Making the Deal, or Not

"Cut the deck right in half – I'll play from either side."

Today's topic is tournament deals.

What's a deal?

Quite often toward the end of a poker tournament, the payoff structure curves very sharply up in the last few positions. For instance, the last three finishers in a large tournament might receive 9 percent, 14 percent, and 25 percent of the prize pool, respectively. Note first that almost half the prize pool is going to the last three finishers, and that the first-place finisher receives almost three times what the third-place person does.

Many players, having gotten to those final three remaining, will want to reduce their variance – in essence, give up the chance at the huge (25 percent of the prize pool) payoff in exchange for more guaranteed money. While deals can theoretically involve any number of players, they're generally done at the last two or three players still in the event.

Deals can either remove all of the money from the table (effectively ending the contest) or remove some (or most) of the money from the competition, leaving an amount still to be contested.

Are deals good?

This is a huge point of contention, and I can give you only my personal perspective. Now, I fully understand why people want to deal. First, sometimes the blinds have risen so high that what is left is not really poker but a constant "all-in fest," in which small pairs and two big cards are essentially tossing a coin for $5,000 or $10,000. The other reason is that players have often gotten into these huge events via a satellite, caught lightning in a bottle, and are now playing poker for more money than they've ever seen in their lives. They just aren't comfortable with that and want to sock away the money immediately.

With that said, let me now give you my view. I think deals are fine, particularly if the blinds have reached a point where there's not really much poker to be played. However, I wish people would leave some money on the table after the deal is done, and there are two reasons for this:

1. You may someday find yourself in a situation in which you can't deal. Many of the large televised tournaments don't permit dealmaking at the final table. Your opponent may choose not to deal. You may be playing online and not have the opportunity to deal. Whatever the case may be, you may have to play the thing out. If every time you get down to two or three players, you simply chop up the money and go away, you'll never learn to play in short-handed, high-pressure situations. Even if the blinds are extremely high, there are correct and incorrect tactics. It's good to learn them.

2. It takes some of the best excitement out of the game, for both the players and the spectators. Why do you think the televised tournaments don't let the players deal? Because that spoils the fun for the audience, which wants to see the nail-biting decisions and all-in showdowns. And frankly, you're cheating yourself out of a wonderful experience. Even if you lose that monstrous all-in pot, you'll know you were part of it. You'll have a story to tell. The story is much less interesting if you say, "And when we got down to four people, we chopped up the money and went home."

Do you have to deal?

No; a player has no obligation to agree to any particular deal, or to any deal at all. Some players choose to play the event out. It may work out better for them, or cost them money. It is silly to think that a player who refuses to deal has now aimed some karmic gun at his own head and will be the next one to bust out. Sometimes it happens like that, and sometimes that player goes on to win the event and the entire first-place prize money. Furthermore, it is equally silly to say that an unwillingness to deal is somehow unsporting or not good manners. When you sign up for a tournament, there's no clause that states: "If you get down to three players, you will agree to chop up the money in some way other than the published payout structure." A player who chooses to battle it out to the final hand is well within his or her rights to do so. And in fact, that jugador or jugadora has my deep respect. It takes guts to play poker for serious money, and I admire those who turn down the easy way out to compete for the big dough.

How to deal

As long as all the players agree to it, a deal can be pretty much anything. For our examples, let's look at the following scenario: We have three players left and there is $100,000 in total prize money. First, second, and third pay 25 percent, 14 percent, and 9 percent, respectively. So, there's $48,000 in dispute. One thing they could do is a "save." In short, they'd each reach into the remaining prize pool, take out some amount, and redistribute what's left. For instance, the players might agree to a $12,000 save, $4,000 for second, and $8,000 for first. That means that each player would be guaranteed $12,000, the second-place finisher would get $12,000 + $4,000 ($16,000 total), and the first-place finisher would get $12,000 + $8,000 – a total of $20,000. Or, they could simply say, "We all have about the same amount of chips, so let's just chop it up equally – everybody gets $16,000 – and we'll go home."

If the players want to distribute the money based on the chips that each player has, it gets a bit more complicated. If just two players are left, it's relatively straightforward (given that the two players are equally talented, and ignoring the current position of the blinds). You simply "save" second-place money for each player, and then chop up the balance based on the percentage of chips each player has. Let's go back to our original example, but leave only two players, Al and Beth. Al has $1,000 and Beth has $1,500. The money remaining is $25,000 (first place) + $14,000 (second place) = $39,000. Clearly, each player is guaranteed second-place money ($14,000), so they're fighting over the difference between first and second place – $11,000. Beth has 60 percent of the chips, so she would get 60 percent of that $11,000 ($6,600) plus the $14,000 base – a total of $20,600. Al would get the balance, $18,400. You can work that out either by just subtracting Beth's payoff from the remaining funds or by working Al's percentage out directly.

If you have more than two players left, the problem becomes somewhat ugly mathematically. One popular way of doing it is to save Nth-place money (given that N players are left), and then simply chop up the remaining money based on each player's percentage of the chips. For instance, suppose Al, Beth, and Charlie are still in the event. Charlie has $500, Al has $750, and Beth has $1,250. Payoffs are (again) 9 percent, 14 percent, and 25 percent. Each player is clearly guaranteed third-place money ($9,000). So, we subtract 3 x $9,000 ($27,000) from the prize pool. That leaves $21,000. Beth has half the chips, so she gets $9,000 + (.5 x $21,000), a total of $19,500. Al has 30 percent of the chips, so he gets $9,000 + (.3 x $21,000) = $15,300. Charlie, with 20 percent of the chips, gets $9,000 + (.2 x $21,000) = $13,200. Note that the sum of the three payouts ($19,500 + $15,300 + $13,200) = $48,000, the remaining prize money. Math is cool.

Important warning: This method produces some bizarre and undesirable results (it is capable of assigning an amount of money greater than first place to a player with lots of chips). And it has some built-in inequities that can hurt players depending on their stack sizes and the official payouts. My point is that there is nothing magical or "correct" about this dealmaking algorithm. And other algorithms have their own problems (sometimes being too complicated to compute on the fly). It can be very difficult to determine a "fair" deal with more than two people left in the event.

Conclusion

Tournament deals are probably here to stay. So, you should understand the basics of doing them, and understand the reasons why you might choose to accept or reject a deal. I've already told you my viewpoint. Deal if you must, but leave some money on the table to keep things interesting. In the words of Mary-Chapin Carpenter …

"I take my chances."