I have to agree with Andy on this one... If you agree to alter the payout schedule, I consider that to be a "deal".

I consider a "chop" is also a "deal" but basically you agree to split up the prize pool drastically either equally or somewhat based on stack sizes. When you agree to pay the bubble-boy, you are also making a "deal" although less drastically but none-the-less a deal.

Note: I'm not agreeing that doing deals or chops are a bad thing. I'm just agreeing that in my opinion, it's a deal being made.

It's my experience as soon as you cut such a deal, people WILL play differently. Without a deal like this, those people worried about being the "bubble boy", will play much more tighter for fear of getting knocked out one off from the money. As soon as you cut that deal, then those people will loosen up as they now have "nothing to lose" because they know they will at least break even.

My experience has been similar to what Doug mentioned. A very high number of times that I've been at final table, this topic always seems to come up. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong. I believe it's a personal choice and believe there are advantages and disadvantages to both choices.

If you agree to play in a tournament where the organizer says no deals are allowed, then I would have to say that paying the bubble boy shouldn't be allowed. That's my 2 cents anyways.