The Ethics of Deal-Making

ionapaul

Big crowd (50+) for the Double Chance last night in the Fitz, we eventually got to the final table around 01:00. A quick mini-deal later saw places 6 thru 9 make $75 each, so all would go away with a small profit.

Down to 7 survivors after an hour, myself and Richie suggested we think about a deal, as we were all working in the morning and tired. The chip totals were as follows...big chip leader on 70k, five of us between 25k and 18k, one shortstack about to be BB on 8k (blinds were 2k / 4k). Play was extremely tight, so myself and Richie were making moves to steal the blinds whenever possible. That said, the chip leader was playing well and hadn't made a mistake on the final table. Anyhow, it was suggested that we all split the remaining €2,700 odd equally, I didn't object (on 18k) and neither did the chip leader - he seemed a nice fellow who was new to the final table (could be wrong) and wanted to go with the flow. We each got €375 in the end.

Is it strange that I feel bad for the chip leader? He really was dominating the table just before making the deal, and we probably would have lost the small stack within the next few minutes. I resisted the urge to whisper to him to try to modify the deal so he got a little more than the rest of us. It was clear to me he went with the flow because the other 6 of us wanted to, I could tell he had some misgivings but might have been too nice a guy to speak up. Obviously all can change within a hand or two (we've all gone from chip leader to shortstack at the final table!), but had I been in his position I would have not accepted the equal 7-way split. Maybe this links in with Nicky's thread on online play when your opponent disconnects - where does ethics and / or fair-play fit into deal-making, and should we look upon niceness / inexperience in this case as something to be exploited, as we do when playing the cards?

henbane

You were a tool to take a deal when someone was about to put half their stack in on the blinds.

Culchie

I know how from hand to hand things can change very rapidly at that stage of a tourney, but I think that if a deal is to be done, it should be done on present stack sizes, (maybe dividing equally out the next blinds to be posted), and calculated then pro rata.

It sounds that the guy was a newcomer, and he was shortchanged somewhat, not wanting to rock the boat.
I think the other players at the table all genuinely know what they should all be entitled to in that situation and etiquette comes into play.

Poker is dog eat dog fair enough, but like a boxing match, or hard hitting football match, when the final bell/whistle comes, you shake your opponents hand and treat them honourably.

bohsman

It was a disgrace, 7 average stacks, good blind structure and plenty of play left so they chop it 7 ways, disgusting

ionapaul

bohsman wrote:

It was a disgrace, 7 average stacks, good blind structure and plenty of play left so they chop it 7 ways, disgusting

Yeah, we all wimped out because of work and love of sleep! The deal was a bit unreal...

Iago

I have to say that there's no way I would do a deal in this situation. Far too many players left, shortstacks who were about to run into a world of trouble and sitting as chip leader? He must have been a newcomer, he gave up over a grand to ensure that he got €375 instead of €150 or so (you have to assume that one or two players would go before him)...madness in my opinion.

As to the ethics, if I had 1,000 chips left and the guy with 30,000 chips was happy to split the money evenly with me then I'd take it. I've only done a deal twice, the first time was at one of the suited aces games, there where four of us left and I was 2nd shortstack and the deal got me nearly double what I would have received for 3rd.

The 2nd time I was heads-up, I had just doubled up with TT against JJ when quad T's came on the flop, and then my opponent came back level with me when his k6o hit a 6 against my ATs. The blinds meant that if we were playing we were pretty much all-in, 1st prize was €1500 and 2nd was €750 so we agreed to take €1135 each...that deal made sense, the one in the OP didn't

biteme

In the end of the day you play poker to win money. You may enter the tourny to have fun but at the end of the day you want to take as much money out of the tourny as you can. So I think this applies to deal making aswell. When it comes down to making a deal you try to get as much of the prizepool as you can. I can't believe someone would make a deal with a chip lead like that over the table. But we've all made mistakes like this. I refuse to make deals when there are more than 5 players. Worse deal I ever made was when I was chip leader with 7 left in 270 game and we chopped it up so everyone got 1500 each and first got 3.5 and second 2.5. Killed the game and was annoying when I came 3rd and got the same as 7th

I think you should really just restrict deals to top 3 or maybe 4. Its just not worthwhile chopping it up with more people unless you can get a table to do it when your the really short stack. I'm sure the guy with 8k and about to put in 4k in the BB was quite happy with the deal.

DocO

I was sittin on a cash table next to the tournie last night and was disgusted by the split for a few reasons.
the short stack was understandably only too happy to split it,so cant be blamed. the tempting fact for every1 was that because it was such a large field the prize money was large aswell, so everyone wanted to make sure they left with a decent profit, but were is the competitive edge gone?
doesnt anyone see the possibility of winning the 1300 that was being offered for first?
Was the table seeing how tight and well the big stack was playing and realisticly saying they had no chance in clawing many of the chips back?if so then the deal most definetly wasnt fair. i heard alot of persuasive talking going on bout how everyone was guaranteeing themselves a nice profit, but the chip leader didnt reply at all, only when the table concensus was that a deal was good, he didnt want to rock the boat
He should have been asked personally would he mind a deal, also any deal must surely have seen him get atleast twice the amount of anyone else, with him holding over 70,000. He was new to the fitz and certainly didnt seem to be one who would speak up for himself, maybe his own fault but was it ethical?
Also why would some1 enter a 50€ tournie without the intention of staying until the end, esp if you still have a chance of winning over a grand, so i dont think tiredness really enters the equation.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with me, and for that reason me and many others didnt say anthing at the time, but it definetly wasnt fair, and i feel alot at the table would agree with this. If the stance, money is money is being taken, then why not hold out and win the whole lot, because at the end of the day the blinds wernt too high for anyone and poker would have been the real winner in the end!

ionapaul

Well, one of the things I was trying to get at in my first post (in a roundabout way) is just to examine whether is the fact that last night's deal was unquestionably unfair also makes it unethical in a poker situation? Lots of things are horribly unfair but not unethical, given different circumstances. A (probably bad) analogy might be if you found a new salesman at a car dealership who didn't really know what they were doing - would it be unethical to bargain them down to a price-point where you knew they are not making any commission, or even where their employer might make a loss?

As mentioned above, I felt (and still feel) bad about how the deal was agreed upon, as the chip leader's heart didn't seem to be in it, and rightfully so. DocO, I am sure you are correct in stating that most at the table last night didn't think the deal was very fair, I didn't speak to anyone about it afterwards but I am sure nevertheless.

MadsL

A few comments;

1. There was no pressure on the chiplead to take the deal. From an ethics point of view it was entirely up to him to decide if this was a win-win deal. I was suprised he agreed but that's as much learning poker as anything else, it's really a question of how good a player he felt himself to be, if he honestly thought that he had a strong chance of going out 4th or worse with 150 odd or less, then that was right for him. I couldn't read any expression in his face either was as to how he felt about it and he didn't make any kind of protest at all. Should I really have whispered in his ear that he wasn't getting a good deal? I have people make a 50/50 split with me before when they have been 3-1 chip lead! But at the end of the day I'm damned if I'm going to feel guilty, if he has the intellect to play through a field of 50 players, then he can decide for himself what he wants to do...

2. Everyone agreed the deal and I made a point of saying several times that if there is any one objection then we play on, no explainations needed.

3. From a personal point of view I had made several all-in moves to get back to average stack after taking some serious hits with 13 odd players left. There was no way I was happy to take 20-45e profit after 4 hours of play and 50+ players, but to make 375 I needed at least 3rd place. Given the standard of play (some dodgy calls earlier with 12-13 players left) I wasn't sure that my all-ins would be respected much longer, despite the tight play. I was very happy with the way I was playing, and would have been quite happy to have played on, but at 2.30am, in a brand new job and in the middle of training at 9am the next day, I was weighing 375 and sleep against a possible 700-800 in a 3 way split at 3.35am. Cold light of day, the deal might seem 'digusting' but at the time it was a win for me. And I didn't get fired.

4.

You were a tool to take a deal when someone was about to put half their stack in on the blinds.

Yep, have to agree that this was just silly, but I think the deal gathered momentum at that moment and it seems the sympathy for the CL got transfered to the shortstack, for myself I actually thought he had more (I was not paying enough attention to him) , but the deal was done.

4.

It was a disgrace

Hardly. Wimpy maybe, but everyone made their own decision...and the dealers got 5% of the remaining prizepool rather than just from 1st & 2nd

DocO

good point iona, just pointing out the points which i thought were unfair, and seemingly u agreed with aswell.

Davey Devil

BOOOO!!!!

Sad day for poker.

MadsL

Sad day for poker.

Why? Would it have been a sad day for poker if we had done a 3-way deal with only 3 players remaining? 4 players? 5?

Perhaps all tournies should be winner-takes-all then to protect the honour of poker?

Please explain....I have explained my reasons for agreeing to this (mostly non-poker related I admit)

accensi0n

Was the CL wearing a jacket that said 'Jeff' on the left?

Tourneque

Surely deals in general are fine but the fact that they're seemingly so frequent would indicate that the problem lies in the prize structure ?

Imposter

Tourneque wrote:

Surely deals in general are fine but the fact that they're seemingly so frequent would indicate that the problem lies in the prize structure ?

There are some who don't do deals at all. There are others who like steep prize structures who will take a deal if they think it's to their advantage (ie they are not CL). Then there's the blinds to consider. If the blinds are crazy the game could be a crapshoot. If so a deal is probably best. Changing the blind structure might be the best way to eliminate or at least reduce the amoun t of deals done, but that still runs into other problems such as time.

I don't think there's any solution that would suit everyone tbh.

Davey Devil

I'm one of those people who just doesn't agree with deals and have refused them many times. I like to think of the game as a sport and in sport players don't stop a game, split the money and shake hands. That's just me though, it's a personal choice.

I can understand the reasoning behind doing a deal when the blind structure has limited the skill factor involved. However I don't believe that was the case on Tuesday night.

I don't blame anyone for taking the deal though. It seems to me like everyone was getting good value with the chip leader dominating so much. How he thought doing a deal was in his best interests I'll never know.

allin-king

Davey Devil wrote:

I'm one of those people who just doesn't agree with deals and have refused them many times. I like to think of the game as a sport and in sport players don't stop a game, split the money and shake hands. That's just me though, it's a personal choice.

I can understand the reasoning behind doing a deal when the blind structure has limited the skill factor involved. However I don't believe that was the case on Tuesday night.

I don't blame anyone for taking the deal though. It seems to me like everyone was getting good value with the chip leader dominating so much. How he thought doing a deal was in his best interests I'll never know.

deals are part of poker, if you were playing in 10,000 buy in tourney and were down to 3 with fairly even stacksi bet you wouldn't be refusing a deal

Davey Devil

If you bet then you lose. If the structure is decent I'll play on.

Last year I refused a deal in the €250 entry in The Fitz. I was 4th out of the 6 remaining players and went on to win €7000 instead of taking the €2000.

If it was in a 10,000 buy-in and it was down to 3 I'd be guaranteed a hug pay day anyway. I'd play on for the glory rather than cut a deal.

Iago

I would rarely look to make a deal, the exceptions already highlighted above, I agree with Daveys sentiments if you're not there to win outright what's the point?

Sure it's nice to guarantee yourself money, but if all you're playing for is money then it affects your game, how do you play when you're on the bubble or close to it? Do you change your game to a more passive game to ensure you get into the money?

For me I play because I want to beat everyone else there, the fact that I make some money along the way is incidental most of the time.

ionapaul

It'd be nice to have the 'killer instinct' all day everyday, but circumstances dictate otherwise, at least for me. One Friday tournie myself and the eventual winner played heads-up for over 90 minutes in the very early hours of the morning over a small money difference (€1700 vs. €1500 as a result of an earlier deal), but both of us were so up for battling to the death that splitting the last few hundred wasn't suggested. On Tuesday, there was no 'killer instinct' at the table (there was very little play) and most seemed to be thinking about bed and getting up for work in the morning, which is why the deal was suggested and agreed upon. I can see how 'no deals' might work out better in the long run for some players, but making a favourable deal can be seen as pragmatic as well.

Culchie

Slightly OT, but have the casinos looked at starting earlier
e.g 7.30pm, instead of the usual 9pm starts .... would this not help?

I would have thought when a poker player is out for the night, he is out for the night ! ... so the earlier start would enable him to get some sleep before work the next morning.

Lafortezza

Does it matter to the casinos if a large amount of deals are made at most of their final tables? Sure, they have shorter tournament running times/less staff costs/etc, but the reputation of their tournaments would be better if deals didn't happen all the time.

ionapaul

I know that some of the large, televised tournaments prohibit the discussion of deals on the final table.

Samba

Having been knocked out by the chip leader in 15th or so , the chip leader in question turned a two pair on me...the guy played some of the worst poker I have seen any Ax he raised with at one point he risked his entire stack on a flush draw and hit...


Had my hand stood I was headed for the final table and not in a million years would I have accepted a deal with 7 players remaining, good job for you guys he lucked out on me!!

In hindsight I made a ropey call but a call based on knowledge of my opponents previous play.

High light of the night, taking down Paddys stack with the 5's full of Q's, he rivered an inside straight and bet it out on the turn flat called him then min-raised on the river and he pushed....

accensi0n

Samba wrote:

Having been knocked out by the chip leader in 15th or so , the chip leader in question turned a two pair on me...the guy played some of the worst poker I have seen any Ax he raised with at one point he risked his entire stack on a flush draw and hit...


Had my hand stood I was headed for the final table and not in a million years would I have accepted a deal with 7 players remaining, good job for you guys he lucked out on me!!

In hindsight I made a ropey call but a call based on knowledge of my opponents previous play.

High light of the night, taking down Paddys stack with the 5's full of Q's, he rivered an inside straight and bet it out on the turn flat called him then min-raised on the river and he pushed....

He didn't risk his entire stack on that flush draw, he had a big stack at that early stage and had about twice the chips the other guy had.

I wouldn't have called his raise with A8o, I know he thought Ax was gold but still think its dodge if the ace hits.

ionapaul

Either of you two ^^^ play at table 2 that night?

Samba

A8s It was a weak min raise, I had a good long look at him before making my decision...

Could have sworn it was his entire stack.....i must have been half asleep.

as I said myself it was borderline but my read was correct.

Samba

ionapaul wrote:

Either of you two ^^^ play at table 2 that night?

No table 4 and table 1.

I remember a distinct hand from table 2...when i went out for a ciggy I noticed J10, 66 and what was it 33 all allin preflop for a monster pot.

J10 caught a 10d on the river to make a flush, how big was that pot?

accensi0n

ionapaul wrote:

Either of you two ^^^ play at table 2 that night?

nope, same as samba, 4 & 1.

MadsL

reputation of their tournaments would be better if deals didn't happen all the time.

Then as Davey suggests - don't do deals - the rule in the club, and as far as I know everywhere else is; "If one player objects, then play continues"

Nobody held a gun to anyone's head. If anybody had been unhappy about this then play would have continued. As it happened everyone was happy with a 7 way split that gave everyone approx the same money as for 3rd place.

starting earlier
e.g 7.30pm, instead of the usual 9pm starts .... would this not help?

Could have sworn it was his entire stack.....i must have been half asleep.

Tuesday is 8.45, the rest 8.30pm...but yes it would.