17 way chop - was it a good decision

[Diamond Lie]

Are you really playing this thing w/ such a miniscule buy-in for anything other than a decent payout?

Fine, you're all short stacks. I would use the little edge I have over everyone else who is shorter and gambool. I would rather take a chance at winning a decent sum of money than a 17 way chop


What are the top payouts btw? That obviously helps to determine this

[dizzle98]

I think in this kind of tourney you want the chop at some point. The question is can you wait until a few more shorter stacks get knocked off and then get the chop? Or by that time will everyone basically in "F U" mode because you twice said no to it. The problem you're facing is that not only are you dangerously low on chips, but when it's your BB you're nearly committed to calling the random all-in of any other short stack almost regardless of your cards.

I don't think the chop here is horrible. Obviously better later if there are multiple players at the 2bb level. So I like the chop here better than playing it all out, but less than I like chopping later if you can swing it that way also.

[dizzle98]

[ QUOTE ]

Juice is only $5 of the $25 buy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh they're ONLY taking 25%? Play on

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Juice is only $5 of the $25 buy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh they're ONLY taking 25%? Play on

[/ QUOTE ]

20%

[dizzle98]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Juice is only $5 of the $25 buy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh they're ONLY taking 25%? Play on

[/ QUOTE ]

20%

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, not sure actually. The way I read it, it's $25 total which meant $20 tourney with $5 fee...which would be 25% since the fee is generally stated as a percentage of the money applied to the prize pool only. If it's $25+5 then yeah it's 20%. I read it as a $20+5. (not that it matters, still too high, i just had to convince myself I didn't suck at math when I wrote 25%)

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you really playing this thing w/ such a miniscule buy-in for anything other than a decent payout?

Fine, you're all short stacks. I would use the little edge I have over everyone else who is shorter and gambool. I would rather take a chance at winning a decent sum of money than a 17 way chop


What are the top payouts btw? That obviously helps to determine this

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanna say it was something like this.

3rd - 300
2nd - 500
1st - 750

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Juice is only $5 of the $25 buy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh they're ONLY taking 25%? Play on

[/ QUOTE ]

20%

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, not sure actually. The way I read it, it's $25 total which meant $20 tourney with $5 fee...which would be 25% since the fee is generally stated as a percentage of the money applied to the prize pool only. If it's $25+5 then yeah it's 20%. I read it as a $20+5. (not that it matters, still too high, i just had to convince myself I didn't suck at math when I wrote 25%)

[/ QUOTE ]

I do the math differently, I consider the total amount I pay as the buy in and then do the calculatation accordingly. But yea, definitely a high juice.

[ATrebek]

If those figures are accurate you would need to finish in the top 4 > ~13.6% of the time to show any profit over the 17 way chop. Maybe a chop isn't so bad here. I still say play on.

[dizzle98]

The other question is what are the other stacks like, not just chip leader & short stack. If you think they will all take a chop at any time then how many people are likely to go out in one orbit? If everyone has 50k or so like you then chop...if almost everyone has 20k then you know half of them are probably going out in one orbit or so. In which case you wait for half the field to bust then do the chop. (also depends how often you play here, being the only one to say no-chop might not be so great when you're shortstack next time and everyoen remembers)

[albedoa]

Say you won't chop unless you get $400, which means everyone else will get $230. To them it looks like they are each giving up $10 to get guaranteed money, not realizing that you're making off like a bandit just for being the "lone dissenter".