I am soooo using this!

I'll file it away

Last night I had to say something I never said before while dealing ... and hope I never have to say again:

"Ummm.... Guys ..... Lets keep our pants on at the poker table!"

Hahaha what!? We're gonna need the details on that one.

Sounds like my kind of game! You didn't call me?

I heard something last night from a player who I have literally known since high school. He was in a tournament in another city and they were down to the last 8 players. One player had 60% of the chips but no one else was clearly in the running for 1st place.

It was late, they wanted to end it so the other 7 offered the chip leader 1st place and they would chop the rest evenly.

The CL refused and pointed to one player and said, "I don't like him and I don't want him to get anything." One of the players asked the TD to talk to the CL. He heard the deal offer and asked for a vote. It was 7 to 1 in favor of giving the CL 1st place and chopping the rest evenly. The lone hold out was the CL.

The TD told the CL he had won the tournament and the rest were chopping the balance of the prize pool. Since he was being awarded 1st place, he had no say in what deal the others made.

I had to think about it for a few minutes but I think it was the wisdom of Solomon shining through. I'm sure the TD wanted to shut it down and no one with a valid complaint had anything to bitch about so why not?

I DO NOT know what casino this happened in.

Now, can anyone think of any reason this would not be okay?

Hey ..... I was working hard to keep that game under control ...... the last thing I needed was to have to try to get you to keep your pants on too.

I've seen players turn down offers of first-place money before, but in every case, the player was young, dumb, and wanted to "play it out" because he wanted to feel the experience of really "winning" the thing, instead of accepting resignation.

As for the situation you mention, I love the TD's decision. What's the downside? The winner appeals to Gaming, and Gaming orders the players to report back to the table, return the prize money awarded, and play resumes? That's not going to happen. Nice job, TD.

This story makes me cringe inside. It's just not the responsibility of the TD to involve himself like this. What if the 1st place guy was cross-booking with someone or had a "must win" prop bet going? Good luck collecting on those. He has every right to decline every chop and doesn't need an explanation.

I paged Matt Savage via Twitter, hopefully he can weigh in.

Guess what ..... those wagers are likely illegal .... but in any event the casino has no obligation to accomodate them.


The only issue I have with the TD's decision is that in certain limited circumstances it may have been possible for a player to negotiate a payout more than first place. The TD has arbitrarily denied him that possiblility.

(and the players stated reason is one that actually may be consistent with circumstances where he could pull it off)

Prop bets that are not booked though the casino sports book are not the concern of the TD or anyone else in the casino. In fact, non sanctioned prop bets are illegal or at least frowned upon in many places.

Winning the tournament is the goal of every player, the chip leader was just told that he had won but his reason for refusing the deal was he wanted to cut one player out of winning anything.

Based on that comment, I'm wondering if the chip leader would deserve a 2 or 3 orbit penalty for unsportsmanlike like conduct. Rule One could be used to justify that.

I think that would have been a better tact to take than the one the CL did use. If he had asked for an extra $500 and they agreed, he would be locked into the deal but it might have also resulted in the deal being rejected by one or more player. Of course it is also possible that the casino could have a rule against deals that pay anyone more than first place.

It is Oklahoma after all.

How many places paid? If only the top 7 paid, and the chip leader REALLY didn't like one guy, he could be hoping for him to bust in 8th.

Is anyone else disappointed that this story didn't end with "so the deal got rejected, they played it out and karma being the bitch that she is, the guy who was offered 1st place money and refused got coolered left and right and went out in 8th while the target of his contempt won it all..." ???

While I applaud the TD for taking the hard line with the douchebag CL I would really have liked the storybook ending better. LOL

I don't understand what makes him a douche. It's clearly not about the money, its about several other factors that lead to the player not wanting to accept first place money.

Chopping is a privilege, not a right

Even with a "must win" prop bet, if the room posts results (online, or flyers in the room itself) the same guy (the CL) would no matter what show up as he won the damn thing.

Really? What factors? Deciding that someone he dislikes should not get paid?
You say "It's clearly not about the money". Where do you get that concept? Because I'm not aware of anything I wrote that was not about the money and who got what.

In this case, IMO, it was about the other players offering the chip leader first place to stop playing right then. They were satisfied with a split and giving him first place. The most he could hope for by buying into the event was inning first place. By ending the tournament right then, he was guaranteed first place. But being a DB was more important to him, being unfair to another player was more important to him.

Rule One applies here IMO considering the CL's desire to prevent a player from winning anything at all.

.

The only thing the house guaranteed was the last man standing would win first place. Since they gave the CL first place, what exactly does he have to complain about?

Any prop bets, side deals, etc are not the concern of the casino. In fact, if the CL argued that any deal would screw up and unsantioned prop bet, the TD would probably be wise to ignore that concept since it would probably violate Gaming Commission rules.

From a management point of view, it is the right decision. You want to get the dealer off the table as quickly as possible, since at this point all he is is a drain. That said, people play tournaments for lots of reasons beyond cash. The CL's excuse is bad. However, if he had said, "look, I'm trying to get some live short handed experience because I'm planning to play a bunch of WSOP events and want to practice live final table play, " is that really illegitimate? I strongly suspect that the floor was never going to compromise by saying, "OK the money is set, but if someone wants to keep playing, we'll keep dealing until there is one person left. If you don't want to play, just get up and get blinded off." He couldn't care less about the players, he just wanted the dealer back in the cash game rotation or going home.

It's very possible that the floor did just want to close it out and the CL gave him a reason to do so. Since I wasn't there, I can't say for certain what the thougt process might have been.

I think seeking final table experience is a valid reason. It might make me consider seeking a happy median for all players.

That statement there makes the TD's decision correct, IMO.

I was always under the impression that deals had to be unamimous.

But I've never heard of someone turning down first place money.
(Although I once got more than first place money in a tournament chop deal.)

If the CL said "Even if I'm next out I would rather play it out." would you still force him to make the deal?

I thought of an argument for the CL that the other 7 players may have grudgingly accepted:

"That guy once wouldn't agree to a deal when he was chip leader and I was a short stack. Now that the roles are reversed, I'm delighted to exercise my right to veto."

Here's something a player said to me one time in a tournament that really stuck with me:

Basically he passed on a pretty standard spot that most people would have called a shove with and he was in the 10 seat and showed me his hand before mucking it. On break I was still at the same table and I had asked him what made him fold in that spot. His answer was basically this was the first night in several weeks he was able to get out of the house and even though he was pretty sure he had the best hand, he's having fun socializing at the table and enjoying the atmosphere outside of his home. It's not about the money to this individual, he's not playing to win, but he's playing because the game itself brings him happiness.

I was in a tourney at a really small casino one time where I had to chop in a deal that I wasn't party to. Down to 6, basically me and 5 "locals". I had between 50-60% of the chips and was running over the table. I kept getting snide comments about "raising with nothing" etc. so I put my headphones on. Next thing I know, the TD is over and is racking up the chips. Apparently they decided to give me first and chop the rest. I wasn't going to complain - it saved me an hour that I promptly spent at a cash game.

And if the chip leader in my story had stated something like this instead of "I hate that guy" I would think the TD over stepped.

But for the scenario I gave, I think it was the right decision.