What Should be Done About Deals?

Is it right that an audience has been watching/listening to a final table for hours, only to see a number of remaining players take a bathroom break and come back to play a hand of showdown for the title? Is this the best way for us to portray the excitement and drama of tournament poker? Obviously, the answer is no.

Should deals be allowed at the final table? Perhaps the more realistic questions are: Can we stop players from making a deal? and Do we have the right to prevent them from making a deal if they so desire?

Here's my take on "Let's Make a Deal":

1. Added prize money – If there is no money added to the prize pool of an event, and/or there are no best all-around player awards, the players should have the right to make a deal if they so desire. After all, it is their money.

2. Corporate sponsorship – If corporate sponsorship money was provided to supplement the prize pool contingent upon a "no deal" policy, I firmly believe that players would appreciate the added money and not abuse the policy. I would suggest that anyone even proposing a deal to someone else at a final table with this policy in effect should be permanently barred from any future sponsored events.

The Tournament of Champions (TOC) was unique in a number of ways. One was that it was the trendsetter for the "no deal" policy in tournament poker. This policy was implemented because corporate sponsorship and television coverage for the TOC was fully anticipated. Players respected that and did not abuse the policy.

3. Championship events should come to their rightful conclusion. These events include any televised event, any event broadcast "live" on the Internet, and any substantially sponsored event. This means that even if players opt for and are granted the right to make a deal, the tournament director should force them to play for a substantial amount of money so that the "rightful conclusion" will take place.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Suppose three players remained in a tournament. Let's say they had an equal amount of chips, that $650,000 was to be paid to the final three places (first, $370,000; second, $185,000; and third, $95,000), and that the participants wanted to make a deal. My suggestion is to let them make a deal if they wish (such as take $200,000 each), but make them play for at least $50,000. This is what I consider a "substantial amount of money." Such a deal was made recently with three players remaining in the championship event of the L.A. Poker Classic, and it worked fine. The players were happy and the audience got to see an exciting finish to the tournament.

4. Payout structure – The only way deals will be completely (or as completely as possible) eliminated from tournament poker is to revise the payout structure such that the increase from one position to the next higher position is minor. If this was done, no one would even talk about making a deal. Here is an example of this type of payout structure: first, 18 percent; second, 16 percent; third, 14 percent; fourth, 12 percent; fifth, 10 percent; sixth, 8 percent; seventh, 6 percent; eighth, 4 percent; ninth, 3 percent; and 10th-18th, 1 percent each.

Implementing this type of payout structure is difficult. Every time a proposal or suggestion like this appears to shrink the amount of money at the top, there is an uproar from the opponents of such a plan. Many players want much larger first-prize money than this, with the option to make a deal if they so desire. They enter tournaments to make a score. Others prefer an expanded payout structure with no deals. I believe that prize pool distribution is an issue that will never be agreed upon by everyone – regardless of how the prize pool is distributed.

Conclusion: If corporate sponsorship comes into tournament poker, players will welcome it with open arms. They will submit to any payout structure and dutifully abide by a "no deal" policy – and will love every minute of it. Just bring on the sponsors and you'll see!

Take care.