Home Game Ruling..

[Waterfall]

Had a situation come up in a 1/2NL home game last night as follows:

I have JJ UTG and make a standard raise. Player B calls, Player C min raises. I call, Player B goes all in, Player C goes all in, I (reluctantly) Fold. Player B shows A6, Player C shows 89o and they say lets just chop it, and split up my dead money.

This game allows chops and such when HU in a pot but the way I see it since they were both all in while I was still in the hand they should be accountable for the action. I would have called Player B all in but I folded once C went all in as well, so I feel C should have to pay B for the bet that was made and called while I was still in the hand.

Player B and C didnt seem to think that it made any difference since they were HU but I disagree. Was I justified in arguing this or are they right? Is this collusion?

[psandman]

Here is the problem . . .

You say your game allows players to chop a pot when heads up.

That is a bad rule.

But since it is the rule I don't see why you think it makes a difference that they were all in.

Lets say that Player B didn't go all-in but bet all but one chip. Lets say Player C called that bet and still had one chiop left. You folded and then they chopped the pot up. How would that situation be any different than the one where they both go all-in? It isn't


The chopping of the pot is not necessary collusion. It is entirely possible that each of these players made the bet independently and only agreed to chop after it was HU.

The problem that allow chops leads to is that it will lead to collusion where players basically know that the other player will offer them a chop and thus it will impact the way they play the hand as they play to drive out others players and then chop their money. THIS IS WHY CASINOS DO NOT ALLOW CHOPPING POTS (other than the blinds when there is no other money in the pot)

[Waterfall]

I just feel that since there was an all in and a call while I was still in the hand that the other 2 players should be held accountable for that action. By chopping after I fold they are negating the action that took place which is what I was upset about.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
I just feel that since there was an all in and a call while I was still in the hand that the other 2 players should be held accountable for that action. By chopping after I fold they are negating the action that took place which is what I was upset about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understand. I agree.

The problem is that you say the house rule allows two plays to chop a pot when heads up. Get them to change the rule so that two players can't chop when heads up. It has nothing to do with the fact that the bets were all-in. It has to do with the fact that its a bad rule

[ky70]

I would amend the house rule to only allow players to "chop" if the blinds are the only players in the hand AND no money has been added to the pot. So the small and big blind could take back their posted blinds if no one else entered the pot and both players agreed (but if the SB calls the BB, a chop would not be allowed). This is for a cash game only though.

[PantsOnFire]

If this is collusion, these guys are horrible at it and will lose in the long run. However, I would keep my eye on them when they are both in a pot.

Player C min-raised a UTG raise and cold caller. Then he called an all-in with another player still active. And he did all this 98o powerhouse. This is the dumbest thing I ever heard of at a NL holdem table. Player B reraising all-in can be justified as a strong poker play (a bold steal) but Player C is an idiot.

As far as chopping, as long as they agreed after you folded, I don't see a problem. They had an equal amount in to the pot due to their all-ins (so they take that back) and the only other money was your raise and call and the blinds.

It's not the chopping, it's way the hand went down and the cards that were shown that would give me great cause for concern. Besides, colluders don't need to chop pots. They do their chopping when the game has broken up.