Hi all,

So I am a live tournament regular and could use some advice on how to best handle a little dilemma I am in.

I regularly play tournaments with the same group of players at casinos locally. It has become a regular habit for a small share on the final table (i.e. 2 buyins worth). This signficantly reduces the pot size for the winners, but makes sure that everyone gets a little something for reaching the final table.

However, this arrangement is not beneficial to me. I do much better than 95% of the players and it's costing me money to share. It's great when I'm short stacked and have no chance of winning, but not so good when I hit the final table as chip leader. Overall, it is a losing proposition for me.

This has been going on for months now. When any player tries to refuse the deal, he is aggressively targeted by the whole table.

What is the best way to end this situation?

I should also mention that the casinos have increased the paying places to try to adjust for this, but it has made no difference as players still chop the pot down and make fewer prizes instead.

Make it clear to the floor manager in advance of the tournament that you have no interest in altering the payout structure. Once he knows that, he should politely shut down any talk of it if you're still in.

Thanks, Rapini.

Most of the floor managers are not very assertive and get run over by the players and I can see that lead to an argument between the players and the floor manager. Still, if he approaches it in the right way, that could work.

If the inmates are running the asylum maybe you should seek a better run asylum.

Haha! Nice one.

I play at multiple different venues, and it's pretty much the same everywhere. It's too profitable to just leave enough alone. I just want to increase my monthly winnings by forcing the payout structure to be followed.

I run into this a lot in casinos where I live too. Everybody wants to pay the bubble, chop, etc. and I never do.

Some people are fine with it, and others are complete asswipes about it. The thing about being "targeted" is that if you're a good player, it works to your advantage.

State early and often that you do not chop. You do not pay bubble boy(s).

Waiting until the bubble, when you are chip leader, to say you won't do what you have been doing for the past 43 tournaments doesn't look good. At that point, I think you deserve any verbal abuse you get.

The only one you can trust to stop these deals is yourself. Stick to your guns whenever it comes up, and say you're not going to do it. Depending on the room you're in, bring it up to the floor as well, so he can cut the discussion short when people get peeved; or the prevent everyone else at the table making a deal and excluding you.

However, just remember that by doing this regularly for so long, the following things can (and probably will) happen:

1) people getting angry at you, accusing you of taking deals when it benefits you, and not taking deals when you're ahead

2) people making deals excluding you, and potentially "ganging" up on you

3) people rooting for you to bust and miss out on the money

I had this happen to me on labor day. A safety chop was purposed with 32 players left for $1k, which I was the only person of 32 to decline. Then a safety chop of $800 was purposed with 30 players left then one for $500, mind you 30th paid $300. However, each time the floor would announce to the entire field who was in favor and who was not, each time I was the only one against.

After the third time this occurred I went to the floor and asked why he didn't just ask the person who vetoed the prior chops to get his approval before asking the entire field. He responded by saying that anytime a deal is proposed he has to state the deal to everyone. I voiced my displeasure because it changes the entire dynamic of the table, sometimes this can work to your advantage but other times it can work against you. Most the players at my table were noticeably annoyed and stacks were not deep enough to take advantage of it.

After stacks got shallower I eventually agreed to something. But next time I think when it gets into the money I will just make it clear to the floor that I do not want the prize pool altered and not to bother asking about any potential chops.

Remember to add a disclaimer "unless they want to give me at least first place money"

Why would you decide this early?

It seems obvious to me that you should wait until a chop is proposed, accept it if it works to your advantage and decline it if it doesn't. Or better yet, counter with a different offer that helps you more.

If you are either always agreeing to saves or never agreeing to chops/saves, you are missing out on a huge amount of potential EV from people who will negotiate and accept poor deals for themselves.

So, you selectively chop the blinds (in a cash game) too?

to be fair, that's not even close to the same thing and I was surprised at who posted this.

If you are a reg just say, I don't do deals, I don't chop the blinds, I don't pay the bubbleboy. Others might be annoyed at you once or twice, but after that there shouldn't be any problems, because they know that you are against those kind of things.

Last week I was playing daily event in local casino and managed to reach the FT. 9 players left and top 8 get money. One guy I haven't seen before suggested that we pay something to the bubbleboy. Two regs just lol'ed and one said to him; "don't even bother to ask, J doesn't do any deals". That ended it pretty quickly.

How is it different?

This gets me upset. If you say before hand to the floor that you don't want to chop, he should stop taking votes. He knows the results. The vote being 15 for and 15 against or 29-1 should not matter. Why does they player(s) have to be pointed out that he/they was against it. The casino has a formula to make the payouts. If they want to add another player to the payouts, do it before the tourney start. Of course that would just add another bubble boy. But my point is why should the player have to be singled out if the casino keeps asking to take a vote to change the payouts the way THEY set it up? and they are already told at least one player does want to change it.

You can always go to the floor and say you changed your mind, so if it comes out by another group to do a chop and pay the bubble, the floor knows at least one dissenter may now vote in favor, instead of saying when earlier talk of chop is brought up that he's already been informed that it can't happen because player(s) have already told him they are not for it.

Because chopping the blinds only effects the two players in the blinds, not the whole table or in this example 3 tables.

In the example of deciding to add the money to the bubble or chopping effects the play of all the short stacks, and to some degree the deep stacks. If 7 of the stacks are short they will play different especially if the are in the blinds or have a so-so hand but 3 other stacks may be all in on their next blind, as opposed to how they may act if they have been guaranteed some money and the difference for 31 and 30 is not that much. and conversely effects the ability to steal and use the chips they've earned to bully the short stacks while they are waiting for the bubble to pop

You chop the blinds in a raked cash game because it's close to impossible to beat the rake in a HU pot at lower stakes when you have to play so many hands. Chopping is higher EV than playing. But in a tournament you're just trying to get whatever has the highest EV payout which sometimes is chopping when the deal is favorable and usually not when the deal isn't.

as explained above, chopping the blinds is a way to get out of playing a hand where our average EV is negative mainly because of the rake. Not paying the bubble in a tournament not only prevents a decrease in payouts on the original places being paid, but it also ensures that there is bubble play (as most people pay the bubble as it approaches, and you effectively don't get any "bubble play" that better players can take huge advantage of). It's two way different things.

His point about chopping the blinds is that its considered douchey and unethical to selectively chop (depending on your cards), and the same when considering a "share" or whatever. If you regularly vote to pay the bubble then one day vote against it because your massive chip leader, thats pretty lame.

Paying for the bubble in a low $ entry tournament with 15 or 20 minute levels is very different than paying it in a higher $ entry tournament with 45 or 60 minute levels.

In the former case ending the bubble quickly allows for poker to be played post flop. In the latter, ending the bubble quickly is a huge advantage for short stacks and huge disadvantage for large stacks.

The other thing to consider is that the moment that the bubble $ is offered is not always the same. Some tournaments end earlier than others because it is a function of number of players entered. So even if it is the same buy in $ at the same daily tournament, the situations can vary wildly as to blind level, avg chip stack, distribution of chip stacks, payout structure, etc. It is unlike a standard sb vs bb chop situation in a cash game where the situation is always the same.

So, in general I have no problem with people who pay the bubble selectively. I find that most people don't (i.e., they either always pay the bubble $ or never do) and in the daily tournaments when I have a large stack I pay the bubble as well - mostly because the hard feelings aren't worth it to me. But in a larger buy in tournament I will often not pay the bubble money when I have an average or large stack because it is too substantial an amount and because it negates my advantage of being able to abuse the bubble... When I am short stacked I sometimes do bubble $ in these situations.

Why is that lame? You offer me a good deal, I say yes please. You offer me a bad deal, I say no thanks. Isn't that what everybody is trying to do every time they make a deal of any kind? If I go to the store and buy the item that is on sale, is it lame if I go back next time and don't buy it because it's no longer on sale?

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

OP is just worried about the pressure from the regs.
Apparently can't handle it himself, so he wants the Floor/TD to handle it.

If the Floor/TD won't handle it, OP has several choices:

1) Go along with the herd - no pressure

2) Buck the herd - pressure

a) Always refuse to alter the payouts - some pressure. Maybe even some grudging respect from the regs.

b) Blatantly pick and choose what is situationally best for him - lots of pressure

From a coldly logical point of view, picking and choosing represents the most profitable route. But regs won't see it that way. Remember, many of them are recreational players with money an important, but secondary consideration.

In a way it is. What I mean by that is OP has made it clear that in his particular environment the regular players including himself have pretty much operated on the basis that they always chop.

Much like most players operate under the convention that you always or never chop the blinds.

Its a social expectation not because it is good or fair policy but because the people involved have already created their norm. If he now decides that he isn;t going to chop today .... they feel he has violated the norm ..... now next week when he decides he likes a chop they will feel is exploiting them by selectively choosing whether to participate in the social norm while they feel they were bound to participate in the social norm.