+1 to allow players to decide if they want to chop and set a fixed amount that cannot be chopped

this post is so dumb because it operates on so many wrong and absurd assumptions. i watch ept live streams every time, and the dealmaking is never "hectic" or full of "collusion". also, they leave money and the title to play for- your claim about dealmaking eliminating nerves because there's nothing on the line anymore is equally ridiculous and unfounded.

say a 3 or 4 way deal is reached...how is it "unfair" that the ICM considerations are now essentially moot? everybody is aware of the change in dynamic and should adjust accordingly (hello, this is poker), and the big stacks have more money locked up. "unfair", lol what a stupid position to take.

bottom line, you have no right to make these decisions for other people after they have spent the time, buyin, and rake money to get to where they are in the tournament

Hectic maybe not but a deal by its very nature is a form of collusion because you are colluding to alter the payout structure of a tournament that those who are already out were playing in. So, for example if there are 5 remaining and player x says sorry no deal but when its down to 4 or 3 says yes I'll make a deal......

Then let them play it out.

that is not a form of collusion by any definition of the word, try again

fyp

Sorry mate, 'fraid it is.

That's what I been saying all along.

it's not collusion and that's such a ridiculous position to take, that i'm not even going to argue with you about it

Good.

collusion by definition implies that more than one party is involved in conspiracy. if 5 players are left and i'm the only one who doesn't chop, but then i agree to chop 3handed, i haven't colluded with anybody. so yea, no point arguing with you on this.

have a good day!

Well, chopping by its nature is colluding but lets put that to one side for now.

If you are last 5 and you have..... ok, never mind we wont "argue" about it.

looooooooooooooool

Are you for real?

No, you haven't. You are saying tournaments shouldn't do chops. That's your opinion. You can't come and say "I think the players should be able to do what they want," because your actual opinion is the opposite of that.

It is not collusion. The end. There is no reason to go into a semantic discussion about that because you are probably the only person on this entire site who is dumb enough to think that.

Er. yes I can say that because that's my opinion. It's not the opposite, it's compatible so I don't know what you mean by this.

Okay then, so you agree the EPT model is the best and the WSOP should follow suit. Good. We agree then.

No I think the WSOP model is best and I think you know that I think that. I also think you know that I think it should be up to the players if they want to split the money. Also, I think that you understand that I care about the purity of the game. I also care about the players.

But I think you have trouble reconciling these points and that leads to a one dimensional thought process that causes you to call me "dumb" and say that I am talking "out of my ass". I also respect the fact that you think the EPT model is the best. I don't have to agree with you here to understand the logical arguments that suggest this is the best model.

No we don't agree. We don't have to.

Literally all of the above speaks in favor of the EPT model.

Speaks for WSOP model for me.

I guess the interim solution for MTT pros hitting the WSOP would be to chip in and pay for a lawyer to broker "potential deals" in advance of the choppy spots. I guess they'd rather just play though and play on if they make it.

Pay for a lawyer? Okay, you must be trolling. Carry on.

Again you miss my point and engage in name calling.

Ok, except this exact scenario happened.
Two players agreed to stop the game heads up and talk chop.
Instead of using the time to discuss chop with his opponent, one of the players used a considerable time in a different room locking in a deal with his stakers to lock himself up a payday.
This was during a non scheduled break where both players agreed to stop game play to discuss chop.
After locking up his deal with his stakers the player came back into the room and refused the chop.
Bewildered, his opponent played on unaware that he basically just assisted his opponent by taking the break.
If he knew he was assisting his opponent he would have never agreed to the unscheduled break.

If you want to facilitate a chop, it should be done with players in the tourney only, no investors.

There was much discussion at this EPT main after the incident on not allowing investors to be involved or at least having all players present and not allowing a sequestered deal to be made between stakers and horse.

Tournaments are about time and pressure and when you deceive your opponents by convincing them to take an unscheduled break do discuss a chop without having any intention whatsoever to chop with them, and then use that time to cut a deal with your investors without your opponents having knowledge of that deal, that is not copacetic.

http://www.pokerplayer365.com/poker-...-and-the-deal/

I watched that and youre not entirely correct, he was going to chop and his backer said **** no are u crazy i'll buy you out and jack returned to say sorry bro, cant do it

There was nothing wrong with that whatsoever

http://www.pokerlistings.com/buonann...nd-final-67585

Yes there is, it's wrong imo and unfair.

"A deal, although discussed, was not agreed on because Martin Finger and Ami Barer had shares of Salter, lowering his risk and egging him to play on.

Apparently, the two professionals considered the Brit a major favorite."

Why are they involved in a chop discussion? Players only. One player per hand, one player per tournament.

Salter - "There was extra comotion because when I told Antonio there would be no deal, the floor asked me to be re-seated. I wanted five minutes break – which Antonio agreed to – to shake hands with Martin and confirm everything before I played. Firstly there was A LOT of money on the line and secondly, I did not want to be thinking about possible problems with the deal while playing."

Too bad, you're not on a scheduled break, sit down and play.