Pocket Aces

Let's Make A Deal, But Make Sure It's Witnessed

By Maryann Guberman

      In case you didn't know, when you see that Player X won a million dollars in a poker tournament, the truth is, he probably didn't win a million dollars.

     In high-stakes poker tournaments -- and even in the low-stakes events -- players who make it to the final table are almost always going to start thinking about cutting a deal. If you've seen the World Series of Poker at Binion's Horseshoe or watched any of the videos of the championship event, you might notice that at sometime -- when there are perhaps three or four players remaining, there's a break in the action. The players are talking deal. If there isn't some kind of whispered financial activity at that point, there almost certainly will be when the field narrows down to two.

     Now before you start criticizing, think about the economics of the move.

     In his book "TOURNAMENT POKER," Tom McEvoy says that he and fellow Mike Sexton estimated that it costs about $175,000 a year for a professional player to enter all the major ($300 and up buy-in) tournaments in one year. Granted, not everyone pays full bore thanks to the backing of poker angels, but that's still a sizable amount of money for no return guarantee. For those who get into a position to win SOME money, trying to extract a bit MORE is not a bad move in light of those expenses.

     Consider also the prize structure. The winner of an event usually gets 40 percent of the purse while second and third place receive 20 percent and 10 percent respectively with the remainder going to other finishing positions and perhaps some administrative dues. This kind of structure makes for a huge gap in return on investment, so if you have a chance to increase your take and/or protect your lead, you're probably going to do it, aren't you?

     In its infancy, deal making at the final table of a tournament was a haphazard affair. One player approached another, usually with a friendly query, and if the second person caught the innuendo, they talked, right there, between hands. Sometimes a chip leader had to pose the question without facade, especially if his opponent happened to be new to competition and didn't know what deal-making was all about.

     Once players agree to deal, it's not unusual for a seasoned player to try to tilt the table a bit so he gets a bigger portion, so it's up to you to make sure you get a fair shake. In the bigger events, the tournament director will often intervene and do the math, but it's still a good idea to know how it's done.

     We'll look at a three-way agreement since that's the most common. To start, each player should be guaranteed an amount equal to third-place money. That total amount is then subtracted from the total prize money and the remaining cash is then divided according to finish: 40 percent to first, 20 percent to second and 10 percent to third. (Once it's determine who will win the lion's share of the prize money -- and who will get the "trophy," since this is often a sentimental and/or ego item -- players generally loosen up with the ones who aren't going to be named champion throwing away marginal hands. It's kind of a rush to finish at this point.

     Using this formula, the winner gets less than she does would if no deal were made while the second and third place get more. And, since no one is sure WHO will emerge victorious‹after all, anyone could get lucky or unlucky at this point in the game -- the formula is workable.

     Workable? Yes. Enforceable? Well, maybe.

     I have heard from a reliable source that in a tournament held in California, there is a dispute over a final-table deal that might lead to court action. From what I understand, a player who did not fully understand the art of deal-making (possibly because of a language barrier) agreed to participate. After a string of good hands, the other player who should have finished second took the lead and eventually won the event ... at which point he refused to acknowledge and carry out the deal.

     This is the first time I've heard that someone reneged on a poker deal but it makes me wonder whether or not it will happen again. The question becomes, how do you protect yourself against this potentially costly outcome?

     Up until now, the tournament director and/or poker manager assists and acts as an informal witness to the proceedings when a deal is made. Once the tournament is over, he or she generally spells out the deal again, just before distributing the prize money. I suppose, if someone at this point decides to back out, the director might just let him know that "a deal is a deal." Depending on the strength and reputation of that person, all parties should agree. However, that might not be the case.

     I think, in light of the potential legal questions, it might be a good idea for all tournament directors to have handy little agreement forms drawn up by an attorney. These forms can be brought to all final tables, with the blanks filled in at the table when the deal is made and with all parties, signing them -- witnessed, of course.

     Poker is supposed to be an honorable game ... but it can't hurt to have a life vest nearby when the waters get murky.