Making Deals

[potatoman 0]

I've been watching the final table of the Poker Stars Sunday Million the last 2-3 weekends as well as a few other big money tournaments during the week, and the part I always look forward to is the deal making. It has got to be one of the funniest, most entertaining aspects of a final table.I'm going to start saving some of the gems I read as people discuss how they can appease the short stack or the big stack who's asking for more than their fair share.Anyway, last night, the deal making discussion started when they were seven-handed. Isn't that a bit too early?The two people who wouldn't agree to the chip-chop were the big stack -which I can understand, and the short stack - which blew my mind.As far as deals go, shouldn't the short stack among seven players be the most agreeable to the deal?Who do you think typically benefits most from a chip-chop deal and when do you feel is the best time to make a deal in terms of chip stack size in relation to the blinds and the number of players remaining at the final table?I have no experience in these situations so I'm just curious what other conclusions people have come to. Is it okay to never make deals and just let it ride?

[Frez 0]

As far as deals go, shouldn't the short stack among seven players be the most agreeable to the deal?Who do you think typically benefits most from a chip-chop deal and when do you feel is the best time to make a deal in terms of chip stack size in relation to the blinds and the number of players remaining at the final table?I have no experience in these situations so I'm just curious what other conclusions people have come to. Is it okay to never make deals and just let it ride?

Deals are useful/practical when everyone (2, 3 or 5+) is essentially short stacked in relation to blinds/antes so that luck becomes the overwhelming factor.It is OK to never make deals. There's no obligation, if you're willing to ride the luck roller coaster.As for who it benefits, it totally depends on the deal. There are formulas to run it straight by chip stacks. Great if you're the weakest player there, not so much if you're the best player and expect to come out on top more than average. So lots of times players will ask for adjustments to the formulas.

[Snamuh 0]

Like Frez said, it's certainly ok never to make deals. Deals help to benefit everyone through the luck/randomness when the blinds are high in relation to stack sizes and the final table is a crapshoot.

[profxavier9 0]

Don't do it unless you really think someone has that big of an advantage on you. I only chop with my friends genrally and even then im not happy about it. I feel like it robs you of the competition.

[potatoman 0]

Don't do it unless you really think someone has that big of an advantage on you. I only chop with my friends genrally and even then im not happy about it. I feel like it robs you of the competition.

I agree with you. I'd have a hard time making a deal. Seems to contradict the spirit of poker. I would if I was the short stack out of 3-4 people and like 8 or less BBs. Otherwise, I'd want to gamble it up.To the people who say it's a benefit to everyone when the blinds get too high- at what point is that? When you have less than 40 BB, 30, 20?

[timwakefield 68]

As far as deals go, shouldn't the short stack among seven players be the most agreeable to the deal?

More likely the opposite actually. The chipleader (theoretically) has the best chance to win the tournament, but if he doubles up a shortstack once or twice, he's not on top and they're not short anymore. Basically by taking a chip count chop he's securing that he gets paid for the big stack he has now, but which could be partially gone in one or two quick hands. So especially when the blinds get huge and people get into push fold mode, he wants to lock up his fair share of the prize pool. The shortstack probably isn't getting too much more than he would if he busts out next - maybe he moves up a payout or two with the chop, but he certainly won't get anything near first place money. So he's only securing himself a modest improvement on what he's gonna get, but he's giving up a chance to win a heck of a lot more. I was actually watching the ft last night too, and I thought it was obvious that the shortie shouldn't chop. I don't remember exactly, but he was getting like 35k for 7th place, and would've gotten like 52k with a chip-count chop (plus 30k to the winner). If he doesn't take the chop he genuinely has a chance at 200k, even if it's only a 5%-10% chance. He can also hope to double up, outlast a couple other players, and take a chop where he'll get more like 80-100k. Also, I couldn't believe that those guys gave the CL the extra $$ when they ended up chopping 5-handed. It was so obvious that he was full of it and would have chopped anyways.

[potatoman 0]

More likely the opposite actually. The chipleader (theoretically) has the best chance to win the tournament, but if he doubles up a shortstack once or twice, he's not on top and they're not short anymore. Basically by taking a chip count chop he's securing that he gets paid for the big stack he has now, but which could be partially gone in one or two quick hands. So especially when the blinds get huge and people get into push fold mode, he wants to lock up his fair share of the prize pool. I sorta agree with this. Certainly, if you are interested in making deals, when you've put yourself in the chip leader position, it's the best time to make the deal. It's also the best time to use your chip stack as leverage, if your opponents will let you. However, if the deal falls apart and you feel you are at least comparable skill-wise to your remaining opponents, you have the best chance of winning. If you feel you have an advantage over your opponents skill wise, you're usually giving the most up in terms of what the deal will pay you in comparison to what you could win. In any case, if I'm chip leader of seven and people talk about making a deal, I think I will decline. I figure I should at least be able to wait out another 2-3 players to ensure I'm getting a bigger slice of the prize pool. Plus making deals 7-handed is kind of a sissy way to play poker IMO. The shortstack probably isn't getting too much more than he would if he busts out next - maybe he moves up a payout or two with the chop, but he certainly won't get anything near first place money. So he's only securing himself a modest improvement on what he's gonna get, but he's giving up a chance to win a heck of a lot more. I was actually watching the ft last night too, and I thought it was obvious that the shortie shouldn't chop. I don't remember exactly, but he was getting like 35k for 7th place, and would've gotten like 52k with a chip-count chop (plus 30k to the winner). If he doesn't take the chop he genuinely has a chance at 200k, even if it's only a 5%-10% chance. I think he's chances of winning were very close to zero. But just in this particular case. In other cases, where it's three handed and the short stack still has a bit of room to breath, maybe this is a case where the short stack should be less inclined to deal. But moving up a spot was possible.He can also hope to double up, outlast a couple other players, and take a chop where he'll get more like 80-100k. Also, I couldn't believe that those guys gave the CL the extra $$ when they ended up chopping 5-handed. It was so obvious that he was full of it and would have chopped anyways.Totally agree. They must have been too tired to argue.

[Frez 0]

Your logic is inconsistent Tim. You say the chip leader should want a deal becuase he may "double up a shortstack once or twice". And the short stacks shouldn't deal because "He can also hope to double up, outlast a couple other players". Your assumptions are one sided to fit your opinion. There's at least an equal chance that things go the other way - the chip leader wins a few more hands, and the short stack loses some more.

I don't remember exactly, but he was getting like 35k for 7th place, and would've gotten like 52k with a chip-count chop (plus 30k to the winner). If he doesn't take the chop he genuinely has a chance at 200k, even if it's only a 5%-10% chance.

A "genuine" chance at 200k with a 5-10% chance of success is worth 10-20k. He's getting a 17k bonus on his 35k 7th place. That's not a bad deal.

[CobaltBlue 662]

When I was in Reno, I played one of those nightly $200 tournaments and happened to make the final table where everyone got paid...at least the top 9. However, there were 10 of us and everyone decided that we should subtract some money for the tenth place player. Once we got down to eight, the level was changing to absolute ridiculousness. All of us had an M in the 2-3 range with the chip leader having an M of 5. I'm loathe to make deals, but I tried to convince everyone that it'd be a good time. Everyone stubbornly insisted that we should wait until a few more people went out. I went out in 7th.

[timwakefield 68]

Your logic is inconsistent Tim. You say the chip leader should want a deal becuase he may "double up a shortstack once or twice". And the short stacks shouldn't deal because "He can also hope to double up, outlast a couple other players". Your assumptions are one sided to fit your opinion. There's at least an equal chance that things go the other way - the chip leader wins a few more hands, and the short stack loses some more.

Nah, I think you just misunderstood. They're all at the final table, so they're all getting paid something nice. Of course it could go either way, and the big stack could eliminate the short stack if they decide to keep playing or vice versa. My point is that the big stack has much more to lose by not dealing than the shortstack has to gain by dealing, so IMO the 'desire to deal' will be weighted more towards the larger stacks, in a 7-handed situation with very high blinds.

[11b1p 0]

Putting a little bit of money in for the bubble is plus EV it really speeds things up in my opinion.

[Dazzler69 0]

I've only ever made it to two finals tables of a fairly big tourney. Both times I have made it I was roughly in the middle of the chip stacks and one thing I noticed was that the people that started talking about deals and were really in favour of deals ended up goin up first and were bullied around by the players with large chip stacks. And every time I've watched final tables online it appears to be the weaker players at the table who, or those in weak position that are up for making deals, perhaps coz they do not have the confidence in their own play to go further. I'm not in favour of making deals personally (altho I've only been in the situation 2ce) because it goes against the idea of competition for me. you would never see football, rugby or tennis etc players going over to the opposition and offering up a result and not playing the last 15minutes or whatever of the game. If I enter a tournement I want to keep goin til all my chips are gone or I have all the chips!!

[Highlow16 0]

I would never do a chip chop unless i was a big stack, even then i probably wouldnt unless we were 3 handed (depending on M sizes of course). There was an article in cardplayer about chopping and the math behind it about 8-10 months ago. Im too lazy to search for it though. I would almost always negotiate some kind of chop HU if stacks were close and skill level was relatively close, leaving a little extra money for first. If I had say a 2-1 chip advantage I would try to screw the guy and offer him a shitty chop!