poker players: would you cut this deal?

[Lucky]

You are heads up, 6 hours into a NLHE home tourney game that began with 20 people with a buyin of $20. First place pays $260, or 65% of the total prize pool. Second place pays $80. Blinds are 10K/20K, the max they will go. I have 120K, but 20K is in the BB. My opponent has 100K. He is drunk but unpredictable.

I proposed a deal where I would get $160, he would get $140, and we'd play it out for the remaining $40.

Good deal? Bad deal?

The rotation of this home game is scheduled to be at our house next month, and I know one thing for sure. First place will DEFINITELY not pay 60%+ of the entire prize pool.

 

[TripleAAA]

I almost would always take that deal unless I was extremely confident in who I was going to play.

 

[pulse8]

It takes you guys 6 hours to get through a 20 person tournament?

As far as the deal goes, it depends on how play between the two of us had gone so far. If I felt I could confidently take you down, then I would do it.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: Lucky
You are heads up, 6 hours into a NLHE home tourney game that began with 20 people with a buyin of $20. First place pays $260, or 65% of the total prize pool. Second place pays $80. Blinds are 10K/20K, the max they will go. I have 120K, but 20K is in the BB. My opponent has 100K. He is drunk but unpredictable.

I proposed a deal where I would get $160, he would get $140, and we'd play it out for the remaining $40.

Good deal? Bad deal?

The rotation of this home game is scheduled to be at our house next month, and I know one thing for sure. First place will DEFINITELY not pay 60%+ of the entire prize pool.

First off, the winner SHOULD get that much or more. That's why this whole problem even exists. You have to make it worth the person's time and make them want the huge dollar amount so that no one brings this up. When i run tournaments the 3rd place gets their money back, 2nd place gets double or tripple their money back and the winner gets the rest.

Another problem is that your blinds stopped. You NEVER stop the blinds because then you get into stalemates. Blinds must continue to rise so that someone is forced to make a move at the end and make a choice that will either pay off big or end them.

 

[Spydermag68]

NLHE?

 

[Midlander]

I'm not sure I'd play with that group. You started with 20 players, each buying in for $20. There should be $400 in the game. Where'd the rest go?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: Lucky
You are heads up, 6 hours into a NLHE home tourney game that began with 20 people with a buyin of $20. First place pays $260, or 65% of the total prize pool. Second place pays $80. Blinds are 10K/20K, the max they will go. I have 120K, but 20K is in the BB. My opponent has 100K. He is drunk but unpredictable.

I proposed a deal where I would get $160, he would get $140, and we'd play it out for the remaining $40.

Good deal? Bad deal?

The rotation of this home game is scheduled to be at our house next month, and I know one thing for sure. First place will DEFINITELY not pay 60%+ of the entire prize pool.

First off, the winner SHOULD get that much or more. That's why this whole problem even exists. You have to make it worth the person's time and make them want the huge dollar amount so that no one brings this up. When i run tournaments the 3rd place gets their money back, 2nd place gets double or tripple their money back and the winner gets the rest.

Another problem is that your blinds stopped. You NEVER stop the blinds because then you get into stalemates. Blinds must continue to rise so that someone is forced to make a move at the end and make a choice that will either pay off big or end them.

In a 20 person tourney the winner should not get 65%. ******, if that had happened in the WSOP main event, gold would have recieved 52 mllion instead of 12. It just doesn't make sense. I think 35-40 percent in a 3 table (20-24) person tourney is probably a more fair payout.

Second, we were about 5 minutes into the 10/20K blinds. You really think moving to 20/40K blinds when there are only 200K chips on the table is smart? I'd be flipping a coin for first and second place. That would be retarded.

No, I was not absolutely confident that I could beat him because he was drunk and playing irrationally.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Midlander
I'm not sure I'd play with that group. You started with 20 players, each buying in for $20. There should be $400 in the game. Where'd the rest go?

one rebuy

first 260
second 80
third 40
fourth 20

I think that's how it went.

 

[heinz256]

Originally posted by: Spydermag68
NLHE?

No Limit Hold 'em

 

[SophalotJack]

good call OP... you earned your right to not have to gamble anymore. Especially since it is online and you have zero read on your opponent. You might be less happy that you didn't get first, but with those stakes it would easily be the case where you got second. You would be ALOT less happy to get second without splitting the prize.

 

[manly]

If it's about money, then that's a fair deal. The blinds are so huge that even if you're a better player, it's a coin flip who's going to win. Waiting out just a few hands almost cripples your already smallish stack.

OTOH, if it's about bragging rights, then you'd rather try to take him down.

Your last reply only reinforces Midlander's question. If there was a rebuy, where did the remaining dollars go?

 

[Midlander]

Originally posted by: manly
If it's about money, then that's a fair deal. The blinds are so huge that even if you're a better player, it's a coin flip who's going to win. Waiting out just a few hands almost cripples your already smallish stack.

OTOH, if it's about bragging rights, then you'd rather try to take him down.

Your last reply only reinforces Midlander's question. If there was a rebuy, where did the remaining dollars go?

Thanks. I wasn't going to argue the point, but there sure seems to be money missing. :beer: