Bubble deals

[cferejohn]

I was playing in a pokerstars tournament the other night that payed only the final table (final 9). When it was bubble time, I was short stack, and there was one other player at my table who was close (the other table had no particularly short stacks). I had ~4000, and he had ~6500, and the blinds (which I *think* were 300-600). Were going to hit him next. This was a $100 buy-in tournament, and 9th place payed $315. He proposed a deal where if one of us went out on the bubble, they would give the other a share of 9th place money (if he went out, I would give him 60% of 9th place money, if I went out, he would give me 40% of 9th place). I asked the rest of the table if anyone had a problem with this, and no one said that they did, so I took it, and in fact did go out on the bubble (I had 88, called by AK, who hit a K on the turn), and he sent me $126.

My question isn't so much whether this was a good deal for me (I think I probably should have argued for 45%), but whether anyone would have a problem with short stacks making this kind of deal at their table. I may propose something like this myself some day, and I was wondering if any one feels it is an ethical violation.

Thanks

[punkass]

60/40 sounds too generous to the bubbler. But since you were lower, and chances are, you'd be bubbled, I'd take the 60/40.

As for ethics, I don't find anything wrong. Don't even know why it's a question. The other 8 people don't care where the 9th place money goes. Although it should be spread across the whole table, if someone else bubbles or gets 9th.

[HavanaBanana]

[ QUOTE ]
My question isn't so much whether this was a good deal for me (I think I probably should have argued for 45%), but whether anyone would have a problem with short stacks making this kind of deal at their table.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that noone said NO to your deal is not enough , you need all the players to say YES for it to be a valid deal.

Think of all the deals that could be made, and one player has chat revoked, he cant say nothing.

think 3 people left Chip count 500 000 , 100 000 ,100 000
5000$ 3000$ 1000$

2 and 3 make a deal to split their winnings 50/50

Then the leader will not get all the steals he is entitled to, see what I mean? Strategy changes to the person outside the deals disadvantage.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Of course they care. If you're guaranteed some money, you will likely loosen up, and I won't be able to steal your blinds as effectively as otherwise. I want you to be afraid of going broke, as you will likely not play as well as you otherwise would. Why do you think so many top tourney players are described as fearless?

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Greg (FossilMan)]

You can propose any deal you wish, but it should be agreed to by ALL players at both tables, not just the 5 at your table.

And I would never agree to such a deal if I were one of the other 8 players. Well, if I were a short-stack at the other table I would probably agree, as the new willingness of you and your contracting friend to risk going broke could enable me to fold my way into the final table. And the advantage this gives you and he, of not fearing going broke, is not going to accrue to my disadvantage from my other table.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)