To chop or not to chop?

[Phatty_One]

[ QUOTE ]

Your proposal to only chop when both players have rags makes no sense, since any player asking for a chop would be revealing that they had rags. Now there opponent knows to bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarially agree with this. Player/read dependent, I might offer a chop to try to induce a raise and 3-bet with premium hands (in a world where the "optional chop" was not frowned upon).

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
I now understand that deciding to chop based on your cards is not considered good etiquette. Still, I'm not sure exactly why (other than minimizing rake for small pots) or if that kind of behavior from another player is a justified response to the situation.
If you were at a table paying time (no discernable rake), would the same situation hold true? How about in NL with the low blind structure and the possibility of taking an entire stack in any given hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never played in a time game, but I'd have to think the same etiquette holds true. It takes the fun out of the game for a lot of people if you're only going to chop when you have a bad hand, but play them when you have a big one.

[Phatty_One]

[ QUOTE ]
Its been said a lot, but while you're allowed to do this, its considered a major douche move. This is exactly why I never look at my cards until its my turn to act.

On a somewhat related note, why had nobody asked for a rake reduction playing 4-handed at 1 am? The manager would likely drop it to keep a game going if you just asked for something like $1 a hand or something......then you don't have to worry about pissing off locals with your selective chops.

[/ QUOTE ]

The game was played at 1/2 rake.

[SellingtheDrama]

You either chop or you don't.

Otherwise you're telling the table that you want a free pass on your bad hands (refund of blinds instead of folding) while getting to play your good hands.

I'll generally chop in a full game, and won't shorthanded (7 or so).

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
You either chop or you don't.

Otherwise you're telling the table that you want a free pass on your bad hands (refund of blinds instead of folding) while getting to play your good hands.

I'll generally chop in a full game, and won't shorthanded (7 or so).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the part I forgot. Chopping based on number of players, as long as you make it clear, is just fine. Chopping on quality of hands is lame, and you're going to kill the fun.

[uclaben]

As others have mentioned, you chop always or never. This eliminates the problem of the SB having to ask for a chop (potentially giving away information in the process). There's nothing wrong with not chopping, but be consistent.

I would describe this practice as something a little more than etiquette. While it's not technically against the rules, it's pretty well accepted everywhere I've ever played that this is a big no-no.

[TMTTR]

Common practice is either "always chop" or "never chop." It is also considered o.k. to say that you won't chop shorthanded (e.g., less than seven players) and then start chopping again when the table fills up.

There is no rule against chopping on a hand-by-hand basis (but you will certainly piss off many players).

Edit: I stand corrected re: rule against on-and-off chopping. I like the Wynn rule.

[*TT*]

note to all - aparently the Wynn policy is you cannot choose when you chop, once you make the choppng agreement with your neighbor you are bound to it. You can of course agree to chop and then remove the agreement when it gets short handed, but you cannot choose to chop based on a hand by hand basis in this card room. To my knowledge thats the only card room that has this policy, are there others?

[D104]

I haven't played live in a while - but I played in Casinos that have allowed chopping, and casinos that did not allow chopping. I was always under the impression that if the casino allowed chopping, you did so according to their terms - i.e. always or never. I thought it was not just etiquette based, but rule based as well. It seems by other responses that I am wrong - thoughts?

D

EDIT: I see TT's Wynn rule - that was always my understanding. I have seen dealers @ the Bellagio explain the same rule to players before - not official Bellagio policy?

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
note to all - aparently the Wynn policy is you cannot choose when you chop, once you make the choppng agreement with your neighbor you are bound to it. You can of course agree to chop and then remove the agreement when it gets short handed, but you cannot choose to chop based on a hand by hand basis in this card room. To my knowledge thats the only card room that has this policy, are there others?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first I've heard of this (not that I spend a ton of time at the Wynn or any other card room). Seems like the kind of thing the casino wouldn't want to get into; just like allowing time pots but refusing to admin them.

In fact, I thought that most rooms had a always-ignored "no chopping" rule.

Needless to say, this news surprises me.

-McGee