Originally Posted by NickMPK
So it seems right to me that sometimes I will want to pay the bubble and sometimes I won't. It will just depend on my stack size, the blind level, and the dynamics at my table. It has always seemed strange to me that most people come down on the side of "always pay the bubble" or "never accept chops". Both positions seem like the opposite of good poker thinking.
I really don't see how anyone on this thread can say they will ALWAYS do something and think it sounds any less ridiculous than the OP. If you disagree with the OP do it because he is a whiny jacknut who is dragging someone's name through the mud for no reason. He never gave a good explanation on why Enright should have taken the deal.
But those berating anyone for ever chopping or paying the bubble sound equally as ridiculous (insane blog posts that truly unveil the magnitude of the OP's ignorance, nonwithstanding)
I think in a $70 buy-in, there shouldn't be any hard and fast rules applied. The beauty about poker is its fluidity and that a person's fortunes can change at a moment's notice. Sometimes chopping or paying the bubble will benefit you.
I think the best rule to follow is to take the course of action that will best benefit you in that particular time. If you are likely to be the bubble, think about taking the bubble deal. If you are likely to finish 9th and a chop is proposed that will give you 3rd place money - think hard about taking it. Making deals that will benefit you the most is +ev.