Barbara Enright refuses a chop to pay the bubble - Page 9 - Poker News

So... A bunch of idiots trying to give the shortest stacks free equity and one person refuses to be an idiot an give in to pressure? Good for her!

This "deal" is awful for 90% of the players. Just giving away money.

05-22-2012 , 10:01 PM

#203

katie75013

Grindette

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,052

Quote:

Originally Posted by sauce123

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!

agree with everything you've said, especially this part. This is also exactly why TWSS exists on 2+2

05-22-2012 , 10:10 PM

#204

jspill

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,493

Quote:

Originally Posted by sauce123

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 $$.

Awesome post. OP, if you aren't aware, sauce123 is one the best nosebleed online players in the world. It's a privilege for you to get his opinion on anything, even if as in this case it totally shoots yours to pieces.

You could do good things with that blog of yours if you make a follow-up post apologising, and explaining how you now 'get it' (if you read this whole thread and still don't get it, there's no hope for you)

05-22-2012 , 11:05 PM

#205

MikkeD

old hand

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,499

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspill

Lol at advising OP to apologise just because sauce replied to the thread.

Remove your tongue asap.

P.S. Sauce is obv. correct. But plz remove your tongue anyway.

05-22-2012 , 11:12 PM

#206

kjemmy

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspill

Awesome post. OP, if you aren't aware, sauce123 is one the best nosebleed online players in the world. It's a privilege for you to get his opinion on anything, even if as in this case it totally shoots yours to pieces.)

lol wat?

05-23-2012 , 12:05 AM

#207

eobmtns

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,477

How about a secret ballot for chops. Remaining players get one red and one black card, and vote by throwing in a card face down. Anybody throws in a black card, shuffle up and deal.

05-23-2012 , 12:32 AM

#208

SunnyDays

grinder

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 573

respect to barbara, whoever the f she is

05-23-2012 , 12:34 AM

#209

SuperJez

banned

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2,087

Quote:

Originally Posted by augie_

props to barbara

love tilting the idiots that get mad when you won't chop!

+1 million,

OP - your an idiot.

05-23-2012 , 01:11 AM

#210

NickMPK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11,594

After reading that blog entry, I'm pretty sure I would have refused the deal that was being offered in Enright's position, even though I am normally fairly amenable to chops if I think I am getting a good deal.

First, they weren't just proposing that the bubble get their money back. They proposed that two additional players be paid a full min-cash, which was about 2.2x the buy-in. Normally, I think paying the bubble is a natural reaction to the bizarre distortion in most tournament pay-out structures, where the difference in prize money at the bubble is the biggest money jump until deep in the final table. (In my opinion, the first money jump should be the smallest money jump, and they should increase from there). Typically, when "paying the bubble", the bubble just gets their money back, having the effect of making the overall payout structure smoother and (IMO) more sensible.

But that is not what was happening here. Putting such an big pay-out jump even earlier in the structure (at 29th place rather than 27th place) makes the payouts more distorted, not less.

Additionally, the blog notes that the ultimate bubble boy busted by being forced to go all-in blind. If someone has less than 1 BB at the bubble, there's no way I'm paying them. (Actually the last time I bubbled a tournament, I had 1 BB at the bubble, because I just doubled someone up. I jokingly suggested a chop at that point, but obviously everyone refused, and they would have been crazy not to....and this was a $230 tournament with a $1000 bubble).

05-23-2012 , 02:54 AM

#211

doublegutter11

banned

Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 69

Nothing wrong with not chopping. So what he played 8hrs and got nothing? What the guys who played 7hrs and got nothing? 7hrs is no big deal, but 8hrs is??

05-23-2012 , 03:55 AM

#212

random btn

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,431

lets all bash everyone who doesnt want to give up equity and pay the broke bubbleboys. we should lynch those greedy lil *******s down the street IMO.

the whole process of paying the bubble is beyond any logic, i dont give a **** if its a "convention" - its not the only one in this world i disapprove of.

people ganging up and pressuring individuals is what should be criticised in this case. not somebody that is not willing to make some fish happy for no fk reason and give up $$ so he can tell his wife that he actually won some money instead of wasting 8 hours.

rofl@ making the objector (or the "rule" that allows to object - which is more like rationality and fairly simple logic than a rule) responsible for people ganging up, that is the most ******ed thing ive read this week.

the constitution analogy was also pretty well thought out, u'r really onto something there gin. the majority deciding how to change payout structures is one of the most insane propositions ive heard related to poker ruling.

i was in similar situations before and i dont get how people actually let themselves get pressured into giving up $$. weak line imo just tell them politely to gtfo and if they are persistent, ask them for some cash to get drinks or w/e and call them greedy and other names once they disagree. they might get it, but its more like a flip then a guarantee.

if incidents like this keep happening, casinos should just ban the whole bubbleboy bs in order to protect their players. play lower BI if mincashing means so much to you lol. or accumulate more chips next time ffs.

why anybody would dip in for the bubble when theres 1-3bb stacks in is just mind boggling to me. i would rather estimate my equity gain by not paying and give that money to charity instead of some degen live nit who has to mincash to pay rent (thats how they act at least).

btw nice blog entry OP, it doesnt make you look like a ret.ard AT ALL.

Last edited by random btn; 05-23-2012 at 04:06 AM.

05-23-2012 , 03:57 AM

#213

molinn9

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,632

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspill

+1 Sauce post is so spot on

05-23-2012 , 06:00 AM

#214

Carnivore

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8,271

I recently was in a 20 player tourny that paid only the top 3. With 5 players left, I was in 2nd place, with lots of chips, like 70 bb's or something. I raised preflop with JJ, and the chip leader in the big blind shoved. I tanked and thought it over, and decided to call, and outraced his AQ to become the overwhelming chip leader. He was left with like 2 big blinds and busted out the next hand.

Then everyone says, "let's pay the bubble!"

I just risked busting out in 5th and taking home nothing, and now with my monster chip stack I'm expected to agree to toss equity to the girl with about 5 big blinds sitting 4th.

I did it because the stakes were relatively low, I didn't think about it much, everyone wanted to do it, and there's something good about being friendly to a recreational female player.

But if the stakes were higher, having thought about it more and read this thread, I can see myself disagreeing to the chop and being the "villain."

05-23-2012 , 06:03 AM

#215

curtains

banned

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 17,681

This has got to be the dumbest thread ever. Seriously twoplustwo members are still talking about **** like this today? Forgive me I haven't been around in a few years. If I had a big stack, the chance that I'd take this deal is 0%. If I had a small-medium small stack I'd likely take it....Basically as long as I thought I could bully people due to the bubble factor, then I'd never in a million years take this deal. This isn't ****ing ring around the rosies, it's poker and we are looking for spots that are +EV. Being on the bubble with a bunch of chicken ****'s is pretty +EV. Honestly taking this deal could be equivalent to open folding AA in some special spots.

05-23-2012 , 06:10 AM

#216

albedoa

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,405

Excuse the length of this post. I think it's important that everyone who missed the OP's (extremely tl;dr) blog post sees the vile crap that he spews:

Quote:

A motion was made to take $330 from the $5600 first place prize and pay two extra players. Motion approved! We're in the money!

But wait...

There was an objection after all. One player wasn't having it.

Okay, that's certainly their right. A little odd considering it's such a small slice of a massive first place prize, which is nearly 50% of the price pool entire and will likely be chopped up anyway, but whatever, it's not the end of the world. It's also bad form and kind of a dick move, but who cares really.

Then I heard who the person was, and it was a name I recognized.

Barbara Enright, is a member of the poker hall of fame. She was put there primarily because she is the only woman to have ever made the final table of the Main Event. She also has two bracelets, including an open event - and she was the first woman to win one of those. Good for her. A results search on the Hendon Mob shows that she hasn't been doing that fantastic of late, binking teeny cashes in teeny events, but hey, she for sure deserves to be in the hall.

So okay, good for you. So here you are in a $70 tournament full of recreational players like me who work hard all week in 9-5 jobs just so we can go out and have some fun playing poker and donate to people like you. We play for 8 hours, the money is in sight and what do you say to that?

A big "**** you fishy" apparently. You can't see that there might be a modicum of +EV to have two more amateurs happy that night? And that there might be a hell of a lot of -EV, both in the game and outside of it, for you when word gets out that you're a miserable bag of meat who delights in making other people miserable too?

Guess not.

Most ridiculous of all, she wasn't chip leader, or anywhere close to it for that matter. Roughly 60 bigs, which was pretty puny compared to the mountainous piles around her.

The entire room was abuzz with disgust at Ms. Entright's stubborn and apparently spiteful edict, which she had insisted on AFTER the official "you've made the money" announcement was made. I got an earful from the regulars at my table how "she does this **** all the time" and how "she's a miserable old bat" who thinks of no one but herself on and off the felt.

Okay, I'm convinced.

Really, the biggest strike against her as far as I'm concerned is that visible pros, especially ones in the freakin' Poker Hall of Fame, have a very real obligation to be ambassadors of the game.

Poker is indeed a brutal sport and often ruthless, but what makes it magnificent is the flashes of generosity and honor that flare up on occasion. I have witnessed this myself many times at the table - whether it's a group of Vegas regulars digging into their own pockets to pay the tourist bubble who just busted or a crusty old dealer misreading the board and a young internet kid politely correcting him so that HIS OPPONENT would rightfully get the pot - it DOES happen, and every time it does, a little bit, a tiny bit, of the stigma that the game still carries from the riverboat days when it was known as "the cheating game", washes away.

Then a first class douche nozzle like Barbara Enright comes along and takes a big dump on that goodwill, and recreational players like the fellow across from me who did indeed turn out to the bubble walk away discouraged and bitter.

Worst of all, the bigger point is, because of Miss Enright's short sightedness, we had to go hand for hand. I've never experienced this before, in my 7 years of live tournament play, simply because nobody, not even one of the biggest chip leaders I've ever seen who literally had half the chips in play in front of him, had the classlessness to insist on boning the bubble boy.

The guy who finally busted out 28th, the aforementioned fellow across from me, was eliminated in heart wrenching fashion. Forced to go all in blind, he flopped the wheel, and lost to a higher straight on the river!

Good job Barbara Enright, hope it was worth it. That guy ain't coming back and he's going to tell every single one of his friends and family what a raging **** you are.

And some people might even blog about it.

Anyway, back to me.

The censored word at the end is the one that starts with 'c'. It is impossible to imagine how you are not completely ashamed of yourself, manzoni. It is not Ms. Enright who is bad for the game; it's people like you.

05-23-2012 , 06:20 AM

#217

albedoa

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,405

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC2LV

So much original thought in this thread.

It's because the OP is so obviously and ridiculously out of line, so there is bound to be a consensus as to why.

05-23-2012 , 06:21 AM

#218

robhimself

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 5,769

Quote:

The entire room was abuzz with disgust at Ms. Entright's stubborn and apparently spiteful edict, which she had insisted on AFTER the official "you've made the money" announcement was made. I got an earful from the regulars at my table how "she does this **** all the time" and how "she's a miserable old bat" who thinks of no one but herself on and off the felt.

There's a word for people who think of others on the felt. They are called colluders.

05-23-2012 , 07:46 AM

#219

doublejoker

Old News

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,953

Lol at the op saying they've never played hand for hand because even massive chip leaders always agree to pay the bubble.

In fact it's almost always the opposite. There are usually several objectors and hand for hand play ensues.

An easy way to do this is hand all the players one black and red card they return a black card to the dealer if they agree, a red card if they disagree. The dealer scrambles the cards and turns them face up. If even one card is red, play continues. Completely anonymous and very quick way to stop the bickering.

05-23-2012 , 08:25 AM

#220

stormblower

adept

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 906

That blog entry is a disgrace.

05-23-2012 , 08:49 AM

#221

molinn9

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,632

makes me happy read this thread as it seems 95% of everyone posting here agree how badly these people treated Barbara wich i totally agree on. She said no game continues and thats it, should just never ever be issue about this.

05-23-2012 , 08:51 AM

#222

Da33le

leader of the normals

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 8,410

Mad respect to her for not giving in to the pressure.

05-23-2012 , 09:30 AM

#223

chasepoker

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,644

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublejoker

An easy way to do this is hand all the players one black and red card they return a black card to the dealer if they agree, a red card if they disagree. The dealer scrambles the cards and turns them face up. If even one card is red, play continues. Completely anonymous and very quick way to stop the bickering.

This is a good idea.

05-23-2012 , 09:54 AM

#224

SwoopAE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 22,259

I would snap deny a chop too on a 28 player bubble of a $70 tournament if I had more than a couple of big blinds. Good for her.

Nothing is more fun than denying chops and watching people fold their stacks away to mincash

05-23-2012 , 09:57 AM

#225

Charlotte FatMan

adept

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 758

Quote:

Originally Posted by molinn9

This is one point that I wish happened more often. I very rarely have an issue with the idea of paying the bubble or chopping being brought up, but once it is shot down, that should be the end of it. There shoudn't be guys complaining the rest of the night, and there definitely shouldn't be some misdirected blog posting about it.

Ms. Enright refused to pay the bubble. End of story. Let it die at the table.

I'm one of those who will go either way on this issue for a low buy-in tourney, but one thing I'll stay constant on is once an offer has been rejected - that's it. Discussion over. Play it out.

Page 9 of 18

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Last

Closed Thread Subscribe

...

Page 9 of 18

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Last