Interesting scenario brought up on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/dmoongirl/status...163737600?s=19

Is the question whether it's ethical or whether it's binding?

It's certainly not binding since the house can't enforce it and it's not a legally binding agreement either.

I'm assuming that DA plays 'elevated' stakes, but in most cases casinos can't/shouldn't allow this spot to occur.
1) There have been previous threads, but it's still IMO that cutting deals after everyone else folds has issues.

2) It may be against Gaming regulations to allow Players to pull bets back and/or essentially allow both Players to muck simultaneously and chop the pot.

3) It's interesting that they would discuss this with the River already out there and only a Showdown pending completed action. Ultimately this is collusion if it pans out.

4) Is this table talk any different than asking "Do you have AA?" Player B may only be fishing for information. Is Player A agreeing to a chop because he's weak, wants a call or the pot has grown a bit larger than the norm for this table? They could've chopped away from the table as well.

5) Unethical? We need more details as to why the Floor was called over. If Player B knew that a chop wouldn't be allowed, then we have an angle ... which by most definitions is pressing all the cheat/ethics buttons.

6) Assuming Player B 'backed out' once Player A agreed and then Floor came over at Player A's request, then it does come down to whether or not Player B thought he was table talking or serious about the chop.

7) In conflict with my #1, I've also stated many times that higher stakes games should be allowed some freedoms. The ultimate problem with that is a case like this, where a Player expects (is hoping) a Floor to come over and enforce a non-standard casino spot.

Would love a few more details than Twitter has space to provide ... GL

Honestly if you asked me if wanted to chop the pot in that spot I might say "Sure" but I'm assuming the question is along the lines of "Do you want to win the mega ball" or "Do you want to chop up the dealers rack". I'd never expect it to be allowed.

What about "Do you want me to call?" If someone asks that and I say "Yes" are they ethically or by the rules obligated to call? How is that possibly any different? If anything I'd expect that question to be more "binding" because at least a call is a legal option there.

The difference between "do you want to chop?" and "do you want me to call?" is that one seems like an offer of an agreement. "Chop?" is something that is asked to create binding agreements at poker tables, both preflop between the blinds and at poker tournaments.

Really?

Yes? Players make binding agreements to chop the prize pool in poker tourneys every day.

Interesting that a lot of the high stakes players think this is an offer and binding if accepted. Allen Cunningham wins though with the best answer:

i agree with allen. chopping at pokr is LOL. i hate , HATE running it twice. i hate chopping. play poker your nerds.

In rooms that allow it.

But most rooms do not allow players to chop a pot in a cash game beyond chopping the blinds. My room only allows it in a game with a structure of at least $1k - $2k and only if there is no objection from a player in the game.

If the room permits the chop it should be binding. If the room does not permit the chop it can't be binding... and it would be unethical to try to circumvent the rules to accomplish the chop.

I agree with all of that. My post was more aimed at why it felt more angly and less like table talk.

If the floor says they won't enforce a chop, then there is no chop. Whatever agreements y'all make outside of the rules are between you. We have rules here, sorry. As for the players, they put themselves in a tough spot. If they are going to honor the chop, the winner now has to either pull out the cash to cover the chop or maybe they don't have that much cash so now they have to cash out to pay up and quit the game or not pay up and say get bent. The loser has to hope that the winner won't screw them over. They are both ******s.

Easy escape for the winner act dumb and let the floor say they can't allow them to chop the pot and so now they are off the hook, because I can't give you any chips and I don't have cash.

The way it’s worded the floor didn’t even say they wouldn’t allow a chop or that they couldn’t do it off the table just that it’s not enforceable. I mean if player a chooses not to make things right not only is he an angler but it’s the same as welching on a contract of any kind.

B is a scum either way.

Either:
1. They knew it was unenforceable, but asked a question designed to appear outside of game play, with no intention of actually chopping, or
2. They did not know it was unenforceable, asked an honest question, then angle-shot using the new info once they found out it was unenforceable.

All true, but I think the tweet (which is poorly written to allow the ambiguity) is more about whether the question is considered an actual offer or just table talk to get a reaction, independent of whether chopping is allowed.

And yeah, B is scum no matter how you read it.