How to tell someone that "Selectively Chopping" is a d*ck move without being a d*ck yourself? (1 Viewer)

[ekricket]

. I think the term for that definition is called angling.

If you are doing this to avoid the rake- Cheating the house out if their due is still cheating. Or angling if you prefer. I know this isn’t a popular opinion, but if you are willing to cheat ANYONE out if their due then that says something about you I guess. Fair is fair, even if the house is involved.

If you are willing to short the house then maybe you are willing to short other players, I dunno.
I don’t like paying the rake either, but that’s the game I agree to when I sit down at the table.

 

[Nanook]

If you are doing this to avoid the rake-.....

I'm sure different people have different reasons for either preferring or agreeing to chop, but in my case this has nothing to do with it.

I would prefer to never do it, because I think that is the most + ev thing for me. I agree to it because I think that my agreeing to it is good for the game & I generally like anything that is good for the game.

 

[Machine]

If you are doing this to avoid the rake- Cheating the house out if their due is still cheating. Or angling if you prefer. I know this isn’t a popular opinion, but if you are willing to cheat ANYONE out if their due then that says something about you I guess. Fair is fair, even if the house is involved.

If you are willing to short the house then maybe you are willing to short other players, I dunno.
I don’t like paying the rake either, but that’s the game I agree to when I sit down at the table.

I think some needs to post a thread called 'Chopping, a venture into the evils of foisting etiquette upon others and screwing over the house', this one is about the inequities poker hands and being a dick about it heads up after you've agreed to chop.

There is another thread you could check out, I think this thread could use a dose of, don't screw over the house

Dude, I'm a PLO player, you think we have the capacity to chop? Holdem is a game for people who like to chop, PLO players are the ones taking prop bets, playing with rocks, get stacks in with multiway action preflop. The Casinos prefer us any day of the week. We don't haggle for disparity of hand selection, we are the optimists!

 

[ekricket]

I'm sure different people have different reasons for either preferring or agreeing to chop, but in my case this has nothing to do with it.

I would prefer to never do it, because I think that is the most + ev thing for me. I agree to it because I think that my agreeing to it is good for the game & I generally like anything that is good for the game.

Trying to understand fully, why is this good for the game? Maybe if more people understood why this makes poker better it might be less of a contentious point.
Unless it’s a requirement if the game, like a high/lo split, then I have a hard time seeing why this improves the game. Hands that only involve two people are bad for the game? In a 1/2 game it’s worth playing for $3 (the blinds) but it’s not worth playing for $2?

 

[ekricket]

this one is about the inequities poker hands and being a dick about it heads up after you've agreed to chop.

Not following this line of reasoning at all. Are people agreeing to chop and then playing the hand anyway? Is this some sort of reneging on a pinky swear?

 

[Nanook]

Trying to understand fully, why is this good for the game? ......

Nothing to do with the rake or any of that. Just that since it is so common and accepted as a friendly thing to do that not chopping is seen as the opposite. Unfriendly and unwelcoming etc. I am agreeing strictly because I like the idea of trying to be nice and go along with what the group as a whole likes to do

 

[Machine]

Not following this line of reasoning at all. Are people agreeing to chop and then playing the hand anyway? Is this some sort of reneging on a pinky swear?

Alright for clarity, we join our players mid game, where the dealer has given everyone two cards, and 7 of the 9 players have folded preflop.

Two part scenario
1) you have rags, a player offers to chop,
Do you:
a) agree to chop and take your blind back
-- If no, you don't chop, then this thread is not for you
b) Explain that you couldn't live with yourself chopping because you feel that you'd be shorting the house and all of the Jackpot players
-- if so, again, this thread is not for you
c) Say, "sounds good" and retrieve your blind
-- you've qualified for the second part.

2) you have AA, and the player that just offered to be friendly and chop with you asks if you'd like to chop again

Do you:
a) Say "no way, raise!"
-- if so, you are a dick
b) Explain that while you had rags last hand, you couldn't value them as they valued you, and now you plan to put them to the grinder
-- if so, you are a dick
b) kindly show AAs as they fade into the muck, and get another hand out
-- if so, you are not a dick

 

[Nanook]

Not following this line of reasoning at all. Are people agreeing to chop and then playing the hand anyway? Is this some sort of reneging on a pinky swear?

Of course....

This all about the occasional player that looks down at their hand the 1st time when asked if they will chop, they see and happily agree to chop. Sometime later in the same session the same situation comes up and upon looking at their cards they see and now they don't want to chop.

 

[upNdown]

Wanting to chop in one instance and not another AND not have an EQ / IQ high enough to see how this is infantile or being so self-centered that someone would think that it's okay, is a dick move - full stop

I don't think this is fair. Poker is a game where we decide whether or not we want to play our hand based on whether or not we think we can win. And that decision is usually determined by how good our cards are. I think it would make perfect sense to most noobs to make the chopping decision on a hand to hand basis.

 

[bergs]

If you are doing this to avoid the rake- Cheating the house out if their due is still cheating. Or angling if you prefer. I know this isn’t a popular opinion, but if you are willing to cheat ANYONE out if their due then that says something about you I guess. Fair is fair, even if the house is involved.

If you are willing to short the house then maybe you are willing to short other players, I dunno.
I don’t like paying the rake either, but that’s the game I agree to when I sit down at the table.

If the property allows the chop, it’s not against the rules and hence not cheating.

I’ve played at properties where they don’t allow the chop.

Here’s a question - here in AZ, they take a dollar from the small blind before pre flop action. If you chop in the small blind, you lose a dollar. Is it worth not chopping from a long term equity perspective in this scenario?

 

[Nanook]

....Poker is a game where we decide whether or not we want to play our hand based on whether or not we think we can win. And that decision is usually determined by how good our cards are. I think it would make perfect sense to most noobs to make the chopping decision on a hand to hand basis.

Well, that is a fair point too. Maybe noobs do feel that way, idk.

If they do, my OP? has merit, right?

I don't want to be a dick about it, but at the same time I am NOT agreeing to someone that wants to selectively chop because I don't think that is fair. I'll agree to just about anything as long as I think it is fair, but the minute I think I am at a disadvantage, I am not going to go along with that.

 

[bergs]

Also, when the high hand promotion is running, some players will refuse to chop with any pocket pair or suited connectors (or suited gap connectors). I think everyone understands why and I’ve never seen someone get grief for that scenario.

 

[Nanook]

.......Here’s a question - here in AZ, they take a dollar from the small blind before pre flop action. If you chop in the small blind, you lose a dollar. Is it worth not chopping from a long term equity perspective in this scenario?

I've never played there, but I'd guess no one chops. Is that right?

 

[Machine]

I don't think this is fair. Poker is a game where we decide whether or not we want to play our hand based on whether or not we think we can win. And that decision is usually determined by how good our cards are. I think it would make perfect sense to most noobs to make the chopping decision on a hand to hand basis.

I'll try to meet you on fair, not sure I can, but I'll try, I'll even toe the water.

Fairness to me would be declining the offer AND folding the rags.

Toeing the water, it is a bit counter intuitive, almost insidious offering to chop (I doubt intentinaly) , as the un-informed player can't see the other side of this seemingly amazing offer to chop, which would be the temptation to play when they have AAs.

I'd be interested in how many people just in this thread would applaud the 'Golden Rule'?

 

[bergs]

I've never played there, but I'd guess no one chops. Is that right?

I’d say they chop 80% of the time outside the HH promo. I was just wondering if that’s -EV for the small bling long term. Honestly it doesn’t affect my decision (I always chop outside the HH promo).

 

[bergs]

I'd be interested in how many people just in this thread would applaud the 'Golden Rule'?

Poker is an incredibly predatory game by nature, particularly in the casino with randoms.

I’ve played at a table at Foxwoods where a guy announced that he was buying in with his bus money back to NY.

As he said that I looked down at 99 and raised pre and got one called (him). Flop comes down 239r. I bet, he jams.

Am I supposed to follow the golden rule and fold here so the guy can make it home? If so, why am I even bothering to play?

(I snapped, he has 22, as I left the casino a couple hours later he was indeed sleeping on a bench).

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

Was playing last night and had KQ SUITED BB
Asked to chop
Didn’t even think said sure
Guy tried to give me his blind when I said I had a hand
Said no need dude I’ll chop any time
Guarantee he will play friendly poker after that
Kindness pays off later on maybe if you’re in a bad spot and they check down for you
I’m not gonna be a asshat over a small blind FFS

 

[Machine]

As he said that I looked down at 99 and raised pre and got one called (him). Flop comes down 239r. I bet, he jams.

Am I supposed to follow the golden rule and fold here so the guy can make it home?

Different scenario, he / you didn't just offer a kindness that was expected to be a two way street, but I'll offer this;

He's the dick here, playing for sympathy of the table because of his what might be a disease, or inability to control his self. Perhaps the bar tender house should have cut him off.

Perhaps your offer of tough love worked out in the end, the swift kick of lady luck showing him the woes of a life without.

I've seen you play, and I think he has better odds than playing with the nit in the birdbox

 

[ekricket]

Of course....

This all about the occasional player that looks down at their hand the 1st time when asked if they will chop, they see and happily agree to chop. Sometime later in the same session the same situation comes up and upon looking at their cards they see and now they don't want to chop.

So I’m playing in a hand and raise the bet to me and the guy folds.
Next hand, same guy, I raise his bet and then he RERAISES me instead of folding!!!! He’s already set precedence for folding to my raise so now he’s a dick when he reraises?
WTF is going on here?

 

[ekricket]

If the property allows the chop, it’s not against the rules and hence not cheating.

I’ve played at properties where they don’t allow the chop.

Here’s a question - here in AZ, they take a dollar from the small blind before pre flop action. If you chop in the small blind, you lose a dollar. Is it worth not chopping from a long term equity perspective in this scenario?

Sounds like the OP plays in a place where chopping is mandatory.

Does this extend to chopping prize money in tournaments? If you chop once in a casino because you are the short stack is the expectation that you will always chop when asked no matter your stack size?

 

[upNdown]

Sounds like the OP plays in a place where chopping is mandatory.

Does this extend to chopping prize money in tournaments? If you chop once in a casino because you are the short stack is the expectation that you will always chop when asked no matter your stack size?

Yeah, I've actually seen that. In the NH cardrooms, where chopping tournament prizes is the norm, i've definitely seen that complain more than once - "That guy's a jerk - we gave him a chop last week when he was short, but last night when he was the big stack, he wouldn't chop."

 

[DrStrange]

Perhaps a little math is in order? So, 99% of the players chop 100% the time . . . . .

Let's say the OP is a full time pro. Really more than that, playing sixty hours a week. This works out to ~2,000 hands a week and 500 hands in one of the blinds.

But it shouldn't be common for a table to fold around to the blinds. At least it isn't common at the stakes I play. Perhaps our original poster plays way above my level and has other experiences with the game devolving into a ultra nitty fold fest? One time in ten seems pretty nitty to me - three times an hour. If I collected data, I expect this to happen less than a dozen times a session.

Start with the nitty game. Five hundred hands in the blinds a week. fifty chop opportunities a week. 99% on the time is a sure chop. But twice a month Hero runs into someone who selectively chops. Maybe Hero doesn't get his expected chop once a month.

Of course, hero might not play 60 hours a week. Or he might try to avoid nitty tables where so many hands are folded around. Maybe this doesn't happen even once a month.

The question I ponder is how someone who plays full time poker can get so bent about a rare event with trivial financial consequences. Paying half of one extra rake, once a month or less is a petty thing. That is why I wondered if the original poster was joking - the impact on the win rate is ~ less than 0.01bb per hour played.

Maybe this was a one time thing where the villain really got under hero's skin. Because the angst surely can't be grounded in reduction of win rates.

I have to think this reflects a leak in hero's game. Getting tilted over trivial rare events is a far bigger leak than less than one bb per month lost to non-compliant choppers -=- DrStrange

 

[Machine]

Perhaps a little math is in order? So, 99% of the players chop 100% the time . . . . .

Let's say the OP is a full time pro. Really more than that, playing sixty hours a week. This works out to ~2,000 hands a week and 500 hands in one of the blinds.

But it shouldn't be common for a table to fold around to the blinds. At least it isn't common at the stakes I play. Perhaps our original poster plays way above my level and has other experiences with the game devolving into a ultra nitty fold fest? One time in ten seems pretty nitty to me - three times an hour. If I collected data, I expect this to happen less than a dozen times a session.

Start with the nitty game. Five hundred hands in the blinds a week. fifty chop opportunities a week. 99% on the time is a sure chop. But twice a month Hero runs into someone who selectively chops. Maybe Hero doesn't get his expected chop once a month.

Of course, hero might not play 60 hours a week. Or he might try to avoid nitty tables where so many hands are folded around. Maybe this doesn't happen even once a month.

The question I ponder is how someone who plays full time poker can get so bent about a rare event with trivial financial consequences. Paying half of one extra rake, once a month or less is a petty thing. That is why I wondered if the original poster was joking - the impact on the win rate is ~ less than 0.01bb per hour played.

Maybe this was a one time thing where the villain really got under hero's skin. Because the angst surely can't be grounded in reduction of win rates.

I have to think this reflects a leak in hero's game. Getting tilted over trivial rare events is a far bigger leak than less than one bb per month lost to non-compliant choppers -=- DrStrange

This is great, and its one of the reasons I enjoy 'us' so much. Different perspectives! This moves the goal but is very valid, doesn't mean the guy isn't a dick though!

 

[bergs]

I’ll always chop blinds but I’ve never chopped a tournament. Totally different. I play the tournament to win, fuck chopping.

 

[raynmanas]

I’ll always chop blinds but I’ve never chopped a tournament. Totally different. I play the tournament to win, fuck chopping.

i've chopped tournaments just to stay under the IRS reporting limit.

 

[allforcharity]

I'm such a poker noob that I didn't even know this was a thing.

 

[JustinInMN]

If you are doing this to avoid the rake- Cheating the house out if their due is still cheating. Or angling if you prefer.

You and DNegs should get a room.

I’ve played at properties where they don’t allow the chop.

Right the house decides.

So the reasons to chop blinds are.
1) Speeds up the game/courtesy to rest of the table.
2) in a rake game, profit is significantly lower for the winner drawing from only one opponent and no dead money in the pot. Say drop is 10% up to $40 plus a $2 jackpot rake at $10. (Common at 1-2 or 1-3 NL, for example.). The winner of a $40 pot will net $14. The winner of a $20 pot will net $6. This isn't a hand where the dealer will see many tips either, he would probably just assume deal the next hand. Obviously, this effect is lessened when the stakes are higher relative to the drop.

So if you selectively chop, the advantage may not be what you think, and still violates the two main reasons to allow/engage in chopping.

A lot of people on here are arguing that chopping blinds is just another action as if it's an alternative to folding, calling or raising. But what it really is an activity to which one should not apply strategy. It's an optional courtesy and one should understand the reasons for it are not strategic and it isn't to be used as an avenue to gain advantage.

 

[ekricket]

You and DNegs should get a room.

Right the house decides.

So the reasons to chop blinds are.
1) Speeds up the game/courtesy to rest of the table.
2) in a rake game, profit is significantly lower for the winner drawing from only one opponent and no dead money in the pot. Say drop is 10% up to $40 plus a $2 jackpot rake at $10. (Common at 1-2 or 1-3 NL, for example.). The winner of a $40 pot will net $14. The winner of a $20 pot will net $6. This isn't a hand where the dealer will see many tips either, he would probably just assume deal the next hand. Obviously, this effect is lessened when the stakes are higher relative to the drop.

So if you selectively chop, the advantage may not be what you think, and still violates the two main reasons to allow/engage in chopping.

A lot of people on here are arguing that chopping blinds is just another action as if it's an alternative to folding, calling or raising. But what it really is an activity to which one should not apply strategy. It's an optional courtesy and one should understand the reasons for it are not strategic and it isn't to be used as an avenue to gain advantage.

If you really want to be considerate if you fold any time I bet it will speed up the game. Plus I’ll tip the dealer.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I'm not arguing Chopping is etiquette, my argument is once someone agrees to chop, that's what makes this argument a non sequitur, this premise isn't required to make the argument that Selectively Chopping in the BB is a dick move, once you've agreed to chop.

I'm not trying to be a prescriptivist, and again, I'm not trying to argue that Chopping is the etiquette, if I was the burden of proof would be a bit challenging as the goal would move to or even start from, setting a delineation of what is a valid opinion for chopping; I mean if someone is unaware, is their ignorance a valid point against it being etiquette, if they don't play often enough to know its a thing, I'd have a hard time including them as a valid datapoint here. Digressing as again not needed to sustain my assertion.



Its hard to read this as a 3rd person, I hope this isn't directed at me, but rather the rhetorical 'you', a euphemism.
I'm not the villain here, I'm only the villain when playing rags to catch AAs and hitting, most of the time I flop the nuts, and they don't hold up.

I would, I have explained the options in the past to others highlighting its not about a particular hand, and show quality hands I chop; and if they decline, I typically fold or raise.

Lets try this slightly different way, in a world of inequalities, without etiquettes where there are no expectations on anyone to have any humanistic concerns, where bully-ing runs ramped and people only care about money and winning a hand, and looking for any advantage:

Given only the option to chop or not to chop, no pretext given, a person that would chop with one hand, and not chop with another hand is a dick.


Bully-ing, you're suggesting someone that is un-concerned with a fair game, a balance, for personal gain at the behest of another human would be the 'bullied' in this scenario?

If I considered You a dick, privy to my foist judgement, would You lose sleep over it? You being labeled as a dick carries my distain and all the weight there of yes? what am I going to do, put you on the asshat list and not sell to you, pfft I'm not so frail. - You're going to keep the position, we can't agree the guy is a dick?

I don't btw, and I appreciate the discourse, you're getting style points for the location

Boiling this down further, expecting someone to chop when you (proverbial) have a shitty hand, and then letting you take advantage of them when you have a good hand is the quality of a poor human. Synonymous with being a dick.

I mean at this point if you can't agree, I think we are at an impasse

I'm talking about the general case of someone chopping sometimes but not always. I feel like most of your points lean on the more specific case of using it to gain an advantage.

The guy who chops this hand but not the next isn't always trying to pull one over on you. It's not inherently a dick move. There are a lot of circumstances where a person might do it for reasons that have nothing to do with taking advantage of anyone. Some of those reasons are essentially random, driven by the presence of a waitress, a need to go to the bathroom, or a feeling of being lucky (or not). Failing to chop permanently after you've chopped once doesn't mean you're necessarily doing anything wrong.

We could talk about the times when it is a dick move, but I feel those are fairly obvious. If you're using it as an opportunity to maximize EV, taking advantage of the offer in a way the other player didn't intend, then sure, I can agree that's rude and bad for the game.

But it's also pretty far removed from the original premise of the discussion.

I do maintain that it's bullying for Rhetorical You to use social pressure in this way. As we discussed earlier in the thread, the easy solution to all of this is to simply state Rhetorical Your expectations upfront instead of performing this awkward ritual that sure seems designed to trap the unwary into doing the thing Rhetorical You wants.

 

[JustinInMN]

I do maintain that it's bullying for Rhetorical You to use social pressure in this way.

And I maintain you are way out of line here. Chopping doesn't exist in the first place without what you call "social pressure."

A lot of important poker etiquette is also due to social pressure (one player per hand, and really pretty much any rule where the only consequence is removal from the game.). So while you are framing that phrase in a negative connotation, it really is neutral.

But there is nothing wrong with educating people on the reasons why selective chopping in frowned upon, and the OP has demonstrated some concern for being well received. If the "villain" ever does this against an opponent that cares less than the OP, then he will probably be in for a verbal lashing.