Poker tournaments can be incredibly volatile, especially when you make it to a big final table. At that point, the stakes are high, and players are faced with a tough decision: should they go for the win or should they cut a deal to secure a more stable payout?
This decision is influenced by two opposing schools of thought in the poker world. On one side, some players believe that no matter what, you should always play for the win. On the other hand, some players argue that the variance in tournament poker is too high, and making a deal could be the best choice for protecting your bankroll.
The Argument for Playing to Win
Nathan “BlackRain” Williams, a poker coach, firmly advocates for going for the win. He tweeted, “Don’t accept a deal at the final table of a tournament unless you are literally playing for life-changing money. You’re the best player at the table right? Prove it by winning the tournament outright.”
This perspective comes from a belief that deals could give your opponents a psychological edge. By agreeing to a deal, you might be signaling to the others that you’re not confident about your chances of winning, potentially exposing a weakness. There’s also the notion that if you’re truly the best player at the table, you should trust your ability to win in a heads-up situation, where skill is a decisive factor.
Faraz Jaka’s View on Making Deals
Faraz Jaka, however, doesn’t share Williams’ view. Jaka has a more pragmatic approach to final table deals. He believes that players should evaluate the situation based on their current bankroll and the stakes involved. For example, if you’re heads-up for a $280k difference in prize money and the chips are even, ask yourself: “Would I be willing to play this person heads-up for $140k each, given my bankroll and this payday?”
Jaka’s approach shifts the focus from ego and pride to practical considerations. He emphasized that making a deal isn’t about signaling weakness, but rather about maximizing your profit in a situation where variance is unpredictable.
Jaka Reflects on His Evolution as a Player
In his conversation with Sarah Herring of PokerOrg, Jaka reflected on how his mindset has changed over the years. When he was younger and earlier in his career, he was staunchly opposed to chopping. “I was very proud of it and I definitely felt like it maybe gave me a psychological advantage over my opponents,” Jaka admitted.
However, over time, he came to realize that nobody is keeping track of whether you chop or not. The chances of facing someone who specifically knows or cares about your chopping history are rare. Ultimately, Jaka recognized that there’s no need to base decisions on pride or psychological games.
The Bottom Line: Maximizing Bankroll and Minimizing Risk
For Jaka, making a deal is about protecting your bankroll and ensuring that you’re making the best financial decision in a high-variance game. “No one’s really keeping track of who chops and who doesn’t chop,” Jaka said. The goal is to secure a fair outcome given the circumstances, rather than letting emotions or ego dictate your decision.
In the end, whether you agree with Williams or Jaka, the decision to chop or play for the win should depend on your individual circumstances, your bankroll, and your tolerance for risk. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, but understanding the psychological and financial aspects of the decision can help guide you toward the best choice for each specific situation.
