Should a host intervene in a chop going off the rails? (3 Viewers)

[Deucekies]

One thing I will say: an incident like this one would be a great excuse to institute a "No deals allowed" policy. It's one of those things that isn't a problem until it is.

PS: I'll admit I prefer tournaments where deals are not an option. I once played in a Baccarat tournament where you could be disqualified just for DISCUSSING a deal.

 

[Tonysquander]

Was at a homegame tournament recently where it got down to the final three (money started at top 6). Two players approximately similar stacks and a third behind, but not on complete fumes. They decided to chop and were discussing.

Normally as a host I'll offer to run an ICM calculation. But lets say this was not my game, so not my place to offer/intervene as I wasn't in the final three.

A player with one of the two bigger stacks (who insists they have the most tournament experience) insists that the third place stack should get third place money, and the other two stacks split first and second. (I know this is ridiculous). The other larger stack immediately objects and starts getting heated with the first player as they feel it's effectively a dishonest/unfair offer. Voices start getting raised, people stand up.

As a host, would you step in to mediate the situation (either suggest ICM, or suggest they play it out if they are not aligned) or do you just let the players go as it's their decision even though it may result in a conflict/someone refusing to come back?

The only chops we allow are even chops of money and points. Doesn't matter how many chips you have. I don't like chops but if the players want to chop and there are 2, everything is split in 1/2, three players, split by 1/3. Don't like it? Play it out. No ICM allowed. Avoids all of this butt hurt nonsense as well as potential collusion and/or peer pressure.

 

[Jimulacrum]

A player with one of the two bigger stacks (who insists they have the most tournament experience) insists that the third place stack should get third place money, and the other two stacks split first and second. (I know this is ridiculous). The other larger stack immediately objects and starts getting heated with the first player as they feel it's effectively a dishonest/unfair offer. Voices start getting raised, people stand up.

As a host, would you step in to mediate the situation (either suggest ICM, or suggest they play it out if they are not aligned) or do you just let the players go as it's their decision even though it may result in a conflict/someone refusing to come back?

I get the sense that "insists" means he was more aggressive than appropriate for a deal negotiation.

Demanding that the short stack effectively bow out is obviously absurd, and I'd really like to know what kind of case this player made for it.

If discussion started to get heated, yes, it is a place for the host to intervene. It may have also been a place to intervene even if the second larger stack hadn't spoken up, but the third stack seemed uncomfortable pushing back about the unfair "deal." You have to protect your players from this kind of stuff.

 

[EmptyPocs]

Why would 3rd place agree at that point anyway?
Continuing to play he/she can potentially get into 1st or 2nd and get more $$. Losing at 3rd pays the same.
Offering a chop w/o really including him is pointless unless he thinks his chances of improving are zero and everyone else (including him) are waiting to start a cash game.
He should just say 'shut up and play'. He is apparently being offered nothing to chop, and the clock is ticking.
Even though there may be unspoken, but obvious, collusion to push 3rd out after that . The way they are carrying on it wouldn't surprise me.

I did not read all the way thru the replies, am I missing something?

 

[MrCatPants]

I get the sense that "insists" means he was more aggressive than appropriate for a deal negotiation.

Demanding that the short stack effectively bow out is obviously absurd, and I'd really like to know what kind of case this player made for it.

If discussion started to get heated, yes, it is a place for the host to intervene. It may have also been a place to intervene even if the second larger stack hadn't spoken up, but the third stack seemed uncomfortable pushing back about the unfair "deal." You have to protect your players from this kind of stuff.

"I HAVE PLAYED IN THOUSANDS OF TOURNAMENTS AND THIS IS HOW IT WORKS"

 

[upNdown]

I get it, but I disagree with this. If it gets to heads up and one person has a 6:1 chip lead, and then the short stack doubles up twice to tie it up, they should be able to put a chop back on the table.

Hosts are free to have whatever house rules they want. But I’ve played a lot of tournaments and I’ve seen a lot of chops and the mentality has always been that it’s the players money, so they can do whatever they want with it.
As far as intervening, I’m fine with anybody intervening if somebody is insisting on some ridiculous shit like third place can only get third place money. Negotiations are up to them, but bullshit should be called out.

 

[MrCatPants]

Why would 3rd place agree at that point anyway?
Continuing to play he/she can potentially get into 1st or 2nd and get more $$. Losing at 3rd pays the same.
Offering a chop w/o really including him is pointless unless he thinks his chances of improving are zero and everyone else (including him) are waiting to start a cash game.
He should just say 'shut up and play'. He is apparently being offered nothing to chop, and the clock is ticking.
Even though there may be unspoken, but obvious, collusion to push 3rd out after that . The way they are carrying on it wouldn't surprise me.

I did not read all the way thru the replies, am I missing something?

Not really but that part is not really the question. Question is should a host intervene if chop discussions go off the rails.

 

[BKisback]

A host is welcome to check behavior or attitude of a player but should not intervene in a chop discussion. It's purely up to the players involved. If one player asks someone else for advice, then the person they asked should be free to give it. If a host doesn't like what someone did during a chop discussion, they are free not to invite the person back.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I get it, but I disagree with this. If it gets to heads up and one person has a 6:1 chip lead, and then the short stack doubles up twice to tie it up, they should be able to put a chop back on the table.

Once players are heads-up, there's hardly anything you can do to prevent them from mutually agreeing to whatever they want.

Even if you prohibit it, if they're insistent, they can discuss it as they play and agree to get all-in until the game is over, without the participation of the house. It'd be tough to prohibit even talking about it, of course. What's the penalty? You have to pay both players out one way or the other. They could sit out some hands on purpose to take a break and discuss the split.

I agree, but it's a balance. I was in one game where the guy asked the few remaining players basically every hand.

Incessant chop soliciting is so obnoxious.

I remember playing in a local cardroom where one or two players were really adamant about arranging a chop when we got to the final table (field of 40-ish IIRC) because "It's what we always do." I was only an occasional visitor to this cardroom and only final-tabled two tournaments, but in both cases I ran into very heavy pressure from the remaining players to agree to a chop. It's just inappropriate. A tournament is a test of our ability to play tournament poker, not weather aggressive social pressure from a bunch of leather asses who are on a first-name basis with all the staff.

I never chop unless someone's offering me a lopsided deal that favors me. Short-handed/heads-up poker is one of my main strengths. I'm not about to waive that opportunity to appease people who play nit-tight for five hours and then beg for a deal to avoid the endgame.

 

[Jimulacrum]

"I HAVE PLAYED IN THOUSANDS OF TOURNAMENTS AND THIS IS HOW IT WORKS"

Like literally yelling at the other player(s), trying to be intimidating? If so, then yeah, no, you don't get to "negotiate" like that. This is such a good example of why I don't like chop discussions and would probably prefer a no-discussion ICM chop or nothing (not that I'd take the deal, but as a matter of game management).

I'm good at pushing back on nonsense like this, but the vast majority of people are not, and I expect the blowhard knows this and is intentionally dialing up the aggression to try to seal an unfair deal. Maybe you can speak more to this if it's someone you know well.

If I'm reading this accurately, I propose he gets one warning over this behavior.

If he does it again, he sits out for whatever number of hands/orbits is a normal penalty. Yes, it may be brutal three-handed. He was warned.

Happens after that and he's out in third place with no recourse and never invited back.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

I hate chops. Let’s play poker people. Cash games exist.

I tend to defer to whatever the players want, as long as they know what’s happening. Inexperienced players might need to be protected from bullies if that is happening. That’s the only time I would step in.

The situation below is borderline to where someone might step in, but I don’t have enough context on the experience levels involved.

Some people just like to do deals and will take bad deals but not mind. If that’s your thing so be it.

The fact that cash games exist, and are often already starting while a tournament is ending is actually a solid reason in favor of chops. If two players are heads up with big stacks relative to the blinds, a chop is often the most desirable way to end the tournament. But in Eric's case, they would still have to play on anyway for the points, so that makes it less of a reason.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

"I HAVE PLAYED IN THOUSANDS OF TOURNAMENTS AND THIS IS HOW IT WORKS"

That sounds like absolute proof that this person has, in fact, NOT played in thousands, or even dozens of tournaments.

 

[MatB]

#neverchop

 

[MrCatPants]

#neverchop

You chopped with me.

 

[MatB]

You chopped with me.

do as I say, not as I do

 

[MatB]

GREATEST CHOP EVER !

@Hornet

 

[Gunnar]

Ofcourse you step in? All players must show other players respect and I enforce that.

 

[Jimulacrum]

You chopped with me.

do as I say, not as I do

I am also in camp #neverbutokaymaybeoccasionallychop.

I don't prefer it, and I do get annoyed by people who live for the chop, but sometimes the situation calls for it.

 

[shorticus]

I’m about to threaten you with violence.

 

[bergs]

"I HAVE PLAYED IN THOUSANDS OF TOURNAMENTS AND THIS IS HOW IT WORKS"

To which I would reply: “I HAVE SLAPPED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THE HEAD WITH MY DICK AND THIS IS HOW IT FEELS”.

Then we see how fast that player can run.

 

[bergs]

Third place reply should be “high card gets everything, let’s go you fuckin’ sourpuss face”

 

[MrCatPants]

To which I would reply: “I HAVE SLAPPED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THE HEAD WITH MY DICK AND THIS IS HOW IT FEELS”.

Then we see how fast that player can run.

I would literally pay to see that.