Tournament Deals

In my last column, I looked at what many consider to be the best way to figure a final-table tournament deal, the Burns-Landrum estimator, and said that I would examine other estimators.



BARGE mailing list contributor Dan Loncaric detailed the "percentage of the remainder" estimator: "[This is] the most simple method of deal calculation, and the most used; it's the method that all the Los Angeles casinos use if the [tournament director] is asked to help out in making a deal.



"All remaining players are guaranteed the lowest remaining prize. That amount is subtracted from the remaining total prize pool. The remainder of the money is split based upon each player's percentage of the total chip count."



Loncaric provided an example, which I highlight here. Four players remain, and these are the prizes:

Here is the chip distribution:

Here is the math. Each player is guaranteed at least fourth-place money, or $800. Subtract that guaranteed $3,200 from the total prize pool, leaving $13,100 to be divided up. Here are the results:

Loncaric continued: "Player D is getting a premium of only $262 to take the deal. Player A is giving up only $947 from first-place money to take the deal.



"In my experience, the lower guys usually ask for and get (rightfully so) some of the money from the top guys. When the chip disparity from the top guys to the bottom guys is large, as in this case, the lower guys are taking the worst of it. In practice, however, when the low guy complains, the guys with the most chips insist on playing on, and conspire to bust out the lower guy before they make their deal.



"As you can see in this example, Player B is getting better than second-place money and probably would be eager to take the deal. Player A is getting almost first-place money without having to earn it, and most certainly would take the deal. Player D is getting the shaft, but on the other hand, he probably can't make another round of blinds, and in his mind, he is getting a 'free' $262.



"I've been at lots of final tables in lots of smallish tournaments. In my experience, most players are willing to take the chip-count deal because they don't have confidence in their abilities to play on and move up. They look at any extra money over the lowest prize as free money."



The Burns-Landrum estimate gives more weight to small stacks than other estimators – in particular, the preceding method. If you're the small stack when a tournament becomes fourhanded and the others propose a deal, you may not have much negotiating power, but if you don't like the deal, you can always turn it down and try for a better one. (And you often won't like the deal because the most common estimators favor the large stacks.) Use Burns-Landrum if you're a small stack when trying to decide whether to accept a deal. If the others don't agree on something you consider fair, insist that the tournament be played out, but realize that you'll very likely bust out soon and not even get the small premium they offered you. Otherwise, be happy with the most common method.



As Loncaric stated, the "percentage of the remainder" estimator is what is commonly proposed if discussion of a deal comes up and you ask the tournament director for help either in figuring out what your fair share ought to be or if a proposed deal is fair for you. With this and the discussion in my last column, you now have some tools for making that decision yourself. Just because a tournament director suggests a method for determining your fair share, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best method – or the best for you.



Michael Wiesenberg's The Ultimate Casino Guide, published by Sourcebooks, is available at fine bookstores and at Amazon.com and other online book purveyors. Send paeans, plaints, and proposals to [email protected].