Unfortunately, there are some fish who are clueless about adding rake-free money to the prize pool to reduce the effective rake you have to beat, so I have been in a bunch of tables with no added money.

There are good reasons to play in this last longer side bet, but also good reasons to avoid.

If you avoid, everyone else has ICM concerns, as they are playing for a separate prize from you. You have no ICM issues, as you are only playing for the winner-take-all main prize.

I've seen the last longer money disappear or be short on several occasions. Like, it's down to me vs. x vs. y. x says to y, wanna chop the last longer? y agrees. Then they're saying who has the money? Oh no, z was holding the money, and he's gone, as is the money. Oops, that's a pretty high rake.

If I ever do participate in one of these last longer bets, it will only be if I'm the one holding the money.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

So you are saying there a lot of staking or choping the money at the end ?

I don't know about staking, but there are lots of chops. Nearly all of the STS's I have played have been chopped heads up, or occasionally three-handed. All of Greg's comments about the last-longers are valid. But one advantage to having a last-longer with most or all of the table participating is that it makes it easier to facilitate chops. For example, the $175 STS the past few years has paid out 3 $500 lammers, plus $120 in cash. Since there's an odd number of lammers, chopping heads up can be tricky. But if all 10 players got in on a $20 last-longer, now there's $320 in cash in play. So you can work a deal where (just an example) the chip leader takes $1k in lammers and the other player gets a $500 lammer and the $320, and both players put in some cash to tip the dealer.

I've never have the misfortune of being stiffed on those last longers, but Greg does offer good advice there. I'm OK not holding the money, but I ALWAYS have an eye on who has it.

You also have to make sure you keep track of who is or isn't in the last longer by writing down the seat numbers so someone can't try to sneak into the pool who didn't pay.

I have never been a fan of participating in the last longer even though I get the point about a rake-free pool. The other players often are puzzled that I don't want to take part, but it doesn't affect them too much and I've never felt under excessive pressure to get involved.

That's good. I've seen the peer pressure tactic used on the nonconformists, which is stupid. Who cares that much?

I've never seen pressure to join the last-longer at all. Most people are pretty laid back on that, although several times I've seen people initially say "no" to the last-longer and then change their mind when they realize everyone else at the table is in. But not pressure.

I have, however, seen and experienced pressure to change level length, skip levels, etc. Rookies need to know that they don't have to give into any such pressure. You can stand firm on sticking to the posted structures. The Floor's not going to change anything without unanimous agreement.

Structure is already fast enough. Amazing folks want to speed that up. Do they do this right before a bracelet event starts or something?

Actually it's the opposite. For all STSs 125-525, the rake is $130. So if you play a $125 with $400 last longer instead of a $525 you are paying the exact same rake in real dollars but you get faster blinds and half the chips. Plus you risk someone not paying. I've never seen it actually happen, but it's possible.

The only thing the last longer does is allow you to play in smaller buyin satts with presumably worse players. I suppose it also reduces the number of lammers you have to sell if you don't plan on using them.

Rake in the $1030 does go up to $180 but you get significantly more chips.

I've seen the push to cut level length mostly right before the Main Event. In those last few days they constantly run $1030 sattys with 10 minute and even 5 minute blinds. Not kidding at all. You get some of the gamblers who just want the action, I guess. They do run some at normal length as well, but I was shocked by the push for levels that short. But the floor is pretty good about announcing that.

The other thing I encountered was after I sat down at a $175 or $275 maybe, and it was a whole table pushing to skip the 25-25 level. I just said no, but people were really pushing it.

So you are completely agreeing that the 10% rake of the $112+$13 STS goes down all the way to a very beatable 2% if you put in rake-free $400 last longer bet. If you play a $512+$13 with $400 LL, the rake goes down further to only 1%.

Exactly. His post didn't make a whole lot of sense.

One-hand sats just before the main event began at Binion's are legendary. Anyone heard of them occurring at Rio?

I'm saying the extra $400 you put in on the 125 is ALREADY rake free when you move up stakes instead of doing the last longer, but many people here seem immune to those facts.

Feel free to keep playing the smaller ones and complaining about only getting 1000 starting chips, I'll bow out of this thread.

I personally witnessed 3-4 on the last starting day of the 2014 ME. 10 playaz standing around the table high carding for the seat on a $1030 STT.

Yup.

The biggest benefit to a last longer is the opportunity to win money without winning the STT. If 6 people go in for the LL you might win money for being in 5th place. BTW I've never seen a $400 LL at low stakes. Biggest I've seen is $100 and it's usually closer to $20.

I saw LL of $20-40 too. But, I played 175 and 275 events only.

If you don't want the guy walk away with the LL Money be aware when someone gets knocked out to handover the cash to a player in the remaining group. In the few events that I participated or the ones I organized I didn't have any issue.

Also, I was able to unload the lamers easily as well, may be I got lucky in that aspect.

Sure, but the competition is going to be softer at the lower stakes.

Same here. I like to put in $100 in the smaller ones to cut the effective rake nearly in half, but it's hard to sell folks on that size.

$100 is a hard sell when the buy in is $125-$175 little easier at $275 but hard to get everyone.

Does anyone have a chop strategy let say for this situation
$275 buyin STT,
heads up- Hero(10K) has villain(5K) out chipped 2:1
Prize pool is 5 x $500 lamers($2,500) plus $120 cash

Taking 3 lamers and the cash would be unwise considering you are getting little better than 3:2 when you are a 2:1 favorite (based solely on chip count) also if you feel you are a better player than the villain taking 3 lamers out of 5 is even worse.

How many lamers and/or cash should Hero take in this spot?
what would be considered a good deal for Hero? what about a bad deal?

You take 3 lammers and cash, but he has to pay you something for his second lammer. Now if the guy doesn't have any cash for some reason you probably couldn't make a deal as there's no way you should take 3 and no reason for him to just take 1.

right, if someone comes out of pocket for $250 and they other guy gets the last lamer it would look like a chip equity chop.

Johnny, if you thought the Villain was a straight fish and you felt you had a huge skill advantage how much would you take in a deal to end the STT right there with a 2:1 chip advantage?

Remember the structure. Often when it gets heads up there's like 15-25 BBs on the table, so to say a 2:1 chip advantage is a 2:1 favorite or that anyone can feel confident that they have much of an edge versus pure variance seems strained to me. If it's me, if I have the 2:1 chip advantage there I take a deal with 3-2 lammer split. Maybe I'm the fish, but I would rather not double the guy up next hand and be asking for the other side of the deal.