I don't know why this type of payout adjustment puts me on mega-tilt as a dealer. "It'll speed things up". No, it doesn't. It never does. Look, it's your money, so you get to do whatever you want with it. It's not my call. This one just really irks me.

Paying the bubble today doesn't create a new bubble. However "We always pay the bubble" does in fact create a new bubble.

Also the bubble isn't only one spot. It's being talked about here as if it is. Sure the stone bubble is one spot. The bubble boy or girl is the person to burst the bubble, and that is one spot. But the period of bubble play is many spots, hell in small stakes online tournaments it's sometimes as many as a few hundred spots. In a lot of larger field tournaments paying the stone bubble their buy in back wouldn't really have had much effect on the way people had played the bubble period which was likely a double digit number of spots in total.

So paying the stone bubble their buyin back really only has relevance to peoples strat changing in very small field tournaments, in larger field tournaments I'd say it has little to no effect on the way people play.

I care about keeping fish happy in cash games so they want to play with you but it wouldn't be a concern in tournies.on the bubble people play way too tight.when you get to the bubble but agree to pay it they start playing more correctly. This isnt roxket science.

Not to mention that from a logic standpoint paying the bubble makes no sense unless you have something absurd like one bb.The sheer stupity of tue concept and the fact so many people want to do something so assanine would make me refuse on principle.If you wanna go to a casino to sit at the table and jerk each other off have at it.people in these daily tournaments are such pussies anyway and pretend poker players for the most part the only reason I could see for even playing in one of these is to piss off as many as possible.It's really annoying when the tourny tables are close to the cash games and you have to hear their cry baby bull**** when people don't want to chop 57 ways or pay the bubble.

This is mostly true so why waste time doing something so meaningless.just play poker or stay home.

The bubble period isn't just one spot though, so even if you pay the bubble boy they will still play tight leading up til the bubble. Also if it's a thing they always do then really they aren't paying the bubble, because that guy is just the final cash spot instead.

Lets say 20 players get paid, and there are 22 left. Everyone knows whoever goes out in 21st (the bubble) is still getting paid something, while 22 walks away with nothing. So with 22 left they are all going to play exactly as tight and scared as they would have with 21 left if you didn't pay the bubble. It doesn't change how they play during the bubble period to 'pay the bubble.'

Also what you said about being nice to fish in cash games but not tournaments doesn't really make sense. In general you want fish to like you, you achieve that by being friendly and amenable with them. Also what if it's a small market and the same fish play with you in both cash and tournies, then the smart thing is to be friendly and amenable with them in both.

My 2 cents:

I think paying the bubble is very different from chopping. It's just a small amount of money but you gain a lot of reputation/image. If you're a regular at that casino, it's important for other players to like you. Therefore, I always accept requests to pay the bubble, but I never initiate it myself. It's important to be consistent about it, even if someone has 1bb. The amount paid is usually equal to the buy-in to the tournament we're playing.

Also I find taking cash money from everyone to pay the bubble weird. What if someone spent all he had for the night and can't pay? In my casino we usually ask the floorman to change prizes, take the bubble money from first place.

Why is it "important for other players to like you" if you're a regular?

People that don't think that having people like you is +EV will never agree on it, so it is really worth trying to explain?

It's also a market and stakes thing. The larger the over all player pool the less important it is for people to like you (although them outright disliking you is still not great,) the smaller the player pool the more important it is for people to like you.

If you played with the same 8 guys every single day, and 2 or 3 of them were rec fish that don't have to play, but choose to play for fun, do you think they'll keep playing with you day in and day out if they don't like you much?

tell them you want to have a bubble. it is part of the play of the game. if they want to pay the bubble they have to do it at the start of the last table assuming that is where the bubble will be. so there is still players left to lose and have a bubble.

if you act on it as if you have a good reason they will come around. if it is greed because you just happen to have more chips that time you just make enemies.

One thing I have never figured out about the pay the bubble everytime no matter what people is why they think paying the bubble is the only question. Where the money comes from to pay it is just as important.

People seem to default to either every place pays the same amount, or you take it off the top places. But in my opinion this is backwards. The people most likely to benefit from the bubble payment are also more likely to take lower spots and the people least likely to benefit from the bubble payment are more likely to come in the top spots. So shouldn't the money come predominantly from the bottom spots.

Or if being put as cash instead of coming from the prize pool shouldn't players pay in inverse proportion to their chips stacks. Maybe the guy with the big stack puts up $10 while the guy at the lowest end is putting up $20.

Its just bizarre to me that people don't see that they are defaulting to the most illogical bubble payment schemes. Last night I watched a table agree to pay 3 bubble places all from the top two places.

the people just want to cash in in the tournament. the same ones that want the bubble paid will make a terrible deal for themselves near the end of it as well. they cant understand what is right or wrong or is best for them or not.

Simply pay the bubble if you think you can be the bubble. If you are short stacked then paying is easy. If you have a big stack dont make a bubble deal and save money. So just do it if its +EV in your favor.

I will only agree to pay the bubble when we are on the bubble. And that is usally only in turbos where it is harder to exploit bubble play due to variance. I don't like agreeing to pay the bubble when we aren't there because it, as many have pointed out, just ceates another bubble.

Five pages of jibber jabber when the correct response is "not if you don't want to."

I would never pay the bubble unless you are fairly certain it will create more profit for you in the future by way of:

- taking advantage of these same people when making deals
- having these same players soft play you on occasion because you are well liked
- You find yourself busting a lot right around that bubble, where you would get paid the bubble money a few times
- General +EV in cash games with the same players because you are well liked (and I don't even know if this is really a true thing or not)

etc. etc.

If it is not going to benefit you in the future financially, then no. If you feel it will benefit you enough to outweigh the money you are putting out of pocket to pay bubbles, then yes.

poker is both a social thing and a money thing. you have to balance them out if you want to keep it fun for yourself.

I never understand why these bubble deals often don't proceed because one player doesn't want to participate.

Just do a deal with whoever wants to be in it.

Because poker is not team sport.

That's collusion. It has to be everybody or nobody.

How is it any different?

I did a deal with 2 others the other day with 25 left, 24 getting paid.

We each had 1 big blind and were seated at the same table. We just ponied up $300 each so the bubble got $600.

It's only collusion if it changes how you actually play the hands.

I'm often the person that refuses to pay the bubble. However, I'm not going to try to stop people who are interested in doing so from making their own agreement.

I don't see how two people agreeing to do a swap on the bubble is any different than two people swapping pieces before a tournament. Or a husband and wife both entering the same tournament. Both create some incentive to collude in the play of hands, but it is the actual play of those hands when and if they happen that is collusive, not the swap itself.

How about this you make a big bet trying to take down the pot because your opponents tournament life is at stake. When another player says ... hey if you call him and lose .... I'll give you your buyin back. That's what a none unamimous bubble deal is like. You can pretend it doesn't affect play but that's just pretending

"If you call him" is putting an explicit condition on the play of a hand and thus collusive (and also obviously a violation of OPTAH).

People make deals that create the incentive to collude all the time and they are a routine part of poker culture. Any swap or shared bankroll by two players in the same tournament is a non-unanimous deal that on the bubble would have to same potential to affect play. We just need to be vigilant to when play is actually affected.