Chop-chop?

[Georgia Avenue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still: this is why I never chop--makes you look like a looseygoose donkey...Of course, I play NL...I would always chop in CA LHE. Also: I +am+ a donkey.
--GA

[/ QUOTE ]

If everybody else is chopping, it more likely makes you look like a jerk. I would play harder against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really rethink this attitude. One of the many benefits of not chopping in NL (and being LAG in general) is that relatively good players will try to play "hard" against you, which usually means making marginal, exploitable plays. You really shouldn't let emotions dicate your strategy in a poker game, mon frere. If you think someone's being a jerk, say so. Then play correctly.

--GA

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still: this is why I never chop--makes you look like a looseygoose donkey...Of course, I play NL...I would always chop in CA LHE. Also: I +am+ a donkey.
--GA

[/ QUOTE ]

If everybody else is chopping, it more likely makes you look like a jerk. I would play harder against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really rethink this attitude. One of the many benefits of not chopping in NL (and being LAG in general) is that relatively good players will try to play "hard" against you, which usually means making marginal, exploitable plays. You really shouldn't let emotions dicate your strategy in a poker game, mon frere. If you think someone's being a jerk, say so. Then play correctly.

--GA

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that you shouldn't let emotions dicate your play in a poker game. Most times I've gotten angry and frustrated at a specific player I've ended up playing suboptimally.

But still, I think that in NL if a fairly straightforward opponent gets more intense because of perceived slights and starts check raising you on ragged flops heads up as a bluff then that will make the game less profitable for you overall. I'm not sure if those are the sort of marginal plays that you're referring to. I mean if a guy is going to start pushing all in with huge overbets every time you guys are in a pot together than that's a different story and that could be exploited (although it would still be frustrating to play against).

[ACGrinder]

I think it is more profitable for better players to not chop, with exception to rake games, because the rake makes it not worthwhile to play heads up. However, in timed games where pot size is not an issue, I think better players should never chop, because a better player will be able to outplay the players to their left/right, respectively.

Assuming the following situation has everyone folding around to the blinds, if you know the player to you right is a very tight player, and he raises your BB, you can be very cautious calling his raise preflop. Better players will also have better reads on their opponents, thus extracting more bets from their opponents post-flop.

[JJH3984]

If I'm playing in a B+M game where I am chopping often, I'm looking for a new game.

[octop]

I never understood how chopping or straddling were legal.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
Many players, rightly or wrongly, consider it a form of courtesy to chop. They came to play multi-way pots with oddles of chips in them, not fight for the antes. Note how, whevever there's an empty seat, they're yelling at the floorman to bring over a player. Plus, with many of the B&M cardrooms now taking the collection from the pot instead of doing time collections, they "save" money by chopping instead of playing.

Best thing to do if you're a chopper is, when you sit down, to ask your neighbors if they chop. And if you're not a chopper, announce to both when you sit down that you don't chop. No surprises, then, for anybody, and no bad feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this is accurate. I'm a new non-chopper, though, and I've found that in some settings, it's better to wait until the situation comes up. This is when:

-It's unlikely to have a chopping situation
-Players are likely to interpret my unprovoked declaration that I don't chop as aggressive or irrelevant
-Both my neighbors seem alert and not hard of hearing

The last is so that I'll be able to communicate what's going on before there's any sort of confusion or I do anything that could be interpreted as angle-shooting.

One interesting thing is that for a while I had a policy of chopping in deuce-to-seven triple draw* only, if it was OK with my neighbors. I always discussed this at the beginning of a session. Eventually I figured out that if I was going to chop in anything, it would be undiplomatic to chop in anything else. Misunderstandings happen. So then I stopped chopping in rotation; then in every game that seemed to share any significant part of a player pool with the rotation; and then in every game, period, including high-rake low-limit LHE. It's the price I pay.

--Nate

*It seems to me that any chopping policy that is independent of your cards or position is fair. I would see nothing wrong with someone having a consistent policy of chopping only on odd-numbered days, or only at the Rio, or only when they're not stuck at at least 10 big bets. Some people found it improper for me to play out the deuce hands but chop everything else, even if I said so clearly without knowledge of the specific game situations where I would(n't) be chopping. So I stopped.

[Coffee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your attitude, but if the guy doesn't chop, and it's known by many in the game he doesn't chop, the only thing I can see that he did wrong was to not answer when you asked him if he chops.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding me. A lot of people in this thread are. I have no problem with people who have anti-chopping policies. As you can see, I'm glad he doesn't chop because I outplayed him post-flop. I don't think SB did anything wrong (except misplay his hand).

I just thought it was a funny story to share, mostly because of the Button's snarky comment at the end, basically saying "Don't you wish you had chopped before you put in $75 only to check-fold the river?"

[/ QUOTE ]

My first response was laughter, if it makes you feel any better, PJ. But...since everyone is weighing in on the subject in general, I think there is a psychological merit to chopping because most recreational players(i.e. fish) will perceive you as being a nit/jerk/tightass if you don't chop. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I personally would much rather people not be on edge when playing against me.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never understood why chopping was even legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people would chop anyways. They'd let the hand play out, then the winner gives the other guy his money back under the table if need be.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were banned now, this would probably happen some, but I'm not sure it would happen if chopping had never been legal.

Chopping has always been illegal online, and I don't see people checking it down in online blind fights. If anything, the opposite happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chopping isn't 'illegal' online. It's just not offered as an option.

There used to be live rooms where they had a 'no chop' rule. What would result is what I described.

You can still choose not to chop live. It's no biggie. No one is forcing anyone to chop.


b

[/ QUOTE ]

what?? why? the purpose of chopping is to cut down on house rake. so why would they play the hand out, then give money back under the table? the house still gets paid.

[cpk]

Tulalip has a weird rule in that chopping is not allowed when there is a rake reduction in effect. It was explained to me that people were jackpot-seeking for "free". I thought the explanation was kind of dumb myself--though personally I prefer not chopping at 6-handed or less because it helps stimulate action to play every hand, and the reduced rake offsets the cost of playing.