Is it ethical to chop?

[RitmoEnElCaos]

Forgive me if this has been discussed before. It almost certainly has, but I did a search and was not able to find anything.

Assuming all remaining players agree to the deal, and assuming that no prior discussions of a deal had taken place, is it ethical to chop the prize pool of a multi-table tournament, and why?

If so, what do you say to someone who says it is unethical? What do you say to the last guy who busted before the deal was struck who claims that his play would have been different if he had known a deal was in the works? If the other participants in the tournament that were eliminated before the deal feel slighted, how can you explain to them that they were not?

I've noticed Tournament Rules of Poker by Bob Ciafonne that state "A tournament event is expected to be played until completion. A private agreement that removes all prize money from being at stake in the competition is unethical."

Thanks!
-Ritmo

[bobman0330]

A deal that includes all remaining players cannot be unethical, as there is no one who has standing to challenge the deal (i.e., anyone who is dissatisfied is necessarily not someone who is still involved in the tournament, therefore who cares what he thinks?).

However, a tacit agreement between a subgroup of the players that a deal will be made at some point is clearly unethical.

Ciaffone's position is extremely hard to justify. Firstly, in any situation where all players desire a deal, they'll probably make one with or without the hosting authority's imprimatur. Creating a rule against it merely increases the possibility of cheating. Allowing this to happen violates the casino's primary responsibilty, which is to ensure that games can be carried on safely and fairly.

The reason people don't like deals is that tournaments are in some sense a spectator sport, and deals aren't fun to watch. This is an absurd rationale though. Casinos or spectators don't pay players to provide entertainment. In fact, players pay casinos to participate.

In any case, if you're ever at the final table of a MTT, don't let Bob Ciaffone's ethics interfere with your right to contract.

[zaxx19]

A deal that includes all remaining players cannot be unethical

End of story. Between all of the remaining players there is an 100% equity of the remaining loot. How you as individuals choose to decide who gets what ...is entirely up to you. If you CANT decide then the tourney must continue as the rules stipulate...thats pretty simple for me to understand as ethical.

[StableHand]

Very well put. Who's to say it's unethical? It's my money.

For me the only problem is making a GOOD deal. Is "chip-value" always the best deal? If not, why not? I made a horrible (I think) 4-way chop a few weeks ago, holding half the chips. My rationale (excuse afterwards) being the other 3 were more skilled and experienced than me. A chip-value chop would have given me 40% of the money instead of 30%

[zaxx19]

Chip value is pretty straight forward .... although alot of times a short stack has a problem with it bc their winnings arent gonna go much lower if they have a decent amount left so the decision becomes accept 4th place money or freeroll for higher.....hard to tell him not to take a freeroll alot of the times.

[JaBlue]

It isn't unethical to split when all remaining players agree, but I consider it unsportsmanlike. Who goes into an event hoping for a split? If you don't, why should you go for (a fair) one later? Please don't tell me to cut down on variance. Even if you're a professional this isn't an excuse - you've chosen a profession that has a very high inherent amount of variance in it and if you can't deal with that, it was pretty stupid to choose that profession in the first place.

[augie00]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't unethical to split when all remaining players agree, but I consider it unsportsmanlike. Who goes into an event hoping for a split? If you don't, why should you go for (a fair) one later? Please don't tell me to cut down on variance. Even if you're a professional this isn't an excuse - you've chosen a profession that has a very high inherent amount of variance in it and if you can't deal with that, it was pretty stupid to choose that profession in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're telling me is...

A professional daredevil. He's performing an ultra cool stunt, where he gets shot in the back by a pistol. Minutes before the stunt, the director comes to him and says, "I have a sweet new bulletproof vest that guarantees that you won't be injured by the bullet."

The daredevil is supposed to decline the vest upon the grounds that he's chosen a dangerous profession, and he needs to deal with it?

[Pepsquad]

Chopping isn't necessarily about avoiding variance. Sometimes it is about nothing more than CASH. Heading into HU play, if you're observant enough to know that you are outclassed, screw variance. That's just a good business decision.

Pep.

[StableHand]

In this case a 40-20-20-20 (roughly the size of the stacks) chop would have given the money distribution at $9.200-4.600-4.600-4.600 instead of the set $9.800-7.400-4.300-2.600. which seems a great deal for everyone, and assures the chipleader the win. Being the weakest player at the table, but with a good leverage I settled for an even 20K chop and play for the remaining 3K, which I felt I still had a good chance of taking, making it more or less the same kinda chop as the chip-value, IF I had won. I'm too nice a guy, and used to choping far smaller pools where $-amounts in payout don't differ as much, even if percentages differ about the same.

[zaxx19]

It isn't unethical to split when all remaining players agree, but I consider it unsportsmanlike. Who goes into an event hoping for a split?

Probably several thousand players in the 2005 main event will go in hoping for much less. I would. Id take cashing and then a freeroll for any additional prize money.