Would you have taken this deal from your opponent?

[gbpfan1231]

Since it might not be in the rules should I also have to run it by the league if I wanna tip the commish for running the league I mean that's not how the payouts SUPPOSE to be right? Cmon whatever the hell I wanna do with the money when it's between myself and another individual has nothing to do with anyone else not still involved in any winnings!! If anyone has a problem with it it's more than likely 100% jealously they don't have the option to make a deal for some guaranteed money themselves!!

Agree 100%

 

So for you rule and bylaw sticklers....

 

What if the rules state the following: The payout for 1st place is $200 and will be mailed to winner no later than two weeks after season ends.

 

The commissioner and SB winner are hanging out together - Is the Commissioner allowed to hand the winner a check or cash? I mean is states in the rules that it must be mailed. I for one would be IRATE!!!!!

[The Mucca]

I believe referring to the commish as a "victim" in this offense would qualify nicely as "something more"

 

No just saying that if you want to redistribute your money, do it yourself, don't ask someone else that already

promised all the other owners in the league that he would do it a certain way.

[detlef]

i don't recall any pro team giving their challenger a slice to guarantee a larger payout regardless of the outcome. i don't recall any pro team giving up at half time because they are trailing, trying to milk the leading team for an extra 50 bucks or any other amount. this is bush league and pansy-filled. no wonder you like it so much.

By god you must fishing.

 

You guys seem to feel that the only way to be manly about playing FF is to have some massive split between winner and loser in the final pot. So, if that's the case, why are you bringing up a league who's every effort seems to be to make everyone involved in the league as much money as possible? To make what you actually earn for winning the whole thing comparatively small to what you get for merely showing up each week and playing, win or lose?

 

Sure, the two teams don't stand out at midfield and agree to shorten the split before the game, because the league has already done so. They've both been assured of walking away with plenty of money, so they're just playing for enough to make it interesting. Which, btw, is exactly how I personally play it. Make sure you're walking away with something nice and leave just enough out there to make it still fun. The only time I've ever agreed to a split was taking 800v125 and turning it into 600 v 325. Last I checked, that's still more money to the winner.

 

As for the deal the OP swung, The main reason I even bothered to enter the conversation was to voice against inane logic that "it's not manly to not let others tell you what you can do with your own money." I'm not certain I'd take that offer as it stood. I didn't even look at the deal close enough. But I'll tell you one thing, conceptually is seems sound enough. Like others have suggested, I may or may not have tried negotiate a better one for me but I see nothing wrong with hedging one's bet. No intelligent person would outright dismiss the notion. LIkely, I think I'd be an idiot to give away a certain 650 at even a very good chance at turning it into 700.

 

Also, like others have said, splits happen all the time in high stakes poker events. But the guys who got eliminated have enough sense to realize that it's not their place to judge. They had their chance to dictate what happened to that money and they lost. Sucks for them.

Edited December 28, 2010 by detlef

[tonorator]

this happened MID game. dude thinks he is beat so he says gimme 50 and i will concede the pot. it is a lame offer and it is lame to take it. trying to squeak out an extra few bucks because i don't look good going into monday night is sad. and, the dude still had 3 players to go. this would be the last thing on my mind ... i give it up to the winner and let him enjoy all the spoils. if i'm winning, i say no dice, even if i could lose.

[detlef]

this happened MID game. dude thinks he is beat so he says gimme 50 and i will concede the pot. it is a lame offer and it is lame to take it. trying to squeak out an extra few bucks because i don't look good going into monday night is sad. and, the dude still had 3 players to go. this would be the last thing on my mind ... i give it up to the winner and let him enjoy all the spoils. if i'm winning, i say no dice, even if i could lose.

Dude, nobody is saying that you have to take the deal. I completely understand why someone wouldn't want to. That's cool, don't take the deal. What I don't get is the sanctimonious crap that's being levied at the guy for undermining the "integrity of the game". That it happened part way through the game or not is immaterial. Well, save for the fact that it obviously allowed one of the parties to get a better deal out of it. Safe to assume that nobody would be giving up nearly all the pot on Thursday.

 

I mentioned hedging a bet on a big parlay, which is very much like this. You buy a 8 prop parlay that pays about 100:1 for $10. All seven games on Sunday cover and you've got Monday night left. So, it's not about a $10 bet anymore. It's you either win $1000 or nothing. Would it be so horrible to just pull some money off the top by betting a couple hundred the other way on Monday? So now, instead of winning $1000 or nothing, you're winning either $700 or $300. It's "MID bet" after all. Is this some sleazy tactic that Vegas should be cracking down on? By Broncos' logic it's not "your" money yet, so shouldn't you have to get permission from the sports book about whether it's OK to "change the spread from all or nothing to a lot or not as much?

 

How is this so different?

Edited December 28, 2010 by detlef

[tonorator]

How is this so different?

 

this ain't vegas. we play this game for glory and the title ... not for a mid-match plea for some extra cash. i don't like it.

 

now, if the 2 teams want to place a side bet, that's another story.

[i_am_the_swammi]

now, if the 2 teams want to place a side bet, that's another story.

 

Isn't that basically what they did? They essentially said "If team A wins, A gets $650, B gets $50. If team B wins, A still gets $650, B gets $50". May sound like a strange bet to you, but if both participants agree to it, then so what?

[tonorator]

Isn't that basically what they did? They essentially said "If team A wins, A gets $650, B gets $50. If team B wins, A still gets $650, B gets $50". May sound like a strange bet to you, but if both participants agree to it, then so what?

 

a bet with the same outcome no matter what happens is not really a bet is it? so no, this is not a side bet.

 

i don't care if they do it and would not call for it to be stopped, i just think it's lame.

[wiegie]

we play this game for glory and the title

if that's the case, then why the f' do you care what anybody does with their winnings?

[satelliteoflovegm]

The money belongs to the teams evolved.

 

The title and crowning of a league champion belongs to the league.

 

If the commissioner wants to honor their agreement is irrelevant. The champion can distribute his money how they want and in secret or not.

 

If your league tracks career winnings it should be recorded as the champion getting the full bylaw amount.

[Sunday Couch Potatoe]

if that's the case, then why the f' do you care what anybody does with their winnings?

Bingo

[detlef]

we play this game for glory and the title

 

Glory? How much tail does guy like Muto pull because of his FF dominance?

 

Really, the notion of glory and the noble pursuit of championships keeps getting brought up in this thread. I've won my share of league titles, at least made the play-offs nearly every year I didn't win it all. I'm sure that there are others here who have done the same in their local leagues. Never once has anyone asked for my autograph or even come up to me and introduced themselves just saying they wanted to meet the guy who dominates the SC local FF league.

 

Just curious. Is my story uncommon. Do the rest of you who have dominated their work or friend's league get all the trimmings that come with glory? Do you ever have to pay for a drink at the local bar?

 

There are games that I can understand playing if there was not a cash prize waiting at the end. I could see playing in some sports rec league, for instance. Hell, I'll play board games or hearts for no money. I could not, however, envision ever playing in a free FF league. And I think that is a decent measure of how much stock I actually place in the "glory and title" that comes with it. When the final out is recorded in the rec league softball championship game, everyone is genuinely excited and, quite likely, rushes out to the bar to celebrate.

 

When you've clinched your FF championship, likely sitting alone on the couch watching the game with your lap top nearby, freaking out for the last hour and half of the MNF game because you've got your kicker and 10 pts against his D and WR2, you yell to your wife who's in bed reading, "Honey, I just won $800" and she replies, "Great job sweetie. Does that mean the FF season is finally over? There were some things I was hoping we could take care of next Sunday."

 

"Hey, do you think Gisele talks to Tom that way after he wins it all?"

 

"Who's Gisele and Tom? Whatever, I'm going to sleep. Don't fall asleep in front of the TV and would you remember to let the dog out for a crap before you come to bed? Congratulations, sweetie. I think it's really great you won."

 

Ah yes, the champion's glory. There's nothing like it.

Edited December 28, 2010 by detlef

[MTSuper7]

There are games that I can understand playing if there was not a cash prize waiting at the end. I could see playing in some sports rec league, for instance. Hell, I'll play board games or hearts for no money. I could not, however, envision ever playing in a free FF league. And I think that is a decent measure of how much stock I actually place in the "glory and title" that comes with it. When the final out is recorded in the rec league softball championship game, everyone is genuinely excited and, quite likely, rushes out to the bar to celebrate.

 

This is why comparing poker tournaments to fantasy football is a good analogy. Could you imagine playing in a poker tournament with chips but no actual money on the line? I think the poker analogy has been brought up earlier on in this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

 

Anyone who thinks that they have a right to decisions about the prize pool that don't affect the people who get paid is deluded. There is nothing at all shady or immoral about working out a deal for how the prize money is split between any number of people who qualify for it.

 

Also, for those who think that any dealings with the prize money are an issue, chew on this... Suppose Detlef and I are in a championship game, and after the Sunday night game I'm up 13 points but he still has Vick going on Monday night. Prize payouts are the same as the OP in this thread ($700 for winner, $50 for runner-up). I'm screwed, right? Well, let's say I say to Detlef "Dude, you've got this... But let's make a side bet on it... A $50 bet with 12-1 odds in your favor. The bet is this - If Vick gets the 13 points you need, I win our bet ($50). But if he doesn't get the 13 points, you win the side bet ($600). Detlef has the option to take this side bet if he wants to ensure that he still gets a significant payout in the face of a very unlikely scenario. He doesn't have to take it, but he can.

 

The above scenario has the exact same effect as what the OP's deal proposes. As long as the outcome of the game isn't changed, then who cares about how the league winners divvy up the prize money? As long as that is what is going on, it should be permissable. But if one party "concedes" the championship, allowing the other team to be crowned champion no matter the outcome, then that's where it becomes a problem. But who the hell would want to be given the title of champion on an agreement? Reminds me of how Russell Hantz tried to buy the title of "Sole Survivor" off of Natalie after she had won...

Edited December 28, 2010 by MTSuper7

[detlef]

This is D&D for Adults

Exactly. Back in the day, when we were all single, there was one unbreakable rule. If we were out at a bar and there were any women around, DO NOT TALK ABOUT FF. No more sure fire way of going home alone that night.

[Chief Dick]

Pad.

[tonorator]

 

Glory? How much tail does guy like Muto pull because of his FF dominance?

 

i have to imagine it is significant. he seems like a very powerful man.

[Furd]

+1

 

This is D&D for Adults

 

[detlef]

i have to imagine it is significant. he seems like a very powerful man.

But does he have a wolf shirt. Me asking that question, rhetorical or not, without knowing if the wolf shirt is in play is like a WDIS without posting your league scoring rule.

[Bronco Billy]

I am under the assumption this is not being done secretly - in my opinion there is no reason to keep it secret because there is nothing wrong with it.

 

Again - why would anyone make this assumption? There's no basis for it and it seems blatantly obvious that this deal was done behind closed doors or he wouldn't be here posting to get approval of the deal. Not sure how anyone doesn't read between those lines and makes a leap of faith to the contrary instead.

 

Look, pro poker players agree to chop pots sometimes and I don't have any issue with it because they have open discussions at the table in front of everyone to do it. I have also seen them back off chopping a pot if someone at the table voices an objection - which is rare for pros.

 

It is the secrecy of the deal that bothers me on this whole thing. If they knew they were acting in good faith: 1) He wouldn't be here looking for support, and 2) They would have laid it out for the league before last night's game went off and allowed the league to voice any objections.

 

That some think this doesn't involve the league at all when that's exactly where the money is coming from and why the opportunity to split is even there is just unfathomable to me.

[detlef]

Again - why would anyone make this assumption? There's no basis for it and it seems blatantly obvious that this deal was done behind closed doors or he wouldn't be here posting to get approval of the deal. Not sure how anyone doesn't read between those lines and makes a leap of faith to the contrary instead.

 

Look, pro poker players agree to chop pots sometimes and I don't have any issue with it because they have open discussions at the table in front of everyone to do it. I have also seen them back off chopping a pot if someone at the table voices an objection - which is rare for pros.

 

It is the secrecy of the deal that bothers me on this whole thing. If they knew they were acting in good faith: 1) He wouldn't be here looking for support, and 2) They would have laid it out for the league before last night's game went off and allowed the league to voice any objections.

 

That some think this doesn't involve the league at all when that's exactly where the money is coming from and why the opportunity to split is even there is just unfathomable to me.

Again, you keep assuming that he was here looking for moral justification. Maybe he was just looking for advice on whether it was a good deal.

 

As in, "would you rather take the bird in hand or lay it on the line for $50 more?". Others have chimed in saying it's a my little buddy move. That's fine. But you seem to be convinced that he's trying to pull some sleazy back room deal and wants us to say it's OK, even though deep down in his heart, he knows it's sleazy.

 

Guys come here all the time asking if this trade or that trade makes sense. That doesn't mean they're asking whether or not the trade is ethically sound. They want to know whether it's a good deal for them.

 

Here's the first post. Find me the part where he asks us if this is a sleazy move. I think you think he's asking that because you've decided for yourself that it's sleazy.

I'm up by 33 with vick and akers to go..and hes got Matt Ryan, Harvin and Celek...He clearly thinks he lost because he offered me the victory if I paid him the 2nd place + $50....and no matter the outcome I win the jackpot...what you think?? I dont need to stress out for the next 2 days now...

 

Has it occurred to you that he didn't ask others in his league because he didn't see why it was any of their business? What other things with that money should he have to assume his league mates deserve a say in what he should do with it.

Edited December 28, 2010 by detlef

[bluedog]

is it okay for me to do this?

 

Winning 91 to 86. Opponent is done. I have Vick and Philly Defense left. QB can get negative points, Defense can't. Thinking of cutting Vick and picking up Kafka or Favre to ensure the victory.

[tonorator]

is it okay for me to do this?

 

Winning 91 to 86. Opponent is done. I have Vick and Philly Defense left. QB can get negative points, Defense can't. Thinking of cutting Vick and picking up Kafka or Favre to ensure the victory.

 

absolutely OK ... assuming waivers are still open. if not, see if you are required to start a full lineup as you may just be able to bench vick, if allowed.

[detlef]

is it okay for me to do this?

 

Winning 91 to 86. Opponent is done. I have Vick and Philly Defense left. QB can get negative points, Defense can't. Thinking of cutting Vick and picking up Kafka or Favre to ensure the victory.

I've never played in leagues where you could make waiver moves after the first kick-off of the weekend. I understand that one could do this and simply not be able to pick up players that already played. I've just never played in a league that allowed it.

[bluedog]

Just found out no add/drops after first kick-off on Sunday. Thought that this would be something that I would be able to do given add/drops after Thursday night games. .

[bostonsoxandy]

Congrats on using what is quite possibly the most feeble argument in FF. Well, hell, any player could get hurt on any down in any game. I guess that means that no one who has the slightest risk aversion should ever think of playing in anything other than free leagues, since you could just be putting up good cash only to see some players hurt during the season and finish out of the money. Wait - losing money when players don't perform like projected happens to the overwhelming majority of owners in any money league, doesn't it?

 

Michael Vick gets quad injured on first play of game, struggles uncharacteristically by throwing under 300 yards, a mere 2 total TD, an interception, 6 sacks, and fumbling several times. Earning 20 points. Akers got 1 point.

So he has a lead of 54 points going against Matt Ryan, Percy Harvin, Celek-wouldn't you be less confident now considering Ryan got 12, Harvin got 10, Celek got 19...Thats only what, like an 11 point win....would you risk 650 bucks if its that close?