Huh how's this different from just swapping a certain %? This situation doesn't seem ideal but I'm very surprised by all the completely upset surprises in here... I don't see how you can get it in lighter... if you get it in 25% you will get 25% of the pot rather than win 100% 1 in 4 times... doesn't change the EV so I don't see how you could use this to your advantage in very many situations.

Not gonna argue on this + I think Steve pretty much nailed it in the first post. Example (which doesn't even account for the full extent of this issue): You're sitting at a live poker table and two new guys sit down. They get it in within the first orbit they play with KQcc vs JJ on JT3cc, they run it once and KQcc wins. Are you adjusting your strategy vs these two guys once you witnessed that hand (and the outcome)? If yes, would you adjust differently if you knew that these guys were equity chopping that pot? Rest of this should be self-explanatory..

It's not that big of a deal anyways, I think, but it's still unethical, or just not cool, if you wish.

Based on the info in the original post, and assuming each person puts in 33% of the pot, if his friend who has 35% equity wins the pot the regular therefore has a 35% chance of winning 42% (25/60) of the total pot. If the regular, who has 25% equity, wins the pot then he receives 58% (35/60) of the total pot. If both regulars lose (40%), they obviously get nothing.

(.35x.42) + (.25x.58) + 0 = 29% total equity. This is higher than his 25% equity had he played without the equity chop.

Is my math wrong? If it isn't, does this artificially increased equity mean that equity chopping at the table is cheating?