Should a host intervene in a chop going off the rails? (5 Viewers)

[MrCatPants]

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?

 

[GamingWithChips]

If I was the host I would intervene if there is any argument or fuss, not the environment I want at my game. I'd say all 3 must be in agreement without any hesitations, if there's a hint of hesitation or trepidation I'd tell them to play on.

If I was the small stack and someone was trying to pull that on me I would be too petty and force the game to play on as long as I could stretch it (win or lose) lol

 

[ekricket]

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?

As a host in a multitable structure I would step in with this

Chop discussion only allowed as a player goes out. Play is suspended until the remaining players vote to chop or not (however you want to do this), if no agreement then play continues until someone else is knocked out.

Because in a MTT the backgrounds and skill levels and familiarity with obscure practices can lead to a bunch of crap with that many people.

In a single table of longtime poker buddies then whatever has been commonly agreed upon in the past.

 

[doublebooyah85]

Kind off topic

I encourage for short handed heads up tourney play I tell my guests. Keep the chop talk minimal and quick. ICM is most fair. But we all came to play a tournament and we all come to win it so let’s have the final 3 enjoy it…something like that. It helps encourage the people who want to keep playing and not chop a little more confidence. I feel like far too often people get pressured to chop.

 

[T_Chan]

Ultimately it's up to the players to decide their chop, however as a host I feel it's their duty to calm down the situation if players are starting to stand up and things are getting heated.

For a chop, everyone has to agree and if the small stack (or anyone) doesn't agree, the chop is a no go and it's back to play. I don't see any reason why 3rd place would take that chop offer, he might as well keep playing if he's going to get the same money anyways but still have a chance and getting more.

If the players just talked and disagreed about the chop, I'd let the figure it out. But as soon as tempers start to flare, the host should step in IMO.

 

[MrCatPants]

Kind off topic

I encourage for short handed heads up tourney play I tell my guests. Keep the chop talk minimal and quick. ICM is most fair. But we all came to play a tournament and we all come to win it so let’s have the final 3 enjoy it…something like that. It helps encourage the people who want to keep playing and not chop a little more confidence. I feel like far too often people get pressured to chop.

In my game we allow money chops, but have a "points" system for the championship and points aren't choppable so do always play through with at least something on the line.

 

[doublebooyah85]

In my game we allow money chops, but have a "points" system for the championship and points aren't choppable so do always play through with at least something on the line.

Nice compromise for your set up

 

[Machine]

I don’t play a lot of tournaments but when I have an all cases I’ve seen, no one moves until the chop is clearly defined and all players verbally agree to it.

If it was the case and it starts to get unruly, the host should shut down the conversation and immediately go back to play.

 

[Deucekies]

Chop discussion only allowed as a player goes out. Play is suspended until the remaining players vote to chop or not (however you want to do this), if no agreement then play continues until someone else is knocked out.

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.

 

[MrCatPants]

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.

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

 

[elPadroni]

I wouldn't intervene at the deal making itself. But I definitely would step in if voices are being raised and things seem to be escalating.

 

[shorticus]

Because the threat of violence is becoming more prevalent, ad a host you have to intervene.

 

[djmarc]

I don't like chops, would never chop and would not allow if I hosted a tournament so there would never be a need to intervene.

Play to win and play to the end.

 

[Highli99]

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.

 

[T_Chan]

Same here, I prefer not to chop but if I do, it's as a courtesy to the host. Host is knocked out, it's an hour past our planned game end time and we're still playing 3 handed or heads up and everyone's sleepy. Chop it up.

 

[Rieguy]

The question being asked wasn't whether or not people approve of chops. This is a Tournament League where they are regularly allowed, and it is still being played out for points.

Not fair that I may or may not have insider knowledge but I believe host should intervene if they are made aware there is a "real situation". The people/person involved may need some sort of assistance if they are conflict-adverse. For example, what if top two in chips are both generally aggressive/boisterous people? What if the third place person is a total pussy and won't stand up for themselves (completely hypothetical - definitely not referring to someone whose name stars with a "B" and ends with a "randon")?

 

[matteblack]

To answer the question, yes. I believe a host should step in. But every host can run their game the way they want, just like every player can play their cards however they want. If I was at that game, I would probably not return.

 

[BamaT8ter]

Because the threat of violence is becoming more prevalent, ad a host you have to intervene.

I’m about to threaten you with violence.

 

[MrCatPants]

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.

You've met two of the three. "A" was the other big stack that took offense to the proposed chop on behalf of "B" the smaller third stack.

 

[MrCatPants]

I’m about to threaten you with violence.

reported.

 

[Rieguy]

"A" was the other big stack that took offense to the proposed chop on behalf of "B" the smaller third stack.

"C"

 

[Highli99]

The question being asked wasn't whether or not people approve of chops. This is a Tournament League where they are regularly allowed, and it is still being played out for points.

Not fair that I may or may not have insider knowledge but I believe host should intervene if they are made aware there is a "real situation". The people/person involved may need some sort of assistance if they are conflict-adverse. For example, what if top two in chips are both generally aggressive/boisterous people? What if the third place person is a total pussy and won't stand up for themselves (completely hypothetical - definitely not referring to someone whose name stars with a "B" and ends with a "randon")?

there’s no OPTAH rule for deals. If I am part of a deal and think someone is getting screwed, I’ll just say, “you’re getting screwed in this, I can’t make you get out of the cuck chair but I just want you to know that’s the chair you’re in”. Some people can’t handle conflict, and it’s rare that those people go deep in poker tournaments.

 

[Rieguy]

Some people can’t handle conflict, and it’s rare that those people go deep in poker tournaments.

Player "B" current leads the league in tournament points.


But actual point taken

 

[OldPokerGuy]

Agreed that host should intervene and keep the peace at 1st sign of things getting out of hand.

 

[bergs]

As host I would mention that ICM is the fairest way to chop if all agree and please don’t pressure any other player into a chop. Each player has an independent veto that needs to be respected.

As an attendee I might mention something like “I’ve seen other people do ICM here on occasion if you guys were interested, happy to help with the math if so but it’s your calll.

As the third place player I would realize the top two stacks are about to come at me and would ask them both as playfully as possible what their favorite condiment was because I could put it on the giant bag of dicks I’m going to ask them to eat.

 

[bergs]

This situation is one of the many reasons why I always just shake my head and say “no chops, never surrender”.

 

[Highli99]

In addition to not agreeing to chops, I will not pay the bubble. “There must be blood!”

 

[MrCatPants]

there’s no OPTAH rule for deals. If I am part of a deal and think someone is getting screwed, I’ll just say, “you’re getting screwed in this, I can’t make you get out of the cuck chair but I just want you to know that’s the chair you’re in”. Some people can’t handle conflict, and it’s rare that those people go deep in poker tournaments.

**frantically works on cuck chair AI song**

 

[BarrieJ3]

More info needed. But I think someone should step in.

I have limited experience, but almost 100% of home games absolutely scream the need for: someone not host needing to be “the house”. This has been true for every single game I’ve ever played, and most of those are with people who have been attending or running games for decades.

Sure there will be an exception or two, but I believe this should absolutely be the norm for reg games. Should be as standard as using a cut card.

 

[Highli99]

The wsop doesn’t facilitate chops. Thats part of what makes it great. A house could adopt similar rules, or say they only facilitate ICM chops to ensure fairness. Anything players do after payouts is up to them.