Online Poker Strategy Articles

Jon Eaton

If you read 'My Trail To Victory'' series of columns, you remember I battled through a late-night no-limit tournament on PokerStars to come out on top. Once we were three or four-handed, I had the chip lead and was asked about making a deal.

Normally I don't like deals. I don't like taking away from my winning potential. If I have a mountain of chips and a good shot at the title, why take away some of my money'

Obviously, deals are good if you want to lower your variance, and if you really need the money. If you're at the final table of a big buy-in event, and the money is life-changing, a deal is probably worthwhile. You don't want a coin toss to decide the fate of a few hundred thousand dollars, or possibly more.

At the same time, deal making can kind of detract from the game of poker. Imagine deal making on television. It would be so boring to watch three pros with different chip stacks, chop up a huge prize pool and not even play it out!

Obviously, I don't think that people at home should have to see that kind of thing, nor should professionals do such a thing when it's for a major title. I think all major titles as such should have a strict no deal-making policy, as I think that people might see it in the wrong light and think poker isn't as competitive of a game as it really is.

That's not to say it's a bad thing, but that for big events, in front of an audience, we should play it out and make it worthwhile. With that said, I can say that I saw some very, very ill-advised deals being proposed at the final table of the $350k tournament on PokerStars.

The situation was as follows. Player A had about 70% of the chips in play, and was obviously the most experienced and better player of the final three. Player B was a little less experienced, with a moderate to small stack. Player C was on the respirators and a long shot to win.

Player A had enough chips to wait it out with 20k-40k blinds. Both other players were going to have to pick up the slack. Player C had maybe ten or more big blinds, and B had at most twenty big blinds. Obviously, A was at a huge advantage.

In Tournament Poker For Advanced Players, David Sklansky states that your chip count in comparison to the number of chips in play is your chances of winning. With 70% of the chips, obviously, Player A should take first about 70% of the time. He also states that deal-making is a little more clouded with more than just two-handed.

The reason being is that heads-up, your chip count directly corresponds with your chances of winning. You have 70% of the chips heads up, but three-handed, the odds are a little less easy to calculate. Say players B and C are so inexperienced that it was a miracle for them to get to the final table. It's obvious that his 70% of the chips number should entitle him to a large percentage of wins in this situation.

But what if he was outclassed' What if players B and C were world-class, world champion poker players' Obviously, even with less chips, it's difficult to calculate their winning percentages.

However, the one thing that is constant is chips run close to the chances of victory. It might not tell the whole story, but if you have 70% of the chips, you obviously have a good chance of winning.

Hence, a straight chip-count deal is not always best three-handed. Generally speaking, when playing online where anonymity is abundant, it's tough to tell who really is good and who is lucky. If you knew that the player to your left was a world champ, you'd give him a little leeway in a chip-count chop.

But these players this week on PokerStars were offering ridiculous numbers. First prize was $98k, second was $58k, and third was $37k. A chip count deal would have Player A getting about $82k, B was to receive $62k, and $47k would go to C (rough counts, obviously).

Player C vehemently said he would settle for no less than $55k. B offered 60k-60k-60k with the winner taking the difference, then later other absurd numbers that didn't take chip counts into account at all. Player B later went on to state 'a chip count deal should take into account that one hand can change everything' and later 'you just want to seal up a victory (in reference to player A wanting $82k) and it's not even over yet.'

First, obviously, a deal when in a tournament is specifically as a result of the one hand changing the tournament around possibility. If Player B would think for one second, he is trying to seal up well over second place money himself-not taking into account his own chip stack could still give him even third place money if he busted out in one pot to player A.

Player C was requesting way too much money for his stack. He was guaranteed a whole extra $10,000 just by taking the deal, instead, he rejected any deal and ended up with just $37k for third place when he busted.

Still not grasping these concepts, Player B requested a bit of overkill in the heads-up deal. Player A still had a lead and didn't want to give much money up, and rightfully so. However, B finally made him agree to a fairly even chop, with the winner taking a small piece of extra cash up. Player B actually ended up winning the event, so they both made roughly the same amount of money.

However, we should analyze exactly what went down. Player C busted out of the tournament, not getting anything extra that a deal could have given him. He wanted an extra $18,000 that he shouldn't have been entitled to as the short stack, when they offered a whole extra $10k to him. Obviously, he got the raw end of this argument and wasn't smart enough to realize what an opportunity he was getting. All he could think of was the fact that he wasn't getting $98k for first, which he was a long shot to win anyway.

Player B still held out initially because he felt that Player A was being unfair. What he failed to realize was that he was still playing poker and at any given time, even pocket aces could bust him out immediately. If he busted third, he would lose a whole $25k! So, obviously, these players were very mistaken in not taking a good deal when they got one. Don't let this happen to you.

On Another note, Kudos to PokerStars, on their policy of helping out deals at final tables. They will crunch the numbers for you and give you accurate numbers on chip-count chops like this. If you want more information about deals, I recommend reading Tournament Poker For Advanced Players.

note by gank: Jon Eaton is an extremely talented online and real life poker pro living in Las Vegas. He has really come into his own the last couple years after I mentored him.