Making Deals at Final Tables

[Donkenstein]

This may have been brought up before (what hasn't really), but I was wondering if doing this makes anyone elses skin crawl? You fight your way thru a huge (sometimes not so huge, but either way) field to make it to the final table, scratching and clawing your way into the money and the chance at the big prize...and all of a sudden play stops and all the real competition is taken away by a deal that makes the rest of the game about bragging rights and not much else.

Imagine you are watching the super bowl and all of a sudden the coaches call a time out, meet at midfield, talk with the refs and then the ref announces that a deal has been made, everyone will get rings and both teams a trophy.

Or any competition for that matter, imagine one of the motivating factors (and in poker money is the biggest of all motivators, I mean how many of us would play if there wasn't real cash involved?) is made moot? Even as fans watching it would take away from the excitement and certainly effect the outcome of the game. How many times have you seen a real battle going on at a final table and then a deal is reached and all of a sudden the rock goes all in with the 3rd nut flush draw cause now he knows he will make x amount no matter what? I have seen it and it sucks if you are railing and all of a sudden the game becomes a giant coin flip.

I am sure I am in the vast monority here and but to me its just so oppisite the spirit of competition that it lessens the whole tourney everytime it happens.

[umistboy]

The deal can only go ahead with all players permission. At that point it's their money and they can chop it up any way they like.

If you don't like it then don't do it and you can't criticise how others make their money.

[Hollywade]

I don't have a problem with making deals. Payout structures are so top heavy. All the money is in the top three spots. You can do very well in a tournament and not make much money for your efforts. I think deals when you get to the final table are a fair way of flattening the structure. That reduces the variance of losing a coin flip or taking some horrendout beat.

Deals don't have to compromise the integrity of the poker. I made a final table at a $500 circuit event in which all 10 of us agreed to chip in $100 of our winnings to give to whoever wound up finishing 10th. That's because there was about a $1,000 difference between 10th and 9th, despite the fact that essentially all 10 had made the "final table."

If such a drastic deal is made that it obviously affects how the game is played, I think that is unfortunate. However, I don't think there should be any rules against making deals. On the other hand, I would like to know when there has been one. I know there have been several televised events in which a deal was made but no mention of it was ever made on the telecast. I'm assuming this is because the producers don't want to sap any excitement or drama out of the final table. Nevertheless, I think viewers have the right to know if a deal has been made. It's dishonest to say first place is $650,000 if the winner isn't really going to receive that full amount.

Does anybody know how deals, if at all, are done on Full Tilt and Ultimate Bet? Party Poker put a pretty cool system in place where you could stop the action at the final table if everyone agreed to talk about a deal. Party Poker took care of the whole thing. No deals were ever made at a final table I was at, but I thought it was cool to at least have that option. I haven't seen any "deal makers" on Full Tilt.

Great topic, OP.

[Donkenstein]

[ QUOTE ]
Deals don't have to compromise the integrity of the poker....I know there have been several televised events in which a deal was made but no mention of it was ever made on the telecast.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've always wondered what would happen if these deals were made public. What would the average Joe who watches it to root for the favorite player to win and not so much the stakes to be won and lost think?

What would people have thought if ESPN had announced in their telecast that Moneymaker tried to make a deal to split the money and just play for the bracelet and Farha refused?

[LuckyLloyd]

Look, it all depends on the situation:

- What the effective stack sizes are;
- What percentage of chips in play everyone has;
- What the payout structure will be if it is played to a conclusion;
- Your perception of your abillity relative to your remaining opponents;


If you aren't an idiot - cutting deals should always be to your advantage because it is something most people suck at. Therefore, in a situation where there are varying stack sizes you should be able to work out your $ expectation on the basis of your current chipcount and negotiate a higher figure from the deal. Whenever you do this, you have done good.

Secondly, never underestimate the variance at the business end of tournaments and never overestimate your edge. Many tournaments will reach headsup with 20 - 60 BBs left in play. The less the number of blinds in play the more irrelevant who the best player is becomes. Unless your opponent is a weak tight muppet, it is unlikely that you are going to "outplay" him in a 10BB headsup match.

This is the thing about tournaments. As the disparity in the payouts for each step up the finishing ladder reach their highest points - the variance involved also reaches it's highest levels. The reality is that most players in big buyin live events will be improperly rolled for that game level - and if that is the case variance reduction is a valid concern. In some situations the players who reach the final three of a tournament with significant money at stake just won't play often enough to reach the "long run" where their variance will eventually even out. As such, if they can get a good deal - it is in their interests to take it.

Finally, I am strongly of the opinion that once you are knocked out of a tournament it is none of your [censored] business what happens to the remaining prizepool. If the final 6 want to chop it up and can agree then it is their perogative to do so. I sometimes shake my head at some of the deals people are willing to accept - but it is their right to decide what to do with the remaining money and good luck to them. Just remember that every time you see a bad deal being made you can be happy knowing that there are idiots out there who you can take advantage of.

[All_Inn_Aces]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the thing about tournaments. As the disparity in the payouts for each step up the finishing ladder reach their highest points - the variance involved also reaches it's highest levels. The reality is that most players in big buyin live events will be improperly rolled for that game level - and if that is the case variance reduction is a valid concern.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, in all the tournaments I have goen most of the way in (say top 5 finishes) it has came down to a tiny number of big bets, at least for a while. I mean 5-10. At this point most any loss you oculd absorb early in the game is devastating now. I wuold rather lose a little equity for a decrease in variance, bc I have a finite bankroll.

[MrHorace]

Lloyd,
You make some excellent points, particularly regarding the effective stack sizes with the blinds so high, and overestimating any edge you 'think' you may have.
I think the big issue is knowing what a good deal is. Is there any simple procedure that will enable one to quickly assess whether he's getting buggered or not?
edit: David's article I believes covers this question very nicely.

[Spicole]

I think it becomes an EV evaluation, with the players considering the risks and rewards. Depending on the stack sizes, skill sets, and blind structures at the time of the proposed deal, the players may be very much at the mercy of the cards and are interested in sewing up a nice payday.

The objective isn't necessarily to do everything to finish first. Making a deal and lining your pockets with an acceptable amount of cash is certainly a fine decision.

That said, if you are asked to make a deal and don't want to do it, you certainly have every right to say "No". I'd support any player in that position.

[AMT]

David "Raptor" Benefield on deal making

[Weezey Baby]

My friend made a deal at the final table last night in the Planet Hollywood grinder tourney and I want to see how everyone thinks about this.

Heads up with 1st taking 1,275 and 2nd taking 750.
My friend has a 350k in chips and 2nd has about 150k with blinds at 12k/ 6k NO ANTE 20 min blinds.

My friend offered up a save where 2nd place left with at least 850 and they played for the difference. They were playing for around 250 - 300 dollars. With his chip lead and the difference in payouts, I completely disagreed with the save. He battled through the field and was the greater of the two players easily. He did end up coming in second when the other player hit a 4 outer river wheel, so I guess it worked out for the best. But i still disagree with the deal. What do you guys think??