You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
SPT 6-Max Feedback
TRIP5
Member Posts: 3,618
Okay,
So I probably have no right to say anything considering personal circumstances rendered me unable to attend the 6-max event however as this is being discussed elsewhere (facebook, twitter etc) I wanted to pop something on here to see how others feel about it..
I was watching the live feed like a few others last night... and was left very confused and more than a bit disappointed by the ending of the SPT 6-max ... to me it seemed a deal was done between first and second place with nothing left over 'to play for'...
I have never seen a live event where HU is just cancelled because both players have come to some sort of agreement.. Usually there is still the matter of a title, trophy or a K or two to be played for.. thus ensuring the tourney keeps its integrity and plays out despite the players 'flattening' the payout structure..
Now, I know players play for themselves, their pockets and not for us cheapskates on the rail or watching the live feed who cant/wont buy in themselves, however to see the SPT trophy and title basically 'bought' for a sum of £500 like that doesn't sit well with me...
For a start, did the 'runner up' even know the full extent of what he was relinquishing?? In addition to the first place flag is the trophy, the marketing, appearance on 861, free entry into the SPT Grand Final (usually a seat worth £330.00), free entry to the Primo (this may be the roller now I'm not sure..) a place at the top of the leader board making it much more likely in securing a place in the SPT winners 5k freeroll etc... if so he basically sold all that for just £500!!
Sorry Sky, I really appreciate all the time and effort everyone puts into making the SPT events the success that they are but on this occasion, I believe that both players came second - first place was not earned, it was negotiated.
I don't know what else to say.. am I being out of line here?
xx
Comments
A couple of points
- There is no leaderboard at play after the last Grand Final, or for 2013
- There is no Grand Final entry at stake either, afaik, for this event..the new Tour starts in 2013 (no Primo entry either) where a Grand Final seat will be available for the winner
There was no interference from Sky or DTD in the deal negotiations, beyond ensuring that the TD was on hand to oversee that it was all above board
It's up to the two players, both parties were happy. Nathan the runner up said that he was a recreational player, didn't mind about the trophy or the win and was happy taking the extra money
As an organiser, and as a viewer I am sure, then yes playing things out to a conclusion would be great but its up to the players
I think most people would feel that the reported winner, who took £500 less than the second in the deal despite having equal chips give or take, gave up "equity", but he wanted the trophy, the money was less importnat to him
In live poker the country over, many many comps are ended in "business", and this was no different
Everyone's circumstances and motivations are different, as we saw in that deal
I don't have loads of live experience but the couple of times in Vegas when I was involved in deals (thinly veiled I know!) no money was left for the winner and the tournament ended at that time when we agreed the deal. There wasn't trophies involved so not sure if that changes things.
Regarding the other elements of the deal, I am fairly certain Alex had no idea of the seat to the grand final/freeroll (if they are still doing one this year) being part of the winners deal. It was purely a case of wanting a trophy for the cabinet!
Regarding the deal, the way the chip stacks ended up they were extremely deep and heads up would have most likely gone on for ages and I cant blame the players for wanting to call it a night, lock in some more profit and end the weekend by having some drinks with friends.
Just my thoughts.....my main issue was not being able to be there due to a mates birthday....need to get new friends!
I do think these things should/can get discussed like the opening post in a mature manner.
Maybe the powers that be will change it going forward so the trophy has to be played for and may even invite both the winner and runner up onto the show!
Matt
Interestingly, there were no deals I am aware of until the last two SPT events, which both ended in deals.
Not sure there is any rhyme or reason in that, just one of those things
Of course the tournament is played out how the players wish, currently with no deal restrictions in place, and the demands of the live stream and its viewers should always be secondary to that
119 of the entries were qualified/direct buy in on Sky, 80 via DTD
Tournaments everywhere...festivals, title events, regular events..end this way every day
You are right this is the first time this has happened for an SPT and yes some Tours and venues have deal restrictions in place, which I am sure Sky Poker will discuss.
I can understand why there might have been a deal
£10,500 for first £6,000 for second
100x bb deep heads up and even stacks
Fairly routine for many players to want to lower variance in that spot and flatten the payout structure, whether its a Tour event or not
That option was open to them, and they mutually decided to do it, with no prompting from anyone else
As I say, everyone's situation - finances, motivations, priorities in that spot would be different. Yours as you've just said would be "no deal play for the win"
In no way, in my opinion, does it make a mockery of anything to do with the SPT.
*i may have skipped every other post on here
Morning Irene.
You'd be surprised how many Live Tourneys end this way, & the vast majority (I'd estimate 80%+) of Live Tourneys end in "business".
The Organiser can't really stop it, either. Rules, Terms & Conditions can be put in place, but all that happens - & trust me, I have seen this a thousand times (no exaggaration) - is that the 2 players just ask for a short break, then go to the toilet or wherever, agree a deal covertly, & nobody is any the wiser.
I don't want any of that "covert" stuff to happen with SPT's, I'd rather everything was up front & open. Which was why I had no hesitation in mentioning it openly on the Live Stream.
I agree it was a disappointing anti-climax for the Live Stream viewers. However, the tail must never wag the dog, & the players - who paid the Entry Fee & obeyed all the Rules - must take precadence over those who are watching a Live Stream for free.
The deal was perfectly standard, they happen all the time.
Why do they happen so frequently? Your guess is as good as mine, but my personal view is that the payout structure encourages deals, if it were flatter, there would be less deals, but if it were flatter, everyone would shout & holler & complain, so we are in rock & a hard place territory here again.
The average stack when HU - 100 Bigs - also contributed to the players decision, I suspect. Both were canny, & good, & had each other sussed, it may have continued for many hours, & seemingly they had no appetite for that.
Yes, the "official" runner-up (Nathan) WAS fully aware of ALL the consequences, because once they began discussing "business", I made sure both players knew the score exactly, & I also summoned DTD's TD to ensure fair play, & that everything was tickity-boo.
Quite an interesting Sunday for me, one way & another.....
Hope you are well, & in good heart, ditto yoor Daughter.