Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Making a deal at the final table

  • 20-03-2006 11:24am
    #1
    Bananna man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 673 ✭✭✭


    I am curious to know what players feel about deal-making at final tables of televised events.

    The last two EPT events have been interrupted by deal negotiations and whilst in Monte Carlo no agreement was reached and no deal done, the whole drama of the final stages of the tournament could have been seriously affected had the prize pool been simply split according to chip amounts, which was the deal that these players were discussing.

    I think what concerns me most, aside from the obvious impact deal-making has on the EPT televised shows, is the effect it is going to have on the publics impression of Poker as a 'sport'. Just suppose you'd loyally watched every episode of the EPT or WPT and it got to the final table then suddenly the top four players just simply split up the remaining prize pool; I mean you're going to feel pretty short-changed.

    The WPT have a no deal-making clause in their contracts and whilst I would hate to have to implement such a measure, I don't see how it can be avoided. What do you think?


Comments

  • #2
    Imposter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,666 ✭✭✭Imposter


    We've had this discussion here before and basically as long as it'S the player's money they should be allowed to do what they want with it. If the TV companies or other sponsors put up a large percentage or all of the prizepool then they can attach conditions.

    I think the WSOP has a no deal clause in the terms and conditionsw which is wrong imo. Personnally I do like the Pokerstars idea of leaving a smallish percentage to be played for. If the prize structure was flatter then there wouldn't be as many deals but some players don't like that and the prizemoney for the winner doesn't sound as good for publicity reasons.


  • #3
    ollyk1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,533 ✭✭✭ollyk1


    It's the players money they can do whatever the f**k they want.

    If the TV guys add money to the prize pool and don't allow deals to be made in relation to that money then fair enough. Other than that TV should have no say. To be honest I'd say their are players who would prefer to play tournaments without TV crews.

    You seem to think that there would be no poker without tv Bananna Man and that is simply not the case. The reason people turn up to play big tournies is to win cash not solely for tv exposure - some people benefit from tv exposure but most don't directly benefit.


Advertisement