Scenario: 14 person tourney $30 buy in. There is an optional $30 "last longer" or "last man standing" side bet. Marsh, Joe, and I are the only players to partake in the LMS so the payout is winner take all. Shockingly enough the three players who wanted to put more money on the line ended up placing 4th, 3rd, and 1st. After I went out in fourth it was Joe and Marsh and Andrew with Andrew being the only player who did not have an extra $90 riding on placement. Payouts for the main tourney were $210, $105, $63, and $42.
While the final table is shorthanded, Marsh tells me that he that he wants to talk to me about something after the tourney. My heart goes pitter patter. After he donks his way to the checkered flag by getting all in with AA pre-flop (hello...five more cards to come), he pulls me aside and brings up his point that Andrew had the opportunity to hammer on pots knowing that Marsh and Joe each had an extra $90 on the line and had extra incentive to wait each other out.
I have two thoughts on this:
* That there is not that much to be gained with this knowledge. The tournament structure to begin with is predicated on trying to take as much chips from each other as possible. And it is your right to steal from a player who is playing tight, whether it is their playing style, due to a side bet, or because they are stuck for the month and really wants to get into the money. This doesn't really seem much different than a bubble situation and two short stacks trying to wait each other out.
* It wouldn't be that hard to implement a system of silent entry into the LMS. If people paid me then I'd be the only person to know and since I'm doing it also then there would not be undue advantage. However, in that case I would know everyone I needed to beat whereas everyone else would only know that they had to beat me. I could complicate matters by giving everyone an envelope with their name on it and leave a drop box out. If at the end of the tournament there is LMS money in your envelope then you are eligible. If your envelope is empty then you are out of the LMS. More complicated but that would ensure that no one knew who else was doing the side bet though I think we all would have opinions on who would or wouldn't partake. Kinda gimmicky but I like that there is a perfect solution possible.
I am getting feedback from the forum and one of the comments is that a LMS bet can affect your performance because it is taking you off of your A game. So one thought on that is to not get into situations where the stakes are going to make you change your game. By the same token, that's what tournament strategy is all about and why you would play hands vastly differently in a tourney than in a cash game situation. I'm torn on this: on the one hand I see Marsh's point and the procedures geek in me wants to come up with a solution that gives complete anonymity. On the other hand, the LMS scenario above is not so different from tournament pressure in general.