Controversy in PStars Dealmaking *Input Please*

[RDG]

The following conversation happened during heads up play in a $160 double shootout on Stars.

wilspeed: u wanna do a deal
Thrasymachus: i'm up for a winner play loser 1k Thrasymachus: if you want
Thrasymachus: play = pay
wilspeed: ok
Thrasymachus: that cool?

Wilspeed did not respond, and thus Thras assumed there was no deal. There was no more chat until the end of the tournament. Do you view this chat as grounds for the deal to be enforced by Stars support? I will make a post with what eventually happened soon.

[hudat]

No

[Boris]

absolutely no deal. There has to be a pokerstars staff member confirm the deal with all involved.

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
The following conversation happened during heads up play in a $160 double shootout on Stars.

wilspeed: u wanna do a deal
Thrasymachus: i'm up for a winner play loser 1k Thrasymachus: if you want
Thrasymachus: play = pay
wilspeed: ok
Thrasymachus: that cool?

Wilspeed did not respond, and thus Thras assumed there was no deal. There was no more chat until the end of the tournament. Do you view this chat as grounds for the deal to be enforced by Stars support? I will make a post with what eventually happened soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no expert on deals, but It seems to me that wilspeed agreed when he said "ok". I don't think you have to keep saying yes every time your opponent asks. What if the conversation went like this:

wilspeed: u wanna do a deal
Thrasymachus: i'm up for a winner play loser 1k Thrasymachus: if you want
Thrasymachus: play = pay
wilspeed: ok
Thrasymachus: that cool?
wilspeed: yes
Thrasymachus: so it's a deal?
wilspeed: yea
Thrasymachus: you down with that?
wilspeed: uh, yea
Thrasymachus: fo sheezy?
wilspeed: look, i don't even know what you're talking about anymore

is that a deal?

[augie00]

[ QUOTE ]
absolutely no deal. There has to be a pokerstars staff member confirm the deal with all involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. You must have missed the thread.

[Sponger15SB]

Sounds like first person asked for a deal, the other guy said the winner should give the loser $1,000, and the first guy agreed.

This looks like a deal and there shouldn't be any controversy

[autobet]

Based on a previous thread, I would say they enforced the deal.

[this guy]

The other thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2489641&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=all&vc=1)

[FouTight]

[ QUOTE ]
The following conversation happened during heads up play in a $160 double shootout on Stars.

wilspeed: u wanna do a deal
Thrasymachus: i'm up for a winner play loser 1k Thrasymachus: if you want
Thrasymachus: play = pay
wilspeed: ok
Thrasymachus: that cool?

Wilspeed did not respond, and thus Thras assumed there was no deal. There was no more chat until the end of the tournament. Do you view this chat as grounds for the deal to be enforced by Stars support? I will make a post with what eventually happened soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed this, what channel was it on?

[VinnyTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like first person asked for a deal, the other guy said the winner should give the loser $1,000, and the first guy agreed.

This looks like a deal and there shouldn't be any controversy

[/ QUOTE ]

Coorect me if I am wrong.

Offer: Deal?
Counter Offer: 1K heads up tourn.
<I'll stop here>

If the winner drops his $500 on purpose, isn't that chip dumping? grounds for your account being closed?

[IgorSmiles]

why would thras assume there was no deal? wilspeed said "ok"

[VegasVixen]

I've been invloved in some very UGLY deal-making attempts at PStars final tables & here's my experience:

Until someone from support gets to the the table and EACH player AGAIN types "I agree" to whatever the deal is, there's no deal. There was a situation in which 6 players ALL agreed to a chop... it was clear in the chat. PS support finally arrives and 1 guy decides no deal unless we do it by chip count instead of even chop (as was agreed). Bottom line is during the time it took for PStars to get to the table the stacks had changed considerably. We (the other 5 of us) pleaded support to enforce the previously agreed upon even chop, and they would not... /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[27offsuit]

I can't stand when someone says "I'll post what happened later."

Ooooo, I can't wait.

Actually, I won't wait.

*cough*douchebag*cough*

[Lee Jones]

[posted identically to 2+2 and RGP]

[ QUOTE ]
The following conversation happened during heads up play in a $160 double shootout on Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

[disputed deal chat and follow-up elided]


Hi folks -
Robin posted this both to 2+2 and RGP. Interestingly, the voting seems aboutevenly divided, with the majority of the RGP people voting "deal" and the 2+2 crowd voting "no deal". [1]

As you can see, we're not going to make everybody happy with this ruling. It's kind of like the umpire at a baseball game. If you don't have him, then the
players have to work out every disputed call. If you have an umpire, sometimes you're going to disagree with him, but overall, you're much better off.

Just so you all know, we at PokerStars much prefer if you have one of our staff people assist you with deals. You may make fun of their (and my) anal-retentive
approach to closing the deal, but we basically never have problems after the fact; that's the bottom line. However, our Tournament Rules (http://www.pokerstars.com/tournamentsrules.html) state that if we feel the chat was clear, we'll enforce the deal, even if we weren't there.

Sometimes these things get messy, and our competition feels the best way to handle that is to not permit deals at all; we're the only major site that facilitates final table deals. But we think the benefit to our players is worth
the trouble.

You can make deal-making cleaner. Here's two points:

1. Please try to wait for us if at all possible. Once we're there, we'll make sure that any deal that you agree to is clear.

2. If you're determined to do a deal without us, think about how it's going to look in chat should there be any dispute. For example:

Bad #1
=====
A: "chop?"
B: "k"

Good #1
=======
A: "You wanna split what's left 50/50?"
B: "That's $385 each?"
A: "Yes. I agree to this deal."
B: "I agree to this deal."

Bad #2
=====
A: "2 sts - wanna give 2k to #3?"
B: "y"
C: "k"

Good #2
======
A: "2 seats. Winners get $1K each. Wanna have the winners give their 1k to the third guy?"
B: "So third place gets $1K each from first and second? I like that."
C: "Sounds good."
A: "I agree to this"
C: "I agree"
B: "I agree"

I'm sure you can see how much easier the "Good" chat logs will be for our staff should there be any dispute. And believe me - we put work into those. Sometimes we'll have 2-3 people look at a chat log to make sure we make the best
call on a close play.

Thank you for your understanding and thank you for playing at PokerStars.

Best regards,
Lee Jones
PokerStars Poker Room Manager

[1] What this says about the respective forums I can't even begin to imagine.

[yoadrians]

[ QUOTE ]

[posted identically to 2+2 and RGP]

[ QUOTE ]
The following conversation happened during heads up play in a $160 double shootout on Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

[disputed deal chat and follow-up elided]


Hi folks -
Robin posted this both to 2+2 and RGP. Interestingly, the voting seems aboutevenly divided, with the majority of the RGP people voting "deal" and the 2+2 crowd voting "no deal". [1]

As you can see, we're not going to make everybody happy with this ruling. It's kind of like the umpire at a baseball game. If you don't have him, then the
players have to work out every disputed call. If you have an umpire, sometimes you're going to disagree with him, but overall, you're much better off.

Just so you all know, we at PokerStars much prefer if you have one of our staff people assist you with deals. You may make fun of their (and my) anal-retentive
approach to closing the deal, but we basically never have problems after the fact; that's the bottom line. However, our Tournament Rules (http://www.pokerstars.com/tournamentsrules.html) state that if we feel the chat was clear, we'll enforce the deal, even if we weren't there.

Sometimes these things get messy, and our competition feels the best way to handle that is to not permit deals at all; we're the only major site that facilitates final table deals. But we think the benefit to our players is worth
the trouble.

You can make deal-making cleaner. Here's two points:

1. Please try to wait for us if at all possible. Once we're there, we'll make sure that any deal that you agree to is clear.

2. If you're determined to do a deal without us, think about how it's going to look in chat should there be any dispute. For example:

Bad #1
=====
A: "chop?"
B: "k"

Good #1
=======
A: "You wanna split what's left 50/50?"
B: "That's $385 each?"
A: "Yes. I agree to this deal."
B: "I agree to this deal."

Bad #2
=====
A: "2 sts - wanna give 2k to #3?"
B: "y"
C: "k"

Good #2
======
A: "2 seats. Winners get $1K each. Wanna have the winners give their 1k to the third guy?"
B: "So third place gets $1K each from first and second? I like that."
C: "Sounds good."
A: "I agree to this"
C: "I agree"
B: "I agree"

I'm sure you can see how much easier the "Good" chat logs will be for our staff should there be any dispute. And believe me - we put work into those. Sometimes we'll have 2-3 people look at a chat log to make sure we make the best
call on a close play.

Thank you for your understanding and thank you for playing at PokerStars.

Best regards,
Lee Jones
PokerStars Poker Room Manager

[1] What this says about the respective forums I can't even begin to imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just another reason why Pokerstars is the best-run poker site on the Web.

Thanks, Lee.

[augie00]

I LOVE LEE JONES!!!

[augie00]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been invloved in some very UGLY deal-making attempts at PStars final tables & here's my experience:

Until someone from support gets to the the table and EACH player AGAIN types "I agree" to whatever the deal is, there's no deal. There was a situation in which 6 players ALL agreed to a chop... it was clear in the chat. PS support finally arrives and 1 guy decides no deal unless we do it by chip count instead of even chop (as was agreed). Bottom line is during the time it took for PStars to get to the table the stacks had changed considerably. We (the other 5 of us) pleaded support to enforce the previously agreed upon even chop, and they would not... /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like everyone missed "the thread"

[Masquerade]

I think we can all guess what happened.

Why not just grow some balls and stop offering deals? Then the problem wont arise.

[Todd_L]

[ QUOTE ]
Thrasymachus: fo sheezy?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there's an unwritten rule against making a deal using shizzle-speak. No deal.

[J_V]

Not true. If you provide chat logs of chats that show a deal was made, they will transfer the money from the other guys account.

[Subby]

PokerStars really is the best run site out there.

If I could just get rakeback there...

[tipperdog]

Lee,

That's a sensible, logical, and well-reasoned position.

It has no business whatsoever on RGP.

TipperD

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
Lee,

That's a sensible, logical, and well-reasoned position.

It has no business whatsoever on RGP.

TipperD

[/ QUOTE ]


lol. nh.

[Jordan Olsommer]

POTDizzy

[JasonP530]

Thank you Lee for taking the time to respond to the post. Could the OK have been referring to the "do you want to do a deal"? He could have been thinking or typing when Thras had already typed in the other part. I play tournaments almost exclusively at stars because of the ability to make deals and the help I get from support in making them.

Thanks so much,
Jason

[Allinlife]

If I could just get rakeback there...

[/ QUOTE ]