Deals In The Sunday Million

[Jam-Fly 8]

In light of the 6 way split earlier, I was wondering what everyone thought of deals in the Sunday Million. Obv the pay jumps are huge but they are to everyone else as well, so is it right to keep playing? I think the player's db rating is very relevant here (in fact, relevant at all times, eg early its easier to push around a guy that is obviously a satelitte winner rather than a pro). If they were a pro, they'd be less likely to take a deal, or more likely to keep playing, whereas if they are all small stakes players taking a shot, it may be better to keep playing or be a little greedy when negotiating a deal.Thoughts?Merry Christmas

[LeMunche 0]

In light of the 6 way split earlier, I was wondering what everyone thought of deals in the Sunday Million. Obv the pay jumps are huge but they are to everyone else as well, so is it right to keep playing? I think the player's db rating is very relevant here (in fact, relevant at all times, eg early its easier to push around a guy that is obviously a satelitte winner rather than a pro). If they were a pro, they'd be less likely to take a deal, or more likely to keep playing, whereas if they are all small stakes players taking a shot, it may be better to keep playing or be a little greedy when negotiating a deal.Thoughts?Merry Christmas

Id be greedy. My biggest problem is bankroll management. I take jumps in stakes too soon and know that besides playing better players I also hurt myself by caring much than I should about the money in each pot. A top 6 finish would basically set me up with the type of bankroll id want. and I'd probably want at least the next spots payout to give up my chance at pulling down the win. I'd be happy with the minimum I could win and would need a sweet deal to pull me off the chance for 1'st normal prize. the playing out for 30k may not be enough of an incentive depending on how big the difference between my most likely cash and 1'sts.

[H_Factor73 2]

In light of the 6 way split earlier, I was wondering what everyone thought of deals in the Sunday Million. Obv the pay jumps are huge but they are to everyone else as well, so is it right to keep playing? ... If they were a pro, they'd be less likely to take a deal, or more likely to keep playing, whereas if they are all small stakes players taking a shot, it may be better to keep playing or be a little greedy when negotiating a deal.Thoughts?Merry Christmas

Why does nearly every Sunday million end in a deal? It's not poker. I realize it is a lot of money to most people, but c'mon. Play it out people. I mean even JC Tran took a chop in the WCOOP when first prize would have been over $1 million. Yes, half a million is a lot of money, but play for the glory and the money for once.As far as keep playing, why bother? And further more why bother leaving 30k on the table. Once people have money in their pocket, they play different. Once a deal is made, it's not poker. The short stacks have nothing to play for except doubling up. They can now afford to go all in at any time because they have a guaranteed pay day and there is no real consequence. It's bollocks.I'll relate a live tournament story from this November at the Wildhorse Casino. With 12 players left and a lot of stalling we went on break. When I came back the other players came over to me and said we've got a deal in place to split for 5k each. Before they could tell me the chip leader wouldn't go for it I had already said no deal. I was second or third in chips at the time, so why would anyone give up that much equity? (12th paid $890.)By the time we hit the final table, the other seven players were still crying out for a deal. The still chip leader and I (who had dropped to 6th in chips) still said no deal. Now this would have been favorable to me to take a deal as I now had ground to make up. They kept saying anything could happen you could go out 9th with a bad beat, etc. The chip leader and I finally had to get the Tournament Director to stop the deal harassment. Long story short, the last two people in the tournament were me and that chip leader. The payout structure only left a $5k difference between first and second and we even still played for that. Of course our hero (me) ended up winning.Deals are chickenchit. You got that far in a tournament. Play it out. That is unless you can get an inequitable deal in your favor, then by all means that is +ev.Thom

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Why do we play?We play...to win...the games.

[Jennings7 0]

I have always thought deal making is the easy way out. People get close to the end and start getting scared that they aren't going to make as much money as they hope, so they try to make a deal. I think tournament poker would be better off if there were never any deals, and the people had to finish it by playing it out.

[cubsfan44 0]

Id take a deal in a second. The million' structure doeasnt much favor play after the flop which is where the better players would shine. Lock up a good payday and play your *** off for the 30K leftover would be advice.

[cubsfan44 0]

Why do we play?We play...to win MONEY...the games.

[Lynbrook 0]

Why do we play?We play...to win...the games.

Wow, you're trying to make your point by quoting Herman Edwards?!?!? hahaha. Well I think if everyone wants to make a deal that's cool, and if one person doesn't, that's fine too. At the WSOP it happens a lot.

[adammc 0]

The deal making is all a direct function of utility. It is very simple to see why some people don't want to play it out and why some people do based on the utility they assign to certain pay levels. These deals are often very heavily weighted to the advantage of somebody who places low utility on last place and high utility on top three places, as there are very often people who assign high utility to anything other than last place, as 5-10k pay jumps represent significant portions of money. It all boils back to the very standard example of would you rather be given 1 million dollars or a ticket with a 50% chance of winning 5 million dollars. The plus EV move here is the ticket as it's E(v)= 2.5 mm, but can you really afford to not take the 1 million dollars.Utility.

[quadaces 0]

I have always thought deal making is the easy way out. People get close to the end and start getting scared that they aren't going to make as much money as they hope, so they try to make a deal. I think tournament poker would be better off if there were never any deals, and the people had to finish it by playing it out.

As long as the players put up the money to enter the tournies, there will always be deals made! Untill they are basically Freerolls with corporate sponsors you can't stop people from making deals. It's their money.

[SuperJon 175]

The deal making is all a direct function of utility. It is very simple to see why some people don't want to play it out and why some people do based on the utility they assign to certain pay levels. These deals are often very heavily weighted to the advantage of somebody who places low utility on last place and high utility on top three places, as there are very often people who assign high utility to anything other than last place, as 5-10k pay jumps represent significant portions of money. It all boils back to the very standard example of would you rather be given 1 million dollars or a ticket with a 50% chance of winning 5 million dollars. The plus EV move here is the ticket as it's E(v)= 2.5 mm, but can you really afford to not take the 1 million dollars.Utility.

Too easy. Take the million, go play Roulette in a casino, bet it all on 25.

[kkot 0]

As far as keep playing, why bother? And further more why bother leaving 30k on the table. Once people have money in their pocket, they play different. Once a deal is made, it's not poker. The short stacks have nothing to play for except doubling up. They can now afford to go all in at any time because they have a guaranteed pay day and there is no real consequence. It's bollocks.

I disagree. The 30k left on the table for the winner is huge money for most people. I can't see anybody giving up with that much money still on the table.If I were to make the final table of a large tournament I would absolutely make a deal if I felt that the money at stake was more than I am willing to play for. It's hard to win playing with scared money.

[Lynbrook 0]

I disagree. The 30k left on the table for the winner is huge money for most people. I can't see anybody giving up with that much money still on the table.If I were to make the final table of a large tournament I would absolutely make a deal if I felt that the money at stake was more than I am willing to play for. It's hard to win playing with scared money.

30K is a lot no doubt...but if you already made a deal and were only playing for winner take all for 30K...you'd play a lot differently most likely. No one would play to move up a spot and people would be much more aggressive trying to gain chips. At the WSOP this year, in the first limit event when Abolfodi won, the last three guys made a deal and played only for the bracelet. The guy who came in 3rd was really aggressive after that trying to gain chips and took risks he may not have if a deal wasn't arranged.

[chgocubs99 0]

30K is a lot no doubt...but if you already made a deal and were only playing for winner take all for 30K...you'd play a lot differently most likely. No one would play to move up a spot and people would be much more aggressive trying to gain chips. At the WSOP this year, in the first limit event when Abolfodi won, the last three guys made a deal and played only for the bracelet. The guy who came in 3rd was really aggressive after that trying to gain chips and took risks he may not have if a deal wasn't arranged.

Link/source?

[H_Factor73 2]

I disagree. The 30k left on the table for the winner is huge money for most people. I can't see anybody giving up with that much money still on the table.If I were to make the final table of a large tournament I would absolutely make a deal if I felt that the money at stake was more than I am willing to play for. It's hard to win playing with scared money.

I agree with you 30k is a good chunk of money period to most people. I don't think anyone would give up a chance at that. However, my point is this: Once a deal is made there is less of a disadvantage for the low stack to be patient and wait for a proper spot. That is, short stacks are more likely to gamble with marginal hands in order to double up and build a big stack especially with the blinds and antes escalating. It would be proper strategy to build a big stack in order to be more viable at attaining a winner take all prize.No one would give up. They would just have more leverage against a big stack which has more to lose in a coin flip situation.

[Lynbrook 0]

Link/source?

I worked for Cardplayer over the summer. I was there at the final table. The tournament directors were really adament that they didn't make a deal but they didn't listen. There was another limit event that I think Ralph Perry won. After it got heads up they talked deal for 15 minutes while the tournament clock was running, but they couldn't come to an agreement. Cardplayer does not allow any controversial material in their magazine or on their website. I was told, "Don't even think about putting this in your story."

[rgold79 0]

Dealmaking is just a way of limiting variance. I see a lot of guys who scratch out a meager living on poker who are perfectly happy guaranteeing two months' rent rather than taking a shot a six months' worth. As long as people continue to lay their own money to enter tournaments, dealing is going to happen across the board.