How to tell someone that "Selectively Chopping" is a d*ck move without being a d*ck yourself? (1 Viewer)

[JustinInMN]

If you really want to be considerate if you fold any time I bet it will speed up the game. Plus I’ll tip the dealer.

The obvious difference between a fold and chopping blinds is a fold is an end in the interest of a pot, chopping blinds is a refund for both players.

 

[ekricket]

The obvious difference between a fold and chopping blinds is a fold is an end in the interest of a pot, chopping blinds is a refund for both players.

My apologies, I thought were were talking about being considerate and speeding up the game, not EV. I think we switched again

Honestly I don’t think anyone knows what this thread is about. Much the same as they feel about chopping the blinds. Who knows why or what for?

And if chopping is expected behavior - why ask? Just muck your cards and take your blinds and see how it goes.

 

[Jimulacrum]

And I maintain you are way out of line here. Chopping doesn't exist in the first place without what you call "social pressure."

A lot of important poker etiquette is also due to social pressure (one player per hand, and really pretty much any rule where the only consequence is removal from the game.). So while you are framing that phrase in a negative connotation, it really is neutral.

But there is nothing wrong with educating people on the reasons why selective chopping in frowned upon, and the OP has demonstrated some concern for being well received. If the "villain" ever does this against an opponent that cares less than the OP, then he will probably be in for a verbal lashing.

All of these things you're describing are rules. Actual rules, written somewhere, established in clear verbiage so that players have the opportunity to know what they're getting into upfront. That's not social pressure. It's the established framework of the game.

When you nudge the guy next to you and go "Wanna chop?" you are not establishing anything, least of all a rule. You are enlisting him in this one chop, one time, with no further stated obligations.

When he doesn't want to chop next time, and you insist that he's breaking some unstated agreement or point of etiquette that doesn't exist, that's on you. Call it something else if "bullying" doesn't suit you, but you're putting that other person in an unfair position, using the pressure of the social situation (i.e., that people generally don't want to be seen as breaking agreements or etiquette, even if they're not sure they exist) to leverage a person into doing some small thing you want.

There's nothing stopping you from instead stating upfront that if he agrees to the first chop, you expect him to do it every time. That cuts through all the grease in one sentence. Obviously not everyone knows of this expectation, or we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. So why choose to leave it out until the second ask?

 

[Machine]

When you nudge the guy next to you and go "Wanna chop?" you are not establishing anything, least of all a rule. You are enlisting him in this one chop, one time, with no further stated obligations.

When he doesn't want to chop next time, and you insist that he's breaking some unstated agreement or point of etiquette that doesn't exist, that's on you.

There's nothing stopping you from instead stating upfront that if he agrees to the first chop, you expect him to do it every time. That cuts through all the grease in one sentence.

I'm a developer and I try to be exact and explicit when working through tasks.

It really seems you are hung up on the 'plural' of the phrase, such as 'deer', 'Wanna chop?' as a question could be a single instance or a lifestyle for the session.

I find some stakeholders or requestors can lose patience with being explicit, and I find it rare in public 'normals' value my explicit nature, so I will typically forego it as I can also communicate via body language.

I would argue that the earnest to state the terms of the 'social contract' dictating duration isn't limited to the person offering to chop.

It would also be easier to articulate by the person that was offered the chop, 'happy to chop this time', 'I don't always drink beer, eer chop but I have total rags and I'd hate to out flop you with 9,3o and take you out of the game in the first hand' I'm not bitter at all Matt!

 

[Jimulacrum]

'Wanna chop?' as a question could be a single instance or a lifestyle for the session.

Where else in life do you get to ask "Do you want to [do this thing here in front of us in this moment]?" and have it actually mean "Do you agree to continually/permanently [do the thing]?" Nowhere. Not a single where. The only time you see this is in situations where the person is avoiding asking the second question because he knows it's less likely to get a yes.

Person A: "Wanna give me a ride to work?"
Person B: "Sure."

Person B is not agreeing to drive Person A to work every day. He's not even agreeing to drive him to work tomorrow. Just this one time. If A asks B for a ride again tomorrow, and B says no, A would be way out of line to that B implicitly agreed to drive him today because he drove him yesterday.

Swap out chopping, the ride to work, or virtually any other one-time, in-the-moment proposal, and the logic holds. You don't get to set someone up like this and then act like he's doing something wrong by saying no the second time. If your intent is to set up a longer-term agreement than just the first time, that's on you to make clear.

And it's really not that hard. We talked about this a couple pages up-thread,

 

[Machine]

Where else in life do you get to ask "Do you want to [do this thing here in front of us in this moment]?" and have it actually mean "Do you agree to continually/permanently [do the thing]?" Nowhere. Not a single where.

'Do you want to marry me?'

 

[Jimulacrum]

'Do you want to marry me?'

You're practically writing my argument for me.

 

[Machine]

You're practically writing my argument for me.

I picked the one example that had the most humor value. There are other answers, and more nuance break downs than you articulate in your question, but I'll concede the argument at this point.

I think Dr. Strange really sums up the post OP review well, and you highlight an issue with the expectations of chopping.

Summary statement: Is the guy a dick? Yes, but how often is this really going to affect you in any given session, and if the answer is more than 2 you might consider a new game. Chopping is bully-ing and not a marriage proposal, so if someone agrees to have sex with you this time, don't expect an encore five minutes later.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I feel bullied after reading this thread.

Also, all y'all need to get laid. Seriously.

 

[Machine]

Also, all y'all need to get laid. Seriously.

Is that an offer? Only if you bring a blind date, that shit was A M A Z I N G!

 

[JustinInMN]

When you nudge the guy next to you and go "Wanna chop?" you are not establishing anything, least of all a rule. You are enlisting him in this one chop, one time, with no further stated obligations.

There's nothing stopping you from instead stating upfront that if he agrees to the first chop, you expect him to do it every time.

This is widely understood etiquette where I and the OP play. Though I guess the OP found a rare counter-example, and you obviously have missed something in your poker upbringing given the depth to which you are digging in here. But at least 98% of players to which I agree to chop blinds are on the same page as I and the OP.

leverage a person into doing some small thing you want.

Playing fair is "leveraging a person into doing some small thing?"

I'm a developer and I try to be exact and explicit when working through tasks.

Hey me too!

 

[upNdown]

Playing fair is "leveraging a person into doing some small thing?"

Wow, this is starting to feel like the politics board. You're the one who's characterizing it as "playing fair" but that doesn't make it so.
How about this - I say playing fair is posting your blind and leaving offers and expectations out of it. Play the hand!

 

[JustinInMN]

How about this - I say playing fair is posting your blind and leaving offers and expectations out of it. Play the hand!

I don't see how anyone would disagree this is fair.

 

[upNdown]

I don't see how anyone would disagree this is fair.

Except maybe some noob who hasn’t really thought about it and is just excited to play cards?
And from his perspective, is it fair that he has to fold aces just because the last time it folded around, the guy next to him came up with a wacky plan to avoid the rake?
I guess I’m just very much persuaded by @Jimulacrum points about peer pressure, and I think we all should ease up on the expectations about chopping.

And now I’m probably just being an ass, but I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned that chopping is essentially just low key collusion. It’s certainly a victimless crime, but in a thread where we’re discussing etiquette and unwritten rules, it seems worth mentioning that this is an irregular “transaction” within the confines of a poker game, just adding to the potential for it to be confusing to a noob.

 

[ekricket]

And now I’m probably just being an ass, but I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned that chopping is essentially just low key collusion. It’s certainly a victimless crime, but in a thread where we’re discussing etiquette and unwritten rules, it seems worth mentioning that this is an irregular “transaction” within the confines of a poker game, just adding to the potential for it to be confusing to a noob.

The response I got when I brought it up

I think some needs to post a thread called 'Chopping, a venture into the evils of foisting etiquette upon others and screwing over the house', this one is about the inequities poker hands and being a dick about it heads up after you've agreed to chop.

There is another thread you could check out, I think this thread could use a dose of, don't screw over the house

 

[JustinInMN]

And now I’m probably just being an ass, but I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned that chopping is essentially just low key collusion.

This is actually true, and why I am arguing this isn't really a "strategic" point as poker actions that are within the rules are, even though argument seems to be strategic chopping is acceptable.

But yes, it's absolutely a subversion of standard rules, I've covered the reasons for it.

And in case I haven't made it clear to date, I have no problem with players that refuse to chop. That's a far better alternative than selective chopping in my book.

(Always Chop blinds ~ Never Chop blind) >>>>>>>> Strategic Chop.

 

[jrs146]

I understand the rake argument for chopping. That being said, I think we all go to a casino willing and ready to pay a rake so it's really not a huge deal. I always thought that chopping in these situations is actually an unfair advantage to the SB. If the situation pans out where it just so happens that everyone has folded while I'm BB and the SB wants me to chop I lose the option of winning my small blind back that I may have folded the hand before. I'd rather chops not be permitted than expect I have to chop every time someone asks me to otherwise I'm an outcast. I'd much prefer to check down after the flop and let the bets hand win. Yea, it's a waste of a rake, but seriously, it's not that big of a deal. All that being said... I'm fine pleasing the table and if asked I always agree, although in my mind I'm thinking, this is dumb and an unfair advantage to the SB.

 

[Machine]

I will say that the conversation and @Jimulacrum has changed my approach, and perception of chopping.

I am not likely to offer a chop to anyone in the future and will clarify if they offer / ask me to chop if it is for the session or this hand. I think its polite to chop or conform at a game, especially if most of the players are of the same mind.

I plan to fold the small blind and will gift the small blind back to the owner if I am in the big blind.

I run it twice even though I'm not a fan, I'm aware it lowers the variance, but I see several outcomes from it that I feel are negative.

 

[upNdown]

I understand the rake argument for chopping. That being said, I think we all go to a casino willing and ready to pay a rake so it's really not a huge deal. I always thought that chopping in these situations is actually an unfair advantage to the SB. If the situation pans out where it just so happens that everyone has folded while I'm BB and the SB wants me to chop I lose the option of winning my small blind back that I may have folded the hand before. I'd rather chops not be permitted than expect I have to chop every time someone asks me to otherwise I'm an outcast. I'd much prefer to check down after the flop and let the bets hand win. Yea, it's a waste of a rake, but seriously, it's not that big of a deal. All that being said... I'm fine pleasing the table and if asked I always agree, although in my mind I'm thinking, this is dumb and an unfair advantage to the SB.

Yes! I meant to mention this before. If the guy on your right always wants to chop, but the guy on your left doesn’t, then you’re kind of in a crappy position. The simple solution, as always, is to just never chop. But again, it’s something that belongs in the chopping discussion.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I will say that the conversation and @Jimulacrum has changed my approach, and perception of chopping.

I am not likely to offer a chop to anyone in the future and will clarify if they offer / ask me to chop if it is for the session or this hand. I think its polite to chop or conform at a game, especially if most of the players are of the same mind.

I plan to fold the small blind and will gift the small blind back to the owner if I am in the big blind.

I run it twice even though I'm not a fan, I'm aware it lowers the variance, but I see several outcomes from it that I feel are negative.

Just one question remains, though.

Spoiler

Can you drive me to work?

 

[AlbinoDragon]

I’ve played at properties where they don’t allow the chop.

Here’s a question - here in AZ, they take a dollar from the small blind before pre flop action. If you chop in the small blind, you lose a dollar. Is it worth not chopping from a long term equity perspective in this scenario?

The two properties near Tucson pull one from the small for the jackpot and one from the big for the rake before the cards are even dealt. I hadn't seen a chop there at all once they started doing that. Seems they instituted this to force a hand to be played out, resulting in a larger total amount raked.

Yet another reason why I stopped going.

 

[upNdown]

The two properties near Tucson pull one from the small for the jackpot and one from the big for the rake before the cards are even dealt. I hadn't seen a chop there at all once they started doing that. Seems they instituted this to force a hand to be played out, resulting in a larger total amount raked.

Yet another reason why I stopped going.

Wow that’s gross

 

[mack10man]

I would pull him aside and politely tell him. If you tell him at the table in front of everyone most likely he will get defensive and there will be problems. Maybe wait till he gets up to use the bathroom and catch him on the way back and talk to him real quick one on one. But definitely not at the table, the ego is very fragile.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Wow that’s gross

Quite. WTF. That's some cruise-ship-level shit.

They rake uncalled bets too?

 

[RainmanTrail]

I just ask ahead of time if they always chop regardless of what cards they have. If they answer yes, then I will chop with them every time (as long as it's not in CA or somewhere similar that pulls the SB in for the rake). If they say sometimes, or hum and haw, then it's game on. And I'm happy to take their money.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I have to wonder what the original poster is thinking? Please tell me this is a joke, right?

Chop if you want. Decline if you don't want to chop. Please don't waste the table's time whining about this. How big a problem can it be?

Truth is, you likely should be looking for a new table if the game devolves to a blind vs blind situation very often.

Why make this trivial thing an issue at the table? -=- DrStrange

It's not trivial IMO. A player who chops with trash but doesn't with premium holdings is an angle shooter. You should either always chop or never chop. Either is fine. But that decision needs to be made before the cards are dealt, not after.

 

[JustinInMN]

I just ask ahead of time if they always chop regardless of what cards they have. If they answer yes, then I will chop with them every time (as long as it's not in CA or somewhere similar that pulls the SB in for the rake). If they say sometimes, or hum and haw, then it's game on. And I'm happy to take their money.

Yeah I didn't actually mention, players that aren't familiar with me will often initiate this conversation when they sit down. And I say "I chop everything if you do" at the outset and it saves a lot of trouble.

 

[umbkcshah]

First time, it comes up - "I'll either always chop or never chop with you, your choice"

 

[JustDogbert]

Where else in life do you get to ask "Do you want to [do this thing here in front of us in this moment]?" and have it actually mean "Do you agree to continually/permanently [do the thing]?" Nowhere. Not a single where

I have a single where...

Years ago, this guy who I worked with needed a quarter to have enough change to get a soda from the vending machine. He asked a number of us if he could have a quarter, when he got to me I said sure and took quarter out of the change jug I had on my desk. A number of weeks later I noticed that the change level in my jug had dropped a lot (from 4-5" in depth to < 1" in depth). I say to the guy in the cube next to me something to the effect of "dude, you see anyone taking my change?", he laughs and says "talk to [name redacted]" (they guy who needed the quarter). I go ask d'bag about the change and he stated that since I gave him the quarter I had therefore somehow tacitly agreed to give him all my change and he had used it to purchase himself soda's and snacks over the last x weeks. Since then, the change jug has always been locked in the desk.

TLDR: Just because you think straight, don't assume everyone else does.

To the original poster. If I'm in the BB and you ask me to chop the answer is no (and I'll probably re raise you a lot the rest of the session). I won't surrender position just becuase it's heads-up (hell, I love head's up action w/position).

 

[TheDuke]

Found this pearl of wisdom elsewhere.

"The problem isn't about the noob not wanting to chop. The problem is the circumstance and environment that certain groups of people are surrounded by. To fix this, the people who want to chop need to take some responsibility and pride and do something about this and not just always be blaming others for their situation."