My boss thinks that having players make bubble deals that are not unanimous is no problem at all and we can't tell them they can't take money out of their pocket and hand it to another player. Poker room manager that knows nothing about poker.
My boss thinks that having players make bubble deals that are not unanimous is no problem at all and we can't tell them they can't take money out of their pocket and hand it to another player. Poker room manager that knows nothing about poker.
**** I hate my job some days.
Hmm, I am not really a tournament player, but I think I know poker, and I actually can't see how this really hurts anything.
My boss thinks that having players make bubble deals that are not unanimous is no problem at all and we can't tell them they can't take money out of their pocket and hand it to another player. Poker room manager that knows nothing about poker.
**** I hate my job some days.
I'm on your side that this is stupid, but how could you possibly stop this? You can't tell somebody they can't give somebody else money. Even if you tell them they can't do it at the table they will go to the bathroom, outside, etc.. and do it anyway.
I'm on your side that this is stupid, but how could you possibly stop this? You can't tell somebody they can't give somebody else money. Even if you tell them they can't do it at the table they will go to the bathroom, outside, etc.. and do it anyway.
Of course it would not be easily detectable if two people secretly make a deal among themselves.
But to go from it is possible that people make a secret deal .... all the way to therefore making such deals is ok then you have lost any credibility to stop any cheating.
If players do this openly you disqualify them .... you ban them from playing in the room.
(when someone who obviously don't understand the problem brings it up you tell them it isn't permitted .... that will stop 99% of it from happening. Those who insist on doing it anyway run the risk of being discovered, or being double crossed)
It is altering the game play to some players benefit to eliminate or reduce a bubble. You have to protect all players interests, not just the majority. It simply comes down to game integrity.
I rallied the troops and finally convinced him, so it all ended up being resolved correctly. Phew!
I don't make bubble deals. But I tell everyone else that if they want to make one without me that I don't care. I don't think that people that are fired-up to pay the bubble-boy usually have the skills to put me at a disadvantage. In fact I think they end up screwing themselves. I do understand why a room wouldn't allow it.
I'm on your side that this is stupid, but how could you possibly stop this? You can't tell somebody they can't give somebody else money. Even if you tell them they can't do it at the table they will go to the bathroom, outside, etc.. and do it anyway.
The best you can do is give a penalty for even suggesting a side deal.
of course it affects game play. strategically in a tournament it is very bad to bust right before a bubble. for example, if 10 people get paid, and 11 people remain in the tournament, it is correct with certain stack sizes/ seat orientations/ good, aggressive players at your table to play significantly tighter in order to avoid busting. if you allow people to make deals and eliminate this bubble, it drastically changes numerous strategic elements of the game. in effect, it undoes much of the uniqueness in gameplay that is the odd payout structure of tournaments (the person with 100% of the chips does not win 100% of the prizepool, for example).
Standard chillrob. The person who will get mad at someone who willingly straddles UTG in a limit game, but thinks nothing of a little good old fashioned collusion.
I think he said his boss changed his mind and is now not allowing it.
I still don't get it though. If they decide to pay the bubble boy, there is still a bubble, it just comes earlier. I guess unless it is not decided until there is only one non-paid position left, then I could see how it would change things.
In my first ever deepstack I made final table by nitting it up. On the break a guy offered a deal where wed chop equal if we busted and the other made bubble and busted- we were both the short stacks.
This guy who offered me was smart and he used it as an opportunity to gamble, he had less at risk since he could gamble and win, or gamble and win. So he gambled right away and I shared my winnings for making bubble.
In my first ever deepstack I made final table by nitting it up. On the break a guy offered a deal where wed chop equal if we busted and the other made bubble and busted- we were both the short stacks.
This guy who offered me was smart and he used it as an opportunity to gamble, he had less at risk since he could gamble and win, or gamble and win. So he gambled right away and I shared my winnings for making bubble.
I still don't get it though. If they decide to pay the bubble boy, there is still a bubble, it just comes earlier. I guess unless it is not decided until there is only one non-paid position left, then I could see how it would change things.
Did you miss the part about one person not agreeing and the rest making a deal among themselves?
Well, I just said I didn't understand how that hurt anything, since everyone knew about it. And that I wasn't a tourney guy. Interesting how that merited several mocking posts, and not a single informative one.
Someone did PM me an explanation though, thanks to him.
I still don't think it rises to the level of being called collusion, but I can now see how some people wouldn't want a bubble boy being paid, even if they were not forced to contribute.
"I don't want to pay the bubble"(for whatever reason but often strategic game related reasons)
+
"All right everyone, let's team up to mitigate this guy's edge"
=
Collusion
Well, I just said I didn't understand how that hurt anything, since everyone knew about it. And that I wasn't a tourney guy. Interesting how that merited several mocking posts, and not a single informative one.
Someone did PM me an explanation though, thanks to him.
I still don't think it rises to the level of being called collusion, but I can now see how some people wouldn't want a bubble boy being paid, even if they were not forced to contribute.
Not if the deal is that if one comes in third, the other gives the third place some cash. Maybe I'm not getting something here though.
You would seem to be missing that both players now benefit from you being third. As opposed to the situation where each only cares only about themselves not being third
