Let's Make a Deal!

"This is Monty Hall, and let's make a deal! Do you want to pick door number one, door number two, or door number three? Now, do you want to switch doors?" Making a deal near the end of a tournament seems to be a big deal to some people. I understand that a writer for a major magazine overheard a deal being made at a major event last year, misinterpreted what was going on, and gave a black eye to poker in his write-up. As a result, some casinos no longer recognize deals, and only will make the published payout to each player according to where he finished. I haven't seen the article, and I know that each casino has its own policy. However, it seems to have become a hot topic for some players, and some deals are now dependent on the personal integrity of players to honor their deals rather than a tournament director sanctioning a deal at the casino cage.



I used to play poker tournaments only during the few days prior to the World Series of Poker championship event, when I played supersatellites at Binion's Horseshoe and four-table satellites at the Union Plaza. In the Plaza tournaments, there was a winner-take-all prize of a $10,000 seat in the WSOP championship event, which made it ripe for dealmaking. That's where I was introduced to the art of poker dealmaking. I still remember the first time we were down to three players, and the other two looked at me and said, "Let's make a deal!"



I turned to them and said, "What are you talking about? Do I look like Monty Hall?"



They were professional poker players who suggested we split the money based on the percentage of tournament chips we each held, also known as "equity" in the tournament. When I realized that I would get $4,000 for the 40 percent of the tournament chips that I held, it seemed like a pretty good idea, especially considering that the blinds were getting big and I was in the hole about $4,000 in tournament buy-ins. This was a pretty simple situation, with an easy split formula. As you add more places being paid and more players, things tend to get more complicated, in terms of both the calculation of what's theoretically fair and getting everyone to agree.



The game of poker is about winning money. Playing poker professionally is about winning money to make a living (although not all self-declared professional poker players depend on poker to make a living). Because a player's fate can change drastically on the turn of a card, dealmaking seems like a very sensible way for a professional poker player (or nonpro) to reduce the high variance associated with the endgame of poker tournaments. In a couple of hands, you can easily go from chip leader to the small stack, especially if the blinds are forcing everyone to go all in too frequently. You can look at dealmaking as a way of smoothing out your volatile results over time, and treat it like any other business transaction. On the other hand, some players just don't want to deal, for an interesting variety of reasons.



One reason is because they have too much money. In other words, they're there to play poker, not to make deals. If a player's income and wealth so far exceed the prize money being contested that it wouldn't have any impact on him, there won't be any opportunity for a deal until he's eliminated from the tournament. These people are successful and competitive, and are there to play poker to the end, win or lose. However, some players in this category are successful because of their social skills, and take pleasure in negotiating a deal. To them, it's part of the game of poker.



Then there are people who are philosophically opposed to making a deal at a poker tournament. They take the position that making deals spoils the purity of the sport of poker. That's a respectable point of view, but I'm not sure that poker is that pure or that poker is really a sport. Of course, it depends on your definition of sports and purity. This is an unwinnable debate with no right or wrong. It's just a matter of personal preference as to whether or not you believe in making deals.



Another reason I've heard for not making deals is strategic gamesmanship. If a player believes that he has a big enough edge over the remaining players and is likely to win first place outright, he may decline a deal offer. There may be some truth to this situation, especially if the chip leader's stack is much bigger than his remaining opponents'. Along the same vein, some players believe that not making a deal puts them at a big psychological advantage. This makes a lot of sense to me, except if you happen to be up against some of the wrong (fearless) players. Just as you need to adjust your play to each of your opponents, it also seems like a good idea to adjust your dealmaking to each of your opponents.



One more situation that I've observed is that the mere discussion of a deal seems to set off some people. As is the case in life and business, there often is a gap between what people are being offered and what they think is fair. On occasion, some players are receptive to an explanation, discussion, and negotiation over what's fair, while some players just become agitated. I've seen players get so offended and distracted that they no longer concentrate on playing poker. They go on tilt, they're no longer in contention to win, and they usually bust out a short while later, at which time there's a meeting of the minds among the last few players.



The next time you find yourself at a final table, take a good look at your chip stack and your competition before you scream, "Let's make a deal!"

Robert is the 2002 World Series of Poker champion and the instructor on the WiseGuys on Texas Hold'em videos, starring some famous actors from the Sopranos.