blonde poker forum

It's simple, just say no to a saver on the bubble!

Truely effective - even people who aren't in the game will come and tell you what a disgrace you are (amongst other things)...

I remember snoopy commenting on this a whileback, but couldn't find the thread. It seems I'm far more stubborn than him though and actually did become the most hated man in the casino.

It was a thread by our very own Mr "4-7o/s" Wilson saying no to deals full stop - at any time in the tournament, particularly Savers on the bubble - and i agree completely with what he had to say.

Even on Tuesday when myself and BigArmo played a £100 n/l event in blackpool on tuesday there was never any talk of playing for a saver. Pity really as i ended up going out 12th and BigArmo went out in 11th............

We are now the "bubble brothers"  :D

I thought you were going to say "Just announce that you and Dena are engaged to be married"
So many broken hearts....

I assume this is notts gala?

they always want to do a saver, i usually just agree and save the hassle. Although i bubbled last two times so i was quite happy about it.

Stick to your guns though bongo it is your perogative.

Maybe I should change the thread to 2nd most unpopular then!  :D


Yes it was, and there are not worries about me sticking to my guns - I'm a stubborn old mule and it all amused me, although I really couldn't believe how some people were reacting - it's only a saver!

good for you Bongo, tough to do. I'm strictly no deals at the final but I've never had the nerve to be the only no-saver guy. I once managed to stop it by starting a rumble of nos, infact I think you were on the same final, just before christmas. The flatter Notts structure was brought in by Rob on a strictly no deals policy. now he's gone that seems to have gone.

Next time I'll agree to 10th prize being split in two for 10th and 11th

I could have been - I would say no anyway if it's the one I'm thinking of - I thought it would have been an insult to our table to give a saver that night given that we'd all been playing proper poker and playing hands with people building stacks and being knocked out - in contrast to the other table who just seemed to sit back and try to pass their way to the final.

I really don't like savers, it just seems really unfair to all the people who have gone out before the bubble by trying to build a stack for the final to then reward the people who sat back - not least because they might have played differently if they knew there was a prize for 11th. It also changes the way the game will be played - they were people passing in their blind when very low stacked because they were on the bubble - why would I want to take the pressure off them?

I think some people just don't like having the bubble, so they try and shift the bubble backwards to a point that has already passed.

last time i made the final table at Notts (I need a map with directions on how to get there at the moment) there were saver requests at 11 left.  I was only average to small chips but i said no for two reasons:

1. It changes the texture of the game as the shortstacks who were under pressure suddenly now have their money back and will push with anything and it stops the big and medium stacks being allowed to play properly.

2. Spare a thought for the guy who sucked out to a beat in 12th when making a move on the chip daddy in an attempt to try and put themelves in a position to win rather than just ladder for a saver.  He may still be in the room when the cry for an 11th place saver goes up.  Would he still have made that move if he knew there were going to be 11 prizes?? - as far as he knew there were 10 prizes and he played accordingly to the structure set out before the comp started. - it is wrong and where do you draw the line? - 2 players get knocked out after 5 minutes and then do a 76 way split to gurantee profit?!

like the 80's drugs campaign

JUST SAY NO!

a fine point ...where do you stop..

Don't debate the point while you're there.

Just, cooly and matter of factly, when the subject comes up say, "no savers"

If anyone says anything to you just explain yourself by saying, "I don't do savers"

If they continue to hit you with a barrage of abuse say to them one more time, "I don't do savers"


You can't argue for too long with a man who isn't arguing back without looking silly and getting bored.

Note : Don't try this debating tactic on the missus or you'll be on your arse.

Naming the cheats seems to work pretty well too for some strange reason ???

I've not gone too far.

I've never been asked this before, I went out on the bubble in Ramsgate when we were playing hand for a hand, I was the only short stack on my table of 5, but there were 2 on the other table of 5 (1-9 gets paid). I agree with what Junior said - where does it stop? If, in your case, the bubble is no11 and they get paid... why can't no12, 13 etc get paid? What is the point of playing poker when there can't be a loser? and to have the rules changed from 10 people getting paid to 11 people, half way through the game, is just unfair. It's the same with deals, they're unfair too.

Bongo - don't worry about being the most hated man in the Casino! At least you were the only fair person playing that night, nobody had the right to complain to you though.

I'm not bothered about being disliked it's more that I thought their behaviour was a disgrace.

I don't think it's a case that I was the only one playing fair, more that I was the only one who would stand up and say no in the face of such pressure.

Furthermore, I agree entirely with Junior in his comments, and they are my reasons for saying no - not that i would hugely object to the amount coming off first place.

strangely enough i played at Notts Gala last night and when we were down to 12 players - someone suggested a £100 saver for 11th and 12th as the game had really slowed down and the big stacks weren't playing a hand, they just wanted to get to a final a bit quicker. - at the very point the suggestion of a saver came from the other table i was all-in on a move with garbage trying to nick the blinds as i was low stacked and the fella i moved in on was seriously contemplating a call (i hadn't suggested a saver and never would).  The 2 other low stacked players on my table agreed instantly to the saver, which put me in a funny predicament - i didn't want to make too much of a fuss and i certainly wasn't going to give away the strength of my hand by immediately agreeing so i just said "i'm really not bothered about £100, i only play to win.... but, if its just down to me, then i suppose i agree" - My opponent folded  :D

well..... i didn't want to make myself the most unpopular man in the casino now did i!

i still finished 12th though - bummer!

After a while, people will respect the fact that you don't do savers and stop arguing with you, as long as, when YOU are the short stack, you refuse to ACCEPT a saver

After u went junior, I was watching Jim on the final table, got down to 4 handed , then out in 3rd Jim,   gets to heads up and they play  Button gets big blind, so I say no thats wrong, at this point there are about 10 people saying well actually Mel is right  button is small blind,   Olga brings a manager who says because they've always played that way, thats how it is

I told him its not acceptable and where in his rules does it say that.  At that point he couldn't find it

Talk about hard work and still not getting anywhere

I'm there to have fun and try to win - hanging on to a tiny stack isn't my idea of either of those as such i'm far more likely to be out than a short stack...

But yes, I will say no to a saver when short too. I guess that would make me an unpopular lunatic if it ever happened?

And to Mel - been there done that, was 'politely' informed by the dealer that he knew how to do his job...

I thought about saying no and perhaps i should have done as i guess by accepting this makes me a hypocrite from what i said in my previous posts, however there were about 4 short stacks left and they were VERY keen to get the saver so i just agreed for ease sake, however i did state i wasn't bothered either way and i thought it would change the game (and it did) - i moved all-in 4 times in a row after that. (one time too many) also - it was the big stacks offering a saver (none of the short stacks were asking for a saver, which is very wrong)

I guess this probably depends on your motivation for playing. If you're just there to have a good time then it's nice to get your money back at least. As an amateur player I appreciate this and I'm happy to do a saver regardless of my chip position. I've done this from both first and last spot taking money from the top and won from both positions. The missing £20/50/80 ish quid didn't spoil my entertainment and I seriously doubt that it really hurts anyone's profitability.

I appreciate it's an individual choice though and I'm not remotely bothered when anyone doesn't want to do a deal. The question I wind up asking myself is - would I still have played if I knew this was going to be the payout structure. And of course I would - it's poker man....

I can see the other side of the coin too though - if you don't want a deal then you shouldn't get pushed into taking one.

I don't ever remember taking the saver where I would have bubbled - so it's not like this benefits me monetarily - quite the opposite. It does reduce my time on the bubble though - and as we all know, bubbling sucks.

YMMv - HAND.

  Bry

Interesting thread.

Reading the thread makes me think that savers are wrong but my actual experience makes me feel different.

Personally I can think of at least two circumstances where I have benefitted from a saver.

The first of which was when I was playing in a $40+1 rebuy/addon tournament at harrahs LV.  There was only 40 odd entrants and the top 4 players were going to get paid.  We were down the the last 5 and we hit a break.  During the break the tournament director came over to us to explain the payout amounts.

Being the short stack and the fact that there we were on the bubble during the break I proposed that we give a Saver to 5th place.  Everyone looked at me with blank faces and didn't know what I was talking about.  At this point the tournament director came to my rescue.  "Actually it's very common to have a saver for 5th place at this stage" she said.  She asked if everyone used their addon and everybody nodded (Including me which I feel a bit guilty about as I didn't use it).  With that information she proposed we take $40 of first and second place so that last place gets their buyin $ back.

Everyone was in agreement.  I now had nothing to lose in my mind.  I was very short stacked and what ever happend I was going to make a small profit (due to my little fib).  I can't really justify that lie, it's just that everyone else had already said yes and I didn't want to throw a spanner in the works when a saver was being suggested by being the only one who didn't use their rebuy/addon.  I doubt it made any actual difference to the result of the deal being made.

Anyway, my experience showed at the final table and for some reason people where laying down all sorts of nice hands to my allins as a short stack until I eventually started to get callers.  With a little bit of luck I managed to turn things around and win the tournament.  So great deal for me as it stopped all that silly bubble play and allowed me risk it enough to win.  Bad deal for the others (expect I'm sure whoever went out in 5th appreciated it).

The second example I have was the when I had a healthy stack on the bubble (unusual for me, I'm used to entering a final table as the small stack and turning it around).  I like small stack play, makes all your decsissions easy, fold or push...

Anyway, back on topic.  We are down to 10 players and somebody suggested a saver for 10th place.  It was only a £5 rebuy so as usual the suggestion was we take £10 from first and second to pay 10th place.  This seems to be common practice when get down to tedious bubble play in this tournament.  Anyway, the chip leader (who was very drunk at the time) objected to the saver.  Sure enough as you suggested everyone couldn't believe he was turning it down.  Second place was paying over £300 and first over £500, was £10 really going to make that much difference?  It's the principle he argued. 

So that was it, no deal made and a few hands later somebody bubbled.  I remember being angry with the guy refusing the deal at the time (along with everybody else).  At the time all I was thinking is that the saver amount being proposed was so insignificant to the top payouts that there was no harm in it. 

I think the post by way_too_tight sums up my feelings on this well.  I can't see myself ever refusing a saver being proposed.  But like you say, what about player who went out in 11th/12th?  Well they were not on the bubble, tough.  The fact that a deal was made for the bubble player is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

I'm going to throw an etiquette question in the deal now.  Given that saver deals are common place is it wrong to propose a saver deal as the short stack?  I personally think it's probably bad etiquette.  I think as the short stack you should wait and hope a saver is suggested by the other players who just want to speed the action up and get to the final table.

Stu