Tourney AITAH for not wanting to add a bubble payout spot as the tournament chip leader? (2 Viewers)

[Beakertwang]

That’s not the main reason you’re TAH, but you’re definitely TAH.

I personally would be ok with paying the bubble boy, but only one buy-in, and it comes equally from everyone’s winnings. Example: $30 tourney, pays 3 spots, bubble gets $30, and too 4 spots get reduced by $10 each.

I’m almost always willing to agree to a fair chop, even for an extra spot, if stacks are somewhat even and all in the 10-20BB range, especially in a regular friendly game.

 

[JustinInMN]

This is not true. People who win tournaments are people who bring huge stacks into the late stages of tournaments. Those don’t tend to be people who played tight.

The truth is that tournament play tends to reward people who can adjust their style of play to whatever the situation requires at the time. Which is why tournaments are better than cash.

The part that is true is that adjustment does have reward. That's poker's best feature regardless of form. But it's less rewarding in tournaments to be loose because each additional chip in your stack is less valuable than the one before it because the penalty for going broke is being eliminated. Losing 25% of your stack is more harmful than it is helpful to gain 25% in your stack. Hence, tight is right.

The degree of this phenomenon varies greatly with structure, it's far less pronounced early in deep stack events (200BB start or more) of course. But at some point in any event the blinds reach a point where stacks get shallow and ICM pretty much demands tight play to point we can talk about automatic folds for AA as @divinerites is pointing out.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

That’s not the main reason you’re TAH, but you’re definitely TAH.

I personally would be ok with paying the bubble boy, but only one buy-in, and it comes equally from everyone’s winnings. Example: $30 tourney, pays 3 spots, bubble gets $30, and too 4 spots get reduced by $10 each.

I’m almost always willing to agree to a fair chop, even for an extra spot, if stacks are somewhat even and all in the 10-20BB range, especially in a regular friendly game.

I get you, but I think any money coming out of the prize pool disproportionately affects the big stack. No matter which payout it comes from, the chips they've accumulated are worth less. ICM value for the winner's stack includes chances of not taking first prize, while 3rd is buoyed by having another chance at payout.

Not saying no to any deals, just bantering about equity and ICM. I dont hate fair chops either in friendly games, whatever works, saves us all time.

 

[divinerites]

tournament play tends to only reward tighter strategy.

Not sur if I agree. Those are really different beasts.

In CG everyone plays 100bb deep or so (a simplification). So your strategy will not deviate according stacks size ( or so few)

In tournaments spots are always complicated because stacks size are always differents and changing, and average too.
So tight is not specially rewarded, but those who can take advantage of the complexity are rewarded.

In my previous example, opening any2 is rewarded. Not specially tight

And I can tell you that 3 betting light a 25/35bb stack is rewarded. Not specially tight.

This is the beauty of poker. CG or tournament.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Not sur if I agree. Those are really different beasts.

In CG everyone plays 100bb deep or so (a simplification). So your strategy will not deviate according stacks size ( or so few)

In tournaments spots are always complicated because stacks size are always differents and changing, and average too.
So tight is not specially rewarded, but those who can take advantage of the complexity are rewarded.

In my previous example, opening any2 is rewarded. Not specially tight

And I can tell you that 3 betting light a 25/35bb stack is rewarded. Not specially tight.

This is the beauty of poker. CG or tournament.

But in your example you're only opening any 2 IFF others understand they should be incredibly tight since math demands they play that way. The complexity is driven by scarcity in chips and pressure. If they forget they're in a tournament its much easier to throw in their 20 BB stack thinking of just chipEV and ignoring ICM, ICM is introduced because its a tournament and places crazy value on those last chips representing chance at a payout.

Dont mean to devolve into semantics, I agree adaptation is necessary but also think that required tightness is the foundation for those adaptations.

 

[JustinInMN]

Not sur if I agree. Those are really different beasts.

In CG everyone plays 100bb deep or so (a simplification). So your strategy will not deviate according stacks size ( or so few)

In tournaments spots are always complicated because stacks size are always differents and changing, and average too.
So tight is not specially rewarded, but those who can take advantage of the complexity are rewarded.

In my previous example, opening any2 is rewarded. Not specially tight

And I can tell you that 3 betting light a 25/35bb stack is rewarded. Not specially tight.

This is the beauty of poker. CG or tournament.

I do agree that stack size is an infulence, and just because I am saying "tight is right" in tournaments, doesn't mean I am saying waiting around for top 10 hands forever either.

But there is a reason tournament players are averse to coin flips that they wouldn't be in cash games, especially early on with big stacks. There is a reason tournament players are averse to marginal value bets.

Everything is opponent dependent as well, hence why I do agree there is reward for making adjustments. But because of the permanent nature of the penalty for going broke in a tournament, there is more downside than upside for deviating from a strategy that largely avoids marginal spots in tournament play, whereas that phenomenon does not exist in cash. (Well except for cash players that do treat their buy-ins like a tournament entry.)

 

[timinater]

I would personally never alter the payouts to pay out a bubble boy. I've seen everyone pitch in some dollar amount extra to pay out a bubble however. Still not something I make a habit of.

 

[buffalojim]

This thread just because too high brow for me, but I enjoy reading it. I still say no to bubble.

 

[JustinInMN]

1, it takes away from his equity the most because its money out of the possible prize pool, but 2. It ends the bubble, a very profitable place to be chip leader! Lean on them, you don't want them unionizing lol. You worked hard and risked to get to this point knowing the structure and now you can reap crazy amounts of ICM pressure on players trying to squeak into the money.

All that said, this is going to seems counter-intuitive, but if x per player for a bubble prize is the proposal, as the favorite to win first place, you are giving up far less as a percentage of your prize than the person likely to get the first in the money prize.

I should recant my comment above, it didn't correctly factor that the chip-leaders' total equity is the aggregate of winning all possible prizes, not just first place. But the second point in @NotRealNameNoSir 's post is very compelling and even though I understand big stack play at the bubble, I probably underestimated the effect of ending the bubble early.

 

[upNdown]

NTAH. Payouts were established before game began and should not change other than for a chop agreement only amongst those qualifying for the established payout.

I wouldn’t go that far. I’ve been in situations where everybody is sufficiently stacked and they all tighten up, and the structure is such that it feels like you could wait forever. I don’t mind creating an extra payout for the bubble in that situation, to get the game moving.

 

[Frogzilla]

only agree to what you want to agree to. If chop not in your interests then decline. If altering the payout structure not in your interests then decline. Politely say “I’m not interested” early in the discussion

If you let them discuss for a while it’s feels a little asshole-y since wasting others time and energy, so I just give the thumbs down early

 

[Mesnik44]

.

 

[BPTDirector]

I’ve always hated participation ribbons. I guess I don’t have any cupcakes in my game because this is never discussed.

 

[upNdown]

Random story here, but I think I’ve asked to pay the bubble exactly once, and it was practically a joke.
I’d played a ton in the NH cardrooms, which were full of seniors, and things like chops and paying the bubble were practically the rule. Compared to Foxwoods and Mohegan, where there were more “real” players and chops were far less common.

Anyway we were playing at the new Encore in Boston in a weeknight $160 tournament, 52 entries, 6 paid. We were on the bubble, I was the short stack and I feel like I was very short, though I can’t remember exactly. I recognized a couple of faces from NH, so I thought what the hell, and asked if anybody wanted to pay the bubble. I felt like peewee Herman when they’re all like “I say we hang him then we shoot him” and he disguises his voice and says “I say we let him go.”
They agreed to pay the bubble $200. Thats right, $160 entry, 7th place is supposed to get zero, they said what the hell and tossed me two bills. Crazy.
So I guess it never hurts to ask.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I've never had a younger player be grumpy after I refuse a bubble pay or a chop, the three times men have grumbled about it its been a senior citizen complaining. Don't think its a participation trophy, just different cultures for different games. I don't fault anyone for asking anything, we're gambling and some people want to avoid risk while some bathe in it, whatever, free country lol.

 

[WedgeRock]

as a blatant derailment of the thread

TBF, by definition, my threads cannot be derailed. You should assume I am talking about every topic in the universe in every post I make, therefore, everything is on topic.

 

[WedgeRock]

I’m almost always willing to agree to a fair chop, even for an extra spot, if stacks are somewhat even and all in the 10-20BB range, especially in a regular friendly game.

Me too.

 

[Kentucky]

I don’t understand adding a bubble prize. Doesn’t that just move the bubble..? There’s always someone that doesn’t get paid…

 

[divinerites]

I don’t understand adding a bubble prize. Doesn’t that just move the bubble..? There’s always someone that doesn’t get paid…

Not if you push back the bubble to the first player to bust. Everybody gets paid. Clever .

 

[digirati]

After reading through this thread (and having been a participant in the story), I'm not paying (nor will I ask) to pay a bubble. I'll chop if it makes sense. It made sense to chop last night because it was going back and forth for a long time.

 

[TheOffalo]

I don’t understand adding a bubble prize. Doesn’t that just move the bubble..? There’s always someone that doesn’t get paid…

I most often see it, as others have mentioned, when the # of players remaining are places paid + bubble. And when the stacks are fairly equal (or at least 2-3 players stacks are fairly close) and there hasn't been a lot of movement up or down because people are playing tight to avoid the bubble. Then people will sometimes add a paid bubble to loosen the game up and get to progress faster.

 

[allforcharity]

If you have to ask AITAH in a post title, 90% of the time the answer is "yes".

 

[upNdown]

If you have to ask AITAH in a post title, 90% of the time the answer is "yes".

I’d say you’re never an AH for refusing to chop or pay the bubble. If anything, people asking to change the format are the annoying ones.
The one exception to that is kinda like running it twice or chopping the blinds in a cash game - if you regularly ask for it and receive the benefit of it, but then refuse when you don’t think it’s in your favor, you might be the AH.

 

[allforcharity]

I’d say you’re never an AH for refusing to chop or pay the bubble. If anything, people asking to change the format are the annoying ones.
The one exception to that is kinda like churning it twice or chopping the blinds in a cash game - if you regularly ask for it and receive the benefit of it, but then refuse when you don’t think it’s in your favor, you might be the AH.

Well, I was speaking in a general sense, not in this specific sense.

It's like saying "I'm not a racist, but...." (insert something explicitly racist)

 

[Natskule]

Which is why tournaments are better than cash.

I wouldn't say better, but different. You may enjoy tournaments more than a cash game, but that doesn't make them better to everyone.

As far as the OP, no I wouldn't be in favor to pay the bubble, but if everyone else wanted to, I wouldn't be the lone dissenter.