You "believe it's any players right to object to paying the bubble, absolutely."

"I at first thought Barbara had every right to balk at a chop, and I still do."

You then proceed to call her:

• stubborn
• nasty
• bitter
• old
• gambler
• out of line
• not an ambassador of the game
• cruel
• degenerate
• hag
• bulldog
• bitch
• thoughtless
• careless
• petty
• stupid
• ticky-tack
• stereotypical
• degenerate
• no balls
• preposterous
• self-important
• wholly misguided
• cranky

I'm going to explain her rationale for the benefit of the sane people who might be reading this, not for the benefit of the [pick a word from the list above] I'm responding to.

Every dollar that comes out of 1st place is >$1 negative EV for the above-average player. The more talented the player compared to the other remaining players in the money, the more exponentially negative EV it is to spread the winnings down the chain. So aside from her right to stick to the rules that everyone who paid to enter this tournament agreed to (including the poor mope who finished on the bubble, who I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out is the [pick another word from the list above] I'm responding to), she had a rational basis for saying "no."

I never chop tournaments, because the shorter handed it is, the greater my edge, usually. Don't flame me on 2+2 if you ever see me refuse a chop. Many ethical, great poker players never chop. I don't chop my blinds, either. So sue me.

Your thread is a disgrace, and I hope management takes notice of your failing contribution to NVG.

exactly

OP is obv a Democrat.

a thousand times this

I think there's more EV in being flexible. So, when I have I small stack in a live tournament and everyone wants to pay the bubble, I go along. If I have a big stack and I'm defintely making the money, or it looks like I can collect more chips by keeping the bubble alive, I figure out a low-key way to stop the deal.

Same thing with final table chop talk. There can ways to get value out of the discussions; you just have to listen, be firm, and exploit the fear of those who want to stop playing. Once I was at a final table of a small local yokel event with about 5 left, and I had a massive chip lead. They wanted to chop. I said, sure, just give me first place money, and you guys can chop up the rest. To my surprise, they agreed. I'm sure that has happened other times, too. No need to pass up free money; these things can be just another way to exploit non-thinkers.

Social conventions:
[X] Tipping
[ ] Chopping

You have given me inspiration to start a thread with a poll, asking whether it would make you more likely or less likely to participate in a tournament where you knew going in that the payout schedule is subject to change by a majority of the votes of players remaining in the tournament at the time of the vote.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...15&postcount=1

Maybe I can put this better.

The choppers think that giving up a few $ in EV to make everybody happy is just totally fine and generally polite.

That sounds^ reasonable, but it's wrong.

In practice, what happens is that the weaker players in the field start caring about the money and realize they aren't emotionally able to play strong poker anymore. So they get scared, and then their fear leads them to passionately argue for a chop. The floor wants to make his worked-up customers happy, so when they reach a majority he gives them a hearing and appeals to the rest of the players to send them home with some money. The rest of the players are usually feeling nervous too, and so very often they acquiesce to the majority if the chop proffered is reasonably equitable. But of course it never is equitable, because the reason the choppers want to chop so badly is because they're scared ****less. So if you're a pro, and you aren't scared, and especially if you have chips and it's the bubble, you need to man up and not let these guys get away with changing the rules of the game halfway through in order to suit their cold feet. Props to Barbara for not caving; I bet it's much more unpleasant to stand up to a room full of angry men in her shoes than in mine- they go onto a forum and call you a bulldyke after!

If what I just said sounds a bit callous, well, it is, and that's poker. Being callous in the incredibly restricted domain of competitive games is a good thing and is one of the reasons why poker is awesome.

And look, if some degen came up to me and said "I need the X$ in this chop to pay my rent," I'll think: first "You're a huge degen with no impulse control and need help," and then I'll say "Look, I think you have X% of your chip equity in this tournament. If you want to lock it up, offer me a chop which is fair to me given how large my edge is in light of your attitude." And so I'll make that kind of deal.

Almost invariably, what happens is that a chip-equity chop is offered as "fair", when in fact it's a strategy (whether conscious or not) by the majority to seize neutral EV when they know they are going to play -EV. I find that annoying because it's both disingenuous in attitude and unfair in $$.

It amazes me how crazy live players go with this whole 'pay the bubble' crap. What about the guy who busts the bubble +1? or +2? Hell, lets just pay everyone out a little bit on every tournament just so they feel better about themselves.

Dumbest thread I've read in a while. Props to this chick for standing up for herself

You mention twice that it took 8 hours to get to that point in the event. If it's full of recreational players as you said, perhaps the 8 hours could have been seen as an afternoon and evening of entertainment rather than a gambling game.

As for a "bit of -EV," the players who take the opportunity to steal chips from those who have tightened up to avoid missing the payout may not see it that way. The people playing to win the tournament instead of just cashing are using this time to steal chips.

Being an ambassador to the game doesn't mean you go against what you believe is right for the sake of making one less person feel bad because they have found themselves in the unique position of being short stacked near the bubble.

I think you're way off base here. You of course have every right to disagree with her refusal to pay the bubble, but it's petty and stupid to take this ticky tack and stereotypically degenerate approach to the issue.