A new approach to making deals in tournaments

Hi wizo656,

unfortunately your thread was overlooked in some other forum and just recently moved to the tournament strategy forum where it belongs. Therefore your thread didn't get the attention that it deserved. Hopefully you are still interested in discussion and maybe there are a few more players that are willing to discuss your idea further.

Personally I wouldn't like the idea very much. If I decide to deal it's always on intention. Most of the times I don't want to take the full risk and lower the variance. If I wanted further excitement I wouldn't have dealt. This argument is only valid for railbirds imo. Since railbirds are not part of the deal anyways I don't see the point in dealing options that only favor the railbirds. Players don't want to play for the full prices because they don't want to risk their equity.

There already is the possibility to play for some extra cash for first price on most sites. If you want further exitement this is the way to go. In some tournaments on Pokerstars there even is a fixed amount that is always played for in the end.

Maybe your intention just doesn't get clear enough since you chose very similar numbers for your examples. From what I can see I wouldn't take your dealing method since it is kinda unclear and I don't see any added value.

Regards,
Asaban

People usually only deal when they're done with playing...

This doesn't make mathematical sense. There is a contradiction in the numbers you've put for 2nd place (You've mixed up A/B players?? but either way). Player B gets more than 2nd place and more than his equity in the tournament, and A gets the same (I suppose you consider the case when they win in another order than probabilistically expected?).

Your approach is correct, but you have to consider the fact that each player already has won 14k, so they can't lose it. The money that you split in the deal is the difference in the money outstanding and the 14k they have won.

Advertised Prizes
1. 30.000$
2. 22.000$
3. 14.000$

Player's Agreed Equities
Player A: 26.000$
Player B: 22.000$
Player C: 18.000$

Difference in prizes
1. 16.000$
2. 8.000$
3. 0.000$

Difference in Equities (subtracting the 14k they have already earned)
Player A: 12.000$
Player B: 8.000$
Player C: 4.000$

Below is the players agreed share of the remaining 24k prize pool after the 14k is awarded (according to their agreed equity)
Player A: (12k/24k) = 50.0%
Player B: (8k/24k) = 33.3%
Player C: (4k/24k) = 16.7%

Thus truly doing a 50% split and 50% play would be prizes of
1. 16.000$ * (50%) = 8.000$
2. 8.000$ * (50%) = 4.000$
3. 0.000$ * (50%) = 0.000$

And immediate payouts of
Player A: 12.000$ * (50%) + 14.000$ = 20.000$
Player B: 8.000$ * (50%) + 14.000$ = 18.000$
Player C: 4.000$ * (50%) + 14.000$ = 16.000$

To verify the correctness of this (slightly modified) method, it should be the case that if we were to do an equity split of the remaining 12k in the prize pool, each player should get their exact (agreed) equities in the tournament.

Player A: 20.000$ + 12.000$ * (50.0%) = 26.000$
Player B: 18.000$ + 12.000$ * (33.3%) = 22.000$
Player C: 16.000$ + 12.000$ * (16.7%) = 18.000$

Thus my slightly modified version is correct. I hope it's clear that this works for any percentage greater or equal to 0% (it even works for numbers greater than 100%! but players need to add money lol)

TL;DR you need to subtract the amount that everyone has already won first

Obviously as Asaban said, there are merits to deal making, and whether it's worthwhile to do this, but that isn't really the point of this. Just a way to control variance while playing the same game for less money.

There is an art to deal making, IMO the simpler you keep it the better off you are in being able to get a favorable outcome for yourself. What every player should know before making a deal especially on Pokerstars is if ICM or Chip chop will favor them. This is where I see most deals go badly or well for players.

One word of advice if you want to make a deal is, never ask for the deal. Also don't check the click deal button, see who is begging for a deal first. If they ask if you clicked it, say yes. You want to unsettle players and agitate them while considering if you even want to deal in the first place. Many times you can exploit situations by stealing blinds, depending on the prize pool each steal can be worth a % or so in equity for you.

Stealing blinds while others wait for the deal making to begin (while you told them that you already checked the box) is considered angle shooting by most players. I wouldn't recommend to do so unless you don't care about morality, fairness and your public perception. I always try to tell the truth while still seeking my benefits.

I agree that you shouldn't ask for deals and should wait for others to do so. Furthermore you should be aware of the differences between ICM and Chipcount Deals and which of them favors you.

Regards,
Asaban

So you don't try to tilt players while you are at the tables, or if you see a player tilting you don't try to push them over the edge? This isn't about morals, ethics or angleshooting of which I have a pretty solid foundation. It is about winning and playing the most effective way to win. I stake and coach 70+ players, I almost always advocate not chopping at all, but if you are going to manipulate the situation as best as you can.

It's very effective to get players to tilt and spew around. Nothing to say against it. But it has some limitations for me. One of them is lying with the intention to gain benefits out of it. For example by stating that I am willing to deal while I am not. That's a perfect example of angle shooting imo and therefore a question of morals and fairness.

In the end everyone has to know his own limitations in this regard. I honestly think that my edge is big enough to be able to beat them without depending on one or two big blinds that I gain by lying about my intentions.

Regards,
Asaban