[Clayton]

Felt this issue needed to at least be brought up for discussion, as I had no idea myself of this until my friend Taylor Douglas (aka 2+2 poster tdomeski) made the $1500 final table this Monday.

When dealmaking is ever considered, the WSOP reps and tournament managers insist on the dealmaking occuring privately, and between the players with the WSOP offering no assistance towards chopping of prizepools.

Basically, when you cash out in a tournament they give you a slip for the payout dependant upon your finish, you go up to the cashier place, hand your slip, and give your money. If a deal has to be made at the WSOP, the players have to rely on the trust of the others afterward to actually make the deal. They have to trust people they have never met before in their lives to give a portion of their rigid (actual) winnings like a chop never happened, and put the money in their hands. Seems to be asking a lot, no?

In Taylor's case, 2 of the remaining 3 opponents planned on immediately getting a check and flying back home. As such, Taylor couldn't really finish a deal that would have potentially gotten him MORE THAN FIRST if he won. The deal was suggested by the Brazilian, everyone agreed to it, but because the WSOP could not chop the prizepool up and be flexible, a deal could not be made on the basis of Taylor having to put his trust in one of these three guys to ship hundreds of thousands, without the liability of the WSOP, if taylor did not win. Two wanted checks and had no plans of ever sending money as it would be too much of a bitch to pull off on their own time (which is obviously reasonable)

But the fact that Taylor lost around $100,000 sklansky dollars thanks to the WSOP is not the point. What the point is, is that for some reason on a liability issue the WSOP doesn't want to deal with players making deals, on account of the fact that if someone gets screwed and the WSOP is associated with it, they could sue the WSOP and get 2x the amount they would have gotten in the deal.

As such, every well known and operated tournament can safely deal (at least, I get that impression) except the WPT and the WSOP.

This has me kinda baffled, because wouldn't it make even a little bit of sense for the WSOP officials to just chop up the prizepool and dictate as much on the slips so payouts dont have to be so rigidly distributed upon finish?

Anyways, I'm kinda hoping someone can explain something I may not know, as I don't claim to be knowledgeable on the subject but with the current state of affairs revoling around the WSOP on this issue (one of infinite issues this summer) being completely retarded just asks the question to be posed: Why can't the WSOP chop up prizepools and just alter slips at the cashier and not force players to trust people they've never met?

The WSOP should be there to broker and endorse dealmaking and accurately distribute chop amounts dependant upon the deal at hand, as opposed to just throwing up their hands in the air and saying "YOU GUYS TRUST ONE ANOTHER IF YOU WANT MAKE A DEAL"

Seems really retarded, and I hope to get a response from WSOP or some form of explanation, prob wont get one tho...