Hi, i have a question about tournament deals.
Is it allowed that only 2 players of 3 make a deal?
The big stack doesnt want a deal, so the 2 small stacks make a deal that the one first eliminated gets the deal amount from the other one. So its 3.price+deal for first eliminated small stack and 2.(or 1.)price-deal for surviving small stack.

In our example 1. 25€ 2. 15€ 3. 5€
Big Stack 12000 Chips wants no Deal. Blinds 100/200.
Small stacks both 1000 Chips, are making the deal that first eliminated gets 5€ from the other one, so they have guaranteed 10€.

Its the same as a side bet between them who survives/gets eliminated first.

Problem is that now both small stacks can play more agressive, before they waited for the other one to be eliminated. In the following agressive All-In Fest the chip leader wanted to eliminate them even with medicore cards. The small stacks had much luck and got back in game, nearly all got same chip amount, so the next deal was all get 15€ but the still slightly leading big-stack denied. After few blinds, both still agressive small stacks go all in, one eliminated (5+5=10€ payout) but the other one is now with 200 chips chip leader. The former big stack got angry did go all -in, got called and the coinflip decided. He got 2. earned 15€ and the winner got (25-5=)20€.
But the player who finished second said, the deal was "unfair", without the deal he would have won.

Are deals allowed between 2 players?
If not, are bets between players allowed who will be eliminated first (which is basically the same as deal making)?

Any sources for Tournament Poker DEAL Rules?

If you are talking about online poker where the site admins have to get involved to do a deal in a tourney I believe everyone at the table has to agree or there is no deal. If you mean live tourney where its simply honor system to count on the other guy to pay up then any two people can make any deal they want.

I thought everyone left had to agree to a deal to avoid collusion?

All parties left must agree, otherwise no deal.

when the big stack said "no deal" that should have ended any discussions. Deals should only be attempted between hands and no play should be taking place while discussions are ongoing. If at any time a player decides not to continue, negotations are over and it's back to playing poker. If all players again agree to discuss a deal then the process starts all over.

I'm not sure about online, but in live tournaments in Atlantic City all remaining players must agree or there is no deal. Some casino's, specifically Showboat and Harrah's, will not let you discuss any kind of deal at the table. In fact you must leave to poker room to discuss it and divide up the money if a deal is made.

The big stack has every right to be angry. The big stack has a great chance of winning by simply picking up small pots from the other two, as they may think they can hold on for 2nd. With this unfair deal in place, the big stack has been severely disadvantaged. This wouldn't be allowed at PokerStars (see 17.6):

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/tournaments/rules/

That was collusion. The players should be severely penalized, perhaps disqualified or both given 3rd place. That they probably did not know better doesn't make it ok.

It is also collusion to agree to blind off a player who is absent, or to agree to check it down when a short stack is all-in.

You can play your cards however you want, but you can't make an agreement with another player to put a third player at a disadvantage.

Ok, i ask about offline poker, also with short breaks.

In a normal deal where the price structure is changed, its true that all must agree. So to official casino rules.

But what about deals between 2 players only?
Where is the difference to a side bet between the two players only, who will be eliminated first. Couldnt be bets between all people made(spectators, former players), who will win, or be eliminated next?

What if this deal is made in a break, maybe even with the notice of the other player. What about a secret deal, nobody can control?
Is it still a disadvantage for the player who denied 2 deal offers and still got the official price structure?

Are there some real POKER RULES? Or is most of it special tournament rules, so Pokerstars has other rules than other poker rooms, casinos and WSOP.

There are no POKER RULES. The TDA has a specific set of rules and Robert's Rules of Poker is a good standard but there is no governing body that forces casinos or home games to adhere to one set of rules.

In tourneys it is considered collusion for players still in to make a side deal unless all players agree. If it happened at any of my games I would not allow it and people would be kicked out and not invited back.

Obviously if people do something in secret then by its definition you won't know about it so there's nothing you can do. When you become more poker knowledgeable you'll be able to spot soft play and then you can speak up.

Last longer bets are pretty standard but they usually are made before the tourney begins. I guess 2 players in the final three could make a last longer but the chip leader should be thrilled since he could take advantage of that by playing aggressive.

This is the exact OPPOSITE of a last longer bet. If they had a last longer bet, the first player eliminated would owe the other guy money, meaning that third place got €0.

What happened here is collusion, simple as that.

In agreement with all, this is collusive and any form of collusion is cheating.

It should be emphasised that a gentleman is a gentleman all the time, even when nobody's looking or when nobody knows what he's done. Deals made outside, in secret, or whatever that don't include everybody is cheating and a cheater is a slime ball. A dirty poker player. There is no wiggle room here for side deals.

If I'm not mistaken there is already a rule in place stating two players may not make an agreement to re-divide a pot. It would be logical that this would establish precident across to the prize pool.

It does make me wonder about something I did about a year ago. In a local club MT rebuy tourny, a very good player busted out of his first buy in early in the game. He always rebuys (he knows he's a good investment) but this time he started to get up. I told him I'd make his rebuy for a chop of anything he won, he agreed and I purchased all 3 of his available rebuys on the spot. He made it about an hour deeper into the game than I but did not cash. Would this be collusive because the agreement was not made prior to the start of the game? It was probably an hour or more prior to the final table.

Dave