Lee Jones: Why no more chopping W$ in tourneys?

[Cleopatra]

Lee Jones posted in the MTT forum explaining the rationale for this policy.

He linked to the WCOOP FAQ where the post was set out, but I read that FAQ when it was initially posted and I don't recall seeing the no-deals-in-satellites rule. It's possible I overlooked it, or maybe they edited it sometime after it was originally posted.

[Lee Jones]

[ QUOTE ]
He linked to the WCOOP FAQ where the post was set out, but I read that FAQ when it was initially posted and I don't recall seeing the no-deals-in-satellites rule. It's possible I overlooked it, or maybe they edited it sometime after it was originally posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was changed after we originally posted it. We made that change to the policy after a couple of the very first satellites turned into W$ distribution negotiations.

Best regards,
Lee Jones

PokerStars Poker Room Manager

[phish]

I am very happy to see them take this route. Chopping should be disallowed period. I personally don't play tournaments, but nonetheless I've always hated the idea of people making deals in a poker game.

[Soul Rebel]

You don't play tournaments yet you hate the idea of deals? Get to the end of one where there's a serious difference between 1st and 2nd, I think you're attitude will change. Chopping is one of the best things about pokerstars.

[AAmaz0n]

I think that deals can have the appearance of something unseemly, and that is why some object to them. However, it is inevitable when the payout structures are so steep that folks will think of chopping.

Tournament directors keep telling me that "players love the steep payout structure," yet I notice that the steeper the structure, the more likely a deal winds up being cut among the last few at the table. Maybe from the sites point of view a large 1st place payout looks good, but it is clear that the players are "voting with their feet" (or their chips) to flatten it out.

Some of these sats are extreme examples of steepness; $2600 vs. $38 is naturally going to lead to folks wanting to split it up to preserve their equity. I don't know that preventing deals is really going to increase participation in the WCOOP, or just keep folks from playing in the satellite.

Shauna

[jonoo]

probably a stupid question, but what kinda tourney is this where 1st gets 2500 and 2nd gets 38? and what is the WCOOP and W$?

[Uglyowl]

This is a double shoot out (81 entries) where first place gets a seat worth over $2,500 and second place gets $38 cash.

Not interested in $2,500 riding in a heads up match at the end if I go this far. If deals would be possible I would play to build up W$ to play in these.

I think Pokerstars is making a mistake here.

[xxx]

[ QUOTE ]
probably a stupid question, but what kinda tourney is this where 1st gets 2500 and 2nd gets 38? and what is the WCOOP and W$?

[/ QUOTE ]

A winner take all. With a $28 "consolation" prize.

[Cleopatra]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a double shoot out (81 entries) where first place gets a seat worth over $2,500 and second place gets $38 cash.

Not interested in $2,500 riding in a heads up match at the end if I go this far. If deals would be possible I would play to build up W$ to play in these.

I think Pokerstars is making a mistake here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think Pokerstars is "making a mistake" because its policy does not cater to serious players like you? In general wouldn't you prefer that they try to attract real gamblers to the site?

Also I don't understand your reasoning in saying you would play these satellites if deals were possible, but you're not interested in a heads-up match at the end for $2500. That's the format of the tournament. Even if deals are possible, you can't count on your heads-up opponent being amenable to a deal.

If you don't like the payout schedule, then stay away from the tournament regardless of whether deals are permitted.