To chop or not to chop

There seems to be a little "I don't chop" fad running through my local card room lately, and I've read a couple of comments in articles/chapters/posts lately on the subject.


I'm of the mentality that you either chop 100% of the time or you never ever chop. What factors should I consider in determining which way to go? (My first thought is how good am I at heads-up play.)

Either chop all the time or don't chop at all, otherwise you are

opening up a can of worms. In the L.A. area most players chop, while in San Diego for whatever reason only the rake pots are chopped. The situation comes up so infrequently that I really

don't think it makes much of a difference. If I chop once or twice in a mid-limit game in a session it's a lot. When you chop especially against the live one it seems to create a more friendly atmosphere and they are more willing to gamble. The bottum line is I really don't think it makes much of a difference

over the course of a years worth of play so do whatever you are

comfortable with, but be consistent.


Bruce

When the game becomes shorthanded, six players or less, I do not chop. Might as well go home if you are going to chop then.


Bruce

Personally, I always chop (it doesn't really pain me to chop if I have a strong hand, because I don't look at my cards until it's my turn to act anyway), but my friend brought up a good point and said that in our California games (which take a drop on the button), the house is getting their money regardless, so you may as well make it worth your while to try to make some money. I could counter with the fact that if you chop you won't lose any money either.. but anyway those are two sides of the chop/don't chop argument.

I recently attended a panel at Lucky Chances in Colma last Saturday and Tommy A had a good explanation of why he would and would not chop. Since he posts frequently here, I'll let him explain it, but it usually comes down to personal preference. Kind of like raising with pocket Aces or waiting for the flop.


If I have a mediocre hand I like to chop and get on with making money -- if the player is any good, he's not going to respect your raise, especially right after you ask him if he wants to chop. Since he's in the BB, he's probably been watching the players to his left which is probably what you have been doing as well, so it's probably really hard to put him on a hand. If I have a bad hand with one chip on the table in front of me, I have no problem tossing it away.


It may be a weakness in my game, but I usually only try to steal the blinds late in tournaments.

"When the game becomes shorthanded, six players or less, I do not chop. Might as well go home if you are going to chop then."


The standard around here is that choppers stop chopping at five players or less. Because short-handed games frequently have some hands that are dealt five-handed and some that are dealt six-handed (because of lobbying and such), I think it's good to state policies in advance. When they aren't stated in advance, and the game teeters around the typical cutoff number of players, bad things happen. This is the main reason I went four years without chopping. I never had to remember who did what.


Now that I'm a chopper, my policy is that I'll chop all the way down to three players. Seems crazy, I know, but it hardly ever comes up because others have non-chopping thresholds higher than three players.


But it did come into play recently. I played for an hour in a three-handed $20-40 game where all three of us chopped. The "might as well go home" mindset, one that makes plenty of sense on the surface, proved to not be essential as our odd chopping rules affected the play and literally changed the game. On each hand, it was up to the button to decide if there would be a pot or not. All three of us were happy. Granted, we were playing a game far different than typical three-handed mid-limit. But we all knew the rules, and they were consistent, so within our strange little world we had a smooth-running enjoyable game.


Tommy

The amount of rake taken vis-vis the stakes is a big consideration. At Foxwoods I believe it is, generally speaking, probably unwise to not chop in the raked games (with the possible exception of 15/30 and just maybe 10&20), because the cardroom has a stiff rake; the first two dollars are taken out at $20.00, even in the 15&30 game. In the 15&30 game the 3rd dollar is raked at $100.00 and the fourth at $200.00, and at each lower limit game the 3rd and 4th dollars are raked earlier: the lower the limit, the sooner the 3rd and 4th dollars are taken out. So imagine you were going to be playing all night heads-up at a full rake at these limits: 2&4, 4&8, 5&10, 10&20, 15&30. Would you do it? This is what is happening to those who refuse to chop in such a situation. I believe your skill differential would have to be large to overcome such a rake in a heads-up game, especially at the lower limits. It is even worse in High-Low Omaha. Of course you don't play all night under such conditions, but every time you do play a blind vs. blind hand under this large rake, you are effectively doing so on a slow cumulative basis. In 20&40 and up, which are time games, I see no reason why playing out the hands should not be just as viable an approach as chopping. Under reasonable rake conditions or time collection conditions, you may want to base your policy on how you feel about your relative strength as a heads-up player in your cardroom at the limits you usually play. There may be other social or strategic reasons which could influence your choice as well.

Puppydog- With regard to chopping, the main factor you need to consider is whether is is worth your while to stay in a hand with one other player. What is to be gained by staying? Not much except a blind and a bet or two. Unless, of course, you have someone who calls you down with little but a "blind-defense". Over the long run, I don't know what the statistical advantage (or disadvantage) is of not chopping, but I'm sure a math expert can help us figure this out. I have always found chopping analogous to taking even money on blackjack vs. a dealer's Ace. It's what I consider as close to a "sure thing" as we ever come. You state you are of the opinion that you either chop 100% of the time, or you don't chop, period. So..., have you answered your own question?. Either you do or you don't chop, all the time, period. In the games I play at Bellagio (8-16 and 15-30), most of the players chop all the time. If someone does not chop, we respect that and play through. These non-choppers do not typically concern themselves with number of players in the game, hand selection, etc. They simply do not chop! Just as one can not be a "little pregnant", one cannot chop only when it suits ones mood. Babe.

The biggest factor to consider, obviously, is rake. In Chicago, we have a $5 rake, so everyone chops. It's rare that someone comes to the Harrah's $20-40 and doesn't chop. Usually they are an out-of-towner. With the Vegas $3 rake and in time collection games, I don't see anything wrong with playing. I like to chop in those games just because it speeds up the game. Most of the time, both of the blinds don't really have anything. Yes, it's true poker to play the blinds, but I'd rather just chop and get on to the next hand. How much can one really outplay another player heads up with blind hands?