[ QUOTE ]
(Note: this is not the real payout strucure, which would be more like 15 Mio / 7 Mio).
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the payouts for 1st and 2nd were going to be
something like $7.5m/$4m.
[ QUOTE ]
What kind of deal would you propose if your opponent was
a) a Chris Moneymaker type but who hasn't yet won anything.
b) David Sklansky (somewhat known [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] poker pro and book publisher).
c) a solid poker pro known only to insiders but no publishing deal.
d) Bill Gates, who you noticed playing somewhat better than solid ABC poker.
Who would potentially give you the best deal.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's really a question of negotiating tactics. In general, if I'm making the first proposal of a deal, I would propose something where I get more than I'd ultimately be willing to settle for, but not so much more that it seems like an offer in bad faith. It's trivial to work out each player's basic equity, perhaps making a small adjustment for skill level, but the real question is, if there is a deal will it be in line with each player's equity, or will one player get substantially more than that? This depends mostly on the relative negotiating skills (not poker-playing skills) of you and your opponent. The correct negotiating strategy most likely would be to pretend that you don't care very much about variance, you are happy to gamble for the money, so that your opponent is induced to offer you more than your equity because he or she believes that's the only type of deal you'd agree to. Your opponent will be trying to do the same thing; if it's Bill Gates then it will be easy to persuade you he doesn't care much about the variance so if you wanted a deal you'd probably have to accept less than your current equity. But against any of the other three you might well get more than your current equity.