Final 4 at Commerce Tournament Deal -- Good or Bad?

[Scooterdoo]

I played at the Commerce Holiday Bonus Tournament $200 + two rebuy tournament on Tuesday. I'll be happy to discuss certain hands and strategies if anyone is interested, but the reason for my post is that I made it to the final table and the rule at Commerce is they don't allow deals until the final 4. When we were at 5 the blinds/antes were very high relative to our stacks -- there was about 220,000 chips in play and the blinds were 2000/4000 with 500 ante so every orbit cost 8k. I had a big hand against the chip leader and pulled within a few thousand of him. There were two short stacks at this time and a 3rd stack around 5k less than me (something like 65/60/55/20/20). After a last orbit when I didn't play a hand and the chip leader knocked out the 5th player the stacks were something like:

90k chip
56k 2nd
52k me
22k short-stack

Right away they take a break to calculate a potential deal (it's now 4:30am and everyone is tired). We had been playing at the final table for about an hour or so and it was very intense and the play was very strong and aggressive, especially with the 4 of us who were left.

They come back with what I considered a good 'monetary' deal. I didn't do the calculations myself at the time, but it seemed fair. The actual prize money if played out was:

1) 34,480
2) 17,710
3) 8,855
4) 5,590

and they offered something like (from memory, not exact):

1) 24500
2) 16200
3) 15600
4) 10000

So it looks like they basically locked in the 4th prize for everyone at a minimum and then took a pro-rated share of the remaining prize money based on the relative chip stacks.

From a monetary standpoint it was a pretty good deal because the money they offered me (15,600) was not far behind the 2nd prize money and well ahead of the 3rd and 4th prize money. While I was confident in my skills relative to the others, with the blinds so high anything could happen. The other three were happy with the deal and I didn't want to make trouble so just went along with it given that it seemed fair. However, I did have two problems with it and now have some reservations. My issues were 1) I really would like to try to win, not as much for the extra money, which would be nice of course, but for the victory (can you sense I'm ultra-competitive?). Also, I felt that the difference between me and 2nd was not really material. In fact the next hand he was in the big blind and would probably be even with me if he didn't play his hand.

I was thinking of suggesting/demanding one of the following, but eventually decided against both.

1) I split second with the other guy given our relatively equal chips stacks. The money would have been only a few hundred more for me, but it was more of a principle thing. Thoughts on this?

2) We give the 4th guy his 10k-ish, guarantee the top three about 15k and play it out for the top 3 prizes. Do you think something like this would have been fair?

Any other thoughts on typical deals would be appreciated. Would most of you be content with the money, or would you have wanted to play for 1st?

Thanks for any input.

[dogmeat]

Congratulations on your excellent play in this tournament. Just for my own education - why would you want/demand anything different than what was offered (a fair split of chips to cash available)?

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

[Scooterdoo]

[ QUOTE ]
why would you want/demand anything different than what was offered

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't I mention it in the post? Two reasons: 1) I felt that I was virtually the same as the the 2nd guy (we play the next hand and he's in the BB and we're probably even) so we should split 2nd and 3rd and tie for 2nd, and 2) I would have liked the opportunity to play for 1st -- for the money to some extent but also I like to win and this would have been the first major tournament to win. It's pretty tough to ever win if you just split it at some random time. Like I said in the post about 10 minutes before we were virtually tied and if I won a hand in the last 6 I would be the chip leader. I felt that I was not too far behind him and was well equiped to play against his style and that of the other player -- he probably felt that same about me <g>. Anyway, I'm just not the kind of guy who wants to stop after playing for 9 hours. Locking up a minimum amount for the first 3 seems like a better deal and then playing for the win. However, I'm sure the staff and spectators wanted it to end, but should that be a consideration. Anyway, I'm confident that the situation will come up again (hopefully tomorrow night when I play in the final $540 event) so I wanted some other opinions on other options.

Thanks.

[Boris]

The 4th place guy is in very desperate straights with only 22k.

I would have waited a few rounds to see if he busts out before making a deal. Also, next time take the initiative and ask for the same money for you and the 2nd place guy. You are practically even in chips. To make up the difference take it out of the chip leader's share. He will be very anxious to lock up that cash. He knows that a 2:1 chip lead at this point is not a lock.

[zaxx19]

Seems like a very good deal for you at this point unless the money just isnt important too you. As for the 600 dollar difference between you and the 2nd guy...well just chalk that up to seating i wouldnt make much of a fuss over that amount givent the totals. Unless im confident in taking 2nd here(and from what you are telling me you arent) this seems like a good if not great deal I take it personally.

[eamato]

I played in the Bike's 50 + 10 with one optional re-buy last night and the same basic situation happened. the bike allows deals once the final table begins and one of the two chip leaders wanted to keep playing instead of taking the 2165. i was fine with the chop because the blind and ante structure. the problem with these tournaments is the later it gets the more of a crap shot it becomes because of the outrageous structure.
I would not fault anyone who wants to play but as they say buyer beware. when the skill is being diminished and the luck increased then take the money and run.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like a very good deal for you at this point unless the money just isnt important too you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The deal is only OK. With the blinds as high as they are, they gave the 4th place guy a hell of a deal. $600 isn't much but giving out $4500 to a guy who is very likely to go bust is alot of money.

[dogmeat]

IC

With your reasoning in mind, now why would you give a [censored] what the other players or staff thinks? If you want to play it off, tell 'em no deal. Pretty easy. Good luck tonight.

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

[sdplayerb]

i think the deal was very fair. there is a ton of variance at this point and skill is much less.
the short stack also has the advantage of being able to push often. so i would take into account who appears most aggressive.
but you are risking 10K here if you were to come in 4th, for the possibility of 20K more if you come in first. and you only have 23% of the chips and 2nd is the same as you are getting now. I'd just take it.

As for your deal ideas. You are talking $15K, i don't quibble over a few hundred. Yes the other guy is in the BB, but he could get a walk and then you have to take less.

As for your other idea on the 15K, sure ask, but the guy in first would be the biggest idiot to accept it.

When there is a big chip disparity, any deal really has to end the tourney. If you were all super close, then that deal would make sense.

Congrats.

[Scooterdoo]

I do think the deal was fair from a monetary standpoint and the short-stack was a very skillful player and did have the advantage of going all-in with little risk to his position (and he was doing it!).

The 2nd versus 3rd was less about the money and more about the ego -- cardplayer only lists the actual prize money for example plus 2nd sounds much better than 3rd. Am I a nut for caring?

Also, the 1st thing was similar in the sense that I like to play to win, so it's never great to just stop when you feel you have a good chance of winning it all... again, not about the money, but about the victory.

I'm not sure why we couldn't lock up some money and still play AND have a good deal for the chip leader. I would need to think it through some more, but isn't there a scenario which limits our downside, but still allows us to play it out. Let's face it, the chip leader is only one hand from behind knocked off his leading position, so why wouldn't he be willing to make a deal which limits his downside. As I said in a previous post, just a few hands prior he was about even with me and wasn't far ahead of the other guy.