Chopping - Why I don't

In live games it’s common that when everyone folds to the small & big blind, instead of playing the hand they will simply chop the blinds. Both players pull back all or most of their money and move on to the next hand. Virtually all players chop blinds - I do not. recovery

I’ve had dozens of  very short conversations on why I don’t chop, but I felt the desire to maybe explain in detail not only why I don’t chop, but why I think every decent player should not chop.

Here are my personal reasons, ranked by importance, for not chopping in live poker.

1. Letting fish off the hook - If you believe you’re a better player than your opponent, allowing them to avoid playing a hand with you is letting them escape a chance to make mistakes against you. This is mercy. If your goal at the table is to make money, and you achieve your goal by playing as many hands with weak opponents as possible, then chopping does not make sense.

2. Headsup pots are easier to win - All things being equal, you have a 1 in 5 chance of winning a 5 way pot, 1 in 4 chance of winning a 4 way pot, and so on. Also, in a heads up pot all of your focus is on one opponent, and there are less factors to consider making them easier (in my opinion at least) to play. Blind on blind pots are always heads up, and chopping simply removes one more potential pot won away from you - there’s no reason to allow this.

3. Live players are clueless when playing blind vs blind - I remember this really funny hand in vegas where it folded to the small blind, and the player assumed it was a chop and I calmly told him I don’t chop.

player: wait, you don’t chop?
me: nope.
player: oh...*stares around blankly*...wait, so now what?
me: haha...well.. you can call, raise, or fold
player: oh..i call
me: raise...
player: oh..um..fold

It’s as if he completely forgot how to play poker in the moment he was forced to play blind vs blind. It was too funny.

recovery In poker literature/culture, blind on blind or headsup poker is in a way it’s own little meta game. All decent players are aware that hand ranges are to be wider in this situation, and therefore the entire post flop dynamic is different. Most live players are completely oblivious to these dynamics, and therefore have no idea how to adjust to a heads up pot. If your goal in poker is to make money, allowing your opponent to avoid a situation where he’s the most clueless is complete insanity, you might as well light money on fire at that point.

4. Players hate you - One of the side effects of not chopping is it tilts your opponents. Players irrationally find it offensive that you want to play poker instead of chop, and if you’re lucky will develop a personal grudge against you and make you a target. A common response is “oh! You don’t chop huh! Then I’ll raise!” which translates as “Oh, you want to play poker, this offends me, so in response I’ll put more money with worse hands in the pot! haha! now what!”

I had one occasion while playing in LA, the player to my right asked to chop twice, each time I calmy said “no thanks” and raised his small blind limp. He got so upset that the third time we were blind on blind he made a ridiculous raise (like 10x the bb), I woke up with two kings and moved in. Him being tilted from this called with Q-3 - something he’d never do if my non-chopping did not upset him.

If your goal in poker is to make money, then allowing your opponents to avoid situations that may tilt them, and cause them to play worse than before is a mistake.

5. Rake Shmake - Many will point out that a blind on blind pot will be very small due to the rake, in some casinos the rake will take half of an unraised pot, causing a player to only win his money back if the pot is played without a bet postflop. They will argue this is a reason to chop.

The first thing to point out is this ONLY applies if both players do not raise pre-flop. All arguments about pot size are fallacious since the pot is only small if both players do not raise. To a player who  will raise playable hands and fold/check unplayable this argument has no validity. I personally am a player like this, and this among many reasons is why I find this argument unconvincing.

In addition this argument could be used to argue against limping in, since a limped pot of many players often has a higher rake than a heads up pot. A the local casino I play at, a unraised pot of two players will go from $4 to $2 after rake (50%). However an unraised pot of five players will go from $10 to $5 or $6 after rake. So if one is to argue that rake is a reason to chop, one most also argue it’s a reason to not limp either.

In short, chopping allows weak opponents to avoid playing against you, it prevents you from playing in easy spots, most players are clueless headsup, and it may drive your opponent crazy causing him to give you his stake with Q3 - all things that will increase your bottom line. Cn@@hqRVvUXOhBR32tL%