More than 1st chop
 

For some reason I feel this is unethical to do. However there is a P5s thread about my chop last night in the 55k where I pretty much got first place money when I had a monster chip lead 3 handed. It was brought up that I probably could have chopped it for more than first if I had really pushed for it.

Just wondering what other's feelings were on the subject.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

My view is that negotiating the chop is part of the skillset of a tournament player. If you are better at it than the others, that's their problem.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
My view is that negotiating the chop is part of the skillset of a tournament player. If you are better at it than the others, that's their problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, mikeymer had a nice chop yesterday in the 7:00 109.

Stack sizes were like 230k, 90k(him) 60k, 50k, payouts were something like 7900, 5000, 3300,2300, they chopped it up
5k,5k,4200,3600 and left 1k to play for. He got as much money as the guy with 2.5x his chips, nh sir.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
My view is that negotiating the chop is part of the skill set of a tournament player. If you are better at it than the others, that's their problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with people negotiating a better deal than a chip chop would give them or an ICM or whatever 'fair' method you're using to determine the deal. For whatever reason I don't feel chopping for more than first is right. I'm just wondering if I'm crazy for feeling this way or what the general conscience is.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

Also, after a tournament is chopped, it seems that the old payout structures are more or less arbitrary numbers. Whether you are making $1 more than first or $1 less than first would normally pay, I see little difference more than $2. If you do feel this is immoral, I think there should be other chopping related things that should cause you to feel immoral(ie. getting more money than a player with more chips, getting more than the average of 1st and 2nd place money when you have less than 1/2 the chips).

Re: More than 1st chop
 

I was thinking about this yesterday too. If the site has a requirement that $X is left on the table, then I have no ethical problem with it.

For example, you're 5 handed on stars in the Sunday million with 50,000,000 chips. The other four people have 2,500,000 each. Winner gets 200k, 2nd gets 100k, etc.

They all want to chop, as they all figure it's a crap shoot with 2.5M chips each. You know that you're gonna win.

Stars insists on leaving 30k on the table. I would have no problem asking for 180K to chop, which means that if you win 1st you may end up with 210 - more than 1st place money. That's the price you're willing to take to risk that 20k.

For the rest of them, they are equally likely to end up with 25k as with 100k if they don't chop, and have as good a chance for the extra 30 as the rest of the gang.

Long story short: if the others agree - which is the only way to get a chop - there is no ethical problem with ANY deal you make.

Perhaps one day I'll be able to test my theory...

OT

Re: More than 1st chop
 

very OK, if yer opponents are dumb enuf to give u >1st $, then take it!

and then post in bbv ftw

Re: More than 1st chop
 

Nothing wrong with chopping for more than 1st if the situation allows it. Usually a huge chip lead is about the only factor that will get your opponents to agree. And your opponents need to care about the money more than you do.

The last two deals I made have been three-way chops. I think I owned both of them. Both I had a nice chip lead and good aggressive table image. Basically, the other two guys knew I was going to win if we played it out. I was in their heads.

3 way chop in a $30 MTT.

QMCCTrips: 94912
Zorro_AA: 66532
pokerstudAA: 618556

1st - $2016
2nd - $1271
3rd - $702

Hero took $2100. 2nd in chips got $1000 and 3rd $889.

------------------------------------------------
3 way at the end of a $50 / 240 person tourney.
Chips counts are:

Hero: 396048
Player A: 146768
Player B: 177184

Prizes:
1st - $3,240
2nd - $1,956
3rd - $1,080

Hero made a deal for $3,100 and the other two each got $1,588.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

I think if you can get away with it, then it should be allowed. I think this can definitely work in a satellite situation. I have my doubts as to whether you would have managed it in the $55k earlier.

Let's say the 3 of you were playing a WSOP satellite with the same stack sizes as earlier - the prizes are 2 "seat-only" packages, but you are allowed to chop them for cash or T$/W$/whatever. Nothing for 3rd. Depending on who you're playing against, you could negotiate $11k or even more in this situation. $4.5k doesn't sound bad to most people when one hand could see them get nothing.

I don't think it's unethical, no. You are not forcing them to give up equity. They can play on if they want a fair deal.

Btw, I was the PS support guy who did your chop earlier Badger. Great deal and great win - congrats!

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
very OK, if yer opponents are dumb enuf to give u >1st $, then take it!

and then post in bbv ftw

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, if the other players are dumb enough to accept such a deal then that's their problem.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have my doubts as to whether you would have managed it in the $55k earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm not sure if I could have but I think if I would have said you both get 6.1k (they both got about 6.25k i think) and I take the rest they may have agreed but it's just not something I would do (which is the reason I made this post I'm not sure where it comes from). They both agreed to the deal with me getting 14k really quick and didn't even attempt to get more. Also, both of their stats (from the DB) had them both as small stakes players so I'm assuming the money was much more important to them.

[ QUOTE ]

Btw, I was the PS support guy who did your chop earlier Badger. Great deal and great win - congrats!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! Like it's been stated many times PStars support is by far the best out there. Keep up the great work.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

Is it not ironic that you find it unethical to take more than first place in a chop yet you play poker against players who are clearly less skilled than you?

I'm sure you could point out differences. What are they?

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it not ironic that you find it unethical to take more than first place in a chop yet you play poker against players who are clearly less skilled than you?

I'm sure you could point out differences. What are they?

[/ QUOTE ]
They just LOOK less skilled than me due to variance.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it not ironic that you find it unethical to take more than first place in a chop yet you play poker against players who are clearly less skilled than you?

I'm sure you could point out differences. What are they?

[/ QUOTE ]
They just LOOK less skilled than me due to variance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure how this answers the question. Are you suggseting that every player in the entire tournament was equally skilled? Somehow I doubt that.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

I feel the same way Badger, although I pretty much don't like deals period.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do feel this is immoral, I think there should be other chopping related things that should cause you to feel immoral(ie. getting more money than a player with more chips, getting more than the average of 1st and 2nd place money when you have less than 1/2 the chips).

[/ QUOTE ]

These are pretty clearly different as what constitutes a fair deal depends on player skill, etc. But no matter how good you are, you can never have an expectation higher than first place (obviously). The only three constraints to a deal that I see are: No one gets less than they are already guaranteed, no one gets more than 1st place, the total amount paid out is the same as if there was no deal.

Clearly there are some pretty good arguments that getting more than first is fine, but I still feel like it's wrong in some way.

Steve

Re: More than 1st chop
 

The whole idea makes me uncomfortable because it reminds me who I'm playing against.

That said, I grind out hours a day to take these people's money, so I'll take the best deal I can get if the money's at all significant to me.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

True ballers only chop for more than first.
[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Nothing unethical about it, your opponents ability to lower variance is just as important a factor in chops as skill level and chipstack value as that is why people make chops (they are uncomfortable playing for that amount of money, in a high variance shorthanded situation, or they just want to lower there variance.)

That being said,
HYACHACHACHACACAACHACCAACAA

Re: More than 1st chop
 

I feel iffy about it too, however, it isnt as if you are raping them blind here, in your scenario last night even if you pushed for more then first the other guys may still get a good deal for them as it gives them more then 3rd place money (the jump might be really important to them) and allows them to make more money safely. I don't think I would ever offer it unless it was in jest though and I didnt really want to chop.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

You guys who say its unethical are all clowns.
Hypothetical scenario.

4 handed.
Hero. 2mill
Villian1 200k
2 300k
3 500k

blinds 25k-50k

Payouts We'll call it a 4000 FPP sattelite to two WSOP ME packages. so 24k purse.

Villain 2 is in debt and is a busto degen playing FPPs and if he doesn't come up with 2k $ soon, he'll probably get his legs broken.

Villain 1 is 18 years old, and has no use for the seat for 3 years, and is also busto playing FPPs.

Villain 3 Is a live pro who really wants to go to the WSOP, but has to sattelite in.


This is a clear scenario where your opponents reducing variance can be quantified as a VERY high number. I believe at my FT where I chopped for more than first, one of my opponents, a 2+2er, had student loans to pay off. ESPECIALLY in the million, where you have to play for 30k more....and a lot of your 'bubble' edge shorthanded comes away when it gets moved to a winner take all format (people lose their fear) you are ridiculous if you don't suck every penny out of the clowns.

Not unethical guys, its part of poker. Sure my WSOP satty exapmle is extreme, and unlikely, but REDUCING VARIANCE is JUST AS IMPORTANT A VARIABLE AS YOUR ACTUAL EQUITY IN THE TOURNAMENT.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

I see no ethical dilemma here.

There's no deception involved, any 'taking advantage' type arguments don't work because then the ethical breach is in no way a consequence of the amount being more than the first place prize, it's totally irrelevant.

In fact I can't imagine a good argument for saying that there is a problem here at all.

Seriously, 30% of you guys need to step forward here cause I'm totally confused.

Also, p5s sucks.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

I think whether you see an ethical dilemma is based entirely on whether you see dealmaking as an intrinsic part of poker. I don't. Essentially what's happening is we're creating a new game when we get down to a small number of players. The new game, while it has some similarities to poker, has a very different skill set and players not comfortable with dealmaking will end up making huge errors. Now these same players will make huge errors playing poker as well, but I have no problem with that as they've signed up to play a poker tournament.

So basically I'd rather there were no deals. But with the payout structure of tournaments, this probably isn't realistic. Still, I'd rather see a standard deal structure that's used solely as a way of minimizing variance, not the current structure that rewards skill in a game that has little to nothing to do with poker.

Steve

Re: More than 1st chop
 

I got raped in a chop in the 109r back when I was first getting into high stakes mtts where me and woltas were super short compared to redsoxsox in a 109r. He wanted to take more than first place, obviously we werent that stupid to give it to him, but stars support said it wasn't allowed anyway.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
I feel the same way Badger, although I pretty much don't like deals period.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do feel this is immoral, I think there should be other chopping related things that should cause you to feel immoral(ie. getting more money than a player with more chips, getting more than the average of 1st and 2nd place money when you have less than 1/2 the chips).

[/ QUOTE ]

These are pretty clearly different as what constitutes a fair deal depends on player skill, etc. But no matter how good you are, you can never have an expectation higher than first place (obviously). The only three constraints to a deal that I see are: No one gets less than they are already guaranteed, no one gets more than 1st place, the total amount paid out is the same as if there was no deal.

Clearly there are some pretty good arguments that getting more than first is fine, but I still feel like it's wrong in some way.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this sums up my feelings pretty well. Nicely put Steve.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
I feel iffy about it too, however, it isnt as if you are raping them blind here, in your scenario last night even if you pushed for more then first the other guys may still get a good deal for them as it gives them more then 3rd place money (the jump might be really important to them) and allows them to make more money safely. I don't think I would ever offer it unless it was in jest though and I didnt really want to chop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know they are still getting a good deal for them and they may even be happy to take it... I just don't feel right pushing for it.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
You guys who say its unethical are all clowns.
Hypothetical scenario.

4 handed.
Hero. 2mill
Villian1 200k
2 300k
3 500k

blinds 25k-50k

Payouts We'll call it a 4000 FPP sattelite to two WSOP ME packages. so 24k purse.

Villain 2 is in debt and is a busto degen playing FPPs and if he doesn't come up with 2k $ soon, he'll probably get his legs broken.

Villain 1 is 18 years old, and has no use for the seat for 3 years, and is also busto playing FPPs.

Villain 3 Is a live pro who really wants to go to the WSOP, but has to sattelite in.


This is a clear scenario where your opponents reducing variance can be quantified as a VERY high number. I believe at my FT where I chopped for more than first, one of my opponents, a 2+2er, had student loans to pay off. ESPECIALLY in the million, where you have to play for 30k more....and a lot of your 'bubble' edge shorthanded comes away when it gets moved to a winner take all format (people lose their fear) you are ridiculous if you don't suck every penny out of the clowns.

Not unethical guys, its part of poker. Sure my WSOP satty exapmle is extreme, and unlikely, but REDUCING VARIANCE is JUST AS IMPORTANT A VARIABLE AS YOUR ACTUAL EQUITY IN THE TOURNAMENT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how the hypothetical works. I don't see anybody getting more than first place which is a package. If the other guys are happy to take 1 or 2k to give up the package and they are alright with that I see nothing wrong.

Also, If you are chopping but leaving money to play for I can see how asking for more would be alright as you aren't guaranteed to win the extra 30k or whatever is left. You definitely lose some of your edge that can come from beating on two shorter stacks who have to worry about moving up a pay slot.

So I guess I really only have a problem with when you chop the whole prize pool and you get more than first. Call me unballer or whatever.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think whether you see an ethical dilemma is based entirely on whether you see dealmaking as an intrinsic part of poker. I don't. Essentially what's happening is we're creating a new game when we get down to a small number of players. The new game, while it has some similarities to poker, has a very different skill set and players not comfortable with dealmaking will end up making huge errors. Now these same players will make huge errors playing poker as well, but I have no problem with that as they've signed up to play a poker tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this argument fall apart when you concede that the players choose to make a deal or indeed even enter into negotiations in the first place?

Also, you aren't saying anything about why there's something wrong with the amount being > than 1st prize only that you think the whole concept of deal making is in some ways adverse to the nature of the game (which I agree with btw) but that does mean it's in any way an 'ethical dilemma' and, again, certainly doesn't say anything about the chop amounts in relation to the payouts.

Finally, if Stars prohibits these types of deals I think that's wrong on their part. The money in the remaining prize pool belongs to the remaining players, they can do what they please with it, if they ask for money from the vig Stars can come in and shut them down, otherwise it's at the discretion of the players when they agree unanimously.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

This is just like when stealth won the $500.

If your moron opponents are morons, then they will get a deal worthy of a moron.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is just like when stealth won the $500.

If your moron opponents are morons, then they will get a deal worthy of a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you miss stealth's post?

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think whether you see an ethical dilemma is based entirely on whether you see dealmaking as an intrinsic part of poker. I don't. Essentially what's happening is we're creating a new game when we get down to a small number of players. The new game, while it has some similarities to poker, has a very different skill set and players not comfortable with dealmaking will end up making huge errors. Now these same players will make huge errors playing poker as well, but I have no problem with that as they've signed up to play a poker tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this argument fall apart when you concede that the players choose to make a deal or indeed even enter into negotiations in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Basically I think a lot of people feel pressured into making terrible deals because they know little to nothing about what constitutes a fair deal. Taking advantage of these people in a game they didn't sign up to play is, to me, unethical. A deal in which you get more than first is a pretty clear example of a spot where you take advantage of people who have no concept of EV. (There are some people to whom variance is a huge concern and in those cases I think there may be some exceptions)

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you aren't saying anything about why there's something wrong with the amount being > than 1st prize only that you think the whole concept of deal making is in some ways adverse to the nature of the game (which I agree with btw) but that does mean it's in any way an 'ethical dilemma' and, again, certainly doesn't say anything about the chop amounts in relation to the payouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

see above

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, if Stars prohibits these types of deals I think that's wrong on their part. The money in the remaining prize pool belongs to the remaining players, they can do what they please with it, if they ask for money from the vig Stars can come in and shut them down, otherwise it's at the discretion of the players when they agree unanimously.

[/ QUOTE ]

See this is where I struggle with what I think of deals because it's pretty hard to disagree with this.

edited for wording

Steve

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think whether you see an ethical dilemma is based entirely on whether you see dealmaking as an intrinsic part of poker. I don't. Essentially what's happening is we're creating a new game when we get down to a small number of players. The new game, while it has some similarities to poker, has a very different skill set and players not comfortable with dealmaking will end up making huge errors. Now these same players will make huge errors playing poker as well, but I have no problem with that as they've signed up to play a poker tournament.

So basically I'd rather there were no deals. But with the payout structure of tournaments, this probably isn't realistic. Still, I'd rather see a standard deal structure that's used solely as a way of minimizing variance, not the current structure that rewards skill in a game that has little to nothing to do with poker.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve,
Players can obviously choose not to make a deal if they don't think they're good at dealing. They agree to make the deal just like they agree to play the tournament.

One thing that does bug me about all of this is that Stars doesn't bother to make an ICM spreadsheet instead of the stupid chip chop spreadsheet they currently use. It seems pretty unethical to me that Stars support basically presents this as the correct deal, when it can often be really far off.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
Taking advantage of these people in a game they didn't sign up to play is, to me, unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, however it's my argument that they sign up to play as soon as they decide to start talking chop and again this is an argument for chopping being problematic not chopping being problematic when the CL gets > than 1st.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taking advantage of these people in a game they didn't sign up to play is, to me, unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, however it's my argument that they sign up to play as soon as they decide to start talking chop

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I somewhat disagree because at this point in the tournament players are under a lot of pressure and often in a once in a lifetime situation. I think introducing the new game at this point is unfair to inexperienced players.

[ QUOTE ]
and again this is an argument for chopping being problematic not chopping being problematic when the CL gets > than 1st.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. But CL getting > 1st is a clear example where the CL is taking advantage in this new game. Things like chip-chops hu between two approximately equal players, which are strictly to reduce variance, I have less of a problem with.

Steve

Re: More than 1st chop
 

I'm a bit surprised by this thread. In the murk that is the ethics of online poker, this seems pretty straightforward. If dealmaking is allowed, then we are entitled to seek out the best deal we can. Everyone else is entitled to say 'no' at any stage, in the same way that, when down to three at final table and you have a 10:4:1 chip lead, the guy in second is entitled to play back at you. He often won't, and in some ways we demean ourselves by hissing 'suck it bitch' at the screen as he gives up his tenth BB in a row, but we're allowed to do it and we're also allowed to make the profitable deal we can.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

This is a shameless brag post. But I'm going to live vicariously through my past since we all know that money is long goooooooooone. (I'm sure some of you nitty ethical idiots think its kharma too loflcopta)
The Worst Deal In The History Of Online Poker

Re: More than 1st chop
 

I don't see how it can be construed as unethical at all. Is not telling people that, over the long run, it's better to go for broke on the money bubble to accumulate chips and win the tournament, unethical? They use the reason 'oh, I need the 15k to pay my bills.' The chip equity when we make deals at the final table doesn't determine anything other than what we would expect the final placement to be and what percentage we have of winning the tournament if everyone is equal. If first is a million, second is 500k and 3rd is 300k and one of them DESPERATELY needs 400k or else their life will implode, we're doing them a favor by letting them have 2nd place money or 400k or whatever. Would that be unethical?

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
I somewhat disagree because at this point in the tournament players are under a lot of pressure and often in a once in a lifetime situation. I think introducing the new game at this point is unfair to inexperienced players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Playing for that much money at final table is a new game for inexperienced players.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

i think it depends how you go about it.

if the people at the table want to deal, you have a massive chip lead, and have no incentive to deal, just be straightforward with them. Say that you're very confident you'd win, and that they'd have to give you more than first. If they're still up for it, theres nothing wrong. Doing it the way you said ("You each get 61k i get the rest") is like angle-shooting in a dealtalk so thats pretty shady.

It's all about making yourself clear/not using deception.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
If your moron opponents are morons, then they will get a deal worthy of a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Count me in this camp.

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I somewhat disagree because at this point in the tournament players are under a lot of pressure and often in a once in a lifetime situation. I think introducing the new game at this point is unfair to inexperienced players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Playing for that much money at final table is a new game for inexperienced players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really...?

Re: More than 1st chop
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think it depends how you go about it.

if the people at the table want to deal, you have a massive chip lead, and have no incentive to deal, just be straightforward with them. Say that you're very confident you'd win, and that they'd have to give you more than first. If they're still up for it, theres nothing wrong. Doing it the way you said ("You each get 61k i get the rest") is like angle-shooting in a dealtalk so thats pretty shady.

It's all about making yourself clear/not using deception.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this a lot more. Maybe it's just the way I've seen people go about making deals that I don't like. This seems better to me somehow.