I don"t like it at all, but I play in 3 card-rooms in Portsmouth and I"m the only one who resists. TBH I"ve given up resisting unless someone is really short and is being too optimistic hoping for a pay-off, cos a lot of the same people show up at the different FTs and you become pretty unpopular if you"re continually the bad guy. I"d never agree to it with strangers unless it was to my advantage. I agree absolutely with George"s point, that it is not only undermining your equity if you win, come 2nd, etc, but also undermines your chances of securing those places, as you are denied the opportunity to chip up on the bubble. So it would be better to agree it before you get to the bubble point if it is going to happen anyway, so that there is still a bubble you can exploit.
I like the red & black card process, though not how it was applied in The Phoenix last week. After a discussion, where I was, as usual, the only one dragging my heels on agreeing, they gave out a red and black card to everyone. All the others started throwing in the red one face up, but I insisted the the dealer could not accept them face up and they had to come back face down. As it happened, the dealer received a full set of reds. I knew it would be obvious anyway who it was if he got a black one back, but I wanted a precedent to be set in case of more-important future instances.
The worst one I have seen was at the PokerPlayer event in Bristol last year. 120 runners, with 12 paid. I went out 21st, and the other 20 then discussed doing a 20-way straight split deal where they would all get £500 each and just play for the remaining £2,000. It was almost agreed but, in the end, 2 people objected and it didn"t happen, but only because someone they didn"t like was short-stacked. Once he was knocked out, they agreed that the 15 remaining would all cash.
Poll
