Cash Game Procedural Question: Making A Deal (2 Viewers)

[utgtrash]

All three of those examples (chopping, checking down, reallocation of chips) after getting heads-up SCREAM collusion, and not surprisingly, are typically against the rules.

i'm always having to explain to people why this is the case even though they are offended that they might accused of collusive activity. you'd just have to enforce the rule and not worry about what they think.

in tournaments i've literally had people try to hand a friend their chips because they had to leave early, and are similarly offended when they are told that is illegal.

 

[Rakrul]

Doesn't anyone remember the first seasons of HSP where Farha would often offer chop when all-in or on the river? I have no problem with that as long as they're heads up almost from the get-go.

In this case, the other players lost one BB. If there was a 3rd player who was involved it would not be ok. Frankly I'd even be ok if there was a pre-flop raiser that bailed pre-flop.

 

[stefalopod]

Our very live .10/.20 cash game (don’t snicker we have many large pots as our only chips in play are .10 and 1.00) had the following situation.

Don't love the idea of chopping it but do what you do. But I have more of an issue with this quote...don't feel you have to justify the stakes you're playing. Are you playing cards and having fun? That's the important thing. Anyone judging you for your stakes is lame and I would actively want to annoy them instead of get their approval.

 

[upNdown]

I don’t like it at all.
First, everybody had a blind in that pot. If you want to say that’s negligible, I’ll respectfully disagree, because where do you draw the line? At a single blind? At preflop bets? If they’re only in for two blinds? I say you don’t allow this kind of collusion/negotiation to happen ever, then you don’t have to worry about where to draw the arbitrary line.

But what’s at least as important to me is this - when you put money into that pot, the only way to get it back is to win that pot. Actions have consequences in this game. Or at least they do in my game.

 

[upNdown]

Doesn't anyone remember the first seasons of HSP where Farha would often offer chop when all-in or on the river? I have no problem with that as long as they're heads up almost from the get-go.

In this case, the other players lost one BB. If there was a 3rd player who was involved it would not be ok. Frankly I'd even be ok if there was a pre-flop raiser that bailed pre-flop.

I do remember that stuff and I never thought it was okay. But the truth is, those high stakes guys make their own rules and as long as they’re all comfortable with it, it’s none of my concern. Just like if the guys at this game were all comfortable with it, it’s none of my concern. But I wouldn’t allow it in my game.

 

[merkong]

We’ve written a house rule against it.

 

[merkong]

Don't love the idea of chopping it but do what you do. But I have more of an issue with this quote...don't feel you have to justify the stakes you're playing. Are you playing cards and having fun? That's the important thing. Anyone judging you for your stakes is lame and I would actively want to annoy them instead of get their approval.

Well, it’s not as much someone looking quirkily at our .10/.20 as much as it is as weird SB/BB versus say .25/.50.

Appreciate the support.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

We’ve written a house rule against it.

What's the wording? Only asking because you've spurred some great conversation, I appreciate reading the input.

 

[merkong]

The draft reads as follows and allows for player to run it more than once…

• “Divided pots: The dividing of a pot is only permissible under these circumstances: When all tabled hands read that more than one player has a right to a portion of the pot. When two players are in a showdown and one or both are all in and they agree run any renaming streets more than once.”

 

[chipchipchip]

I'm late to this one, but I'll chime in agreeing with the consensus that it's not okay. I've been in two situations where soft-playing (different husband/wife couple for each case) clearly checking it down when it's heads-up in big pots. I don't care if they are the SB and BB and no one else put money in. And forget it if someone gets squeezed out of a pot by those two and it gets checked down. Nope. I don't care how "it's okay..." the rest of the room is with it, if you have any new or newish players there that you want to keep, all it takes is the *appearance* of impropriety to plant a seed of doubt and hurt the health of the game.

In the first case this came up for me it was a game I co-ran and we never invited them back. One of our new players saw the hand go down, it was like a set vs flush draw type of hand checked down after the flop. He said "where's the rest of your pot?" And he was right to ask. That guy has been one of my best poker friends for 15 years now. How you handle these spots matters.

If you're worried about variance, run it twice or three times. I could *maybe* see a case if there are cards to come and you chop purely on equity (that's like "run it infinity times"), but this gets weird if you end up teaching everyone at the table how to calculate equities when you don't want them to learn that. I can also see if as you say people love side action, to sell a share of your equity to someone not in the pot. Sounds like a rich and fluid gambooooly game is what you're after, and imo making straight up collusion okay is going to taint any other loose action that people are after.

*edit to add I'll draw a line on the "business" if it ends up taking too long. If it's ten seconds of banter and a decision is made fine, if people are pulling out calculators and doing long division that'll be a no.