So what? One day he changes his mind and now wants to make a decision based on the proposed deal each time. They'll get over it.

It's like saying because you always chop the blinds that you can't one day decide to change your mind and you aren't going to anymore.

It is always an EV decision. In an insular situation where EV involves more than what it is involved in tournament, being consistent may be more +EV.

At the casino I go to the most in London, whenever someone suggests a deal, they give everyone a deal and no deal card face down and tell them to throw in the card they want face down. If any of the no deal cards r in the pile, then no discussion of a deal is allowed until the next person busts. This is great as you can decline when it doesn't suit you and agree when you have 4bb and someone will deal.

Play into the mentality; tell them "every time I agree do a bubble deal, I get terrible cards".

Bad players can't argue with this.

Good players won't argue with this.

The problem with this system is it shuts down the negotiation process. Someone proposes an even chop. You want more. They take a blind vote its voted dpwn and now you can;t discuss a hop anymore..... But if they didn't have this rule in place you could make a counter offer.

well if u say yes it doesn't commit u to a deal but to discuss a deal. Also it completely stops any discussion of paying the bubble which is pretty either u want it or not; there's is rarely any more discussion needed.

I have never seen this done where a unanimous yes vote meant "We will discuss a deal." If that is how they are doing it well, fine but it doesn;t seem all that useful in that case .... the only situation it helps there would be with a player who is a strict "no deal" person and wouldn't any deal regardless of how good it actually was for him. Those are a small minority.


Also paying the button is not just you want it or not. There are issues like where does money come from and how much are they going to pay. Where the money comes from is huge. IF I am the chip leader I might agree to pay the bubble ..... but not from first place.

I read it as a standing deal by regs, similar to two regs chopping everyday without having to state as such. If one reg just open raises the SB out of the blue one day as a way to indicate he's no longer interested in chopping, then that's douchey. Seems if a bunch of tourney regs have a standard chopping deal, then the same courtesy should apply.

The only reason anyone even invokes chopping the blinds as analogous in this situation is that both situations are sometimes referred to by the same name even though they have almost nothing in common with each other. FWIW, I -do- selectively chop blinds based on game type, stakes, and rake...just not based on opponent or what my hand is (I never even look at my hand in a situation where I am chopping).

But always agreeing to ant split of tournament winnings would be more analogous to always agreeing to swap percentages with anyone who comes up to you prior to tournament starting. Does anyone do this? Sometimes you will swap with another good player because you think it is +EV. Sometimes you will swap with a friend because it reduces your variance. But you are not just going to agree to swap with a stranger who you think is a significantly inferior player. Why would agree to this in the middle of tournament when you are have differing chip stacks to account for.

I do think it can be reasonable to always agree to bubble save in tournaments with VERY low buy-ins, where the rake is high enough that no one can reasonably expect to make money, and thus your purpose in entering the tournament is solely to have fun and not because you thought it was +EV.

No, that's not the reason.



That is not selectively chopping blinds. That is selecting to chop or not chop ahead of time based on game conditions.

In both situations, a standing agreement has been made ahead of time to chop the tourney (or blinds in that analogy) in a situation where no variable has changed from one day to the next and the other regs expect you to chop.

Sitting down and telling the people next to you, who you usually chop with, that you are not chopping today because the game is a time charge today is not selectively chopping blinds.

The reality is that there was not an agreement to chop. There was an expectation that their would be a chop. And among regulars in a small daily type tournament that expectation is often a very strong expectation bordering on an implicit agreement. When I have worked these types of tournaments I have often heard players making it clear as they agreed to a chop that they always agree to the chop even when they are the chip leader. They are telling you their expectations. I always wish when I hear that, that someone else would speak up and say "Hey, I am agreeing to the chop, and you are free to always agree to chop .... but I reserve the right to make my decisions on a case by case basis" Just so that when it happens there are no hard feelings. I don;t think a person is obligated to say that .... but amongst regulars I think its sort of sleazy to let the others continue to have their expectation of future chops.

Maybe so, though OP has been agreeing to their expectation for months now. Point is OP needs to man up and let them know he's not interested in doing this any longer. Since he's been doing it for months, someone suggested he let them know ahead of time as a courtesy. I don't think that's unreasonable and will go over better than waiting.

The issue here is that people that work in poker rooms want the tournament to be over. Even though they should be protecting everyone, they don't; they are willing to let people pressure and harass those that do not want a deal so that the deal is more likely to occur so they can finish up the tournament. You have to remember that it is in the best interest of every single person working in the poker room and in the best interest of the casino itself for the tournament to end. I have seen the staff join in adding pressure in some smaller venues.

It is not always in the best interest of the dealers for their to be a chop. There are circumstances where chops actually reduce the the dealer tokes. Especially in these small daily tournaments where the chop discussion is taking place at a time when blinds are so high that the tournament is not likely going to last very long even if they play it out.

In any event it generally won't be in the best long term interest of the poker room or its employees for players to feel that are being ganged up on and bullied by the other players with the compliance of the staff.

But realistically its not easy to shut down "Bullying" of people into a deal .... without just announcing there are no deals. Once you open the door for people to talk and negotiate a deal ..... its almost impossible to police that talk to make sure that no person feels bullied. All you can do is try to respond after the fact to statements that are clearly over the line. Sure you can give a penalty the guy who tells the holdout .... "We are going to work together to knock you out next." But can you really penalize him if what he says is "You know you could be the next guy knocked out .... even with your big stack ..... I've seen it happen many times, the guy who gets greedy and won't chop is the next guy out. And when you get down to a short stack we aren't going to chop with you. And next week when you want a chop we aren't going to chop with you."

The secret ballot is not effective because the very way that the deal gets hashed out so that people know what the proposal is .... usually works to reveal who is a supporter of the deal and who isn't. Many times after a secret ballot it is very obvious who voted against it.

How about as soon as one person says no to the chop all chop discussion stops at that point and anyone that continues to talk about it get's a penalty. People shouldn't feel bullied for simply choosing not to chop and if it didn't happen as often people may start not chopping so frequently.

IMO the problem is too many people expect to chop or pay the bubble. I agree there are times when it may be beneficial but a the end of the day did you play the tournament to chop or to win? If you played it to chop then you're doing it wrong.

I have chopped a few times but in every case it was beneficial to me because stakes were shallow or I was short stacked. I play poker for my best interests so if a chop is beneficial to me I have no problem chopping but if it's not beneficial or in a little daily tournament I'm not chopping.

If you really want to get under their skin tell them if they wanted to chop they should have stayed home and made a salad. That is my typical response and is always good for the lulz.

This is a pretty bold statement and you wouldn't find anyone that plays in my room that would agree with you.

Because that shuts down all negotiation. You make an offer. I say NO. Now you can't make another offer offering me more money?

And trying to convince you that its a good deal is not bullying.....

I make a proposal. You say no. I want to point out that you would have to finish in third place to get a bigger payout ..... I'm not bullying you .... I'm selling to you.

We can't do anything about people feeling bullied and any rule that is designed around how someone feels is doomed to fail. We can have rules about people being abusive to others. And we can make case by case decisions about when the topic has been discussed and further discussion is not warranted.

But there is always going to be some grey area.
I agree that this is true .... but its mostly true of daily tournaments with regular players. This expectation doesn;t come out of nowhere .... it comes out their experiences

This is a matter of personal opinion. You are free to feel that way. But if you ask me you are wrong unless you play winner take all tournaments. Tournaments are already set up to chop a prize pool. There is nothing magical about the preset chop (payout structure) that makes it any better than other chops.


And being abusive or insulting to players who want to chop is no better than being abusive to those who don't want to chop.

I have gotten to a point in tournaments where I don't really care what the other players think about me personally. This whole thing is about money.

I chop blinds in small cash games because the general criteria is you chop always or never and if I never chop, I will lose out to the rake. If I selectively chop, the other players will quickly catch on and I will again find myself in a situation where I am losing to the rake.

In time games, I decided I'd start chopping blinds because I want to keep the game appearing friendly for the regular bad players who play and I also think I gain slight equity by them playing more passively against me in other situations if they think I'm friendly.

In tournaments, I have no such consideration. I think players always enter tournaments thinking about winning and it is only once the money becomes a real chance and not an abstraction that they get nervous and want to decrease their variance. I have no problem being the one guy who won't pay the bubble because I feel it is likely to upset some players who will start to play worse or at the very minimum get some people outside of their comfort zone. I don't think anyone's going to stop playing tournaments altogether because there's one guy who won't make a deal.

Of course, if the deal favors me, I take it.

I don't think where you work qualifies as a smaller venue. I have a particular poker room model in mind, one that has about 5 tables and they have small tournaments to get players in the door. I am not thinking of rooms that hold events.

I don't understand what you mean by a "standing agreement made ahead of time to chop the tourney"? When is this done? And even some people had made an agreement, there is huge variation in the most important variable, which is who is still around in the tournament and what their chip count is.

Perhaps I read it wrong, but it sounds like it's the same pool of players every tourney, and all of them have an implicit agreement (save for the occasional thorn).

Again, OP needs to stop being a pussy and tell them he's not interested in deals anymore. Whether he wants to make that known before he gets to the cash or not is his prerogative. I think he should, since he's been agreeing for months now, but not because he owes them but so that he lessens the blow to their expectations which will work better for him.

cliffs: If you want to chop....Stay home and make salads!!!!

Thats lovely but not on point. You proposed:

Do you see how that is a different issue ..... Saying No to a proposed chop is not the equivalent of saying "I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE ANY CHOP DEAL". I would agree that there is no reason to allow players to go on about a chop at that point. But if you just say NO to the proposed chop .... thats all part of negotiation and there is no reason to shut that down.


And as far as your position about why you don't chop. Its all well and good that you don't chop. I don't care. I have no problem with you not chopping. That is your choice based on your own values and prioroities. But it is just your preference .... it is not a superior position to those who like to chop. Its I'm not suggesting you should want to chop.... I'm just suggesting that it makes no sense for you tell others they should not want to chop. their preference is as valid a preference as yours

So I don't disagree with you that we can penalize players who harp on you when you declare "I don't chop"

But I disagree with your equating "saying no to a chop" to "Saying I don't chop"

I just came back to this after a few months, didn't realise there was so many good comments/responses.

I have progressed a little in my situation and don't allow any 'bubble' prizes anymore at all, no matter what. As soon as someone opens their mouth about a 'bubble' prize or a chop before getting into the prizes, I keep my mouth shut. Usually somebody else will decline and the matter ends there. If no-one is forth coming I take on the villain role and say "stop wasting time, let's play!". People are getting used to this now. Increased payout places has also helped to stop the weaker players begging for an extra payout.

Once into the prizes, I only chop if I get equivalent to the 2nd prize. This happens quite a lot when down to 3/4 players as I don't see any increased EV chasing 1st, when I can guarantee 2nd most of the time.

I used to work a :LOT of tournaments on the circuit grind (wsop, wpt , etc) and deals were always proposed and if there was any decent amount of criticism or pressure on the non deal maker we had a solution to that.

The dealer was instructed to get 10 black/10 red cards (or however many) and give each player both cards . "players please give the dealer a RED card if you wanna talk/or agree to proposed deal. Dealers please muck all the other cards"

That keeps it anonymous and was a fairly quick process.