Irish Open - Standard - Deal Done

Ollieboy

I heard it confirmed last night that a deal was done for the Irish Open when it got down to 3 hands and they were even on chips. I believe it was an even deal between the 3 of them.

Cant blame the players for doing the deal with so much money involved, but it does bring into question the betting on the game, if you back one of these 3 players, than they do a deal, there really joint winners. I know it can be argued that its not, but it will put me off backing players in a game again, as I had Brendan and he more or less threw his chips away to end the game.

As the Ranking system goes, they all get equal points, so should the bookmakers pay out on 1/3 odds, I think they should.

I would like to hear what other people think.

It also explains the poor standard of game when it got 3 way.

RoundTower

If you back someone who is likely to make a deal, that is something you have to take into account when you back them. I can think of several players I wouldn't back to win a tournament outright because there is no way they would want to play past 4 handed if possible.

If the ranking points were split equally and the official result is that they won it jointly, then I think the bookies should pay out on 1/3 odds dead heat rules, but if they play down to a single winner for the official result, then the bookies should use that.

Shortstack

It was not an even deal but near enough. I agree that with betting in the running there should have been something in place to protect the punter. I know someone who got €2500 on Ian Woodley just before he doubled up vs Vincent @ 2:1. I doubt that bet would have been placed if it was common knowledge a deal was done.

Flipper

same... i backed Woodley before the start of the final table. I felt he was the most experienced there. He should have played to win instead of sticking it all in on a 50/50. Deal i heard was done was 200k/200k/180k.

Ollieboy

RoundTower wrote:

If you back someone who is likely to make a deal, that is something you have to take into account when you back them. I can think of several players I wouldn't back to win a tournament outright because there is no way they would want to play past 4 handed if possible.

If the ranking points were split equally and the official result is that they won it jointly, then I think the bookies should pay out on 1/3 odds dead heat rules, but if they play down to a single winner for the official result, then the bookies should use that.

I agree with your point Roundtower, but you put money on a horse or a football team and they cant do deals, a deal makes the result invalid, I think this is a very bad result for the bookies, as I'll never put money on a poker game again, its nothing to do with the players, but you can't have live betting and than not tell people a deal as been done, this is inside trading which is illegal. I think someone should bring a challenge against this and I'm considering writing a letter to consumer affairs about it or whatever agency, as I think the customer here was mistreated. I would be interest to hear anyone's few from PP here about this.

RoundTower

Ollieboy wrote:

I think this is a very bad result for the bookies, as I'll never put money on a poker game again, its nothing to do with the players, but you can't have live betting and than not tell people a deal as been done, this is inside trading which is illegal.

I don't think it's illegal for a bookie to take bets when they have a certain amount of inside information, in fact I believe it's standard practice. For example a tip from the stables that a horse is in form. This is not the stock market. I'm not certain of the law here though so someone can correct me.

Were PP taking bets once they knew a deal had been done, when it was not public knowledge? That does sound a little dodgy admittedly, but I don't see where the problem is as you could bet on any of the participants to win it.

Ollieboy

bets were been taken all the way up to heads up.

Anyone can get information on a horse and I'm not saying PP or anyone else knew a deal had been done, but once a deal's done the contest is over and it changes the game.

With all the games been top heavy, its a good example to spread the money better and make the game more about winning, but than again, people's results is all about money.

I just think its very bad situation to arise during betting still been in progress

Tom Hanlon

Didn't Vincent M. have €250 e/w on himself?

Were PP happy to pay on that considering Ruane just self eliminated himself from the tournament.


Looking at the play I figured there was a deal done when it was down to three but I am sure a lot of viewers just thought these guys hadn't a breeze how to play (or will try to copy the plays they saw and wonder why they keep getting beat!!!). Pity, in a way as the deal corrupted what should have been a showpiece event.

NickyOD

With the payout structure so ridiculously top heavy it was inevitable a deal would be done. Also paying out less than the actual buy-in for the tournament to the lower placings was an absolute disgrace.

califano

Tom Hanlon wrote:

Didn't Vincent M. have €250 e/w on himself?

Were PP happy to pay on that considering Ruane just self eliminated himself from the tournament.

He promised to give these winnings to Rumit Somayia if he won the event for cracking Rumits AA!. So said Tikay on poker 425