You are heads up at the fina WSOP ME table and pondering a deal...

[HesseJam]

... and assess your situation:

You have only 10% of the chips which are about 100 big blinds of the current blind strucure. At stake are:
1st Place: 18 Mio $ and the bracelet
2nd Place: 2 Mio $
(Note: this is not the real payout strucure, which would be more like 15 Mio / 7 Mio).

During the break you run into your opponent in the bath room.

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. What would be the most important factor in your opponent towards getting a good deal. What would be your arguments?

[Klepton]

[trillig]

A deal?

At that point, I would never expect a deal .

I wouldn't offer one either, if I had 90%.

I got a deal in a SnG for WSOP lammers last year, I was stunned, he had 93% I had 7%, I took it.

-Bri

[HesseJam]

I do not understand how there could not be a deal.

If I had 90% of the chips in this particular case I would seriously consider a deal. I would hate to loose the whole 16 Mio even if the odds that this happened were small.

So, I understand that you wouldn't even offer, let's say, $500.000 to the small stack to settle the money and to continue to play just for the bracelet?

[fl0w]

I doubt any small stack would take that

[HesseJam]

And he shouldn't.

If I was the small stack, I think I would gun for a 6 Mio to 14 Mio distribution if the opponent was Chris Moneymaker or the poker pro. And I would be rather confident that I could convince them to make the deal.

If it was Bill Gates I would gun for a little more but my arguments would be way different and I wouldn't be confident that I could struck any deal.

I am pretty confident that I could not reach any deal with Sklansky.

The playing skills of the different opponents will play almost no role here.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
At that point, I would never expect a deal .
...
I got a deal in a SnG for WSOP lammers last year, I was stunned, he had 93% I had 7%, I took it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I assume the deal was that your opponent paid you 7% of the amount he would receive as winner? If so, what is surprising about it?

[M.B.E.]

[ 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.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
I am pretty confident that I could not reach any deal with Sklansky.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? It is no secret that he is risk-averse (e.g. "For me to flip a coin for 100K someone would have to lay me 130-100").

If you are heads up with David Sklansky and you persuade him that you are less risk-averse than he is, then you will be able to cut a deal that gives you more than your current tournament equity.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance is the key factor here. For most of us this would be a once in a lifetime thing. For most of us, the difference between 2 Mio and 18 Mio is the difference between being financially secured and filthy rich.

Bill Gates would be different. The money would be no difference to him. So I do not think I would be getting less than my current equity, I wouldn't get anything for that reason. If I am lucky, Bill would like to appear generous and then I would maybe get a lot more than my equity.

Sklansky might be risk averse but he is somewhat cocky and would put some value to win the bracelet untainted, e.g. sans deal.