why is there a "bubble"?

[NickG 0]

Here is the prize structure for the $2000 PL Omaha rebuy WSOP event:1st $389,4352nd $214,7753rd $118,0104th $94,4055th $70,8056th $59,0057th $47,2058th $35,4009th $23,60010th-12th $16,52013th-15th $14,16016th-18th $11,800So the difference between 18th and 19th is $11,800, but the difference between 15th and 16th is only $2,360? No wonder the tournaments stall insufferably when the are close to the money.The slow and tight play on "the bubble" is boring , has lots of potential for angle-shooting, and creates an random all-in fest once the bubble is popped. Why not give SOME money to people who finish near what is now "the bubble" to alleviate this effect.Something like:19-21st $800022-24th $600025-27th $400028-36th $2000After all, the buy-in was only $2000 if you didn't rebuy. These small prizes wouldn't affect the prize pool at the top very much. And even if they had prizes that were less than they buy-in, what is wrong with that? Lots of times, players lose money at the poker table, but don't lose their entire buy-in. Why should tournaments be any different?Nick

[allinbluff35 0]

Why not give SOME money to people who finish near what is now "the bubble" to alleviate this effect.

where does that bubble end? that's why people play rebuy events because of the inflated prize pools.

[NickG 0]

I guess I'm saying why not have a smooth payout structure rather than a huge jump between 19th and 18th (in the PLO example), and then very little change in prize until you get to the final table. It seems to me like the jump to get in the money should be the smallest jump in prize money rather than one of the biggest. You wouldn't have all the stalling if the "bubble" jump wasn't so much biggest than the next jump.

[Guest XXEddie]

After all, the buy-in was only $2000 if you didn't rebuy. These small prizes wouldn't affect the prize pool at the top very much. And even if they had prizes that were less than they buy-in, what is wrong with that? Lots of times, players lose money at the poker table, but don't lose their entire buy-in. Why should tournaments be any different? Cash GamesTournamentsSee how far away from each other they areThey are very different

[NickG 0]

Umm, ok...but why not have prizes that are less than the buy-in if it will eliminate the bubble problem?

[allinbluff35 0]

Umm, ok...but why not have prizes that are less than the buy-in if it will eliminate the bubble problem?

what bubble problem are talking about? there will always be a bubble problem no matter what they do.

[NickG 0]

Umm, ok...but why not have prizes that are less than the buy-in if it will eliminate the bubble problem?

what bubble problem are talking about? there will always be a bubble problem no matter what they do.

Not really. Because the difference between in the money and out of the money is so much bigger than the difference between all the prize levels before the final table (in many some tournaments), there is a huge incentive to for short stacks to stall and hang onto your chips until the bubble burst, and then after that, they don't really care how they play, unless there is a chance they can make the final table. That's why you see very people eliminated very slowly as the bubble approaches, and then a huge number of people busting out minutes after making the money.As an example, look at the PLO structure I posted above:10th-12th $16,52013th-15th $14,16016th-18th $11,80019th+ $0If a player is a medium-to-short stack with 20 players left, they have all the incentive in the world to stall and then fold, and almost no incentive to make a move: - If they wait it out , they have a very good chance of making $12K. - If they make a move and lose, they get nothing. If they make a move and double up, they they might finish a few places higher, and get $14K or even 16K. But on average, this is a much worse play than waiting.However, if the structure looked like this:10th -12th - $20K13th - 15th - $14K16th - 18th - $10K19th - 21st - $6K22nd - 24th - $4K25th - 27th - $2KThen the person on the bubble (say, medium-to-short stacked w/ 30 players left), has much less obvious choice. They can wait, and probably make $2K, maybe 4K, or they can make a move.By making a move, they risk getting nothing, but then the rewards for doubling up are much better. The might be able to last until 18th, and get $10K, or five times what they would get from folding.The current bubble structure makes folding the obvious choice. If you didn't have such a steep bubble, play would be much less degenerate at this point in the tournament.

[holman3rd 0]

Umm, ok...but why not have prizes that are less than the buy-in if it will eliminate the bubble problem?

what bubble problem are talking about? there will always be a bubble problem no matter what they do.

What bubble problem? I love the bubble, especially when I'm short stacked. It's REALLY fun when I'm the big stack.I'd call it the bubble "opportunity." Thank God for the bubble.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

After all, the buy-in was only $2000 if you didn't rebuy.

Seems like a pretty silly postulate - anybody who both didn't rebuy and finds themselves in danger on the bubble clearly made a strategic error, and there's no need to reward such a player by stretching out the paid spots.As well, every live tournament I've played in has gone to hand-for-hand mode when it gets close to the bubble, so stalling isn't particularly helpful. I kind of figure the same applies at the WSOP, though I have no direct experience, maybe things are different there.

[Kendren 1]

They go to HFH one off the payout. (eg. 28 left, 27 paid)

[cdddc75 0]

Why should tournaments be any different?Nick

We're talking about poker here, not the Tug of Peace:http://www.pta.org/parentinvolvement/helpc...ild/bhc/ta9.asp

[garamond10pt 0]

Articles on cardplayer about removing the bubblePro:http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...4646&m_id=65559Con:http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...d=13474&m_id=71

[holman3rd 0]

Articles on cardplayer about removing the bubblePro:http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...4646&m_id=65559Con:http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...474&m_id=71

Nice find. The last part of the "pro" article actually articulates why I like the bubble.The "con" article seems to focus mostly on easing the pain of those that go out on the bubble.I like bubbles just the way the are, and they are an important part of tournament strategy. You obviously can't eliminate them altogether--even paying every entry a prize wouldn't do that (then again, doing that would effectively lower the buy-in, which really doesn't change anything). This type of gradual payout near the bubble, as addressed in the "pro" article, would effectively create a "virtual" bubble point, which would likely be defined as where a step up in prize money becomes meaningful. Therefore, you really haven't eliminated or eased the bubble, you've just disguised it more. What would be interesting, is that what becomes the virtual bubble point would actually be the average opinion of all those in the tournament, which would make for some interesting play in the "virtual bubble range."Enough chatter...