Deal at the final table?

[Martin Aigner]

What do you think, with over 16,000,000,-- for the whole final table, anyone thinks that there will be some sort of a 10way save or deal?

Curious, what you all think.

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[drewjustdrew]

They have posted "no deals allowed" there, so if any are made, it will not be public knowledge.

[fnurt]

I don't know how many other tournaments have this kind of policy, but it seems like if you really want to have any kind of major event, you can't allow deals, and it's worth thinking about this more as poker reaches new levels of popularity.

Imagine how it would undermind the competitive aspect of the sporting event if Sampras and Agassi could agree to just split the prize money, or if Tiger and Mickelson got to a playoff and immediately decided to agree to a $500,000 save.

Part of the thrill of watching the WSOP final table, for the average Joe, is knowing that millions of dollars potentially hinge on the turn of every card. Of course, there's no way to know if the players have agreed to a secret deal, but if word got out it would totally destroy the signficance of the event, and I think the organizers are well within their rights to forbid it.

I'm not saying it's wrong to agree to a deal in your home tournament, or in the $200+15 on Stars, or whatever; but when you're talking about major, televised events that you hope lots of people will tune in for, there's a very good reason you wouldn't want to allow deals.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
They have posted "no deals allowed" there, so if any are made, it will not be public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that just for the main event or is that the official policy for all WSOP tourneys?

[Sundevils21]

I don't know for sure Ulysses, but I think it is only for televised events. I remember a while back the WPT announcing that they don't allow deals because it hurts the viewership. If the viewers know that the prize pool has been comprimised and players are making deals or saves, then it supposedly hurts the ratings.

[M2d]

until sponsors start contributing to the prize pool, a no deals policy is silly.

[oddjob]

if the players didn't put up the prize money, then i'd agree with you, but since they don't put up any prize money, i'm a bit torn. i just don't think it's so clear cut like that.

[MrGo]

Call me greedy, but I'd decline a deal. I am playing to win /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Then again, easier said from my work PC in Milwaukee, WI then sitting at the final table, staring at millions!!!

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
They have posted "no deals allowed" there, so if any are made, it will not be public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you see this yourself? Or do you have a link?

There was a lot of noise made about the WPT's new "no deals allowed" policy. But the WSOP has always allowed deals, and I haven't heard anything about a change in policy. That would be interesting (and stupid).

[Godfather80]

I think that disallowing deals is one of the worst things to come out of the recent poker boom. People should realize that the guys at the final table have been playing non-stop for 5 days. At that point, I'd imagine that many of the more inexperienced players would be feeling like they are playing less than their best and would like an opportunity to shelter themselves from a foolish mistake that would not have happened under different circumstances.

Now, before you jump all over me, I understand that these foolish mistakes are part of late stage tournament playing. But, if people who watched the ESPN recaps had to watch for all 5 days, then they might understand the players' desire to make a deal. Since ESPN will recap the entire tournament over 7 hours, I could care less if the "average fan" feels his or her viewing experience is lessened by the presence of a deal.

Too damn bad for them.

The "average fan's" preferences don't determine whether a manager bunts in the World Series or a coach punts rather than goes for it on 4th down in the Super Bowl. This event belongs to the players and it should stay that way.

[ohkanada]

One of the things Matt Savage did in the WSOP this year is flatten the payouts. Although the difference between 1st and 5th is 4 million from a percentage standpoint it is much closer.

Ken

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
until sponsors start contributing to the prize pool, a no deals policy is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine if Moneymaker and Farha had chopped last year. No way in hell 2600 people would be at the 2004 WSOP. The fallout from last year's event generated much more for the Horseshoe than any sponsorship.

[3rdEye]

Has a deal *ever* been made at the final table of the WSOP main event? Just curious, since I've never heard of such a thing.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Has a deal *ever* been made at the final table of the WSOP main event? Just curious, since I've never heard of such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I searched the RGP archives and there are a few threads about deal-making at the WSOP.

It seems that sometimes they've been made in the hallway (unofficially) and sometimes they've been made in front of the tournament director (officially), but they've never been publicized.

Here's a post by a CardPlayer author (Ken Adams) describing a 1996 deal at the final table between Huck Seed, John Bonetti, and Bruce Van Horn: link (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3347014171d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=4o5qeg%24a9p%40news6.erols.com).

And here's a post by Andy Glazer describing the flip-flopping of Binions' official policy on deals: link (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=20010506023130.02798.00002007%40 ng-fz1.aol.com).

[carpola]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine if Moneymaker and Farha had chopped last year. No way in hell 2600 people would be at the 2004 WSOP. The fallout from last year's event generated much more for the Horseshoe than any sponsorship.


[/ QUOTE ]

Moneymaker did offer to chop with a pretty good lead heads up last year. Farha declined and the rest is history.

[jumpthru]

Thats lame...I have always felt the majority of money should go to first, and there should be a steep payout chart... whats the point if the top 10 get paid almost the same...


[ QUOTE ]
One of the things Matt Savage did in the WSOP this year is flatten the payouts. Although the difference between 1st and 5th is 4 million from a percentage standpoint it is much closer.

Ken

[/ QUOTE ]

[3rdEye]

I didn't know that. Good thing for Moneymaker that Farha turned it down.

[ohkanada]

I don't mind a flatter payout at the final table since it lessens the need for a deal. I am not so sure I liked how the backend goes from 10k to 30k in such a slow slow pace.

Ken

[Freudian]

Thats nonsense. Poker being on TV and becoming more popular is more beneficial for everybody, and certainly for the players with the biggest chance to make the final tables (ie, the biggest names).

Not only do they have a bigger chance of winning big money in tourneys. There are plenty of other ways they stand to make more money.

* More players in the casinos
* A whole new field of brand merchandise. It is no coincidence Hellmuth and Lederer have DVDs etc out. They are cashing in on the spotlight.

If making deals is what is important, there is nothing preventing the players from organizing their own private tournaments. If they are interested in being in the spotlight, they have to accept that one of the concequences of that is no deals, since deals hurt the 'sport' in the eyes of many.

It should be a no-brainer for every Hellmuth and Lederer around. They stand to make much more by giving up deals than not to.

[Myrtle]

I guess where one stands on this subject is a matter of personal perspective.

In my experience, most seasoned tournament players (with a few exceptions) hold the point of view that, as it is THEIR money, that it is also THEIR right to cut a PUBLIC, ABOVE BOARD deal if all involved parties agree. Whether they deal or not, they feel that they should have that option.

As poker explodes on the “public” scene via ESPN & Travel Channel, it is also very easy to understand why those who are casual observers can easily misconstrue the act of “deal-making” as something shady. Add potential sponsors sensitivity to public perception into the mix, and it’s pretty easy to see why there is pressure to eliminate deal-making.

I find it ironic that as the WPT strives for what they believe to be “legitimacy”, that they find themselves in the difficult position of having to “cater” to potential sponsors (who, as of yet are to put penny-one into the pot) whose only concern is to increase THEIR bottom line, while simultaneously attempting to prevent the “producers” (read…the actual players at the table, who have funded the prize pool with their OWN money) from doing the same thing.

The above smacks of total hypocrisy to me.

I think that the correct marketing strategy in this case should be to fully explain to the “average viewer” the rationale behind deal making.

Once properly explained, most people should be able to differentiate legitimate, out-in-the open deals meant to deceive no one, versus shady, back-room deals intended to cheat the unsuspecting.

As a player, I like the ability to exercise my negotiation skills when I’ve found myself in this position. Others may not feel that way, and are reluctant to even entertain the issue. I’ve certainly encountered that situation a number of times.

It’s frustrating to me that the potential whiff of impropriety so often obviates the reality of what really does take place.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind a flatter payout at the final table since it lessens the need for a deal. I am not so sure I liked how the backend goes from 10k to 30k in such a slow slow pace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completly agree with you. Players who make to 200th place, (or whatever place barely makes the money) should be paid more than the buyin. Take a little out of the top and feed it to the bottom. So if a player outlasts 2,400 of 2,600 players, he wins at least 2or3 times his buyin.

[jumpthru]

I aggree, its rediculous to have any places that just get there buy in back..maybe thats appropiate for a sitngo, but not a large tourney. I still think first place should win a large majority of the prize pool (more than 20%) since they are in fact THE winner.

I suppose I agree that players should reserve the right to deals, but also think the even that crowns the Champion of the world, shouldn't let delas occure...then its not the true champion..?

Also, what is with some online tournies that are like $2000 buy in and like 80th gets $1500.......why the hell would you ever pay a place LESS than the buy in...I have seen that occure multiple times...anyone else seen that?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind a flatter payout at the final table since it lessens the need for a deal. I am not so sure I liked how the backend goes from 10k to 30k in such a slow slow pace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completly agree with you. Players who make to 200th place, (or whatever place barely makes the money) should be paid more than the buyin. Take a little out of the top and feed it to the bottom. So if a player outlasts 2,400 of 2,600 players, he wins at least 2or3 times his buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

[baggins]

i believe i agree.

1st and 2nd places should win more.

the $10,000-paying finishes are ludicrous.

if there are, say 12 spots that pay $10,000 then why not make it 8 spots that pay $15,000? I mean, placing in the money should give you something back, shouldn't it?

what's the point in playing a tournament for 3 or 4 days and 'winning' your buy-in? and then being expected to tip? that's just silly!

I'm sure that the 3 or 4 people that would have been busted on the bubble would disagree as it would have caused them to be out $10,000. but, in the grand scheme of things, it IS a no-limit, winner-take-all tournament. you know going in ahead of time that if you don't make it high enough up the ladder you go home with $0. so why not give a few more people SOME sort of profit, than paying out a sadistic $10,000?

[Martin Aigner]

[ QUOTE ]
the $10,000-paying finishes are ludicrous.

if there are, say 12 spots that pay $10,000 then why not make it 8 spots that pay $15,000? I mean, placing in the money should give you something back, shouldn't it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Due to the fact that there are tons of satellite winners most players winning placing in the money and winning 10 book a nice win anyway.

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[baggins]

good point.

however, they could have just sold their seat from the start and locked in the $10,000. It'd be nice to have a little something more for actually playing and placing, no?