Leinster Cup - Deal equals disqualification

Lplated

Just as day two kicked off, with 26 runners, it was announced that players doing deals would be disqualified.
Surely this is a matter for those lucky enough to reach the final table??
I read through the four page rules provided by IPT and didn't find this rule in it.

I appreciate the need to avoid collusion etc.., but surely this is going too far?

fade2black

Their tournament. They can do what they want I presume.

5starpool

I am surprised at this and would be surprised if they actually can do this since players did not (to my knowledge) sign a disclaimer or any terms and conditions to this effect.

DeVore

I presume they mean deals as in off-the-table deals between individuals. as in , if you are threehanded and two lads do a deal at the break to split anything they win, they can then soft play etc against the lone remaining guy. Even if they dont collude, it alters the dynamic of the game.
I cant see them opposing a money-chop at the end between all players.

DeV.

Lplated

Could be that that was what he meant. Announcer simply siad there were to be no deals and any players who did deals would be disqualified.

Pokerevents

Lplated wrote:

Just as day two kicked off, with 26 runners, it was announced that players doing deals would be disqualified.
Surely this is a matter for those lucky enough to reach the final table??
I read through the four page rules provided by IPT and didn't find this rule in it.

I appreciate the need to avoid collusion etc.., but surely this is going too far?

Whow this is amazing. I announced this as a complete joke. Dave Kingston said what's the split 26 ways, and in a moment of wit, I said anyone doing a deal would be disqualified.
Pokerevents has never had a problem with deals and believes it is a very important part of the game. 90 % of our bigger tournaments end in a 3/4/5/6/7/8/9 and even 10 way deal on one occasion.
However as Dev pointed out all deals should be made common knowledge and brokered by the director to avoid soft play etc.
Again I'm sorry if this comment in jest effected anyone's play, but then again margaret Dave and Eoin just did a deal so I dont believe so.
Were you playing today LPlate?

PiperT

Pokerevents wrote:

Whow this is amazing. I announced this as a complete joke. Dave Kingston said what's the split 26 ways, and in a moment of wit, I said anyone doing a deal would be disqualified.
Pokerevents has never had a problem with deals and believes it is a very important part of the game. 90 % of our bigger tournaments end in a 3/4/5/6/7/8/9 and even 10 way deal on one occasion.
However as Dev pointed out all deals should be made common knowledge and brokered by the director to avoid soft play etc.
Again I'm sorry if this comment in jest effected anyone's play, but then again margaret Dave and Eoin just did a deal so I dont believe so.
Were you playing today LPlate?

Well done Fintan, great event and well organised as always. For anyone that was playing, your comment was entirely taken in the spirit with which it was meant....Tim

BigDragon

The comment was at at time when there was a bit of buzz and banter around. I didnt take it serious and it was after my 'How much for a 26 way split' joke.

FYI there was a deal done at the FT of 9 so everyone got something - 400/1k/1k/1k/1.5k/1.5k/2k/4k/7k

It was agreed and meant everybody won their reg for next week at least.

I needed some $$ as I had no cash on me for the car park :rolleyes:

Mr. Flibble

According to Lyle Berman's (creator of the WPT) autobiography no deals are allowed in WPT events. He did this so it would more interesting for TV viewers knowing that the players were actually playing for the 1st place money. Entrants have to sign a contract.

DeVore

Mr. Flibble wrote:

According to Lyle Berman's (creator of the WPT) autobiography no deals are allowed in WPT events. He did this so it would more interesting for TV viewers knowing that the players were actually playing for the 1st place money. Entrants have to sign a contract.

And they add something to the pool to deserve this sort of control on what is after all, the PLAYERS game? Arent they getting enough from all the TV coverage and the regs?

DeV.

Pokerevents

Mr. Flibble wrote:

According to Lyle Berman's (creator of the WPT) autobiography no deals are allowed in WPT events. He did this so it would more interesting for TV viewers knowing that the players were actually playing for the 1st place money. Entrants have to sign a contract.

I can understand this concept as play does tend to get soft when deal is done.
I spoke with winner of world poker challenge in reno. Micheal Simon was his name and he just pocketed $1million with second getting 500,000. I sensed there was a deal done and because I had being talking to him earlier in the competition and got on well I asked him str8 out did they do a deal when down to last few players, he said no, but then again who knows.

MrPillowTalk

DeVore wrote:

And they add something to the pool to deserve this sort of control on what is after all, the PLAYERS game? Arent they getting enough from all the TV coverage and the regs?

DeV.

Couldnt agree more bit of a cheek to not allow players deal when they are the ones that have stumped up the cash, if they start adding significantly to the prize pool or else abandon reg fees then fair enough but otherwise its quite a bad rule imo.

Surely a rule that said any deal has to leave $150k etc to the winner would be enough to ensure no soft play.

Daithio

How can they contractually bind you to not making a deal though? It's an agreement between the players and has nothing to do with the tourney directors. Any contract they might make you sign couldn't be legally binding, and would only be there to scare the players into not making a deal. If I won it and wanted to give the guy who came second a 'gift' of half my winnings there's nothing the WPT could do to stop it. Trying to stop deals is pointless.

MrPillowTalk

Daithio wrote:

How can they contractually bind you to not making a deal though? It's an agreement between the players and has nothing to do with the tourney directors. Any contract they might make you sign couldn't be legally binding, and would only be there to scare the players into not making a deal. If I won it and wanted to give the guy who came second a 'gift' of half my winnings there's nothing the WPT could do to stop it. Trying to stop deals is pointless.

Could be different if your an American, ie if you are paying income tax on tournament winnings then revenue wont take your word for it that you did a deal for 750k each when reported winnings ar 1mill they may well force you to pay over returns on the full million which could make doing deals more problematic etc if the tourney organisers wont be decent about it.

Just a thought, have no idea if this would actually have any affect at all.

BigDragon

MrPillowTalk wrote:

Could be different if your an American, ie if you are paying income tax on tournament winnings then revenue wont take your word for it that you did a deal for 750k each when reported winnings ar 1mill they may well force you to pay over returns on the full million which could make doing deals more problematic etc if the tourney organisers wont be decent about it.

Just a thought, have no idea if this would actually have any affect at all.

Dont think this would be a problem. There would be no swaps of %'s, bankrolling etc if that was the case. I remember a big discussion about JJProdigy and his Grannies $$ and posible tax implications of his 'win' v Tax and the concensus was he would be able to prove he didnt actually 'lodge' any $$ therefore was not tax liable.

Lplate

Pokerevents wrote:

Were you playing today LPlate?

The op is not me Fintan, just someone with a similar moniker.