Casino Poker for Beginners: Chop, Blinds – Expectations, Etiquette and EV

At some point in virtually every casino hold'em poker session, you will be confronted with a strange word (phrase) like Chop. It occurs in this scenario: You are in the big blind, the player to your left, the first to act, folds. So does the next player, and the next, and so on, including the button. The player in the small blind now turns to you and asks for a single word: Chop.

Understand Chop better

I was among the many, many players who had no idea what was being asked of me the first time this happened. I'd like to walk you through it so that you don't end up as nervous as I was.

“Chopping” the blinds in cash games is allowed in every casino I’ve played poker at. This means that when everyone except the two blinds have folded before the flop, the last two players can end the hand next. If both players agree, they can have their blinds back, and the hand ends. The buttons advance, and play moves on to the next hand, with no one having any gain or loss. (At least that’s how it works in Las Vegas. I understand that some poker rooms in California take a small rake even if the blinds are “chopped,” which I think is unfair.)

“To cut” or not to “cut”?

My reaction when first presented with this option was to reject it. After all, I came to the casino to play, not to fold. My selfish reasons for wanting to play rather than “cut” only became stronger as I gained poker experience. Playing blind versus blind presents difficult tactical and hand-reading challenges, and I have reason to believe that I will, on average, make these difficult decisions better than my opponent, and the situation will therefore be profitable or “+EV” for me.

However, there are also legitimate reasons to favor the chop. Often, both players will have nothing to start their hands with, and the hand will be thrown away either by checking all the way, or with a bet at some point followed by an immediate fold. Either way, someone wins a $3 pot in a $1/$2 No-Limit hold'em game.

Worse, that $3 pot can be reduced by a certain amount because of the rake. For such insignificant bets, the entire table is delayed from playing the next hand.

But the most important reason to agree to a split is social. A high percentage of low-stakes players have a strong preference for the chop. You have veto power over this choice, but if you do, you will generate resentment from a lot of your opponents. A significant portion of them will retaliate immediately by placing a disproportionately large raise – sometimes going all in – regardless of what your cards are, just to “teach you a lesson”. It is particularly problematic to have the player to your left angry with you, because his positional advantage gives him endless opportunities to punish and confuse you in the hours to come.

This part of the game is perhaps difficult for new players to understand, but it is absolutely true. Having friendly, good-natured relations between you and your opponents will make you more money than having hard feelings. In terms of long-term profit, this factor vastly outweighs the small margin you may have in contesting blind-to-blind pots. Plus, it is much more enjoyable to spend time sitting next to people you are on good terms with than people who are staring at you, thinking you are an idiot, and looking for chances to rub your face in a big loss.

Your Choice of Division: Chop

“Okay,” you think. “That sounds reasonable, and I’ll agree to split the blinds if the other guy agrees – at least most of the time. But certainly not when I finally get the aces or kings I’ve been waiting for!”

Sorry, but that's not how it works. With any adjacent player, you must always split, or never split. Doing so selectively is both socially wrong and strategically disastrous.

Since you have veto power over the chop, do you passively allow your opponent to decide to chop most hands, but play your own stronger ones? Of course not. That would be willingly putting yourself at a disadvantage. Follow the golden rule, which is that you should not try to impose such a regime on your opponent. Any player with a half-brain won't let you do it anyway, and you'll generate resentment for trying.

Every now and then you’ll hear someone brag that he always cuts “even if he has aces,” as if that makes him a morally superior human being. It doesn’t. For the reasons explained, the decision must be made: always or never—and the “always” part includes a pair of aces.

However, you can hand the small pot over to him at the time, then refuse to share it later while you are together. In fact, that is precisely what you should do, both as a social nonprofit and as a strategy.

You willingly cooperate until the player proves himself to be untrustworthy, after which you stop cooperating with him, because he has proven himself to be dishonest. You don't have to be hostile about it. You just smile and say, "Let's play" every time he suggests a "chop."

If you wish, you can explain that by general consensus, splitting is always or never, and his defection meant he was choosing “never.” But you don’t have to articulate this. The message will be made quite clear by his consistent refusal after the split. (Of course, you can and should continue to cooperate in a chop with the player on your other side if that has been the pattern.)

In poker rooms where there is a large jackpot on the outside, some pairs of players will openly agree to a selective-chop arrangement in which the two will play any hand in which one of them has jackpot potential (typically pocket pairs or suited cards). The usual signal for not chopping is something like, "Let's play this one." The expectation, whether explicit or implicit, is that the players will check on every street unless the big hand actually closes. In that case, the player who made the bet will make one bet that, if called, will meet the minimum pot size, and another that is expected to be called, with the understanding that this bet will be silently refunded upon payment of the jackpot.

You should be aware that such an agreement may violate the casino's bonus rules, depending on the exact wording of the rule and how explicit the players' agreement is.

It's a gray area, to say the least, and for that reason I prefer to avoid such situations, and stick to a truly universal split-or-play deal. But declining such a deal when offered could very well cause resentment and retaliation by a player who would rather do so. It's tricky to navigate, and I'm not sure there's a perfect or universal solution.

Every now and then, you'll end up sitting next to a player who would rather play than cut all the time. If so, don't get mad about it. Cheerfully agree to play.

Conclusion

In short:
1. If the other player wants to routinely cut, be cooperative.
2. Don't let anyone humiliate you with selective division on your terms.
3. Whatever you decide with another player, honor your agreement, and always be friendly and cheerful about it. Remember: you are playing poker, not mowing the lawn or shoveling snow. Don't let petty squabbles over the blinds spoil your enjoyment of the game.

Author: Robert Woolley

Article translated and adapted from the original: Casino Poker for Beginners: Chopping Blinds – Expectations, Etiquette, and EV