the bubble

e05bf05a

i was in a tournie last night and it approached the time which every1 loves, the bubble. the bubble for this tournament was player 7, so when it got seven handed the suggestion was raised that all players would get paid. as always, if any objects were made then the plan wouldn't go ahead, one person who shall be named X for the time being, quickly objected, with an above average stack at the time.

as play went on, for quite some time, X's stack got shorter and shorter and at one time he had just over two big blinds. at this point player Y, with an above average stack comes over to X and whispers something to him, i could only assume that he was just saying that 7th position could still be paid, but X kindly said, ' no, its fine , its fine'.

the game continued and as the old saying goes,' a chip and a chair' is right, he ends up wining it.as i left, player Y came up to me and said was offering X 7th place money at that point in time patronizing? seemingly X confronted Y saying that he was being very patronizing offering him money. taking into account Y is very kind hearted and at the bubble stage of the game, play had been going on for 5/6 hours.

i always, ALWAYS, offer the bubble money in a tournie, purely because i see it as, if you've lasted this long in a tournie you deserved to be paid, because you're doing something right in poker.

is offering the bubble money wrong?
sorry about the length of the post, and to any1 involved in last night, i just want to get some1 elses view on the matter

El Stuntman

it's totally situational

in smaller games, there usually seems little point

TripleAce

IMO offering the bubble is ok, but no player should be forced in any way to agree to it, or labeled as "unfriendly" if he declines. At the end of the day is money we are talking about.

When I play a small buy in tourney at my local casino I usually always agree to pay the bubble out of politeness....50€-100€ doesn't make a lot of difference and there are a lot of regulars, so I think it is just "nice to be nice". For more money I would probably think about it.

To be honest though I like to play the bubble and for me it is an opportunity to accumulate chips when other players played tighter than they usually do (I don't care about squeezing ITM), so the fact that the bubble gets "removed" almost every time kind of impacts my game and I feel I cannot take full advantage of the situation - but as I said in small buy-in tourney I don't make a big deal out of it.

e05bf05a

i was just more taken aback that a player would be offended by the genuine kindness of another

5starpool

Nothing wrong with it, I wouldn't find it partonising to be offered something in the situation above. I generally don't object to pay the one extra player, but I almost never suggest it either. I do object to 'paying the whole final table' which some people seem obsessed with doing no matter how few runners the tourney had (paying 9 from 27 for example) if this really dilutes things. If 7 were being paid in a 50ish runner tourney though then I wouldn't really object either.

Each to their own in this respect, but what does annoy me is people trying to make someone feel bad because they reject a deal of any sort.

One person who won't be named came to our table in a freezeout a few weeks back after the bubble had burst and said 'Did ye not pay AAAAA, yis mean shower of bstrds', and not in a joking way despite him thinking of himself as a witty type. My response was 'If you are that worried about him give him a few quid yourself'. A deal was never discussed in that tourney, never mind rejected.

Strangely, the 3 people I can think of that do this the most are the 3 people I would least like to be at the same table as from a personality point of view.

Hosef

e05bf05a wrote: »

i always, ALWAYS, offer the bubble money in a tournie, purely because i see it as, if you've lasted this long in a tournie you deserved to be paid, because you're doing something right in poker.

I usually wouldn't object to this if it is suggested, but I don't really see the point to be honest.
You have to draw the line somewhere. If it becomes accepted that there is an unwritten rule that the bubble always gets paid, you are simply moving the bubble back one space to the previous player.

You will always have a bubble unless you agree to pay everyone in the tournament, so why not just go with the agreed payout structure?

YULETIRED

It can ruin the bubble play if you simply agree to pay a tight shortstack,
maybe if it's a sht long tourny but if it's just a few hours long, there should be a rule not to pay the bubble, unless it's a hot appreciative chick. then pay the bubble and blind yerself out as you chase after her for gratitude.

dK1NG

5starpool wrote: »

I generally don't object to pay the one extra player, but I almost never suggest it either.

This is how I usually approach it.

tylerdurden94

Im not adverse to paying the bubble at all, i found myself in this type of situation the other night where i ended up bubbling, and a guy who just hung in there to get paid snook in with 2 BB. Play had been going on for awhile so no deal was suggested at the time.

But awhile ago in a satellite 7 people get paid and a deal was suggested that 8th and 9th got something, but in that instance i and along with other people didnt agree to deal because there was somebody that had 2 or 3 BB's.

kakak1

I believe only 10% of the field should be paid so if 44 players only 4 to be paid if 45 +, 5 to be paid.

I never have a problem in paying say the entry fee back to the bubble but what I have a huge problem with is some players are quite willing to do a deal when low stacked in a tournament but do not want to know when chip leader or close to.

I have no problem with players who consistently refuse to pay the bubble or do a deal, that is their perogative, but you can't pick & choose.

I will always suggest paying the bubble if I'm chipleader (not often it happens) but say nothing if low stacked

doke

kakak1 wrote: »

I will always suggest paying the bubble if I'm chipleader (not often it happens) but say nothing if low stacked

That's because you're a genuine gentleman, which is quite rare in our game.

I never suggest it one way or the other, and never object either. It can be a bit ridic on occasion: I've played in 18 pays 6 type tournaments where people still want to pay the bubble. But I still don't want to be the one telling some poor short stack who is clinging on he can't have his money back because I reckon 15% of it is mine in EV at this point.

Also, I'm pretty sure I know who Dom is talking about. Tache, right?

gigetheman

I will always suggest paying the bubble if I'm chipleader (not often it happens) but say nothing if low stacked[/QUOTE]

i dont know about that statement dave (not often it happens) they dont call u LUCKY DAVE for notting lol see u wednesday night

Mr.Plough

I'd always be happy to accept the barney rubble if short. I'd never offer it if I had a healthy stack

gigetheman

i bubbled for a macau ticket last night i hate the bubble:mad:

TheRock

gigetheman wrote: »

i bubbled for a macau ticket last night i hate the bubble:mad:

Who got the ticket(s) George?

KevIRL

gigetheman wrote: »

i bubbled for a macau ticket last night i hate the bubble:mad:

ul George

kakak1

TheRock wrote: »

Who got the ticket(s) George?

Fox & padraig McDonagh. Thats only cos I wasn't playing

NuttKicker

was in the fitz a few weeks back and finished 1 off the bubble, was waiting for a cash game when one of the other players came down i asked was he gone, said he went out on the bubble but they had done a deal so he got €150 aswell as the bubble(free entry to tourney at end of month) a while later i was thinking if he got in the money i should have got the bubble so i said it to tourney director he agreed i get the bubble. i was going to say it to the player first but he was sat at cash table when i thought of it. was i right to do so and would you's do the same?

Tar.Aldarion

I don't think it was atronising at all. The thing Y did was very nice.
X said they should not deal, X lost a lot of chips. Y said, even though you were against it, I'll still be for you getting something if you get knocked out next. I would buy Y a pint.

Slash/ED

I usually object because A) They generally pay to many places anyway, like 60 or less runners and they'll pay the entire final table than someone wants money for 10th is a bit much and For selfish reasons because the bubble is where chips come the easiest and I simply feel I've slightly more chance of winning the tournament with a longer bubble.

5starpool

NuttKicker wrote: »

was in the fitz a few weeks back and finished 1 off the bubble, was waiting for a cash game when one of the other players came down i asked was he gone, said he went out on the bubble but they had done a deal so he got €150 aswell as the bubble(free entry to tourney at end of month) a while later i was thinking if he got in the money i should have got the bubble so i said it to tourney director he agreed i get the bubble. i was going to say it to the player first but he was sat at cash table when i thought of it. was i right to do so and would you's do the same?

Absolutely you were right to say you were the bubble then in that case. I know that in the Fitz if there is a deal done to pay thee bubble they always try to find out who the real bubble was for the free entry tourney. Sometimes though it is not possible if he isn't known and had left by the time the staff knew they were paying an extra place. He could not be paid and the bubble at the same time.

ollyk1

I once considered chip dumping to keep the bubble going.

I generally object to a deal unless i know (and more importantly like the people I'm playing with) and/or I'm the short stack and someone wants to give me free money (I'm not too proud).

Goodluck2me

e05bf05a wrote: »

i was just more taken aback that a player would be offended by the genuine kindness of another

You're in UCD aren't you?



Its ridiculous to only allow bubble paying when you've a stack and never ask for it when you're short, you may as well stop bluffing too, and agree to share all entry fee's back after the game.
At the end of the day you are playing to make money, there are exceptions in some weekly games where it's nice to pay the bubble but you shouldn't be looking to do it every time.

e05bf05a

goodluck2me wrote: »

You're in UCD aren't you?



Its ridiculous to only allow bubble paying when you've a stack and never ask for it when you're short, you may as well stop bluffing too, and agree to share all entry fee's back after the game.
At the end of the day you are playing to make money, there are exceptions in some weekly games where it's nice to pay the bubble but you shouldn't be looking to do it every time.

lets see how good you are, what do i study?

cooker3

kakak1 wrote: »

I believe only 10% of the field should be paid so if 44 players only 4 to be paid if 45 +, 5 to be paid.

I never have a problem in paying say the entry fee back to the bubble but what I have a huge problem with is some players are quite willing to do a deal when low stacked in a tournament but do not want to know when chip leader or close to.

I have no problem with players who consistently refuse to pay the bubble or do a deal, that is their perogative, but you can't pick & choose.

I will always suggest paying the bubble if I'm chipleader (not often it happens) but say nothing if low stacked

Lol that's ridiculous. If you have tiny amount of chips left, accepting a deal is the only sensible option to take. Conversely if have a lot of chips and can abuse the bubble to your advantage, taking a deal would be stupid.
This is not a moral or ethical decision. It's about maximising your earning potential.

kakak1

cooker3 wrote: »

Lol that's ridiculous. If you have tiny amount of chips left, accepting a deal is the only sensible option to take. Conversely if have a lot of chips and can abuse the bubble to your advantage, taking a deal would be stupid.
This is not a moral or ethical decision. It's about maximising your earning potential.

I would suggest you read my post fully / properly & understand what I'm saying before commenting.

Of course I would accept a deal when short stacked but I would not be suggesting or raising the subject when I'm short stacked I always feel that is the chip leaders or 2nd leaders perogative..

Also I will not do a deal with someone who will only deal when it is to their advantage e.g. low stacked but won't deal when they have a lot of chips. You can't imo have it both ways & to suggest otherwise is imo unethical. You either deal or you don't deal & I have no problem with any players who will NEVER do a deal.

And I disagree with you when saying it is not a "moral or ethical decision" To me in a regular club game where you are playing with / against the same people night after night & there is a friendship / relationship I think it is the right thing to do. What goes around comes around.

With reference to your comment "It's about maximising your earning potential". I have to assume you speak for yourself here because there is a social side to playing poker for very many players in fact for the majority. It's lovely to win a few bob but it's certainly not the only reason I play & to me the competitive edge is more important providing the game is not costing me too much.

cooker3

kakak1 wrote: »

Also I will not do a deal with someone who will only deal when it is to their advantage e.g. low stacked but won't deal when they have a lot of chips. You can't imo have it both ways & to suggest otherwise is imo unethical. You either deal or you don't deal & I have no problem with any players who will NEVER do a deal.

If you want give some favourable deal to people you know then good for you.

You deal when it's advantageous to you and don't do a deal when it's not.
It's not unethical, it's plain common sense, to claim otherwise is way over the top

kakak1

cooker3 wrote: »

If you want give some favourable deal to people you know then good for you.

You deal when it's advantageous to you and don't do a deal when it's not.
It's not unethical, it's plain common sense, to claim otherwise is way over the top

In a club scene, regular tournament it's unethical to me to be willing only to deal when it's only to you're advantage. If you feel like that you should have the balls to never do a deal & that, provided you are consistent, is no problem.

When playing in a big buy in tournament with non regular players you obviously do what is best for you.

It's just my view