All I have addressed here is deal making on a subset of players in the final table. All hole cards will NOT be seen on the final production. If you expect Harrah's to go out of their way and watch each hand of each player for the 6+ hours of play, dream on. Besides, it will not be in Harrah's best interest to expose the opportunity of deal-making/soft play (which already pervades many tournaments), as that will detract from the event.

Even looking at the hole cards, soft play will be quite difficult to prove in a court of law, and most likely that course will not be taken. (bluffs, squeeze plays, etc.)

Again, most likely Harrah's only recourse will be to ban these players from future WSOP competitions, as that is in their power. This would only happen if a deal got exposed after the tournament, which again is not likely.

There is, and there is also a huge difference between 'making a deal' and collusion of any type. Just a few points which, IMO, are often misunderstood.

- Collusion requires acting in concert to the detriment of a third party.
- In implicit collusion, two (or more) players act in concert to eliminate a third party since their odds to do so increase if they both stay in. The collusion is implied because there isn't an advance or spoken agreement.
- Explicit collusion (although the explicit is an unnecessary modifier, IMO) would be a situation where players agree in advance to play a certain way to the detriment of third parties (the oft-alleged stories of Men's horses dumping chips to him being a common example).
- Players taking a piece of each other may or may not fall into the spectrum depending on how they play against each other and others still involved at the time. IOW, if they soft play each other, and squeeze play others, there's probably some collusion resulting from the deal.
- The final X making a deal to divide the pool equitably (however they define it), does not approach collusion since they are not acting to harm anyone. As long as they still play it out for the title, I can't see how that harms anyone. If anything, it may make the final table more interesting to the casual TV watcher.

Could you please provide a link to where is states deals are not allowed in the WSOP rulebook please.

Do you really need a link to the one player to a hand rule? Let's include rules number 23 24 25 26 and 28 could apply as well.

Link to 2007 rues http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...&client=safari

Jimbo

Tournament deals have been made in the past, and they will be made again.

Who has ever been banned for making deals in WSOP?

Don't shoot the messenger, I was just answering a question.

Jimbo

Problem is that you weren't answering it very well. You have a fairly narrow definition of 'deal' for it to fit your answer.

Not sure what you mean by narrow, I thought it was pretty broad. Define deal from your perspective if you will.

Jimbo

By narrow, I mean that your definition of deal seems to require some sort of agreement in advance of how play will go. IME, that's not how most tournament players connote 'deal' in this context.
AAMOF, I already have. Your turn, please.

Deal is normally defined in a tourney as any agreement to share winnings (or recognition). This can be in advance as taking pieces of each others action or during the tourney as in a save or even after it ends for that matter so timeframe is relevant. Any "deals" made while play in the tournament has yet to cease and a winner has been declared will be considered a deal even if the only benefit is psychological and not monetary.

I still missed where you defined deal. I could define a dog as a flying furry animal, that doesn't make it so.

Jimbo

Except for the recognition part, I'd agree. Now, the question becomes how such a deal would de facto violate the rules you mentioned.
Do you mean 'relevant' in the sense of when the agreement takes place determining whether it's a 'deal' or whether it's a rule-violating 'deal'?
OK, it seems that your definition is both more narrow and more broad (in different perspectives). IME, most tournament players that use 'deal' are referring to purely monetary divisions of the prize pool among the remaining players.
Last bullet of post #27 is how I primarily hear the term used. No need to get snarky.

I agree that the monetary division is most common but it has been done for the recognition. A good example (I won't offer the names in public) is when two pros were heads up at a final table of the WSOP, one needed the cash, the other wanted the bracelet, deal done both were satisfied. Loser got first place money winner got the bracelet.

What you narrowly define as a deal is commonly called a chop or if money is left over it is termed a save and the balance is awarded as the outcome determines. Both of these are deals and should the WSOP authority choose to do so they may disqualify a player(s) for this.

I meant relevant as to whether or not a deal existed. In other words if no discussion has ever occurred about a money deal but afterwards the winner tosses the loser a bone no unfair deal existed nor transpired. However if this "bone" was understood to be automatic after the end of the tourney then a deal had occurred. Any deal that was agreed to before the tournament ended could be determined to be a violation by the WSOP if they choose. You asked under what rules. When I posted the link to the 2007 rules I wrote "Let's include rules number 23 24 25 26 and 28 could apply as well." ,nothing has changed in that respect.

Jimbo

Edited: Throw in rule #32 as well for good measure. It should be clear that deal making of any kind could be punished by Harrah's if they feel so inclined with little recourse available to the players.

Not saying that it has never been done. Just trying to keep things within the context of the question at hand.
I think that the spirit of the question at hand was more what was likely or had been done 'normally', though.
Have those rules ever been applied in such a way?
So, you're saying Harrah's could declare the final 9 to all be flying furry animals, and this makes it so?

It will not be in Harrah's best interest to expose deal-making at WSOP.

All this will do is get a bunch of people who know little about tournament poker gossiping about "WSOP was fixed" or something similar. Even news outlets will confuse the issue and get the wrong message out.

Anybody who knows anything about this will keep the deals quiet. For all we know, deals have already been made, or are in process of being made.

Deals seem to be fine even full tilt is offering 1% of Phil Ivey's winnings at the final table.

lol ... nice bump.

Wrong year, Cali

This old chestnut. With 10m for 1st and 5m for 2nd and an overnight break for HU play, surely a deal has to be made away from the table.

Moneymaker tried to make a deal with Farha when they got HU

It's well documented, here is one link:

http://www.bluff.com/magazine/moneym...isagree-11239/

Kerr: with a divide of 5mm it seems plausible but there was a 3+ million divide last year which is still significant.

If it gets 3-4 handed with several amateur players I can see a deal being discussed. If there are seasoned pros in the mix, the chances are less likely a deal is made.

It all comes down to who is playing and what they are playing for (is it more for the title than the money? Are they backed and have an agreement with the backer that they cannot chop?) A lot of factors can affect peoples motive to want a chop and to decline a chop.

The lines between swapping chopping soft play and collusion are still murky. Probably take something like a big wsop final table controversy to get resolution on the matter.

I think it's common knowledge that Moneymaker offered to make a deal with Farha and Farha said No.

Deals are made, they just aren't facilitated by Harrah's (like they are on PokerStars where you can officially make deals). But nothing can stop players from talking amongst themselves and working something out. Personally, I don't think I could ever trust that someone I don't know would ship me possibly millions due to a handshake deal we made privately. So I would say deals mostly occur when the players know each other well.

On the small scale, the DDS held during the WSOP (only heard, never been a part of one) I'm told get chopped sometimes up to 7 ways. The tourney director, dealers, and all staff do not assist, the clock doesn't get stopped it is entirely on the players and the WSOP does not support chops.

On the flipside of things the EPT will help assist with chop discussions and even post #'s if a chop is accepted.

Two very opposite positions on chopping.

In regards to collusion/softplay etc, I cannot comment. I will say that there are known instances of two players at the same table own shares of each other in the tournament and being accused of soft play.

Proving this is much more difficult though.

Im not sure about this at all, but i would think that a written contract with all necessary specifics about the chop agreement signed by all players involved would hold up in court so if you got scammed you could make it a legal matter. Otherwise yeh you should obviously never agree to a chop with almost anyone on just a handshake with 7 figures on the line.

You are correct, you are allowed to make deals in the DDS, the Megas, etc., but as you said no clock stoppage and no "run the numbers chip chops" by staff.

Also making it difficult is that even if you make, for example, a 5-way chop at final table of DDS, someone still has to agree to take the W2-G for the full win, so even though you chop to ~15k, someone has to claim W2-G for ~40k. Harrahs doesn't change official payouts, i.e. W2-G, even if you make a deal.

The main thing is, WSOP just pays the official payouts. You have to hope the guy that they gave the 40 grand to is honest enough to split up that cash.

Also, don't generalize with "Harrah's". Planet Hollywood DOES facilitate chops 100%.