Doing Deals.

johnnysmurfman

Ok. I'm holding 5d, 6c and have a stack of 350 euro in front of me.

Player C (My relevant opponent) holds 2h, 2s in middle position and raises to 10 euro.

I call from the button and both blinds flat call. There is 40 euro in the pot preflop and 4 players see a flop (Player A, B, C and Myself).

Flop is 2c 3c 4h. Player A bets out 40 euro from the small blind and player B raises from the big blind to 100 euro. Player C (original raiser) makes it 250 euro and I, having flopped the nuts make it 350 euro all in.

Players A and B fold and player C thinks about it and calls revealing his hand after calling and announces "I suppose you have the straight but I have to call". Now I know that its 65%, 35% in my favour but my question is: In live cash games in Ireland (Jackpot, Fitz, S.E etc) is it permissible for me to ask the dealer to refraid from dealing the turn and river cards for a minute while I negotiate with Player C? For instance, suppose I say to Player C, "if you win the pot you give me 130 euro from it and if I win the pot i will give you 70 euro from it" and he agrees to this then is this permissible? Should the cardroom manager be called over etc? I know we can't run the turn and river 2 or 3 times but can we enter into some form of agreement whereby we refund each other a proportion of the pot if one or other of us wins and is this agreement enforceable?

StephenInsane

I certainly wouldn't perticipate in this kind of activity, and I'd be very put out if it was going on at my table.

valor

Why?

Mr.Plough

Just run it twice If you're worried about variance imo. Although I'm not even sure if this happens in dublin cardrooms.

El Stuntman

embrace the variance my friend

sternly warn the dealer about 'no funny stuff' though

Killme00

valor wrote: »

Why?

Stops possible collusion. You could bet someone out of the pot, then agree a chop while holding nothing but Top pair vs a draw.

bops

Killme00 wrote: »

Stops possible collusion. You could bet someone out of the pot, then agree a chop while holding nothing but Top pair vs a draw.

have another think about this one...

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

digiman

The Scientist wrote: »

Why would you do that! your miles ahead...

If your not bankrolled, it would be a good idea, don't see any other reason why you would want to do this though.

bops

i do it when my gut tells me to

Killme00

bops wrote: »

have another think about this one...

you've lost me or i've lost me..where am i?

El Stuntman

bops wrote: »

i do it when my gut tells me to

how big is your gut bops? :pac:

lee_arama

Hmmmm. I've played cash in Carlow a few times and on occasion, during an all in situation, my opponent enquired about returning X euro from the pot to the loser. I agreed. When the turn was dealt the offer was proferred again, increasing the amount. I agreed.

In Cork once I was running so hot that Even though my JJ was up against KJ on a King high flop my opponent offered 120 euro back to the loser from the pot (500 ish)... How could I say no. He seriously felt I was catch the last hook for sure. I didn't and my roll was saved somewhat.

I don't view 'a deal' as a bad thing. It keeps the game going, and in the long run, if you're a better player, can only be worthwhile. Cleaning one guy out and then having 2 others walk cos it's 3-4 handed is no good.

tipp86

Similar thing happened to me lately where the game had gone on all night was down to 3 handed at 11 am.

I make it €50 pf both call i have AK Flop K72 i bet €150 sober player folds drunken player moves all in covers me im playing around €500 behind i instant call him as the way the game was im pretty sure im ahead.

He turns over flush draw, i asked him to do a deal i let him call my €150 and the turn and river not be run.I took the pot.The third player caused trouble wanting to take his €50 back from the pot which i would not allow.

In the end the pot had to be run, i won it and returned the money to the player anyway as it was last hand and knew he would have done the same.

I didnt really feel the other player should have objected as it would have kept the game going.I just didnt feel like getting busted by a flush draw at 11am in the morning.

I feel cardrooms should have a policy that either forbids or allows it, that way things would be a lot clearer.I think running it twice would have been the fairest thing in this scenario but i didnt want to confuse issues further.

TommyGunne

If you're playing underrolled making a deal where you give slightly a good deal is actually +EV if you think about it. If you have €210 Equity in the hand and agree to take €200 it may actually be +EV for you to take that deal, depending on the size of your roll. It also saves you from possible tilting which is obv +EV.

Obv its always in your favour to take a good deal.

That being said when I used to play live I'd never make a deal cos I'd problems with nittiness image issues, so refusing a deal may improve my gambling image a bit!

When I played live I've seen a few deals being made, and it was always above board, and no way against table etiquette!

bops

Killme00 wrote: »

you've lost me or i've lost me..where am i?

lol it was me being polite saying that you're obv wrong :pac::pac:

bops

El Stuntman wrote: »

how big is your gut bops? :pac:

i've got a six-pack with a excellent 6th sense

El Stuntman

bops wrote: »

i've got a six-pack with a excellent 6th sense

you can see dead people? :eek:

bops

El Stuntman wrote: »

you can see dead money? :eek:

all the time

SpencerJames

I personally see nothing wrong with chopping, running it twice etc. in very close situations where its nearly a coin flip for alot of money. its a cash game, if both players are uncomfortable with the scenario then its their money to do what they want. it isnt allowed in the casino's in dublin for various reasons, the main one being to stop everybody playing infront of the cameras and the stakes arent high enough in most situations to justify. why chop a 200 pot or run it twice! its not worth it.

Interesting situation recently. i was in dundalk playing cash and i had 66. the flop came 10h Qh 6c.

Got it all in with another player who revealed he had AJh....

He asked did i want to do a deal......given it was nearly a 2k pot i would prob of run it twice or something, however while we were talking the dealer hadnt heard and burned and turned a Q giving me the huse, only 1 out in the way.

Obviously i didnt deal and won the pot. the other player was very upset with the dealer as i would of been and the dealer was given out to by the manager.

Interesting thought, but although i think its fine to do some business, the majority of games arent big enough and in the op it shouldnt even be considered. firstly its too small a pot and its not that close. atleat one of those factors have to be ticked.

Killme00

bops wrote: »

lol it was me being polite saying that you're obv wrong :pac::pac:

:cool:


What i am saying is in a pot with three players where on player is bet out of the pot and then the two reminaing players decide to do a deal this is unfair and also possible collusion. They are basically chopping the third players money. Is this not correct?

bops

Killme00 wrote: »

:cool:


What i am saying is in a pot with three players where on player is bet out of the pot and then the two reminaing players decide to do a deal this is unfair and also possible collusion. They are basically chopping the third players money. Is this not correct?

nope!!

1) the player/s who have folded have given up all rights to the pot
2) this may be monkey collusion, but real collusion would be if they played the hand out correctly (ie no chops etc) and sorted each other out afterwards doing lots of winks, handshakes and evil laughs 'n stuff

k?

YULETIRED

Killme00 wrote: »

:cool:


What i am saying is in a pot with three players where on player is bet out of the pot and then the two reminaing players decide to do a deal this is unfair and also possible collusion. They are basically chopping the third players money. Is this not correct?

I'm suprised at the replies in this thread........................
I would object if there were implicit cullusion allowed at a cash table. The integrity of the game would be in tatters if post flop deals were allowed between remaining players in a hand, I would take my 49 Euros and leave the table immediately and never play there again. Imagine some crazy nit bargianing every 2nd hand post flop or some drunken buddies fresh out of Sam Saras betting the blx outda flop so they could see who wins the pot between them, then splitting it and high fiveing each other.
No way should post flop deals be allowed at a reputed establishment........as for runnig it twice, it stupid imo but at least it is in the spirit of the game.
For those legitimitely trying to protect their winnings, ...... fold and go home if you don't want to lose. IMO

Slash/ED

I can't see an objection to this. If there's collusion going on, they'll just chop your money behind your back. When it's blatantly trying to avoid variance for (let's assume) underrolled played what's the problem? If someone pushes, and someone calls, and you fold, and player a shows a flush draw and player b shows tptk and they do a deal where player a takes 1/3 of the pot do you really think this is collusion and would object?

If player b is underrolled for the game this deal makes a hell of alot of sense for him. Tournaments is a different story, in a cash game though I don't see an issue.

YULETIRED

Slash/ED wrote: »

I can't see an objection to this. If there's collusion going on, they'll just chop your money behind your back. When it's blatantly trying to avoid variance for (let's assume) underrolled played what's the problem? If someone pushes, and someone calls, and you fold, and player a shows a flush draw and player b shows tptk and they do a deal where player a takes 1/3 of the pot do you really think this is collusion and would object?

If player b is underrolled for the game this deal makes a hell of alot of sense for him. Tournaments is a different story, in a cash game though I don't see an issue.

Well it's should really be clear why I would object but let me give you an example. I'm sitting on TPTK and player B reraises me.....Player A (his buddy) then RERAISES him, pleyer C (his other buddy) then RERAISES) so I don't like the look of my initial raise after all...I fold they deal and split my money.....I can't object as nobody sees anything wrong. How many of these guys need to be at the table before it's wrong. I could sit and hope to treble my monies but my odds don't look great if I can't see a flop , and if I raise I could be muscled out of the pot ...THe game itself needs to be protected, if players want to collude by betting/isolating anyway at least the collusion should not be facilated AT the table....IE no money should be swapped between players until AFTER the game is finished ,

YULETIRED

Slash/ED wrote: »

Double post....this site is haunted..

RoundTower

johnnysmurfman wrote: »

Now I know that its 65%, 35% in my favour but my question is: In live cash games in Ireland (Jackpot, Fitz, S.E etc) is it permissible for me to ask the dealer to refraid from dealing the turn and river cards for a minute while I negotiate with Player C?

it's always permissible to ask, expect to be told no though.

jbravado

YULETIRED wrote: »

Well it's should really be clear why I would object but let me give you an example. I'm sitting on TPTK and player B reraises me.....Player A (his buddy) then RERAISES him, pleyer C (his other buddy) then RERAISES) so I don't like the look of my initial raise after all...I fold they deal and split my money.....I can't object as nobody sees anything wrong. How many of these guys need to be at the table before it's wrong. I could sit and hope to treble my monies but my odds don't look great if I can't see a flop , and if I raise I could be muscled out of the pot ...THe game itself needs to be protected, if players want to collude by betting/isolating anyway at least the collusion should not be facilated AT the table....IE no money should be swapped between players until AFTER the game is finished ,

I think that there is some rule that protects you from this though (open to correction)

TommyGunne

YULETIRED wrote: »

Well it's should really be clear why I would object but let me give you an example. I'm sitting on TPTK and player B reraises me.....Player A (his buddy) then RERAISES him, pleyer C (his other buddy) then RERAISES) so I don't like the look of my initial raise after all...I fold they deal and split my money.....I can't object as nobody sees anything wrong. How many of these guys need to be at the table before it's wrong. I could sit and hope to treble my monies but my odds don't look great if I can't see a flop , and if I raise I could be muscled out of the pot ...THe game itself needs to be protected, if players want to collude by betting/isolating anyway at least the collusion should not be facilated AT the table....IE no money should be swapped between players until AFTER the game is finished ,

There's a difference between doing deals based on your equity in the hand and collusion. Its kinda obvious to spot the difference.

On a side note its kinda obvious to spot collusion in Dublin games. Most of them are retarded. Two guys at my table were really obvious bout it and I didn't say anything. Waited till they did it to me and called light. Ship the easy monies.

Slash/ED

YULETIRED wrote: »

Well it's should really be clear why I would object but let me give you an example. I'm sitting on TPTK and player B reraises me.....Player A (his buddy) then RERAISES him, pleyer C (his other buddy) then RERAISES) so I don't like the look of my initial raise after all...I fold they deal and split my money.....I can't object as nobody sees anything wrong. How many of these guys need to be at the table before it's wrong. I could sit and hope to treble my monies but my odds don't look great if I can't see a flop , and if I raise I could be muscled out of the pot ...THe game itself needs to be protected, if players want to collude by betting/isolating anyway at least the collusion should not be facilated AT the table....IE no money should be swapped between players until AFTER the game is finished ,

Basically what tommygunne said. They eventually have to show their hands. Let's say player top pair (you had him outkicked) and player c has absolute air, they have to goto showdown (If one folds and they later split, nothing we can do...). So anyway, lets assume its showdown on the flop. TP vs air. And they say, hey, let's chop 50/50!

And go back to my scenario, where someones a roughly 2/1 dog (As anyone with even the most simplistic understanding of poker knows) and they propose a deal where he gets 33% of the pot (Which in the long run, is what he'll end up with anyway in this spot).

Can you not see a world of difference here!? The second option is blatantly not collusion. He has 1/3 equity in the pot, he gets 1/3 of the pot. If the deal is roughly in line with the players equity in the pot it can't be collusion, it's simply removing variance and giving both players their long term expected return from the pot. That isn't collusion, if you fold in that spot, and they don't do the deal, over enough time they'll end up with exactly the same amount of money. They're just cutting down on the long term, which we'll assume is because one is underrolled for the game. Makes sense to me. Nobody is proposing that the first situation be allowed, but please explain to me how on earth the second one could possibly be collusion?

phantom_lord

you shouldn't be playing if can't handle the variance of getting 350 in with the nuts, imo.

Ace2007

In the sporting the other night, 2 players got it all in pf, both turned over AA's and chopped it pf - of course the dealer still raked the pot!!

YULETIRED

Slash/ED wrote: »

Basically what tommygunne said. They eventually have to show their hands. Let's say player top pair (you had him outkicked) and player c has absolute air, they have to goto showdown (If one folds and they later split, nothing we can do...). So anyway, lets assume its showdown on the flop. TP vs air. And they say, hey, let's chop 50/50!

And go back to my scenario, where someones a roughly 2/1 dog (As anyone with even the most simplistic understanding of poker knows) and they propose a deal where he gets 33% of the pot (Which in the long run, is what he'll end up with anyway in this spot).

Can you not see a world of difference here!? The second option is blatantly not collusion. He has 1/3 equity in the pot, he gets 1/3 of the pot. If the deal is roughly in line with the players equity in the pot it can't be collusion, it's simply removing variance and giving both players their long term expected return from the pot. That isn't collusion, if you fold in that spot, and they don't do the deal, over enough time they'll end up with exactly the same amount of money. They're just cutting down on the long term, which we'll assume is because one is underrolled for the game. Makes sense to me. Nobody is proposing that the first situation be allowed, but please explain to me how on earth the second one could possibly be collusion?

both Tomme and yerself miss my point, if deals are allowed they are open to abuse . You can conjure up a scenario that is fair and one that is unfair , bottom line is if you allow them you are open to abuse....I thought they were not allowed and i would be pissed off if I saw one take place at a table im at. I dont think your scenario is cullsion (im not thick) BUT the game must be protected......my opinion of course......
anyway i'd excercise my right and leave the table and complain on the way out to the pub.

mormank

YULETIRED wrote: »

Well it's should really be clear why I would object but let me give you an example. I'm sitting on TPTK and player B reraises me.....Player A (his buddy) then RERAISES him, pleyer C (his other buddy) then RERAISES) so I don't like the look of my initial raise after all...I fold they deal and split my money.....I can't object as nobody sees anything wrong. How many of these guys need to be at the table before it's wrong. I could sit and hope to treble my monies but my odds don't look great if I can't see a flop , and if I raise I could be muscled out of the pot ...THe game itself needs to be protected, if players want to collude by betting/isolating anyway at least the collusion should not be facilated AT the table....IE no money should be swapped between players until AFTER the game is finished ,

your crazy!! you bet 50 with your tptk, friend A raises to 150 and friend 2 re raises to something like 400, like you said, now they have invested 550 between them to win 25 each!!! wow, i would love to be you in that game. if you ever see that happening plz give me a heads up and i will gladly put everything i have onto this table!

YULETIRED

mormank wrote: »

your crazy!! you bet 50 with your tptk, friend A raises to 150 and friend 2 re raises to something like 400, like you said, now they have invested 550 between them to win 25 each!!! wow, i would love to be you in that game. if you ever see that happening plz give me a heads up and i will gladly put everything i have onto this table!

:rolleyes:MEH!
25 quid will buy you 2 good pair of slack in pennys. Now that crazy. There is also some amazing reductions in shirts 2 for 10 or 4 for 20. I bought 4 to avail of the bulk purchase discount....and you call me crazy. These people are giving the stuff away........Pilchards 1.25 a tin (12 per)

mormank

lol, tooooooooshay salesman!!

RoundTower

people are such idiots when it comes to thinking about collusion

the main reason this is a bad idea is nothing to do with collusion, it's because it slows the game down

mormank

yes i agree. ppl are also such idiots when it comes to string betting!! true??

TommyGunne

YULETIRED wrote: »

both Tomme and yerself miss my point, if deals are allowed they are open to abuse . You can conjure up a scenario that is fair and one that is unfair , bottom line is if you allow them you are open to abuse....I thought they were not allowed and i would be pissed off if I saw one take place at a table im at. I dont think your scenario is cullsion (im not thick) BUT the game must be protected......my opinion of course......
anyway i'd excercise my right and leave the table and complain on the way out to the pub.

I don't think I missed your point. I got it and disagreed I think! Obviously I reckoned that you wouldn't think chopping pots by equity is collusion, but it was regarding people pushing people out of pots for the dead money and then chopping the pot. My point was that allowing deals does not facilitate this at all, and if possible hinders it.

1) Pulling this move is obv going to end up with higher raked pots due to inflated pot size. This reduces colluders edge.
2) If villain folds, colluders get a small profit. If villain calls and wins colluders lose more than if it was a HU pot. If villain calls and loses (which will happen rarely as hero should have a tight enough range for getting it in in this spot after being cold 3bet or w/e if hero doesn't know they collude), they win big. But colluders basically are inflating pot size with marginal holdings too much.
3) Because of 2) this move becomes obvious to most people after a while. If the same guys are continuously repopping each other without showdown, or when one of the guys has a monster it gets obvious if you put the hours in against them.
4) Collusion of this form requires some form of communicaton between colluders.
5) If equity chops (no matter how rough) are done, hands will have to be revealed. This cuts out collusion straight away.

Because of 1) and 2) this move has at best a very marginal positive EV. Colluders would have to be very good at poker to identify spots that this would work.

Because of 3), 4) and 5) this move is very easily spotted and is pretty risky.

If colluders were to do this, there is no way that they would agree to an equity chop as this would require showing their cards. What would most likely happen is that one of the colluders would simply fold if this was possible, requiring no showdown. Otherwise, if a showdown or an all-in was for some reason necessary, the cards wouldn't be shown. There would prob be some banter on the river resulting in one of the guys saying that he missed his draw and the other guy taking it with his hero A high/middle pair and proudly state that he "soul-read" the guy.

In either case colluders would in no way go for an equity chop.

On the contrary I believe allowing equity chops or running it twice would be good for the game, introducing more young guys etc who otherwise couldn't handle the variance, which can be crushing.






This may be a load of waffle cos my heads fried from college though atm.

RoundTower

TommyGunne wrote: »

2) If villain folds, colluders get a small profit. If villain calls and wins colluders lose more than if it was a HU pot. If villain calls and loses (which will happen rarely as hero should have a tight enough range for getting it in in this spot after being cold 3bet or w/e if hero doesn't know they collude), they win big. But colluders basically are inflating pot size with marginal holdings too much.

Because of 1) and 2) this move has at best a very marginal positive EV. Colluders would have to be very good at poker to identify spots that this would work.

lol you maths nerd, youre probably lost without your PokerTracker. These guys are seriously colluding and you are too blind to see it!

YULETIRED

Well Roundypoos.,
People are idiots full stop IMO. Especially the supposed poker intels. The point is in protecting 'the game' . The cards should speak and nobody should be allowed to 'deal' . If I wanted to stay in the game as I was running low and my buddy decides to offer me half the pot before the cards are turned. Should this be allowed? When I say protect the integrity of the game I'm speaking about blocking any skullduggery of any sort,
my collusion point was just as aspect of that. I'm not sure cullsion would even be feasible here but it is possible. If for example you gave a very broke cardshark some of the pot becuase you didn't want him up to his waist in assorted bin litter , I would strongly object, as not only would I be deprived of a very amusing video clip , you would essentially be chip dumping. Allowing deals caters for this .:D

TommyGunne

RoundTower wrote: »

lol you maths nerd, youre probably lost without your PokerTracker. These guys are seriously colluding and you are too blind to see it!

lol. The fact I called them "colluders" gives it away really.

johnnysmurfman

phantom_lord wrote: »

you shouldn't be playing if can't handle the variance of getting 350 in with the nuts, imo.

This is not really helpful.

ITT-Pat

just do what Ian Frazer does: call a massive over shove with no pair no draw, hope your opponent just has a combo draw, tell him you've got top pair, offer to chop the pot and hope to get away with it before you're asked to turn over your hand

Easy

Goodluck2me

johnnysmurfman wrote: »

This is not really helpful.

Even though he was being faceious, he is actually right.

phantom_lord

it was more aimed at the people who said it was a good idea if you weren't adequately bankroll than the op.