To you ****ing idiots claiming there is nothing wrong with this, how about you go sit at a table with 8 other players, and I back all of them with a deal where they share a bankroll and split profit/losses later on. Nothing shady right because you are still getting the same equity?

You are colluding, plain and simple. There is no gray area here.

Scummy. So if u raise and fish shoves and ur friend reshoves all in. U calling same range wo deal. I think not. This is scummy and nothing can justify it.

How can a person adjust if he does not realize the 2 players are colluding to split equity?

How you can equate this with having an equity stake in someone playing a tournament is incomprehensible. Although, if you have an equity stake in someone and you play soft against them because of it, that is wrong, too.

Here is a link to what some pro's think:
"While not explicitly illegal, partaking in equity chops with one player excluded and unaware is quite unethical." http://burbspoker.blogspot.com/2011/...eating-in.html

And this:
"Splitting the cash afterwards without the knowing and consent of a third party player involved in the game is blatant cheating, technically because the extra action produces a fake perceived dynamics and the mark will ill-adjust according to a pseudo gameflow. He who doesn’t see this would better avoid playing poker unless supervised by wiser people." http://www.aintluck.com/guy-laliberte-cheated/

But most importantly, here is the definition of COLLUSION: Collusion is two or more players acting with a secret, common strategy

So, in short, anyone who wants to equity chop needs to tell the table. I doubt the equity choppers would get any action if they came clean, or if anyone even stayed at the table.

If anyone wants to equity chop because they think it is fair, then tell people at the table. If it isn't sleazy people won't care. Right?

Most (if not all) arguments about this being unethical apply to staking deals as well. While I think staking is unethical (if other players are not aware of it as is usually the case) this is not popular view in poker community so I am surprised seeing the outrage against equity chopping.

Equity staking is only an issue if the staker and stakee are at the same table and they keep the deal a secret (because they will not play against each other the same if there was no staking deal). Whether a person is staked is irrelevant as how they get their buy in doesn't change the dynamics of play at the table. Simply being staked by an outsider is utterly different than there being a secret deal between 2 or more people playing at the same table.

As others have said - it's collusion, it's cheating and it's a scumbag move.

Seems the primary argument for this not being allowed is that it will distort your table image for the other players based on not really winning/losing the money you appear to have won/lost?

Doesn't the same thing happen if you have third party Staking/AI Equity insurance?

People talk about adjusting your play vs your Equity partner. Assuming you are properly bankrolled and not normally folding 55/45s etc... Can someone explain where you get extra EV?

Would this be OK if the informed the table prior to playing?

Personally I see nothing unethical in theory, I am open to be persuaded.

However, I strongly suspect these two end up softplaying each other over and above any equity chops.

The first quote is from some random nobody blogger who appears to be obsessed with writing about online poker cheaters and who likely spends his free time doing this.

The second quote is from a Romanian dude who posts predominately in NVG and who also starts threads about playing 11r tournaments and .10cent-.20cent NL.

You appear to be one of the most clueless and ignorant recreational live players to ever stumble into HSNL. Your posts are bad and you should feel bad and you should quit posting.

Players like you are a big reason poker has a less than stellar future. I continue to be amazed at how many threads that deal with high stakes poker lament the dearth of recreational players, and point out how high stake action is hard to come by. "Fish" are stalked by groups of players who are unwilling to cannibalize each other.

High stakes recreational players will always have way more money (and security) than most "pro's". They are willing to put their cash on the table if it is a level playing field. But players such as yourself are a big reason they choose to stay away. I came here to see for myself what the mentality is of full time players. Many here are great people who "get it". Unfortunately, you represent the black sheep that comes across as the rule, not the exception. Good luck making a career out of this game.

Poker is a bunch of equations. Equity chop does not change those equations. Im seriously stunned that this thread is still going on.

I mean I dont even know what to say. Apparently the difference between changing all in variance and changing ones entire objective and strategy for playing poker has passed this poster by.

I don`t mean to be harsh, but after 5,000 posts one would expect to at least know the point of poker.

If someone doesn't alter their play at all then equity chopping shouldn't be an issue. But how much more likely are you to get in a flip situation for a lot of money when normally you wouldnt without the equity chop. It seems like your talking about PLO, but in NL holdem it seem like it would be unfair when there is a 3rd player in a hand. If you know you are probably flipping for a lot of BB and you don't want to take that risk, but you got your partner who u equity chop with, you might be more inclined to call since its a big pot, and if either of you win, you both get something in the end.

This post is so dumb I hesitate to even reply to it.

How can you not see that changing all-in variance secretly gives you a huge advantage vs. unaware players? You are sharing information with another player without the rest of the table knowing.

It's as simple as this, if the rest of the table knew you guys were equity chopping, they would change their strategy against you. The fact that you deny them this information makes it painfully obvious that you are colluding to gain an advantage.

It's cheating.

Just curious: If you and your friend had a bet as to who could bluff the fish in the biggest pot and show, would this be cheating? It would be sharing information, and if the other players knew, it would certainly change their strategy. What about a bet to win the most pots? If you don't consider this "sharing information", then why is it not but equity chopping is?

What if you crossbook, but don't tell the table? Cheating? What if you told the table, then a new player sits down, then he loses a pot to you a little later? Did he get cheated because he wasn't informed?

You say that if they knew you were equity chopping, they would change their strategy against you. I'm curious as to the correct adjustments you would make against two people doing this to "exploit" them. Keep in mind, it doesn't change the EV, it only changes the distribution of results.

True. All you need is to equity chop and you basically print money

This is unethical unless you inform everyone @ the table and make sure everyone understands and doesn't object. 25/60 is the answer to your question.