My Theory on Stars Chops

[dcviperboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority of people that make the final table are in no situation to turn down a chop when that much money is at stake. Some of the pros here may not need that kinda of money but someone like me would die if I lost 90k because I had too much pride.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you satted into the Million or another big MTT, this an absurd comment and a leak in mentality :P.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. There's no reason to automatically assume you have an edge in the Final table of an event where you can chop for 90k. Plus, even if you're properly bankrolled for the buy in, that doesn't mean that you're properly bankrolled to turn down a chop.

My personal chop theory is to always accept a chip count chop when I have the chip lead. I'm also more willing to chop turbos and double shootout tourneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain the turbo/DS chops? never heard of this

thx

[MJBuddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority of people that make the final table are in no situation to turn down a chop when that much money is at stake. Some of the pros here may not need that kinda of money but someone like me would die if I lost 90k because I had too much pride.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you satted into the Million or another big MTT, this an absurd comment and a leak in mentality :P.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also the Sunday 100k (now 200k) bc anyone playing a 10 dollar entry fee (OK OK OK, EXCEPT for shaun [censored] deeb) thinks that the 8, 10, 16, 20k payouts are alot and are willing to chop. Yes, play is absurd, but do you want to risk yourself at 60% to 40% to play for 4k+ when thats more than double/triple your current roll?

maybe I'm a nit [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Me and mflip discussed the final table of the sunday 200k specifically last night regarding chops.

[21:32] Wilson: i dunno i kinda like it that the FT is so deep
[21:32] MJ: Why? It's full of luckboxes who minbet flops
[21:32] MJ: It's boring and gets nitted to hell as a result
[21:33] Wilson: because it's so crapshooty in the middle that the best player at the FT will have a big edge
[21:33] Wilson: could u imagine someone like deeb FT'ing this...he'd rape everyone there
[21:33] MJ: True
[21:33] MJ: I guess PERSONALLY I'd love some play here


We discussed chopping HU, but when we noticed 5k must be left on the table, it became relatively inconsequential if you have an edge over your opponent.

I'd be willing to chop a turbo or any situation where I know my play will be more based on luck than my ability to outplay opponents (SS chop, generally would benefit me greatly).

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
My theory: Don't chop + run good

[/ QUOTE ]

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
We discussed chopping HU, but when we noticed 5k must be left on the table

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was a little ridiculous that 5k had to be left considering first is only 20k. In the million you have to leave 30k but first is usually at least 200k.

I think forcing 2-3k to be left on the table is a little more reasonable.

[Ontario_Tory]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We discussed chopping HU, but when we noticed 5k must be left on the table

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was a little ridiculous that 5k had to be left considering first is only 20k. In the million you have to leave 30k but first is usually at least 200k.

I think forcing 2-3k to be left on the table is a little more reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't really matter - when the host gave the chip chop numbers, he didn't take out the 5k. This was one of the examples of stars support getting sloppy.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My personal chop theory is to always accept a chip count chop when I have the chip lead. I'm also more willing to chop turbos and double shootout tourneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain the turbo/DS chops? never heard of this

thx

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to chop turbos because the blinds are so big that there is no significant skill advantage. In the final stages, deciding to play it out is almost indistinguishable from just flipping for the money. Since final tables are rare, especially for those of us who primarily play cash games, I'd rather avoid unnecessary variance. That said, the one time I FT'd a turbo no one wanted to chop it and I ended up winning. Woo hoo!

With double shootouts, first gets everything and everyone else gets almost nothing. Again, it's to limit variance in a high variance environment. I haven't played many of these (maybe 5) but the one time I got to the final three I was more than happy to take my 1/3 seat in W$, especially since I was going to unregister for W$ anyway.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is one of each.

(A) 1 is either retarded or doesn't speak english
(B) 1 is willing to agree with anything
(C) 1 is happy with his or her numbers
(D) 1 wants to round his or her number up to an even amount

Stars support stars tourney back up

[/ QUOTE ]

2 types of posters on 2p2...

[/ QUOTE ]

Three types LDO

Those who can use correct grammar and those who can't

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

From then on [the 1300's], "singular their" was used without much inhibition (see the examples from the OED) and was not generally considered "bad grammar". It is true that starting in the 16th century, when English grammar began to be a subject of study, some rules of Latin grammar were applied to English; and that the Latin-based rules of grammatical agreement might have been seen as forbidding the English singular "their" construction -- if they were interpreted in a certain linguistically naïve way. (This may explain why certain classical-language-influenced authors, such as the translators of the King James Bible, tended to use singular "their" somewhat infrequently -- but see Phillipians 2:3.) However, the earliest specific condemnation of singular "their" that Bodine was able to find (in her 1975 article) dated only from 1795 (more than two centuries after English grammar started being taught, and at least several decades after the beginning of the 18th century "grammar boom").

So it seems that it was only in the late 18th century or early 19th century, when prescriptive grammarians started attacking singular "their" because this didn't seem to them to accord with the "logic" of the Latin language, that it began to be more or less widely taught that the construction was bad grammar. The prohibition against singular "their" then joined the other arbitrary prescriptions created from naïve analogies between English and Latin -- such as the prohibition against ending a sentence with a preposition.

But through the 19th and 20th centuries, singular "their" has still continued to be used by a number of even somewhat "literary" authors, as well as commonly in the speech of even many educated individuals.

Full text of the above quotation provided for the mistaken grammar nazis

[BrandiFan]

If I am confident with my skeelz vs the other players I will sometimes ask to chop and ask for a bunch of extra equity, or step up the aggression when it gets turned down flat (before I have a chance to be "greedy").

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is one of each.

(A) 1 is either retarded or doesn't speak english
(B) 1 is willing to agree with anything
(C) 1 is happy with his or her numbers
(D) 1 wants to round his or her number up to an even amount

Stars support stars tourney back up

[/ QUOTE ]

2 types of posters on 2p2...

[/ QUOTE ]

Three types LDO

Those who can use correct grammar and those who can't

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

From then on [the 1300's], "singular their" was used without much inhibition (see the examples from the OED) and was not generally considered "bad grammar". It is true that starting in the 16th century, when English grammar began to be a subject of study, some rules of Latin grammar were applied to English; and that the Latin-based rules of grammatical agreement might have been seen as forbidding the English singular "their" construction -- if they were interpreted in a certain linguistically naïve way. (This may explain why certain classical-language-influenced authors, such as the translators of the King James Bible, tended to use singular "their" somewhat infrequently -- but see Phillipians 2:3.) However, the earliest specific condemnation of singular "their" that Bodine was able to find (in her 1975 article) dated only from 1795 (more than two centuries after English grammar started being taught, and at least several decades after the beginning of the 18th century "grammar boom").

So it seems that it was only in the late 18th century or early 19th century, when prescriptive grammarians started attacking singular "their" because this didn't seem to them to accord with the "logic" of the Latin language, that it began to be more or less widely taught that the construction was bad grammar. The prohibition against singular "their" then joined the other arbitrary prescriptions created from naïve analogies between English and Latin -- such as the prohibition against ending a sentence with a preposition.

But through the 19th and 20th centuries, singular "their" has still continued to be used by a number of even somewhat "literary" authors, as well as commonly in the speech of even many educated individuals.

Full text of the above quotation provided for the mistaken grammar nazis

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... well, the fact that Jane Austen used the singular "their" does not make it correct.

I do have some sympathy for the argument that using "he or she" all the time is cumbersome and that using "their" is cleaner. But "their" is clearly a plural descriptor and it's a little silly to argue that it's "correct" when used as a singular.

Signed,

Self-confessed Grammar Nazi

[KingDan]

Last time I tried to chop HU I asked for a kind of ridiciulous deal figuring he would counter with a (still favorable) chop for me. Instead he told me to go [censored] myself and went on to win.