Steve Z's Proposal for Kinder, Gentler Tournaments

Tournament poker can be brutal in many ways, but there is nothing worse than being eliminated "on the bubble." When you get eliminated one spot out of the money, it is bad enough that you leave with the same result as the first player to be knocked out. But what makes it exponentially worse is that your elimination means that everyone else will now be making a trip to the cashier's cage, and there is therefore just cause for celebrating. I can painfully recall several occasions when I had to slink dejectedly away from the tables as the remaining players whooped and hollered, totally oblivious to my pain and suffering.

It was shortly after one of these funerals/celebrations lately that Steve Zolotow approached me with an idea intended to soften the devastating blow that a finish on the bubble delivers. In major tournaments these days, the difference between finishing in and out of the money is often in the range of $10,000, or slightly more. For example, the player who finishes 61st gets zip, but 60th place pays $10,000. After 60th place, the difference in prize money is not as dramatic until the final table is reached, and everyone receives a good payday.

Steve's proposal was that several additional spots be paid in a fairly gradual ascending order. For example, suppose 60 spots were originally to be paid, with 60th place paying $10,000. Now, instead of 61st paying nothing, Steve suggests that 61st-70th all be worth some money, gradually working down from $10,000. 70th might pay $1,000, 69th $2,000, and so on. This way, the new "bubble" position of 71st would still receive nothing, but there would be only a $1,000 difference between it and the next spot, rather than $10,000 or more. Certainly, this might soften the heartache of busting out late in the tournament a bit. Additionally, it would serve to lessen the need for the "hand-for-hand" policy that currently exists, in which action at a table is paused until all tables are finished with a hand. This prevents one table from stalling until a player at another table busts out. The problem with playing hand-for-hand is that it dramatically diminishes the number of hands per level that a player receives.

I think Steve Z's concept would be well-received by tournament directors and most of the participants, as well. In this day and age of huge fields, many players are entering events by way of winning a satellite, so cashing for even a modest sum such as a couple thousand dollars would represent some degree of success.

The only people who I believe would strongly oppose Steve Z's proposal are the elite tournament players. These players thrive on "the bubble," as they play very aggressively in an effort to amass chips. At this point in the tournament, many players adopt a strategy to ensure that they aren't the one to go broke and miss the party. Usually, an unofficial symbiotic relationship forms between the tournament champions and the hangers-on. The unwritten agreement is that the hangers-on will make the money, in exchange for allowing the champions to win every pot, provided they ultimately sacrifice one of their own on the bubble. Ultimately, each group has its own goals. The champions are playing to win the tournament, and recognize that the best time to pick up chips is when most of the players are concerned with survival. The rest of the field, while not relinquishing their title hopes, currently have their eyes on the immediate prize of making it into the money. After all, it is no fun to play in a major tournament for two days or even longer and then come up just a little bit short with nothing to show for a good effort.

I would appreciate some feedback on Steve Z's proposal. Is it in the best interest of poker to pay a few more spots in big events, serving to both eliminate the pain of "the bubble" and lessen the need to play "hand-for hand"? Or, is play on the bubble such a key strategic component of major tournament play that it should be left alone. Let me know what you think.