Zoo, if you are unable to calculate the correct figure let me give you a hint - Take your initial ICM figure in set 1, subtract the cost of the hedge and calculate the additional ICM of the hedge to the involved players and add these figures together. You will see no change to the ICM of the non involved players and statistically insignificant changes to the involved players.

You remind me of a guy in my room, who called the floor because the shortstack, who was all in (three handed), mistakenly exposed his hand. The shortstack was knocked out in that same hand. After, he halted the game and called the floor again and still wanted the shortstack penalized for the early exposure. He even suggested the shortstack should be penalized in the next tournament he played.

I guess i will stop wasting my time here and be like the FW floor and literally laugh you off (I recall he leaned back, chuckled, shook it off, and walked away). Its the most reasonable way to deal with you.

Good grief, take a walk while you do that.

I’m not sure why it’s unreasonable to take the money from first place in a (unanimous, facilitated) bubble deal. Often these events are especially top heavy. In my home casino (which is not Foxwoods which we’ve already established does not facilitate bubble deals), first place is often 70% to 100% more than 2nd, so it’s reasonsble to simultaneously reduce the 2nd to 1st payjump (which typically ends up getting chopped anyways) while paying the bubble. The only other clear alternative to me is to take it evenly from every player, which is what happens in a non-facilitated deal where everyone puts some cash down but seems difficult in a facilitated deal.

Lost interest in this thread pretty quickly but the idea that a bubble payment would be facilitated by the casino from the prize pool is 'interesting'. Why not just have the casino run the numbers as if they were paying one more person? I'm sure they have the program to do that and the reduction for paying that bubble would automatically be spread proportionally over all the other previously paid places.

I think it's pretty unrealistic to take the viewpoint that first place 'is enough' so just take it from them.

I think it's also pretty interesting that LOTS of chopping talk comes from FW. I so wish I could get out there someday since that one casino pops up in so many threads. GL

In Las Vegas I played in a tourney where they did just that. I believe it was at the Aria.

We came to a bubble deal and they just rearranged the prize pool to reflect the extra payout. I don't remember if the money came from the first place payout but I think it did.

I was at Foxwoods this weekend and I spoke to a senior floor. Here's what I got:
- FW policy is to not facilitate any deals that don't end the tournament. They wouldn't facilitate a bubble deal even if it happened at the final table (in the scenario where the bubble was with <10 people in a 10max event). They wouldn't facilitate a deal that left money on the table to play for.
- A non-unanimous deal can be blocked if any player objects. I'm not sure how this would be enforced in the strictest sense but posts from Suit and myself have already outlined how it is and can be enforced practically (a stern announcement should do it).
- The floor apologized for the answer I got from the floor back in February when the situation originally occurred and confirmed that floor was incorrect in saying Foxwoods couldn't do anything about a bubble deal #vindicated

Thanks to all for your insight!