CHOPPING, please help me understand?? The Rookie

[wsopin07]

Can anyone, anyone explain the whole chop thing! I cant take it anymore! Why do I even play comps?? I just played a comp here at Foxwoods that paid the top 4 runners a seat into the $10,000 main event, 5th got $5,000, 6th got $4,000. Everyone knew this before we started, it was no secret. I took 2 or 3 big chances w/ about 20 players still in, I had enough chips that I did not need to win more that 2 or 3 hands the rest of the way.

Then w/ 12 players left all the short stacks start bitching about saving some $$$$ for 7th and 8th. It was a joke, I said no way and then I was the bad guy. Why not start the comp, when the first guy is knocked out divide the money equally amoung the other 300 players! Sounds stupid? So does everyone that wants the bubble to feel good. The bubble is a loser, there will be a bubble in every comp ever played!

I play based on the rules and the prize structure that is given to ALL the runners at the start of a comp! Please dont call me an ass, say I dont understand, say I am an idiot, or blame me if you think the prize structure is unfair. I am simply playing under the rules, I feel it is VERY unfair to try and change the rules late in a comp. I have listened to all the arguments from it is for the good of my bankroll, short handed play is all luck, its not fair. All these things are is excuses and bull shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DONT CHOP, END OF STORY, please tell me why you think this is wrong, I know most of you do!

[matt674]

I completely agree, even just last night we got down to the final 4 of the $50 p/l on pokerstars and one person said "deal guys?", the other two said ok but i said "sorry but whilst i'm still in the tournament there will be no deals". The other two who said ok accepted it but the person who asked the question originally started getting stroppy making me out to be the bad guy - and then took great delight when i happened to be the next person to get knocked out.

The bubble will always be the bubble and online unless we are talking vast sums of money like in the big sunday tourney then there will be no deal. Playing live games at final tables of festival events then i have no objections to doing deals when down to last 3 or 4.

[Junior Senior]

I am not a fan of saving for the last few stragglers and short stacks.  I am quite often short near the bubble and i never even dream of asking for a saver. - you are right rookie to play by the rules that are outlined at the start - then everyone knows what they are playing for and where they stand. - i am however not averse to a chop of the prize money at the end of a comp if the prize pool is so steep but savers for the last few is ridiculous. - where do you draw the line? - there has to be a bubble somewhere.

also what happens if there are 10 prizes and a guy with medium / low chips takes a risk with 13 left that will guarentee him a final table place if the move comes off but he actually busts out in 13th - then the remaining 12 players agree a saver as soon as he exits, which includes 4 shorter stacks than the guy who busted out in 13th? - would he have taken the risk knowing there would be a saver for 12th? - probably not! - it is changing the rules in the middle of a comp and it is wrong. - a football match couldn't be shortened to 80 minutes at the 75 minute mark with the scores level! - so why shoud a poker comp rules be changed part-way through?

[yt]

I will take a deal that improves my position but it has never really come up at the levels I play!
Can't agree with moving the bubble, thats just a joke. Maybe a saver in a friendly homegame but def not online.

[booder]

no deals........play to win.............end of

[ifm]

In this instance i agree entirely.
I will give an example of when i think it's right:-
I was in a comp that was a 2 day affair, first day plays down to the final 2 tables or 3am (i think).
Top 20 get at least their buyin back (£500), as it approached 3am there were still 21 left and someone proposed a saver for 21st because whoever it was had to come all the way back from wherever the next day.
I felt it right to give that person a few quid as did all but 1 person, ok fine i understand, nothing else was mentioned and nobody got shouted at.
Next day a fella that drove home and returned from Sheffield bubbled in about 5 minutes flat, i really felt for the guy

[AndrewT]

Out of interest, would there be any scope in the case ifm mentioned for the tournament director to step in and change the prize pool for the event, creaming £500 from the prize pool for 21st - essentially vetoing the veto of the deal - in the interests of fairness? Or is it verboten for the prize distribution to be changed once the event starts without the agreement of all the players?

[ifm]

actually deals are barred full stop these days, if you do a saver now the person would have to be paid from another player or wait till the payout at the end. Casinos only pay the structure now.

[wsopin07]

NO DEALS, NO SAVER, NO WAY, THANK YOU, IM OFF TO WIN THE $5,000 HERE AT FOXWOODS


ROOKIE

[booder]

g0od luck brian

[AlrightJack]

I am not a fan of saving for the last few stragglers and short stacks.  I am quite often short near the bubble and i never even dream of asking for a saver. - you are right rookie to play by the rules that are outlined at the start - then everyone knows what they are playing for and where they stand. - i am however not averse to a chop of the prize money at the end of a comp if the prize pool is so steep but savers for the last few is ridiculous. - where do you draw the line? - there has to be a bubble somewhere.

also what happens if there are 10 prizes and a guy with medium / low chips takes a risk with 13 left that will guarentee him a final table place if the move comes off but he actually busts out in 13th - then the remaining 12 players agree a saver as soon as he exits, which includes 4 shorter stacks than the guy who busted out in 13th? - would he have taken the risk knowing there would be a saver for 12th? - probably not! - it is changing the rules in the middle of a comp and it is wrong. - a football match couldn't be shortened to 80 minutes at the 75 minute mark with the scores level! - so why shoud a poker comp rules be changed part-way through?

Greg, in that $1,000 event at the Orleans in Vegas it was meant to pay only six places, but when we got down to the last nine a deal was done to give $1,000 to 7th, 8th and 9th. You finished 8th and I finished 7th, so we would have had nothing if the deal were not done - where we finished is immaterial, but I don't remember you objecting to doing that deal at the time.

[The Baron]

I too have been converted. No deals is the way forward.

[ACE2M]

Savers are wrong but i don't see a problem with deals. Everyone must agree on a deal so whats wrong with it? if you don't want to deal then no deal can be done. Shame on people begging for a saver, athough given that i hate bubbling so does anyone mind if we do a saver?

[AlrightJack]

Savers are just another form of deal. I see nothing wrong with doing them if all involved are in agreement. What is however out of order is people being lambasted by others for not agreeing to a proposed deal/saver.

[Colchester Kev]

Greg, in that $1,000 event at the Orleans in Vegas it was meant to pay only six places, but when we got down to the last nine a deal was done to give $1,000 to 7th, 8th and 9th. You finished 8th and I finished 7th, so we would have had nothing if the deal were not done - where we finished is immaterial, but I don't remember you objecting to doing that deal at the time.

Bang to rights Poker girlie... lets see you back out of this one