Unfair Tournament Treatment

If you have read my columns over the past five years, you know that I am strongly opposed to dealmaking in tournaments. It's terribly uninspiring, not to mention unnecessary. Before you begin a tournament, you should have a pretty good idea of how the prize pool will be structured, and if you don't like it, don't play. To me, it's as simple as that.



However, my rant today is not against people who habitually make deals. I don't necessarily like their style, but it's a free world, and they have the right to do what they want. If players want to strike a deal, under poker's current rules, I cannot stop them.



Instead, I am angered by the people who treat you as if you are some sort of lowlife because you refuse to make a deal. And the funny thing is, it wasn't even me who was the recent victim of that treatment, yet it still bothered me.



Here's what happened:



The Tournament

It was a $550 buy-in no-limit hold'em tournament in Northern California. There were 140 entrants, and the tournament paid 12 spots. I was eliminated about 10 spots short of the money, but my friend Wes was still in contention, so I stuck around to see how he would do.



When they got down to 13 players, the action was played hand-for-hand, and of course everyone was trying to avoid being the dreaded "bubble boy." The short stacks were doing a surprisingly good job of staying alive, and the tournament was actually stuck with 13 players for more than half an hour.



At that point, Wes, who had become one of the shorter stacks, asked the tournament director (TD) if he would be willing to take some money from first place in order to pay 13 spots instead of 12. Of course, all of the shorter stacks immediately chimed in that they would happily agree to that arrangement. The TD stated that as long as all 13 players were in agreement, he would be willing to pay a 13th spot.



Everyone at Wes' table agreed fairly quickly, since none of them had a clear chip lead. In fact, hardly any of them had even an above-average stack. Clearly, the majority of the chips were at the other table, and sure enough, when the TD walked over, there was one player sitting behind a monstrous chip stack (I believe his name was Ken). Quite understandably, Ken declined the proposal to pay 13 places, and the tournament continued as before.



Wes looked at me and gave a shrug, as if to say, "Oh well, it was worth a try," and then went back to concentrating on his table. I thought the same thing. There was no harm in Wes asking, but since Ken smartly nixed the proposal, it was time to get back to business. Unfortunately, some of the other players did not let the issue die so quickly. They started commenting that Ken, as the lone player to refuse the deal, was being greedy, and they acted as if he had somehow done something unethical. That talk spread among some of the spectators who were watching the event, and all of a sudden they too believed that Ken had done something unreasonable.



About 10 minutes later a big hand ensued at Ken's table. As a crowd gathered to watch, Ken moved all in with Q-Q, only to get called by an above-average stack with K-K. The board brought no help, and he lost almost half of his tremendous stack. Mutters of, "He got what he deserved," seemed to spread among the crowd, and even among some of the other players.



Some time went by, a few players made their exits, and then Ken got eliminated in eighth place. Less than an hour earlier he had seemed like a lock to win the tournament, or at least make the top three, but as we all know, strange things can happen in poker. The other players at the table were polite enough as he left, but then someone in the crowd decided to yell out, "That'll teach you to be greedy! You should've let them pay another spot, eh?"



I cannot explain how mad that made me. In some ways I felt strange getting so angry, especially since I wasn't even involved in the situation. Nevertheless, I went right over to that person in the crowd and was ready to give him a piece of my mind. Instead, I realized that no matter what I told him, he probably wasn't going to understand, anyway. And then I figured, if I was going to be the voice of reason, I might as well use this column as a place to be that voice, so I'm going to be very adamant right now in coming to Ken's defense.



Any Comments Toward Him Were Completely Out of Line

I cannot think of a single decent tournament player in the world who would have done anything different from what Ken did. Having the chip lead while the tournament is "on the bubble" is a truly dominating position, and he would have been a fool to voluntarily give up that position by accepting the deal and removing the bubble. In fact, I would guess that he built his massive chip lead, at least in part, by correctly picking on the short stacks during the half-hour that the tournament was at 13 players. All he had to do was stay selectively aggressive while everyone else was struggling just to survive.



Were the people who complained about his decision being dumb, bitter, or just plain ignorant? I cannot say, but I have to believe it was one of the three, because no reasonable person could believe that he did anything wrong. By all accounts, he was friendly and polite, not to mention a strong player. I want to use this space to congratulate him on his final-table finish, and to say how much I regret the ignorant comments he endured. They probably did not bother him, but he still should not have been forced to deal with them.



To a much lesser extent, I blame the TD, and TDs in general, for allowing deals to take place at all. I know that they are just trying to keep their customers happy, and I sympathize with their position. But, if a few TDs would implement a "no-deal" policy, I think others would follow suit. It would make their lives easier, and would ensure that their tournaments would be played the way they were intended to be played. Furthermore, no one would be put in the position of having to refuse a deal. That way, no one would have to endure any unnecessary flak from others, nor would he have to become the player with a target on his back, with others knowing that they can make a deal if he gets eliminated.



But before I get carried away, I'd better save that rant for another day.

Matt Lessinger's Book of Bluffs is now available everywhere. You can purchase it by visiting http://www.cardplayer.com/ and clicking "Shop Online." While there, you can also find other articles of Matt's in the Online Poker News newsletter. Please visit his new website at http://www.mattlessinger.com/ to learn more about him.