WCOOP Question

I haven't been following the WCOOP on pokerstars, but i checked some of the tournament windows just to see what the prizes were like, and i noticed at the top of the screen it says, "Any deal at the final table must leave at least $20,000 on the table for the winner." and in their little pop up news window they sometimes talk about 'deals' at the final table that seem to make the pay outs closer together. What's up with this? How does it work? and is this common in online tournaments? i had never heard of anything like that before and it doesn't make much sense to me, so i was just wondering if anyone could explain. thanks

-n

Lots of deals are made at final tables online in the WCOOP. A chop is very common. Reason being as the short stack, you stand to make more than you normally would if you went out first. For the average stacks, you usually would make about the same maybe a little more. As the big stack you have the luxury of gauranting yourself the lions share of the prize pool without the risk of playing another hand and getting chopped in half or worse by a short stack. Its generally a good deal for everyone and is a common occourance both live and online tournaments.

The usual Stars chop system involves taking the guaranteed money from the prize pool (i.e. if 3rd place gets $10000 and 3 players are left $30000 is removed) and the $10000 or whatever must be left to play for, then dividing the rest of the money available proportionally by chipstack size. There are some situations in which this is more fair then others, but I'm too lazy to elaborate atm.

It's pretty common, however big live tourneys won't allow deals, and on some online sites the support is so crap as to make deals not worthwhile unless you want to sit out for 2 days waiting.

Dorkus is right about the practice not being allowed in the really big live tournaments. WSOP, WPT, etc.

Dorkus is right about the practice not being allowed in the really big live tournaments. WSOP, WPT, etc. To get around this rule players all trade pieces of themselves (percentages), and stand a better chance to cash that way.

well, thank you for the info, but it still seems kind of silly to me to play for over twelve hours and then just give up and split up the pot once things really start to get interesting. maybe i'm just ignorant, but to me final tables are the most fun. i mean, everyone's winner at that point, so why not just buckle down and take a shot at glory. seems pretty lame to me

$$$$$$$$$ is the most important part

Actually, I believe chops were allowed at the WSOP...Chris Moneyaker offered to chop with Sam Farha in 2003, but Farha refused...


I do not know what the current policy is however.

Well, if you are playing for tens of thousands of dollars, you might not want one bad beat to screw you over for a huge sum of money...

believe me, i understand the logic here. what i don't understand is how anyone could play for countless hours, or even days, avoiding or surviving innumerable bad beats, and then just tank it in. yeah, i know it's a lot of money, but everyone at that point is a big winner. it's easy for someone like me, who never has been and probably never will be in such a situation, to say that, but i would never do that unless i was extreemly short stacked, and even then i'd feel like a heel. i'm sorry, but that's just how i feel. i'm not about the titles and i'm not about the money, i'm just about being able to respect myself in the morning.

-n

you see, take last night's WCOOP main event. There was a chop at the final table to the top three prises were 1st 577k, 2nd 573k, 3rd 540k, when the announced prises were; 1st 859k, 2nd 504k, 3rd 328k. everyone profited there except for the chip leader. the chip leader gave up almost 200 grand, second place gained 70 grand, and third place gained over 200. those numbers just don't make any sense to me, but that's what they're reporting. It's like you take the loser and you give him as much money as the winner, and you take the winner and turn him into a championship hungry chump. I mean, oh boy, if the chip leader had lost at that point, they only would have won $328 thousand. oh my god, wouldn't that have been terrible? I mean, how would they have been able to live with themselves? if you're willing to sacrifice 200k, why not be willing to sacrifice 200 more for the possibility of winning 859. i swear, everything about this game is rediculious sometimes... that's all...

-n

They don't make any sense to me either.

That is, how on earth you arrived at those numbers makes no sense to me.

What doesn't make any sense? the payouts i listed after the deal were the ones pokerstars reported, and the payouts announced were the ones listed at the tournament window. i'm simply reporting facts. i didn't "arrive" at any numbers. the chip leader would have won 859k had the deal not been made, instead he got 577, giving up about 200. the worst he could have done was 328, about 250 less then he got. my point was, if he was willing to take 200 less then could possibly win, why not risk winning only 328k for a chace at winning the full 859. especially if the person in third was so far behind and second place was supposed to pay over a half million anyway. clearly you guys don't understand my point of view on this subject, but if i failed to make what i was saying clear i appoligize. if you still don't understand, please tell me what you don't get and i'll try to explain more fully

-n

Since the chop #'s were SO close, the chip stacks of the final 3 were probably about even when the deal was made.

If I had a chip lead in a tournament like that I would also make a deal. Generally deals are made by using th current chips counts and the remaining prize pool is divided out from there. Sometimes a short stack might want a little more than the numbers say so there is some bargaining and negotiating.

If you were the chip leader by a little bit in a huge tournament (I'm talking about a few 100K chip difference when the stacks are in the several millions) would you want to take a bad beat and take $328,000 or make a deal for around $500,000 and then play for the $50,000 still on the table?

I make the deal EVERY TIME. That is WAY WAY WAY TOO much money to be throwing around...take the guaranteed 500K over the chance of only winning 328K. Plus, there is the $50K still on the table...

I really don't know why this is such a huge issue, none of us will ever make it that far in a tournament probably ever.

I can see not chopping if you had a chip lead in a $1-$5 tourney, but this is hundreds of thousands of dollars we are talking about here, it is a LOT different. There is a reason that almost every one of the WCOOP events was chopped near the end.

okay, this is going to be my last post on this subject because i just keep repeating myself and clearly none of you guys share my point of view

"Only 328 thousand"? yeah i know i'd be kicking myself if that's all i won. to me the differences between amounts of money that large are almost negligable. you're right in saying that this is a pointless thing to discuss, and none of us will probably ever be in such a situation. I know i probably never will at least, but if i ever were i can tell you i would not deal. yes i might feel like an idiot if i didn't deal and then was the next to go out, but i'd feel like even more of an idiot if i did deal and went on to win. you might think i'm just full of crap, and i may be, but i'm also honest. should i ever be in such a situation i will make it a point to post here so you can see that my integrety is not just professed. i would not deal, and i feel sorry for anyone who would. i'm sorry. that's all i'm going to say.

-n