1
#427 – “You’re Uncle Tilty” Report – Part IV
[After this portion of the report, I will take a break to play in and cover the 2008 World Series of Poker. When the action slows down sufficiently, I will continue writing and posting this Report. When that will happen is anyone's guess]
Sammy, who won one of the prizes in my previous contest, suggested that tournaments become ten-handed when there are ten players left. “At all the big tournaments, when every you are playing down to the final table and there are ten left, they alwys bring them together to play on one table.”
Sammy purported to develop this idea while watching me play in a satellite tournament that provided entry to some big event to the top nine players and I finished tenth. I doubt the veracity of this claim, as I am usually the first person eliminated in such tournaments. But there are bigger problems than that with Sammy’s plan. First, this is one of those few ideas that are easier to implement at a live tournament than online. Live, you shove in a chair, shoehorn the players, and send one dealer home. Online, I think this requires a major revision of the client software.
Amir wants to add a “make a deal” button that can be activated when down to the final table in tournament play, so the tournament clock can stop and a deal can be negotiated. Amir actually posted the last entry to the contest; he even entered shortly after the contest closed but I didn’t let that stop me from considering it. Frankly, I was surprised only one person suggested this and that it took until after the contest ended for me to receive it. I see this suggestion all the time at final tables (though much more from observers when observers were allowed to chat at final tables).
This is one of those few ideas that are mainstays of live tournaments that I’m pleased that Full Tilt has withheld from its operations. Deal-making is a scourge in tournament poker. Granted, players are playing for their own money so they should be allowed to divide it as they wish, but it is antithetical to sound tournament operation that the tournament operator facilitate that. The first problem is that it is a waste of time. I played in the Omaha EOB Championship at the Orleans Open last summer and players were getting up from their seats and talking among the players at different tables when just half the field had been eliminated. “Wanna do a 60-way chop?” It seemed every hour or so, there would be some stoppage of play to harangue the people who didn’t want to go for some deal.
And what a useless way to operate! If I play five $1,000 buy-in events and cash in one, I’m beating the field in my cashing percentage. But I’m a losing player if I can’t cash for $5,000 in that one event. What kind of livelihood can a player make if they disqualify themselves from ever scoring the bonanza of the top three?
If players want to undertake an overall revision of the payout percentages, I’m willing to listen to the merits. (Josh II suggested cutting down on tournaments that pay more than the top 10%, like the Midnight Madness, and switching to paying just the top 5%.) But ad hoc deals are usually a waste of my time. (And, by the way, that attitude usually leads me, when I do participate in a deal, to get the best of it. In what kind of bargaining position is the guy who begs for settlement?)
A few players asked for improved commentary of big-tournament final tables. I know Full Tilt is starting to do some commentary – Ali Nejad did commentary on final tables for the first 13 FTOPS VIII events and for the Heads-Up final (though it was originally billed as Ali and Chris Ferguson) – on big final tables so check that out. But these guys are probably looking for more than that. Alan suggests “doing the FTOPS Main Event final table live online where instead of doing it while clicking your mouse it will actually be a live table.” I have no idea what he means by this, though he recommends having “Howard Lederer and another Full Tilt pro do commentary live.”
I happen to think that would be pretty good, though I’m not sure how many people would watch. The goal would be to GET people to watch, which I think would be a worthwhile thing.
Another Josh – this is just a coincidence, as 75% of the entrants were not named Josh, just these three (I think) – wants to compensate final-table players for letting commentators see and disclose their hole cards. “For select major MTTs, I would give all players at the final table the option to allow Full Tilt to record the action at the final table with their cards exposed (offering incentive like 10,000 FT points … would need to get player feedback to see what it would take for them to agree to card exposure), and when the tournament is finished, have them watch a playback of the final table (with the exposed cards) and get their feedback/comments on how and why they played certain key hands the way they did.”
That’s a pretty cool idea, though I’m not sure how many final-table players would go for it for reasonable compensation. For big events, are the points really worth it? How honest/illuminating would getting their opinions be? I’d sure vote for giving it a shot to find out.
