More than 1st chop

[stevepa]

I think whether you see an ethical dilemma is based entirely on whether you see dealmaking as an intrinsic part of poker. I don't. Essentially what's happening is we're creating a new game when we get down to a small number of players. The new game, while it has some similarities to poker, has a very different skill set and players not comfortable with dealmaking will end up making huge errors. Now these same players will make huge errors playing poker as well, but I have no problem with that as they've signed up to play a poker tournament.

So basically I'd rather there were no deals. But with the payout structure of tournaments, this probably isn't realistic. Still, I'd rather see a standard deal structure that's used solely as a way of minimizing variance, not the current structure that rewards skill in a game that has little to nothing to do with poker.

Steve

[mikeymer]

I got raped in a chop in the 109r back when I was first getting into high stakes mtts where me and woltas were super short compared to redsoxsox in a 109r. He wanted to take more than first place, obviously we werent that stupid to give it to him, but stars support said it wasn't allowed anyway.

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel the same way Badger, although I pretty much don't like deals period.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do feel this is immoral, I think there should be other chopping related things that should cause you to feel immoral(ie. getting more money than a player with more chips, getting more than the average of 1st and 2nd place money when you have less than 1/2 the chips).

[/ QUOTE ]

These are pretty clearly different as what constitutes a fair deal depends on player skill, etc. But no matter how good you are, you can never have an expectation higher than first place (obviously). The only three constraints to a deal that I see are: No one gets less than they are already guaranteed, no one gets more than 1st place, the total amount paid out is the same as if there was no deal.

Clearly there are some pretty good arguments that getting more than first is fine, but I still feel like it's wrong in some way.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this sums up my feelings pretty well. Nicely put Steve.

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel iffy about it too, however, it isnt as if you are raping them blind here, in your scenario last night even if you pushed for more then first the other guys may still get a good deal for them as it gives them more then 3rd place money (the jump might be really important to them) and allows them to make more money safely. I don't think I would ever offer it unless it was in jest though and I didnt really want to chop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know they are still getting a good deal for them and they may even be happy to take it... I just don't feel right pushing for it.

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys who say its unethical are all clowns.
Hypothetical scenario.

4 handed.
Hero. 2mill
Villian1 200k
2 300k
3 500k

blinds 25k-50k

Payouts We'll call it a 4000 FPP sattelite to two WSOP ME packages. so 24k purse.

Villain 2 is in debt and is a busto degen playing FPPs and if he doesn't come up with 2k $ soon, he'll probably get his legs broken.

Villain 1 is 18 years old, and has no use for the seat for 3 years, and is also busto playing FPPs.

Villain 3 Is a live pro who really wants to go to the WSOP, but has to sattelite in.


This is a clear scenario where your opponents reducing variance can be quantified as a VERY high number. I believe at my FT where I chopped for more than first, one of my opponents, a 2+2er, had student loans to pay off. ESPECIALLY in the million, where you have to play for 30k more....and a lot of your 'bubble' edge shorthanded comes away when it gets moved to a winner take all format (people lose their fear) you are ridiculous if you don't suck every penny out of the clowns.

Not unethical guys, its part of poker. Sure my WSOP satty exapmle is extreme, and unlikely, but REDUCING VARIANCE is JUST AS IMPORTANT A VARIABLE AS YOUR ACTUAL EQUITY IN THE TOURNAMENT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how the hypothetical works. I don't see anybody getting more than first place which is a package. If the other guys are happy to take 1 or 2k to give up the package and they are alright with that I see nothing wrong.

Also, If you are chopping but leaving money to play for I can see how asking for more would be alright as you aren't guaranteed to win the extra 30k or whatever is left. You definitely lose some of your edge that can come from beating on two shorter stacks who have to worry about moving up a pay slot.

So I guess I really only have a problem with when you chop the whole prize pool and you get more than first. Call me unballer or whatever.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think whether you see an ethical dilemma is based entirely on whether you see dealmaking as an intrinsic part of poker. I don't. Essentially what's happening is we're creating a new game when we get down to a small number of players. The new game, while it has some similarities to poker, has a very different skill set and players not comfortable with dealmaking will end up making huge errors. Now these same players will make huge errors playing poker as well, but I have no problem with that as they've signed up to play a poker tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this argument fall apart when you concede that the players choose to make a deal or indeed even enter into negotiations in the first place?

Also, you aren't saying anything about why there's something wrong with the amount being > than 1st prize only that you think the whole concept of deal making is in some ways adverse to the nature of the game (which I agree with btw) but that does mean it's in any way an 'ethical dilemma' and, again, certainly doesn't say anything about the chop amounts in relation to the payouts.

Finally, if Stars prohibits these types of deals I think that's wrong on their part. The money in the remaining prize pool belongs to the remaining players, they can do what they please with it, if they ask for money from the vig Stars can come in and shut them down, otherwise it's at the discretion of the players when they agree unanimously.

[Ansky]

This is just like when stealth won the $500.

If your moron opponents are morons, then they will get a deal worthy of a moron.

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just like when stealth won the $500.

If your moron opponents are morons, then they will get a deal worthy of a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you miss stealth's post?

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think whether you see an ethical dilemma is based entirely on whether you see dealmaking as an intrinsic part of poker. I don't. Essentially what's happening is we're creating a new game when we get down to a small number of players. The new game, while it has some similarities to poker, has a very different skill set and players not comfortable with dealmaking will end up making huge errors. Now these same players will make huge errors playing poker as well, but I have no problem with that as they've signed up to play a poker tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this argument fall apart when you concede that the players choose to make a deal or indeed even enter into negotiations in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Basically I think a lot of people feel pressured into making terrible deals because they know little to nothing about what constitutes a fair deal. Taking advantage of these people in a game they didn't sign up to play is, to me, unethical. A deal in which you get more than first is a pretty clear example of a spot where you take advantage of people who have no concept of EV. (There are some people to whom variance is a huge concern and in those cases I think there may be some exceptions)

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you aren't saying anything about why there's something wrong with the amount being > than 1st prize only that you think the whole concept of deal making is in some ways adverse to the nature of the game (which I agree with btw) but that does mean it's in any way an 'ethical dilemma' and, again, certainly doesn't say anything about the chop amounts in relation to the payouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

see above

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, if Stars prohibits these types of deals I think that's wrong on their part. The money in the remaining prize pool belongs to the remaining players, they can do what they please with it, if they ask for money from the vig Stars can come in and shut them down, otherwise it's at the discretion of the players when they agree unanimously.

[/ QUOTE ]

See this is where I struggle with what I think of deals because it's pretty hard to disagree with this.

edited for wording

Steve

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
I think whether you see an ethical dilemma is based entirely on whether you see dealmaking as an intrinsic part of poker. I don't. Essentially what's happening is we're creating a new game when we get down to a small number of players. The new game, while it has some similarities to poker, has a very different skill set and players not comfortable with dealmaking will end up making huge errors. Now these same players will make huge errors playing poker as well, but I have no problem with that as they've signed up to play a poker tournament.

So basically I'd rather there were no deals. But with the payout structure of tournaments, this probably isn't realistic. Still, I'd rather see a standard deal structure that's used solely as a way of minimizing variance, not the current structure that rewards skill in a game that has little to nothing to do with poker.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve,
Players can obviously choose not to make a deal if they don't think they're good at dealing. They agree to make the deal just like they agree to play the tournament.

One thing that does bug me about all of this is that Stars doesn't bother to make an ICM spreadsheet instead of the stupid chip chop spreadsheet they currently use. It seems pretty unethical to me that Stars support basically presents this as the correct deal, when it can often be really far off.