It is a very bad idea, but it is very far from the worst thing ever LOL stick around poker for a while, you will be amazed!

So much original thought in this thread.

Ty

This may be true, but I still very much disagree that this means the 'if one player objects rule' is wrong. Forcing an individual to conform to something just because everyone else feels more comfortable that way is simply the Tyranny of the Majority.

or a consensus of folks seeing it right, sorry to bore you

Then man up and establish the correct payout schedule at the start of the tournament. It's not complicated. This last minute "let's condescend to give money to a player who shouldn't have any, but let's arbitrarily also say **** you to everyone else before him, they really didn't deserve anything at all" is just bull****.

And hey, guys, you know the best way to "foster" the games and make sure fish keep playing? It's simple, whenever they lose money just give it back to them! Your poker game will never ever die if you do that! Maybe give them a loss rebate instead, so if they lose what they have you give half back? Maybe anyone who busts out in the first hour gets a free rebuy!

Seriously, are we here to play poker or what?

They should just make the payouts random. Busted in 73rd place, congratulations, you win 40% of the money. Win the tourney? Congratulations, you get your vig back.

Paying the bubble isn't a matter of randomness or saying people don't know what the payout schedule is.

From my experience, it is donre in low buy-in tourneys less as an affront to the game of poker or the established payouts, but because most of those tourneys end up being shove-fests in later rounds and the players realize that the bubble may come down to a matter of more luck than skill. I see less talk of paying the bubble in higher buy-in tourneys with decent structures.

Geez - you'd swear that paying the bubble is against the entire grain of poker and that the social aspect of the game can simply be dismissed.

Looking at topics like this in black and white is a very short-sighted thing to do, especially when we are discussing a $70 buy-in!

It isn't exactly shifting the axis of the Earth or even disrupting much of the pay table to give up $10 to pay a guy if you know you are already going to be in the money otherwise. Yes - the payouts will be reduced by the amount you just gave up as insurance that you don't go home empty handed, but it isn't some sort of travesty some of you are making it out to be.

You don't want to pay the bubble or chop? Fine by me. I don't always want to do those things either, especially when the buy-in rises. But in a tourney that should be more casual I don't have a problem with it, and surely not enough to start acting as if the kind decorum of poker has been smashed to bits if it happens.

Naw, he seems pretty mad about the whole ordeal.

- http://pokermanzoni.blogspot.com

Shouldn't she be, as "an ambassador of the game", promoting the actual rules of a poker tournament rather than changing it for the sake of giving the bubble his money back when those weren't the original rules in the first place?

We're three handed, prizes are $10k, $6k and $4k, even chips. Wait a minute though! Me and my mate want to chop it $10k each. Nothing for you. You're outvoted 2-1, tough luck.

Edit: OK, point already made since I came back to the thread. G+T, you mentioned a bad atmosphere and casual players being put off from coming back, and I agree that this should be avoided where possible, but it's not the guy/girl saying "no" who's causing the bad atmosphere, it's all the nits who gang up and start berating that person. The feeling that everyone else is "in the know" and ganging up on you (whether justified or not) is probably the biggest put-off for new players I can think of, from my experience.

This thread is just like every tournament bubble at Foxwoods.

I don't understand those who nit it up, or feel they have an "edge" by not giving up money off top or out of pocket into a pool.

The only enemy in casino tournaments are "time". Meaning, the more play speeds up, the more hands I see, the better chance I have to win. Hand-for-hand is brutal, and bascially the opposite of this. Plus it can be exploited.

And LOL at her thinking she'd win 1st in a $70 tourney lol

OP, here is your problem, You either believe it is her right and respect it or call her out. You are playing both sides of the fence.

Why dont they take another $50 out of the prizepool and pay someone to give the bubbleboy a hug when he goes out too?

Or maybe when the bubbleboy goes out everyone can line up to make a gauntlet of hugs for him, each giving him $5 along the way?

Just a few ideas

Bubble payouts and chops are the biggest reason I hate live tourneys. And the pressure the staff gives you to chop so they can go home.

props to her...

she is obv well within her rights.

my opinion is that there is a lot of different meta implications in live play than in online play, and even if this move was +EV for her in the sense of that specific tournament it could potentially be -EV for her in the overall scope of her daily grinding. there is definitely value in being one of the regs at a casino that is well liked by the fish and the staff, as opposed to being one of the mean regs that everyone dislikes. i have no idea about her rep there or the dynamics in play or anything, just mentioning the concept.

OP mentioned a "teeny" stack - if some guy had a 5bb stack and the rest of the players were 20bb+ then i think objecting to a chop is completely reasonable at that point even if other people object.

paying the bubble is a common live poker thing - for some reason these live fish love to do it, despite the lack of logic. it's just one of those weird live game quirks.

How would it be -EV for all of the other regulars to dislike you? When people dislike you, a lot of them make stupid calls and raises against you. Seems +EV to me.

often times the fish ARE regs btw, and creating a welcoming and fun environment for them to come gamble in encourages them to keep returning and makes the games better. for a lot of live fish types, they aren't viewing poker in terms of EV but more of a social outing or a fun way to go spend some of their time. they can lose money and still have fun, but they don't like to see someone getting "ruthless" over a few dollars - it may be flawed logic but it's just how some of them think.

When you come right down to it, paying the bubble is just a chop, and I don't see how it's a peculiarity of live games as opposed to online.

What is peculiar is that before the bubble pops, nobody has any guaranteed money, and nobody has earned the right to share, chop, or give away any of it. At least one player will never have the right, and that could be you, me or anyone.
Therefore pre-bubble players are voting to give away money that is not theirs, and money they have no legitimate claim on.

Once you've secured your rightful share of the pool by surviving the bubble, go ahead and vote to do whatever with it... but sharing what is not yet yours is not exactly sharing. It's more like theft.

To be fair chopping was never her thing. Dan Harrington offered everyone chops in 1995 ME before he went on to win.

This comment shows you understand nothing about how to be successful and profitable in the gambling business.

A good poker player should be well-liked by his opponents, especially by the weakest regulars and the recreational players, and he should play his part in giving the players at his table a great time. There are a million reasons why this is hugely more +EV than to be disliked by your opponents.

So you are basically saying it's like, you are doing what's right, and most others are dumb and doing what's wrong, and others hate on you because you act differently than most others, and you still don't agree to follow the dumb herd? Yep, that seems to be it.

OK she's not Phil ivey not wanting to run it twice but its the bubble, let the bubble be the bubble.

Who cares about how she thinks we view her? its her life. at least she spoke up. doubt she was the only one who felt that way.

does the bubble deserve it? is he even a bubble if he's getting paid?