If she really was 'nasty' about it, then that is the only thing she has done wrong imo. That said, if the entire room grumbled and groaned at her then I can sort of understand why she might have felt bullied and perhaps got a bit annoyed. Obviously there is never any excuse for being nasty, but she is only human and perhaps she got a teensy bit defensive after the whole room ganged up on her...

okay ... just imagine, that you play 4-handed w/ the chiplead, the top 3 get paid and now the villains change the payout structure


when i enter a tournament, i don't want to be 'overruled' by a bunch of ppl!

Did you actually bother to read the reast of my post, or are you just being a dick here?

this. why should that guy be any more special than the guy before him?

the bubble is there for a reason. not everyone can get paid. don't get why OP posted this.

Lol, you should prob just be thankful that your moronic comments have not drawn more attention, seeing as you could not be more wrong if you tried.

Nothing in your post explains why it would make sense to allow others to change the rules for a tournament you've entered, without your permission.

Gin 'n Tonic, 2 things:

1) that's my favorite drink

2) you're the worst

Oh Babs Enright, when will you ever learn!

To summarize - OP is a fool, plays poker scared, is a low stakes nit and a hypocrite, as well as being a sexist and ageist pig.

Just re-read op and am convinced this is a level now.
Not one word of his last paragraph makes sense. Each phrase contradicts itself. Op is either slightly high while writing this or just troubled.

I'll have one more crack at this and then give it a rest.

The points you are both making may well be correct if you live and play in a huge poker economy like Vegas. I don't - we have a couple of small cardrooms with small fields and not many recreational players.

I want to encourage the recreational players to play more. If the game is fun and the atomsphere is friendly they'll be back. If they occasionally pick up some winnings, so much the better in the long term.

I have long advocated flatter tournament prize structures and I would rather give up 0.1% ev to pay the bubble if it keeps the atmosphere good and stops someone leaving with a sour taste in their mouth, maybe never to return.

It's a fragile economy out there, we need to keep the recreational players and the bad regs in the games and entertained if the games are to be worthwhile. Beratings, angle shootings and bubble arguements all sour the atmosphere and will drive away players who would rather put their discretionary spending somewhere where they are actually having fun.

For the sake of a few bucks you risk a player leaving the tournament disgruntled and miserable. You'll get their mony today, but probably not next week or ever again if the arguement is acrimonious enough.

To answer your specific point Bobo, because it's a convention and seen as somwhat sportsmanlike to chuck the bubble boy a bone.

If the organisers specifically disallowed bubble negotiations then I wouldn't have a problem, but so long as they do I think that the 'one player objects' rule is counterproductive.

My local cardrooms have gone from regular 100+ fields with loads of dead money to two or three tables of tough regs, at least some of this is due to the supreme douchebagginess of a few of those regs. Now those tourneys are barely worth playing for anyone, casinos included.

I'd also go home pretty disgruntled and miserable if I'd taken risks and built a stack worthy of caging the bubble with, only for the previously agreed rules to be changed mid tourney meaning i couldn't take advantage of the bubble like a big stack should.

Everyone agreed to the rules/pay structure prior to the tourney starting, and for them to be changed mid tourney, everyone should have to agree to any changes. Not just a majority.

havent read whole thread, but there were probably at least 10 players in the donkament that also didnt want to pay the bubble but felt bullied in to saying yes and were probably pretty thankful to her for speaking up

It's not a convention. Trying to force people go give their prize money to people who finish out of the money is causing the problems. Please object whenever you see this poor behavior.

@Gin 'n Tonic:

My friends and I will from now on hold tournaments where the prize pool will be decided by a majority whenever we feel like it. You are very welcome to come and play.

So you pay the bubble boy a token, and therefore you create another bubble boy out of the guy who almost bubbled. Bubble boy should be a negative experience that we all suffer from time to time and try very hard to avoid. Just my O

Do you have a bridge to sell me as well?

The best part of a live poker tournament is when you get to drink the sweet tears of the bubble boy/girl. She is my hero now.

These types of threads always amuse me because they bring out the people on both sides who strongly feel the need to say either "What the heck is wrong with paying the bubble" or "Paying the bubble is a slap to the very moral fiber of poker itself".

Frankly, in a $70 buy-in where the tourney should be a casual one, paying the bubble seems to be the right thing to do.

In a $700 buy-in tourney, it is usually different.

I'm sure somebody will give me a -EV/+EV answer as to why that's wrong, but I approach low-stakes poker from a spocial convention POV and higher-stakes poker from a completely different POV.

It avoids the black-white answers that are too frequently posted in threads like these.

Gin 'n Tonic, there is a certain validity in what you are saying even though noone has recognised it. Basically you are right in your overall philosophy that the games need nurturing, and winning players should go to great lengths to keep the recreational players happy and having fun. Very few newer players understand this because they started playing poker after the poker boom and think that the orchards will always be brimming with ripe fruit. They won't. Unless players learn to do their bit towards nurturing and sustaining the games, then the harvest will eventually dry up. Tbh this is already happening, which makes it even more important.

However, I don't believe that your point is especially relevant in this particular case. Not having a prize for the bubble boy is unlikely to make a huge difference to the overall enjoyment of the recreational players. In fact, by maintaining the tension it might actually lead to an increase in their enjoyment. But regardless of this, it is simply very bad to ever seek to bully anyone into accepting any sort of deal whatsoever. And this is far more likely to turn a recreational player off poker than anything else. What about the tourist who saw what happened and felt extremely uneasy at the pressure being put on Barbara Enright? What if in a future tournament the player who does not want to do a deal is a recreational player, who then gets bullied by the majority?

I think it was perfectly reasonable for Barbara to refuse to do this deal. And I don't think the 'for the long-term good of the games' argument is a big factor here. That said, it all depends on exactly how she acted in refusing. If she was a massive douchebag about it then this would likely have an effect on the enjoyment of the recreational players. If she refused courteously then there is no issue imo. The OP suggested she was 'nasty' about it. If this is the case then that is the only problem. However, no mention was made of HOW she was nasty - and it is at least possible that the OP is slightly biased in his description of what happened. And finally, if Barbara was a little rude or nasty then perhaps this was because she was being ganged up on by everyone else. Noone likes being bullied.

I don't think I've ever been involved in a tourney (unless it was a tiny field) where this wasn't discussed. So convention:

A way in which something is usually done, esp. within a particular area or activity.

Pretty much nails it imo.

I didn't say that it was good. If TD's want to stop it then fine by me, but where it's discussed I think that it's long term good practice to chuck bubbly a few bucks if it keeps him happy and moves the game along.

And she can't even beat a 20-40 game so let's go ahead and put her in the hall of fame just because of her gender.

A cogent and well presented arguement - WP Sir.

Imo the bullying and acrimony occurs because of the 'if just one player objects rule'. Usually it is just a single player and, as you rightly say, the resulting scenes can be deplorable.

I will never agree to pay the bubble. I love raping the bubble. Allowing a vote to change the prize structure and eliminate the bubble is pretty much the worst idea ever.