Forever to Thee
Pair
How often do your tournament games end in a chop vs a single winner? Do you allow chips when in a league? Can they split the points? Etc?
Tourney Chopping the prize pool. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Forever to Thee
- Start date
DeeVee8
Straight
Mine almost always ends in a chop. I believe that the prize pool belongs to the participants still active in the tournament. Its their money, they can do what they want with it, but of course it must be unanimous. Our prize structure is probably more flat than most, the difference between 1-3 is usually 100-120 bucks. Most of our players would rather split the difference than play for another hour or more.
I don't do points except for a "Triple Crown" competition where points are awarded for three tournaments. Points are awarded for place, cash and knockouts. If there is a chop, they all take the place points for the last position available (ie, a 3 way chop, everyone gets 3rd place points) and no knockout points. So the extra cash they get chopping is almost equal to the points they lose for place and knockouts.
I don't do points except for a "Triple Crown" competition where points are awarded for three tournaments. Points are awarded for place, cash and knockouts. If there is a chop, they all take the place points for the last position available (ie, a 3 way chop, everyone gets 3rd place points) and no knockout points. So the extra cash they get chopping is almost equal to the points they lose for place and knockouts.
Local poker tour I would guess 20% (chop money with top 2,3 or 4) but play out for points
local charity tourneys chop 33%
local home games chop 66%
also in Vegas I have seen Daily Tourneys chopped over 50% (PH and Flamingo)
local charity tourneys chop 33%
local home games chop 66%
also in Vegas I have seen Daily Tourneys chopped over 50% (PH and Flamingo)
OP
OP
Forever to Thee
Pair
Then what do you do? Not allow chops when points are awarded?
Our league events have a money chop (usually heads-up) about 15-20% of the time. Historically, we have allowed money chops, but it must still be played out for awarded points.
But this solution also works, where the choppers all get the minimum number of points available:
But this solution also works, where the choppers all get the minimum number of points available:
This makes it less likely for the remaining players to artificially manipulate the point standings.
Our tournaments chop about half the time, or maybe a little over (6 chops in 11 tournaments this year). Players decide how to chop the money.
I do track tournament wins. If players chop the money and don't play it out, I chop the tournament win. Sometimes that doesn't seem accurate because rather than a chop it was more like a settlement where there is a significant difference in the money, but 2nd took more than 2nd place and 1st took less than 1st place. Despite the money disparity, I chop the win in tracking. We've even had one 4-way chop.
When I had a league, and we tracked knockouts, no KO's were counted for remaining players. Example: If we had 20, and it was played out, there would be 19 KO's. If the last 3 players chop, there would only be 17 KO's for that tournament. I wouldn't split the remaining KO's because you are speculating about what would happen.
While I don't have a league any more, I do still use a scoring system to measure players. We do give end of the year awards based on that scoring system.
I'm not worried about players manipulating the points, but in a league, that could be an issue. I don't disagree with the approach used by BG and DeeVee8 for leagues. However, I chop the points. In a 4-way chop, we add the points for places 1-4 and then divide by 4. In a 3-way chop, we add ppoint for 1-3 and divide by 3. I think it works in most situations. If a player agrees to a chop while he's ahead in the league, others know that no one is catching up to him. However, if someone other than the league leader agrees, he knows he isn't getting closer to first. The exact incentive for finishing high might make a huge difference in approach.
I do track tournament wins. If players chop the money and don't play it out, I chop the tournament win. Sometimes that doesn't seem accurate because rather than a chop it was more like a settlement where there is a significant difference in the money, but 2nd took more than 2nd place and 1st took less than 1st place. Despite the money disparity, I chop the win in tracking. We've even had one 4-way chop.
When I had a league, and we tracked knockouts, no KO's were counted for remaining players. Example: If we had 20, and it was played out, there would be 19 KO's. If the last 3 players chop, there would only be 17 KO's for that tournament. I wouldn't split the remaining KO's because you are speculating about what would happen.
While I don't have a league any more, I do still use a scoring system to measure players. We do give end of the year awards based on that scoring system.
I'm not worried about players manipulating the points, but in a league, that could be an issue. I don't disagree with the approach used by BG and DeeVee8 for leagues. However, I chop the points. In a 4-way chop, we add the points for places 1-4 and then divide by 4. In a 3-way chop, we add ppoint for 1-3 and divide by 3. I think it works in most situations. If a player agrees to a chop while he's ahead in the league, others know that no one is catching up to him. However, if someone other than the league leader agrees, he knows he isn't getting closer to first. The exact incentive for finishing high might make a huge difference in approach.
They can chop the money however they see fit and play it out just for the points. I find a lot of times, especially when down to two players, the players will agree to chop most of the cash and play it out for a small portion of the cash and the points.
SixSpeedFury
Full House
When agreeing to a chop to end the game, wouldn't it just be easier to give points and places based on final stacks left on the table?
It might be *easier* than simply awarding lowest possible points to all choppers, or using ICM to calculate points based on stack size.... but it's not really fair to the other league participants to allow players to manipulate the amount of awarded points, which could negatively impact others not involved in the chop.
For example, in a three-way chop, the middle player might be able to guarantee some type of season-ending prize if he finishes 1st or 2nd, but not if he finishes 3rd -- so it's in his best interest to chop, provided he gets at least 2nd-place points. But it's not in the best interest of other non-involved players for that to happen.
It's also less-than-optimum to *force* players to play it out for points, which usually ends up being a random-luck shovefest. I think the best solutions for determining points are 1) awarding the lowest possible points to all, followed by 2) awarding points based on ICM calculation of stack sizes, followed by 3) awarding points based on current order of stack size. I'd rather force them to play it out rather than do #2 or #3.
Money chops yes, point chops no.
Dix
3 of a Kind
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 971
The local charity tourneys in these parts end in a chop about 95% of the time (or better).
I know of only one of 'em in the last 6 months that went all the way to a single winner & that was because the last hand was a 3-way all-in with the big stack winning the hand. (it was one of 'em at our Legion Post)
I can't claim to know about all of 'em with certainty, but even if I don't make the FT, I'm usually still around if a cash game starts up. So I hear about a good number of 'em.
Of all the FTs I've made, only two of 'em got as far as head's up when we decided to chop (because the blinds to stack ratio was getting close to crazy & it was going to end up as Roshambo more than poker).
Our family games almost always end in a chop, forgot to mention earlier when I posted, usually a 50/50 chop
Last edited:
DeeVee8
Straight
That's what I use. If players don't care about the points, no harm done. If one or more players need the points, they can refuse the chop.
My point system rewards knockouts, cashes and number of players outlasted. So if players chop, they will be giving up chances for points in all three categories. I had trouble with what name to put on trophies when people chop, but I've adopted "Scared Money" in place of a winners name. I got that idea from someone here at PCF, but I can't remember who.
We chip about 80% of the time. Normally first chops off 5-10 bucks from there pot to pass to second to even it up for a fair chop depending on the stacks
Mr Winberg
Full House
In all my years of hosting MTTs there has only been one chop. I believe it was 2006. The tourney ran later than expected so when it got heads up between me and a good friend she suggested we chop and I accepted. Apart from that, it has never even been suggested.
I think it's due to the low stakes ($10-$30 buyins) meaning the honor is more important than the money, and that I only host tournaments about 4-6 times a year. If you make it to heads up it might not happen again for several years. Are you gonna sacrifice that experience in order to secure a few bucks?
If I upped the stakes and/or hosted more often there would probably be some chops.
I think it's due to the low stakes ($10-$30 buyins) meaning the honor is more important than the money, and that I only host tournaments about 4-6 times a year. If you make it to heads up it might not happen again for several years. Are you gonna sacrifice that experience in order to secure a few bucks?
If I upped the stakes and/or hosted more often there would probably be some chops.
My tourney typically pays between 4-5 places. There is almost always a 2- or 3-way chop, either negotiated casually or determined by ICM calculations. The chop also usually follows some extra money being kicked to 4th place a little earlier.
If there are a couple players with relatively even stacks, sometimes the 2-way chop involves splitting the main money minus the last $100-$150, which they agree to play a certain number of hands over before splitting that, too.
I’d say the reasons chops are popular are:
(A) The money involved is hardly life-changing to any of the players;
(B) Players realize that chops are beneficial to realizing their true equity long-term, and also for the good of the game;
(C) With the top couple players usually having by far the most bounty chips, they already are cashing for a decent chunk more than 3rd/4th; and
(D) Most importantly, it lets the winners get to the cash game already in progress sooner rather than later!
Once in a while in other tourneys I’ll encounter that one guy who steadfastly refuses to chop, usually because s/he doesn’t win much, and has a really big chip advantage. Secretly, I’m kind of pleased when these obstinate players learn their lesson and wind up in min cashing instead.
If there are a couple players with relatively even stacks, sometimes the 2-way chop involves splitting the main money minus the last $100-$150, which they agree to play a certain number of hands over before splitting that, too.
I’d say the reasons chops are popular are:
(A) The money involved is hardly life-changing to any of the players;
(B) Players realize that chops are beneficial to realizing their true equity long-term, and also for the good of the game;
(C) With the top couple players usually having by far the most bounty chips, they already are cashing for a decent chunk more than 3rd/4th; and
(D) Most importantly, it lets the winners get to the cash game already in progress sooner rather than later!
Once in a while in other tourneys I’ll encounter that one guy who steadfastly refuses to chop, usually because s/he doesn’t win much, and has a really big chip advantage. Secretly, I’m kind of pleased when these obstinate players learn their lesson and wind up in min cashing instead.
Last edited:
Related to this thread:
What are some *simple* arguments for explaining the benefit of chops to people who are skeptical/greedy/bad at math/just a pain in the ass, or just massively overestimate their edge?
I find that explaining the statistics or using detailed logic generally fails. Looking for short, compelling ways to explain it to the math-challenged.
What are some *simple* arguments for explaining the benefit of chops to people who are skeptical/greedy/bad at math/just a pain in the ass, or just massively overestimate their edge?
I find that explaining the statistics or using detailed logic generally fails. Looking for short, compelling ways to explain it to the math-challenged.
A long example:
I played from 1 pm - 11 pm last night in a $200 tourney. No rake—no rebuys—game is run by a generous local cop—OK food—free sodas and cheap beer—good turnout, 60+ players. (Terrible tables and chips, but no matter).
When we got down to 15 players, the host suggested talking about payouts beyond the minimum four places. He then looked at me — I was the chip leader, with about 20% of all chips in play— and says, “But probably this guy won’t want to chop.” (I’ve only played there once before.)
I said on the contrary, I’ll always discuss chops. I then said, “We’ve all been here almost 7 hours... Why don’t we give everyone left their buy-in back?” That was 3K out of a pot of over $12,000.
Everyone agreed except one younger aggro guy with a backward baseball cap. He had a larger than average stack, which he counted like three times before saying, “Naw, I don’t like to chop.”
So we played on.
Then it got down to 12. The host proposed the $200 to each again. I said, “C’mon folks, the prize pool will still be over 10K, this is just some insurance for everyone. We’ve been here 7+ hours, at least everyone should get their money back...”
This time the kid grudgingly agreed and everyone got their $200 back.
Final table, we lose one player get down to 8. The host says, OK, if you want we can talk deals/payouts now. Otherwise half of you are going to miss the money.
Note that at this point the blinds were way up; even the 3 big stacks (including me) had fewer than 40 BB, and many were really short.
After a ton of ridiculous discussion, the 8 remaining all got $500. That still leaves 6K to fight over.
We lose a couple more — people got more reckless once they got their $500 profit on top of the $200. Down to 5. Only four are getting paid. I suggest cutting in the 5th, though I now have about 40% of the chips.
The baseball hat kid — by far the shortest stack — again objects. He doesn’t want to lock in another share of the money, even though he’s close to being blinded off; he wants to go for it all.
So we play on and of course the aggro kid busts about 10 minutes later.
It continues. We have three big stacks—I’m still around 40%—with two at 25%, and one very small stack. We’ve been playing 9+ hours. There are under 80 BB total among the four of us. BINGO territory.
Pause the clock. I pull up the ICM calculator. I suggest we chop three chop pretty evenly and the short stack gets big bump up. That means as chip leader I’m doing almost all the donating.
Nope—the short stack wants to continue.
This benefits her as she hits the high hand on the verge of busting. So now she gets $600 more and has pulled more even. Now she’ll chop!
So we basically wasted 60-90 minutes. The difference in money was not meaningful to me, and though I thought I might win outright, I know the smart thing long-term is to take the insurance which ICM chops represent.
The problem with soft tournaments is that the people who make it soft are by definition not likely to be open to logical/statistical persuasion. Hence the need for simple arguments.
I played from 1 pm - 11 pm last night in a $200 tourney. No rake—no rebuys—game is run by a generous local cop—OK food—free sodas and cheap beer—good turnout, 60+ players. (Terrible tables and chips, but no matter).
When we got down to 15 players, the host suggested talking about payouts beyond the minimum four places. He then looked at me — I was the chip leader, with about 20% of all chips in play— and says, “But probably this guy won’t want to chop.” (I’ve only played there once before.)
I said on the contrary, I’ll always discuss chops. I then said, “We’ve all been here almost 7 hours... Why don’t we give everyone left their buy-in back?” That was 3K out of a pot of over $12,000.
Everyone agreed except one younger aggro guy with a backward baseball cap. He had a larger than average stack, which he counted like three times before saying, “Naw, I don’t like to chop.”
So we played on.
Then it got down to 12. The host proposed the $200 to each again. I said, “C’mon folks, the prize pool will still be over 10K, this is just some insurance for everyone. We’ve been here 7+ hours, at least everyone should get their money back...”
This time the kid grudgingly agreed and everyone got their $200 back.
Final table, we lose one player get down to 8. The host says, OK, if you want we can talk deals/payouts now. Otherwise half of you are going to miss the money.
Note that at this point the blinds were way up; even the 3 big stacks (including me) had fewer than 40 BB, and many were really short.
After a ton of ridiculous discussion, the 8 remaining all got $500. That still leaves 6K to fight over.
We lose a couple more — people got more reckless once they got their $500 profit on top of the $200. Down to 5. Only four are getting paid. I suggest cutting in the 5th, though I now have about 40% of the chips.
The baseball hat kid — by far the shortest stack — again objects. He doesn’t want to lock in another share of the money, even though he’s close to being blinded off; he wants to go for it all.
So we play on and of course the aggro kid busts about 10 minutes later.
It continues. We have three big stacks—I’m still around 40%—with two at 25%, and one very small stack. We’ve been playing 9+ hours. There are under 80 BB total among the four of us. BINGO territory.
Pause the clock. I pull up the ICM calculator. I suggest we chop three chop pretty evenly and the short stack gets big bump up. That means as chip leader I’m doing almost all the donating.
Nope—the short stack wants to continue.
This benefits her as she hits the high hand on the verge of busting. So now she gets $600 more and has pulled more even. Now she’ll chop!
So we basically wasted 60-90 minutes. The difference in money was not meaningful to me, and though I thought I might win outright, I know the smart thing long-term is to take the insurance which ICM chops represent.
The problem with soft tournaments is that the people who make it soft are by definition not likely to be open to logical/statistical persuasion. Hence the need for simple arguments.
Mr Winberg
Full House
For casino tournaments or homegames with lots of money at stake (like the $200 buy-in mentioned above) I understand completely why you would want to chop. For low stakes home games that end after 3-6 hours I don't really get it. It's not about the money, it's about bragging rights and the thrill of the competition. We're here to play, right? Let's gambool!
If we are three left and someone asks about chopping I'll say nah, let's duke it out. Sure, if someone for some reason needs to leave I'll definitely chop out of curtsey.
Chopping a low stakes home game is for me like renting a tennis court for an hour and at 4-4 in the final set with 20 minutes left say "let's call it a draw, shall we?". Hell no, I'm here for tennis!
If we are three left and someone asks about chopping I'll say nah, let's duke it out. Sure, if someone for some reason needs to leave I'll definitely chop out of curtsey.
Chopping a low stakes home game is for me like renting a tennis court for an hour and at 4-4 in the final set with 20 minutes left say "let's call it a draw, shall we?". Hell no, I'm here for tennis!
Chops save time and allow for additional tourney play or extended cash game time. That's what we tell people and eachother. Plus heads up turns into a shove fest
And if points are involved for specific tourneys you can chop by chip stack or chop equal and record chip stack placement
We have never chopped once in the league I've been in for 12 years (or in the 5 years before I joined), as only Ws get you TOC chips. I love it, because I really enjoy heads-up play at the end of a tournament, and there is almost always two people willing to deal heads-up so it moves along pretty quickly. In the game I occasionally host, deals get made heads-up maybe ~30% of the time, because again, we just enjoy playing it out. We generally only play one table at my house, so 3-way or more chops are pretty much never even proposed
Smiling Bob
Sitting Out
Most of the tournaments I play at casinos seem to end in chops . Either for time , or one huge stack that gets more etc . It seems to be fine with everyone most of the time in my experience . Of course there are always times when there is a hold out and yeah it's usually a smaller stack !
Maybe I'm missing something - doesn't a chop usually mean the tournament wasn't timed very well (too big a starting stack and/or too small of blinds & blind raising)? Of course there are emergencies, etc. But it feels like if you hit a chop under "normal circumstances" you should adjust the tournament to run shorter next time and hopefully avoid a chop, no?
Much easier said than done, as far as messing with the blind structures or stacks go.
There is a school of thought that says, "It's the player's money, let them do with it what they want."
When you get to the point where there are only about 10 big blinds on the table, why not chop up the money and play it out for the points? You are basically flipping coins for the money at that point, anyway.
A high frequency of chops in a recurring event could be occurring for any number (or combination) of reasons -- undesirable format ending (too drawn out or too rushed), payout structure not in alignment with player expectations (doesn't necessarily make it bad, just not what they want), a player pool which would rather guarantee themselves each a decent payday vs the real possibility of a min-cash with lesser potential for a big cash (could be either amateurs or grinders), etc.
I recall an instance where the chip leader wanted to do an ICM settlement and then gave the remaining finisher $200 so that he (the chip leader) wouldn't have the win reported for taxes. In other words, he was afraid of winning too much.
I see no issue with chopping... once you are heads-up you’re not playing a poker tournament anymore, you’re in a heads-up match. The best heads-up players lose more than 40% of the time. If you’ve locked up second place dough I can completely understand not wanting to play one-on-one, winner-take-all for the remaining $400. Particularly when there are cash games going on.
I believe something should be left on the line to play for so it’s something more than a random coin flip on determining a winner.
I believe something should be left on the line to play for so it’s something more than a random coin flip on determining a winner.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
