Thoughts on chopping blinds

[Dazarath]

I was just thinking about the idea of chopping the blinds, and I was hoping some others could comment on the idea.

When I play, I usually chop with anyone who's willing to. I do this for a couple reasons. One, I'm happy to earn $0 or $-1 while in the blinds, and get on to the next hands, where I'm in late position and have positive expectation. Two, on a table where all of the other players are chopping, I don't want to stand out. I prefer people just see me as a kid who's come to play for fun, so I go with the flow, so to speak.

Now, assuming two equally skilled players, when heads up in the blinds, either the BB or the SB has a positive expectation and the other does not. Let's just assume it's the BB. I don't actually know which one it is, but I just wanted to make a point. So if the player to my left does not chop, then I'm not sure if I want to chop with the player on my right. If they both chopped, then I'm giving up both the +EV and -EV spots and averaging -$0.50 per chop. But in this situation, I'm losing the +EV spot, while being forced to play in the -EV spot. Do most players just continue to chop with one side to keep the game sped up?

My last thought is on time games. This is just sort of a whine, but oh well. In a time game, your EV for chopping is 0 for that hand, but +EV because you get to move onto the hands where you have positive expectation. I almost think it's annoying and selfish when players don't want to chop in timed games, because they're effectively costing the table some amount of money because "they came to gamble". Why can't they gamble by moving onto the next hand? The rest of the table now has to wait so that one player can "feel" like he's gambling more by playing in the blinds. Of course, this argument could then be extended to saying that the button should never steal because he's holding up the game and should always let the blinds chop, etc etc. This is why I don't ever really say anything.

These are just some thoughts of mine. If anyone else has anything to add, it would be appreciated.

[MCS]

I think your decision re: chopping with your right-hand opponent should be independent of your left-hand opponent.

You're not chopping with the left-hand opponent either way, so all that matters is whether you're willing to chop when in the BB. It sounds like you are.

Also, because of rake, it is possible for both players to have negative expectation when in the blinds. So you may be wrong to play in EITHER spot. This is part of why I always chop.

I think it's weird that chopping is allowed in the first place, but that's a story for another day.

[Dazarath]

Thank you for your thoughts. You made some good points.

[ QUOTE ]
I think your decision re: chopping with your right-hand opponent should be independent of your left-hand opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is how I've been playing it, but I'm not sure if it's the correct move.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, because of rake, it is possible for both players to have negative expectation when in the blinds. So you may be wrong to play in EITHER spot. This is part of why I always chop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I forgot about this reason. Especially with the high rake live, this is very possible. It's probably more true in small stakes, where the rake can be 1 BB, than in mid stakes where the rake might be 0.10 BB. But even 0.10 BB is high in a heads up situation where your edge over the opponent is very small.

[Benoit]

If I know for a fact that the other blind has not looked at their hand yet and they offer, then I very well may accept. I probably won't ask though because I can't know for sure if they have looked yet.

Knowing the rake takes a ton of edge out; that should just effect what hands are playable when it's just the blinds left. If my hand can't beat the rake/time charge: fold, if it can with the chance BB will fold: then raise. If SB raises you, chances are it's a fold except for a few hands.

Anyways it's heads up, so chances are the hand will go quickly if there is a flop.

[LearnedfromTV]

I always chop, keeps things friendly, and there's always good camaraderie around the idea of sticking it to the rake every once in a while. If they don't chop, I don't complain, just play it out. I'd chop with the right even if the left won't - just not a big expense and I'd rather keep it light.

Funny story. My girlfriend and I are playing 3/6. Everyone folds to her in the small blind (this might be the most amazing part of the story, but read on anyway). The BB is an old grouch. She asks if he wants to chop. He says no. My girlfriend is usually the nicest person in the world, but this guy was pissing her of already. So she says "OK. I raise." Hasn't looked at her cards. He reraises. She looks at her cards and reraises. He calls.

Flop Q J 2r.

She bets. He raises. She reraises. He reraises. She asks the dealer, "no cap, right?" He says no. She reraises. He reraises. She looks pissed and calls.

Turn x. She bets, he raises, she reraises, he thinks a second and reraises. She reraises. He calls.

River x. She bets. He calls.

She turns over QQ. He turns over JJ.

Beautiful.

[RED_RAIN]

I never chop in a 15/30, 30/60 game.

I also never chop any stakes if it's 6 players or less.

I like HUs and SH so doesn't matter to me. I also sit usually next to bicyclekick at 30/60 so probably not +EV, but if I wanted true +EV, I'd play online.

[chipbrave]

I disagree with chopping in time, but not raked games theory. It would be the opposite for me. In h/u w/blind, pot probably won't get big enough to over come 10% with rake, where as that is a mute point in a time game. If I have a +EV situation in a hand h/u in the blind, the rest of the table can certainly wait. I am more likely to chop in limit vs. NL cause who knows if this is the hand where I can get the other player's whole stack, which is why you play NL. Overall, I chop most of the time, eventhough I beleive I might be better than my opp, and therefore giving up a +EV situation, as you mentioned, chopping leads to a happier environment, and friendlier table image, which are both very good for business.

[CEE]

Interesting posts. Wihtout having given it much thought, I've spent my poker life as a "never-chop" ... although as a low stakes 2/4 or 3/6 player live, I'm not given many opportunities to stand by my convictions.

A couple points in favor of not chopping:

1) The skill difference can be big enough, that you should take any opportunity to get in a pot with them (as mentioned in earlier posts... particularly in NL).

2) It could give you a LAGish table image, which can help in other hands, in a relatively harmless format.

Last night at Canterbury I was at an unusually tight 3/6 table, and pot-chopping was running rampant. As I customarily do, I refused to chop (and naturally raised), when first given an opportunity. It caused a big stir at the table.

The upside was that guy to my left, on three occasions, folded his BB to my SB raise because "it wasn't worth his time" (his words). The downside was that the table thought I was a jerk... but I don't think there is an EV impact to being a jerk.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The downside was that the table thought I was a jerk... but I don't think there is an EV impact to being a jerk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do, and I think it's negative. Normally passive players may play more aggressively. At the very least, I think it will make other players try to play better against you.

Personally, I chop with a rake and I don't chop with a button drop. The Bay Area casinos I play at rake $1 for a chopped pot (i.e. no flop), and charge a full $4 once the flop hits, no matter the size of the pot.

That's a huge difference, even at 20-40, or so I think.

When playing the Wynn recently, I discovered that no flop = no rake at all, and that seems even better. :-)

Add in to that the issues concerning table friendliness (and there is negative EV in being perceived a jerk in most circumstances), moving the game along, position, etc., and it becomes a no-brainer.

As for games with a drop, which one local casino used to use, losing $3 per round (on the button) no matter what was a strong argument for pursuing every edge I had, including playing the blinds.