little under wraps. how long did the bargaining take? did it start and stop or did you get it done the first go?