WCOOP is LAME when deals are made

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Why were no deals allowed in the televised events at the WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, deals were permitted at the WSOP. It's the WPT events which have a no-deal policy.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Why were no deals allowed in the televised events at the WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Gavin the 2+2er who won the pot limit on last weeks show said they indeed did have a deal and played for the bracelet.

But I don't like deals myself. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do one in fact I would prefer if they weren't allowed to eliminate the temptation. Every tornament I enter I look at first place money and that is my goal.

[Ghazban]

Gavin Griffen said in the UB chat that they did cut a deal at the final 3 of the pot limit holdem WSOP event, then played it out for the bracelet and a smaller amount of money. I think Greg said something at one point about possibly cutting a deal in the big one but didn't because he had an agreement not to with his backers, not because it wasn't allowed.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't misunderstand, I am not saying thats the rule and we must have that structure. Just that is a better structure. Flat payouts are weak, 1st is a much much bigger deal than 2nd, the winner being rewarded is no bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tosh, what makes that structure "better" in your opinion? Is it simply an aesthetic preference?

My view is that neither structure is objectively better or worse; rather I think it would be good if some cardrooms offered tournaments with a flatter structure for the top places, while others offered tournaments with a steeper structure. That way players would have the choice.

However, I am open to persuasion. You might be able to convince me that the steeper structure is objectively better. But when we are talking about a "better" tournament structure, let's be precise about whose perspective we are using. For example, a player who is an excellent shorthanded and headsup player obviously would prefer the steep structure, while a player good at full tables but terrible shorthanded would prefer the flatter structure.

In general, from the perspective of a positive-EV tournament player, one of the most important aspects of tournament structure is, will it attract a lot of fish to buy in. On that point, it is not clear to me which way the flatter-final-table-structure cuts.

You could also look at it from the perspective of the cardroom. For example, at the WSOP, generally the top 9% got paid, but the bottom half of the in-the-money players got little more than what they bought in for. I am pretty sure that up until a few years ago, they did it differently: only the top 5% or something got paid, but then everyone who got paid would receive at least twice their buyin. It could be that one reason the tournament organizers made this change was they figured more people would come back next year, when they could get a 'refund' by placing in the ninth percentile. Myself I do not like that structure aesthetically although I can't think of any logical arguments against it.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, from the perspective of a positive-EV tournament player, one of the most important aspects of tournament structure is, will it attract a lot of fish to buy in. On that point, it is not clear to me which way the flatter-final-table-structure cuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a steeper structure will attract more fish as they'll see "1st place pays XXX!!!" and it will look like they're playing for a lot of money (never mind that the true fish will have absolutely no chance of winning). Often, though, they advertise via the total prize pool offered so, in this respect, it shouldn't matter. I do, however, believe that after-the-fact advertising (for next year's event, for example) can benefit from the steeper structure as they can advertise what first place was worth the prior year and just not mention that the players actually accepted less when a deal was made.

[The Ocho]

I understand the publicity factor, but the title of "world champion" of poker can be bestowed by any casino or tourney. A casino can name it's tournament whatever they please. We have the World Series of Poker, the World Poker Finals, and numerous other tournaments that basically are named a variation on the same "world poker champion" theme. The history of each is the only real fundamental difference that distinguishes this tourney from that tourney.

There is no sactioning body in the poker world. No leagues, no commisioner, etc. A tournament can be deemed deal-free if the hosting body chooses to make it so. That is their choice and players have the choice whether to play or not play in a non-dealing tourney. I don't care if you do or don't deal for whatever reason. It can't be denied that it is more exciting for the viewing audience to see guys play heads up for 1.5 million bucks. If a player is worried about his/her title being tainted by a deal being made, all that player has to do is simply deny the deal and play it out. Nobody can force you to make a deal, and by the same token I'm not convinced I have the right to tell you that you CAN'T make a deal when it's YOUR money that is on the line.

[fnurt]

I 100% agree it is up to the host. My own opinion is that Stars would give more credibility to their titles if they didn't allow deals. But as long as deals are permitted, I'm not saying there is anything ethically wrong with making one, and I might very well do so myself.

[dogmeat]

That was a lot of money involved for anybody to pass up a split. The very first decent money finish I had came on a split. It was heads-up and I had about 30% of the chips against a player much better than me and we split 60-40. I was thrilled.

The last tournament I played and made the final 6, the whole table wanted to make a deal. I declined the offer for three hands, and you never saw such a mean bunch of players, all gunning to knock me out now, and I caved and took the split. It's really tough to say no. In a tournament like we are talking about, I'd have jumped at the chance.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[The Ocho]

It seems to me that players are being drawn effectively to the Stars events and the prizes are pretty damn big. Players seem happy with how things are going. I don't know what this "credibilty" of titles really gains for 'Stars by disallowing deals in this situation. It appears that their goals for the tournament (as I envision them) are being met.

The players are playing and the money is big. What's the problem? Is anything really broken here? Does bestowing the title of 'online poker champion' to an anonymous moniker really mean anything?

[Tosh]

I just prefer it, thats all. I have immense respect for people who play to win it, and none at all for people who try desperately to scrape into the money. No matter how good you are, you won't win a major tournament all that often. IMO its just something that needs to be hugely supported by the money too.