Hi, this is the context: 100$ satellite with 1R1A, packages are worth 1600$ and contain a 1000$ tournament ticket + 200$ tournament ticket + 400$ cash.

Prices are:
1st and 2nd: $1600 package
3rd: $220

But these prices can be rearranged, per example in the last satellite someone got $1000 cash.

So we're down to 6 players, I'm chip leader with around 35 BB, the others have 30BB, 10BB, 10BB, and there are 2 really bad players (30/5 or so) with only 5 BB. One players says let's make a deal, we always do (this was my 1st time playing this satellite) which I repplied not yet.

I eliminate the 2nd stack and now have a commanding chip lead, and the same guy keeps pushing for the deal, which I obviously won't cuz I just doubled up, saying to them that I'm willing to make a deal if the stacks get closer to each other, but there's still 2 players with 5 BB. So he says "ok, then the rest of us will make a deal, we're assuming u will win one package, so we're just gonna distribute the 2nd package and the extra cash". (Later on I found that 3 of them were father, mother, and son LOL)

I'm super confused at this point, cuz I had the impression that everybody had to be on board in order to make a deal. I have a huge stack but I could still walk empty handed if I don't get to 3rd place, but now with their deal even the 5th place (unless is me) gets 200$.

I think this exclusive deal changes the dynamic of the table, cuz now since all of them have some cash guaranteed, they can loosen up (which they did after the play continued, I got shoved in almost every hand), so I say in a soft tone "Idk, this is weird, sounds a little bit like collusion to me" and ALL HELL BROKE LOSE, one player with 80 years old at the very least started screaming, calling me a little brat , telling me they were all honourable players (LOL, after I found 3 of them were family, I was told that in bubble situations they would fold not even looking at their cards if a family member shoved or was in the blinds, yeah...really honourable).

Plus, the poker room staff didn't say a word the whole time, they were plain statues.

So, what they did was legal or not?

So they essentially gave you first place? Why would you turn that down?

Sounds shady. Def would change the table dynamics. I would snap call the floor as soon as they start trying to deal and get them to stop.

I play a lot of the same weekly tournaments at my room and as soon as it gets down to the final table most people want to chop. I always object because I feel I'm a better player and have an edge. Once I do this they stop discussion and have had the floor tell them numerous times to stop because it doesn't matter because one person objects and to continue to play and not waste time.

I would be extremely upset in your scenario especially if I found out that 3 of them were related.

Your post is a bit inconsistent on one hand you say

but then you say:

But if they are making a deal that consists of you getting one of the packages then how can walk away empty handed ......... Play should have ended.

Or were they making a deal among themselves to split up their winnings and not give you a package?

They are offering you first place. They are dealing for the rest of the prize pool. Seems like they could exclude you from the dealmaking discussion in that case. At that point you should turn in your chips to the floor and walk away with a ticket.

So are we.

The nature of a deal is that everyone is involved. The prizes are already determined, then, so the remaining play doesn't matter. The players may as well just insta-shove everything until it's all over. And if that's going to happen, the room may as well dispense with the formalities, declare it over, and distribute the prizes as requested. In reality, this is what happens.

In that sense, a deal ends the tournament. This is why it has to involve everyone. You can't very well end the tournament if there's someone in the action who still wants to play it out.

A deal that doesn't involve everyone amounts to collusion. If everyone but OP is agreeing to split the remainder of the purse that he doesn't get, they are now all playing on the same team. They're playing collectively for a prearranged distribution of the purse, and it is in their mutual interest to target the holdout and bust him.

In this situation, I would have seized on that assumption they made that you would take first. "Okay, then, if you want to give me the first-place prize, then I'm interested in that deal." Maybe they'll go for it, if for no other reason than to get it over with. Stranger things have happened. Even if they were to offer to give you 90% of first-place money, it would be a reasonable reflection of your equity, if not a gain.

I don't like to do deals either, as I tend to shine in short-handed and heads-up situations. Unless I feel I'm outmatched, I'll almost always hold out, and it usually works out in my favor. But sometimes people will make stupid deals just to get the game over with.

It's extremely suspicious to me off the bat that three of your four opponents were related. That's a big red flag. Granted, it's not impossible, but there had to have been 36 or more entries, right? And then they pull this "deal" nonsense that amounts to teaming up against you.

And the old man getting upset and calling you names? Yeah, that's how an honest, honorable player responds when someone says he's uncomfortable and feels like he's being colluded against.

If the house tolerates this kind of thing, I might never want to play at this place again.

the exact words of the other guy were "we're assuming u will win a package because you have so many chips, so we're gonna distribute the 2nd package and the extra cash among us 4".

That doesn't mean in any way they were giving me a package without beating them, why on earth would they do that?
I still had to finish top 2 in order to win a package.

They were making a deal asumming I would win, BUT, if I didn't get to 3rd place (original winners were top 3), i wouldn't win ANYTHING. They were totally excluding me of the deal, I wasn't part of it whatsoever.

Bottom line: If i won a package, the 4 of them will distribute the 2nd package and the extra $220
If I didn't get to top 3, the 4 of them will distribuite the 2 packages and the $220

Based on that language i would have understood that they were giving me a package. They assumed I would win one and now wanted to chop up the remainder. I would have simply said "thank you will take it" and Called over the floor to get paid.

This is not how I understand the words they said.


If this is what they were doing then it is not acceptable. In any event the fact that they openly stated they would fold rather then eliminate a family member (who was actually in the event so not just a hypothetical) should have gotten a floor called over.

Wait a minute if you lost in 3rd how can you not claim the 3rd place prize. They made the deal on the assumption you would take one of 2 packages but since theirs a possibility that you might get 3rd you get nothing? Total collusion should've called the floor.

What is the casino where this happened?

Making deals with people excluded is pretty much the definition of collusion.

The floor should have put an end to it.

Yeah, that's about as blatant as it gets wrt collusion.

Although I was involved in a deal where one guy was not even asked about it. He was about 3-1 chipleader over the rest of the tournament combined and running like the Almighty himself. So the rest of us discussed a deal, giving him first place and divvied up the rest. He had kind of a dumfounded look on his face.

Yeah, I think I could let it slide if the holdout person is guaranteed first. He may not be part of the discussion, but giving him the best possible outcome he could hope to get is not really excluding him in a real sense.

From a practical standpoint, I wonder what the floor really could have done. Let's say he says "you cant do that" and the other four players say "OK" while actually just planning on splitting up whatever prizes they get anyway. So they still play as if the deal is in place, because it is, just unacknowledged.

Ultimately—someone may want to correct me if I'm wrong—the house should be able to simply eject them from the room and disqualify them from the tournament. Collusion is cheating, and that's the price of being a ****ing cheater. In that case, the prizes would be distributed to the last people to bust out before the shenanigans happened.

Personally, I wouldn't be too opposed to that. I don't even like regulars who softplay each other, but there's little that can be done but begrudgingly tolerating them. This is so much worse than that. And as I mentioned, unless there were a lot more family members in the game at the start, it's unusual for these three family members to have ended up in the final 5 out of 36+ anyway. Especially after this sloppy nonsense at the final table, their play should be reviewed. I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled some fast ones at earlier points in the tournament.

I was thinking exactly the same thing :/ , these 50+ years old players are the regs and I was the outsider

Did you ask the floor about this while there? Did you end up with a package? Why wouldn't you accept a deal where you get 1st place?

come on man, I already explained that the deal was exclusive, didn't consider me and I wasn't getting anything.

And yes, I did win a package, I destroyed the final table even with people teamed up and insulting me, it felt good

"FLOOR. We have made a deal, I'm taking first and these 4 are splitting the rest."

Were they gypsies?

This is why i hate deals. Because if one person isn't for it then all the people get mad at him and they end up ganging up on one person. Personally some people just wanna play tournaments to the end because they want to.

How do you enforce this?

"Don't make a deal or you're disqualified."

"Okay."

Deal continues to happen when they all go on a smoke break. Or they discuss it ahead of time before even entering the casino.

The problem with being hard-nosed about such things is that you just encourage people to hide it even more. It sucks, but it's the truth. It's an incredibly difficult thing to regulate. You basically just have to rely on the honor of those at the table.

However, in this case, the floor definitely should have stepped in. This kind of deal should in no way ever be discussed.

Have you explained your conversation you had with the floor while all this was going on?

You gotta step up at the table and use your words. The staff doesn't know if you object to something unless you say you object. Quite often when something slightly weird is going on, the person being quiet wants it to happen. Let someone in charge know you're against it. Tell that person directly.

I haven't seen you mention it yet: did you offer to take a package in response to them telling you that they assumed you would win one? Or did you just assume they meant to collude?

Like, at any point during the discussion did you say that you'd be fine with the deal if it involved you receiving a package?

Unfortunately, this is usually the only viable alternative. Strike a deal favorable to you.

The House is not going to step in, so try to make the best of it.

I doubt if they will just give you the full package, but offer them say the $200 tourney entry (I always view the value less than face due to House vig) from 1st place. Is 1/8 th of the prize cheap enough "insurance" against running bad/collusion?

Forget poker, this is General Life Advice 101.

"I'm uncomfortable with you having dinner with your ex alone."

"I've taken on a lot of extra work since I started and I would like a raise."

"Could you reseat us somewhere we won't get bumped by waiters coming out of the kitchen?"

"I don't think it's appropriate for you to be making jokes about someone who reports to you."

"I don't like it when you stick your finger in my ass during sex."

"Can we get a ruling from a floorman to be sure?"

Some people never say anything until they say everything. It's either Defcon 5 or Defcon 1.

You can be assertive without being a dick, and part of that is speaking up before you reach the point where you're furious.