Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: TightEnd on February 06, 2012, 13:22:26 PM
-
is interesting.
Released last night, as follows
""When Dusk Till Dawn first opened, we had a "no deals policy" for all of our tournaments, however, over time, this lapsed. We have created many big prizepools for our players, mainly through taking risks with guaranteeing the prize pool ourselves, but the most important and exciting part of the tournament - the final table, has sometimes been an anti-climax to the event, with disruptions in play while deals are trying to be negotiated, not only between the players at the final table, but with players who have taken stakes in a particular player, a trend which we have seen growing. On occasions, we have seen lesser experienced players, in particular, those players that have qualified through our satellites, not always receiving fair equity and situations have arisen where deal negotiations have created some animosity, especially when one player has refused to agree to a deal that the majority of players want to do. These are the primary reasons, however, we are also keen supporters of poker being recognised as a "sport", and part of promoting and supporting this concept is that there is an outright winner of a poker tournament. Of course, there can be a significant element of luck in winning a poker tournament, but we believe that the ability to negotiate deals should have no influence on how the prize pool is distributed. We believe this is in the best interests of poker players who choose to play tournaments at Dusk Till Dawn.""
-
I would say APAT was five years ahead of the market on this. Deals kill a final IMO.
-
I would say APAT was five years ahead of the market on this.
Why I thought it was interesting to post it on APAT.
-
I can see two sides to the argument. From the players point of view, most people who get to a final like that, the money means somthing. When you start getting £10k + ladders i can see why some want to deal 3 or 4 handed. And the average stack may only be 25 BBs so anyone can win if they get a bit of luck.
from DTD, and Robs POV they put on massive prizepools and take risks of overlays when the weather is bad or competion of other tournys are going on, and Rob came on the live streem last night and was really annoyed with deals because there is a massive anti climax to his tournys, and someone always gets shafted unfairly in a deal (maybe lack of experiance) and there should be an out right winner.
Personally i think if they all agree, and as long as its fair on everyones chip stack, its their money now so they can do a deal.
-
Personally i think if they all agree, and as long as its fair on everyones chip stack, its their money now so they can do a deal.
This...but they are saying that this hasn"t always been the case.
All this will do is make it clear that it"s all to play for...regardless of chipstack...I think it"s a good thing and I applaud DTD for following APAT's lead. ;D
-
NB...there is a qualifier though.
Nicked from blonde
"tournaments where the prize pool is guaranteed by Dusk Till Dawn will subject to a "no deals policy"."
-
IMO, deals are only ever likely if the payout or tournament structures are too steep in the first place.
If you"re crapshooting for massive pay jumps then I"m going to want to deal from a pure EV/variance point of view - even though I hate dealing and would rather play it out.
-
IMO, deals are only ever likely if the payout or tournament structures are too steep in the first place.
If you"re crapshooting for massive pay jumps then I"m going to want to deal from a pure EV/variance point of view - even though I hate dealing and would rather play it out.
I hate dealing too, I can never quite get the hang of that shuffling thing. ;D
-
I think a better option is to have a "must leave £xx for winner" policy.
The host still gets the final table played to the end and the players have the option of reducing the variance.
-
I Argee. Money left over to play for is the best of both worlds, suits the players who want to deal because of the massive pay jumps, and is good for the club as the tourny is played to an eventual winner.
As far as i know all of the GPs have had some kind of multiway chop, and most of the Super 50s and some of the deepstacks do. Dont think any of the MCs have though, but i could be wrong.
-
I think a better option is to have a "must leave £xx for winner" policy.
The host still gets the final table played to the end and the players have the option of reducing the variance.
Not a big fan of deals myself, would rather play it out for all or nothing (well whatever the nxt payout is :)) The money matters to me, of course it does but i don"t buy into a tournament to play for hours then ***** out with a last minute deal, I wanna then win and reap the benefits and bragging rights.
That said if there was a deal to be done then i think the above idea would probably please most.
-
Deals are lik taking a train to the next town and getting out 200 yards from the station because "you"re close". Once you"ve got your buyin and expenses back, you"re up. Play for the win, it"s a game.
-
I prefer to play for the win and hate the idea that often someone ends up being alienated at a table becuase they don"t want to deal. Can anyone else think of a game/sport/leisure pursuit which could lead a result of somebody "kinda" winning?
-
As a headline decision it is great - but how are they going to police the private deals that will be done?
Are they going to stop people taking stakes in each other - that is a deal.
L
-
I hate it when the entire FT chops. Win or FTFO
-
However DTD run so many sattys into these biggies, giving the recreational player a shot at the big time, and many of those will want some sort of deal.
Tbh once I pay my money for chip stack it"s up to me what I do with it. They get there rake either way. If I wanna deal for x then it"s my money, why can"t I if all agree??
Payout structure at DTD is sick top heavy, and poor. Doing 0.5% jumps of the buyin and then for final 18/27 a % of remaining prize pool makes stupid numbers.
Seems I"m against the grain here, but hey ho.
-
My recollection of years ago was that deals used to be done away from the table, in secret, and it all looked very dodgy - so most people were pleased when it was all brought into the open and made transparent.
I do not believe any "no deals policy" is enforceable, in reality.
I think the best compromise might be to fix the deal formula in advance: make it fair and non-negotiable. That way, newbies don"t get screwed and the formula can be set to ensure plenty of money is left on the table to play for.
I play live infrequently and go deep in something even more infrequently, so I"ve only been involved in a deal once at one of the Virgin Poker Festivals at Aspers Newcastle. I felt so intimidated at the time, I had no idea what was even going on and couldn"t really take in the explanations from the other players. A published, fixed formula deal would have been much less stressful, because I wouldn"t have had to worry whether or not the deal with fair or not. I would have trusted the tournament organisers, because the formula would be open to scrutiny by the experienced players, whose collective judgement I would trust.
Just to be clear, when I say "intimidated", I mean put under pressure to make a quick decision on something that I didn"t understand. In particular, I don"t mean threatened or anything else of that nature - I don"t think I was done out of anything and I have no reason to believe anybody was proposing anything that wasn"t completely fair - it"s just that in the heat of the moment, it was a situation that I hadn"t been expecting, was not prepared for, and was a distraction to what I was doing in the tournament.
-
I was involved in a FT deal once, n hadn"t been playing live long, and like you say felt "intimidated" n didn"t really know what was happening with 9 guys trying to get me to agree, anyway i made the quick decision n said "feck it may as well" it wasn"t til after it i had time to think about it n realised i got screwed as it was an even split but i was chipleader by a decent amount. Partly the reason i don"t like deals.
-
Rightly or wrongly, some people consider this a skill in itself, and part of tourny poker to be able to extract value from less experianced players. I think this is one of the many reasons why DTD are making changes.
-
I"m not keen on deals being done. My biggest win to date is still the £1200 I won at APAT Luton in 2010. And I was perfectly happy to play until a winner was reached. However, if I was in the position of being able to pocket in excess of £10K I"m sure I could be tempted!
Saying that, I hate to see an unfinished tournament. You will never see Wimbledon or the World Snooker Championship getting down to the semi"s or final and all the players agreeing to split the pize fund!
I wouldn"t have a problem entering a tournament that wasn"t willing to permit deals. If it"s stated at the start and you don"t like it then don"t play!
If deals where allowed then it should be split according to chipstack sizes with some extra set aside for the eventual winner. No discussions allowed, just a secret vote of YES/NO. If all agree the deal is done, if one or more persons disagree the game can continue and no-one will know who wasn"t willing to deal.
Another option is to make the prize jumps less in the first place. But, I"m not sure that would appeal to most!
-
No deals,,,,play to win,,,if you dont like it dont play,,,hate that you are made to feel bad not dealing,,would much prefer the option was not there,,,total anti climax after a long tourney,,poxy deals !!!!