Can you or someone explain this.

There was a poster talking about playing 4/8 called "dead.money". Then another guy named "dead..money" started posting pretending to be the same guy.

To me it is not an acceptable reason. But I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

I too think that he was a kind of player who didn't want to chop in the first place. As soon as he changed the seat he declared that he didn't want to chop anymore despite who was on his left or his right.

I think he used excuses in both cases.

has anyone ever come across someone who will chop with the person on their left (since they are the SB, out of position), but elects to never chop with the person on their right when they are the BB?

i've experienced this, and have been called a donk for not chopping with said individual after discovering this. (I was sitting to his left.) Initially I thought the person to his right didnt want to chop, but he then explains that it doesnt make sense for him to chop with the person his right ever, as he is a superior poker player.

What would you all do asides from bursting out lol?

I would tell him that most players consider that chopping position to be unethical. Even if he appears to be an experienced player, he may not have ever been told that. (Some people come from rooms where no one chops, so they may be new to chopping.) Do it in a friendly way, see what happens.

But after that, let it go. Just tell him you won't be chopping with him if you don't want to. Since you're just doing the same thing he is, there is no way he can complain about it.

i would certainly not ever chop with a player that wasnt chopping with the person on his right. even if that person didnt want to chop.

the reason you are chopping with a person on your right is because you are chopping with a person on your left. then it is fair.
as soon as you just chop with the person on your right and not on your left you are taking the worst of it for no reason.

^ are you saying that if I always chop both sides if possible, but I am temporarily not chopping to my right, solely because the guy sitting there never chops, you wouldn't chop with me if you were sitting to my left?? That seems very silly and I have never even heard of such a thing.

you either have the best of it or breakeven. the guy on your right that always chops will either have the worst of it or breakeven. how is that fair?

Except it's not silly and exactly what I've been saying happens. It's not 'fair' when you get to chop just to your advantage, so Ray simply just doesn't let you. You can't make other people do things that are 'fair' for you, you can only defend against against other people getting an edge

I am getting no permanent edge if I happen to be not chopping to my right because that guy doesn't want to chop. Other times that guy will be on my left and I won't be chopping that way. However, doing what Ray (and you) are suggesting would give a permanent edge.

No, it gives a permanent non-disadvantage.

If the guy sitting to my left is chopping to both sides, he takes no disadvantage from me temporarily not chopping to my right.

So? Unless the entire table agrees to chop the guy at the start of the chain is getting the worst of it and the guy at the end is getting the best of it. One person can't control who gets the 'fair' parts. All you can do is make sure you're not in the unfair spot. The guy at the start can stop chopping whenever he no longer wants to no longer be taken advantage of

when you decide to chop, you're giving one person an edge and an other the bad side, with the hopes that they roughly even out. No one else is under any obligation to help make this balance out so things are fair to you. If you choose to give someone an edge at a poker table you should stop being offended if they decide to take it.

You avoid a lot of politics by never chopping. My 2 cents.

You're really beating up a strawman with you "so" comment. The guy who wants to chop and is chopping to both sides is at no disadvantage based on what other guys at table are doing.

These excuses are ridiculous; If you want to do whatever is most +EV for you then just go ahead. But IMO then you might as well just look at your cards and then decide if you want to chop or not. It's even higher +EV if people put up with it, and it's more honest.

Yes because not chopping with a bad player is clearly the same as looking at your hand before deciding if you want to chop.

Not exactly the same, but very close. IMO both are equally scummy.

That's just a ludicrous stance

I should have said my casino, my game.

And I would have had zero issue with your comment. I completely believe there are casinos that would make that kind of rule. I'm guessing in areas with a higher than average angler to non ratio.

Perphaps I should have expressed myself by using more than three words but that rule won't be the case in the majority of casinos and I didn't want anyone to think that would be the case

This has to be California, just has to be.

The original incident happened in the 20/40 game at the Bellagio.

I was surprised too to learn there are casinos that attempt to enforce chopping agreements. I mean, I could see like a chop-six, play-five house rule, which would be an okay house-rule imho. But it's so damn hard to otherwise enforce what people may or may not have said to each other.

I meant the non-chopping with weaker players parts. This is the first I've encountered it. There are non-choppers, people who chop-five, play-six, but never played anyone who wouldn't chop because well, "I don't chop w/ fish sir." It is more likely to be in a place where you're likely never going to have to face the same people again, and from what I here, there is a lot of bad behaviour at the Commerce (such as player/dealer abuse).

I believe ZOMG mostly plays at Bellagio as well, but in the 40-80 games, or bigger whenever they get bigger games going.