PokerStars 200+15 Deals...
I was watching the final table of the Stars 200 +15 tonight. And there were four players left. One was out well in front, while the other three were realtivily the same in chips.
The players decided to deal, Lee Jones brokered the deal. (poker room manager)
The three non-chip leaders all took 52,000 while the chip leader took 82,000 of the prize money. Now i can understand, you've been playing for hours and don't want to risk going home (the fourth placed finisher would have taken $30,000), now obviously to the non-chip leaders this deal was pretty decent.
But now, me and my stupid Amatuer outlook on this is, yes, fisically the deal is the "smart" way to go and over the long haul probably has the most equity for all players involved. However, when your playing in a tournament of that magnitude or playing at any championship, since when did making a deal become the noble or the winning approach?. Now I know I sound like a noob, and sitting in their shoes hey, $52G's isn't looking too bad, (82 if I am the chip leader), but something about this irked me.
I am sure many of you and perhaps all of you will disagree, but as I watched them hash out the deal through the chat box, I can honestly tell you, I wouldn't have done it. Its easy for me to say that sitting here with nothing at stake, but I really tried to imagine the grind I'd been through if i was them battling it out and I would have had to say, "Lee, out of respect for the game I will contiune playing and not accept this deal". Although my view will more than likely be unpopular, and even considered "stupid", "hey if you bust out now you'll only 30g's instead of 52", there has to be that desire to be a champion. Sure they played it out for TLB points, but as much as TLB points are respected, I can't see them measureing up in significange to the prize money.( I know they can be used for WSOP seats, but there was a first prize of $105,000).
Anyway, this is just my rant...if someday I can make it to a final table of that magnititude and I was faced with the same decision, I'd opt to play. Even if i busted out in fourth and took home my $30,000 cheque I'd still feel better about it then wondering "what if" and taking the 52, I guess I'm different. And all those players deserved a pat on the back for a fine match. Not attacking them, just don't agree
P.
The players decided to deal, Lee Jones brokered the deal. (poker room manager)
The three non-chip leaders all took 52,000 while the chip leader took 82,000 of the prize money. Now i can understand, you've been playing for hours and don't want to risk going home (the fourth placed finisher would have taken $30,000), now obviously to the non-chip leaders this deal was pretty decent.
But now, me and my stupid Amatuer outlook on this is, yes, fisically the deal is the "smart" way to go and over the long haul probably has the most equity for all players involved. However, when your playing in a tournament of that magnitude or playing at any championship, since when did making a deal become the noble or the winning approach?. Now I know I sound like a noob, and sitting in their shoes hey, $52G's isn't looking too bad, (82 if I am the chip leader), but something about this irked me.
I am sure many of you and perhaps all of you will disagree, but as I watched them hash out the deal through the chat box, I can honestly tell you, I wouldn't have done it. Its easy for me to say that sitting here with nothing at stake, but I really tried to imagine the grind I'd been through if i was them battling it out and I would have had to say, "Lee, out of respect for the game I will contiune playing and not accept this deal". Although my view will more than likely be unpopular, and even considered "stupid", "hey if you bust out now you'll only 30g's instead of 52", there has to be that desire to be a champion. Sure they played it out for TLB points, but as much as TLB points are respected, I can't see them measureing up in significange to the prize money.( I know they can be used for WSOP seats, but there was a first prize of $105,000).
Anyway, this is just my rant...if someday I can make it to a final table of that magnititude and I was faced with the same decision, I'd opt to play. Even if i busted out in fourth and took home my $30,000 cheque I'd still feel better about it then wondering "what if" and taking the 52, I guess I'm different. And all those players deserved a pat on the back for a fine match. Not attacking them, just don't agree
P.
Comments
Why?
Blinds were so high it was now a crap shoot.
I was tired and possibly out matched.
Lets take some money now so I can join another game to make more..
Chip Leader: 3 Mill
other 3: 1-1.2 million
Blinds: 20/40K no more increasing. so each had at least 25 bets. but I probably would make a deal as well. The difference between 30 to 52 K is a decent car. But I think chip leader got a steal taking 82K, just 20K off of first, and 20K above second. I think the shorter stacks should have asked for short stack bonus. Possibly 3K each to up it to 55K and 73K to chip leader.
Each circumstance is unique, though. I wrote an article on the subject of deal-making in this month's CPP magazine if you're interested.
I would also like to say Lee often tries to convince the players to leave something on the table after the deal (not just TLB points). I like this method as well.
That's my two cents.
Jamie.
It has more to do with the fact that the blinds stop increasing, so there isn't as much pressure to move chips around. If stars would stop capping the blinds, you'd never see deals again.
Huh? I think the opposite is true. When blinds are big in comparison to the stacks then dealing is more likely, especially if "good" players are involved. Most of the time I don't want to playing BINGO for $40,000.
You'll never get the big stack to agree to a deal because they have such a massive advantage in that scenario.
The big stack just agreed to a deal on Sunday. I'm not sure what you're getting at unless by deal you mean a favourable deal for the small stack(s) (comparable to the big stack) since the tourney will become a crap shoot.
Why should the big stack(s) be penalized with huge blinds and antes? I like capping the blinds in my tourneys for the exact reason of allowing the players to play. The point of playing in poker tournement is to PLAY...deals are and should be optional. By having the blinds become prohibative they would make deals almost manditory...as you see in many tourneys.
Just my thoughts though.
Jamie.
My point was that you will stop seeing deals when stars removes the blind cap. You responded with "The opposite is true" which says "If the blinds continued to escalate, you'd see more deal making". I responded "The big stack will never agree to a deal because they have the luxury of the big stack" to which you responded "Everyone agreed to a deal yesterday". Except that yesterday had a blind cap. So you seemed to have missed my point.
Anyway, it's the shortstacks that get penalized when the blinds increase, not the big ones. If the blinds continued to escalate, the biggest chip leader has next to no incentive to end the tournament. He can wait around for the small stacks to beat eachother up and consume the lower bands of the prize pool. Then if another opponent gets to equalish in chips, he can deal for the maximum amount. Thus, you would see LESS deals in that tourney.