This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Doug I'm curious - do you play poker? If so, would you chop if you were down to the last 2 in a tournament? 1st place is $3000, 2nd place is $1000. You have the same chip stack and feel that your opponent is equal in ability to you. He says to you "let's both take $1750 and then the winner gets the last $500." Would you take it?
Can't say if I would or not since I don't have any data to help me decide. I can see a scenario where I would and I can see a scenario where I wouldn't.It depends on how I evalute the strengths of my team vs. the others, how the pot structure is set up if there is no chop, etc.If a 1/4 share is good enough money and I think the field is just as strong as I am, I'd very much consider it, especially if the 1/4 share is significantly more than a 4th place share.If I have a dominant team and think I have good odds of making it past round one, I'd consider pushing it into the semi-finals and then re-evaluate the chop idea then.Saying you will chop isn't the same as saying you will always chop when given the opportunity.
Was just about to try to say this. I can't say it better than he just did, so I'll go with
They can do what they want, personally I have never done this but have gone winner take all acouple of times.
I'm in a 12 team league, we decided to chop 12 ways.
I don't play poker, but I don't think I'd take that. If I owed Vito $1700 and didn't have it, that would change things, of course. And I might have given you a different answer when I was a 22-year-old grad student making about 10K per year. But I don't think so. I probably haven't made this clear, but I don't think there's anything morally wrong with the chop. If both parties agree, then who am I to complain? I might even do it in a fantasy football situation if I thought I had the clearly worse team. But I guess I just assumed the decision would never arise if I clearly had the worse team.Chopping isn't wrong. I just think it's weird.
See, there's the misconception. People afraid to lose DON'T gamble to begin with. And anyone who gambles money they can't afford to lose is a fool anyway.Not telling anyone what to do with their money. Just saying what I think about it. If you're afraid to lose you shouldn't be playing and if you can't afford to lose you're playing in the wrong leagues.You're not splitting it up with everyone. You're only splitting it up with your acknowledged equal. The rest of the stepping stones in the league don't have a say in it by virtue of not playing well enough to be there.Don't like to chop? Make the finals and then you can refuse to.
Until then, you're a loser telling a winner what they should do. By definition, who are you to criticize them? If you aren't at the final table, have a seat and ####. Their ability to weigh risk vs. reward may be the very reason they are in the championship and you are not.
All the "you's" in this post are not directed at omahabrad, but to those who aren't in the championships generally.
Good point, jeff.And to futher the analogy...If you've ever folded a hand in poker, you've used the same analysis as someone who chops a pot.
That's the true wisdom in this thread.If you need the rush of gambling money to bring you satisfaction, fantasy football is a horrible means of doing that. As is doing it to make money.
I think that's the thinking here. I may be assuming too much, but I would assume with the boom of both poker (particularly internet poker) as well as fantasy football, there are a lot of people that overlap and play both. In poker, taking a chop at a final table is often a smart move and +EV in the long run unless you are an elite player making final tables on a consistent basis. Particularly those who play a lot or as a living, learning how and when to chop is actually a poker "skill".Thus, I'm not surprised that people offer and accept chops in fantasy football, especially when the championship rides on so much based on one week's worth of action. For me, I don't play FF for money. I like that aspect of it, but it's more for the enjoyment. I don't spend the hours I do invested in it for the return at the end. At the same time, if I've spent all that time and made it that far, the chance of going home with significantly less based on one week doesn't appeal to me either. For each person, the amount that becomes significant will vary, but I can understand some not wanting to chop at all and some wanting to chop for seemingly little.Doug Drinen said:
Well said Doug. I also expected more people against the chop and am surprised to see so many doing it. I don't think it's cheating or anything, as one said as long as you pay it out to 1st and 2nd, you can't really do anything about where that money goes afterwards.However, I know if it was the league I was in......I'd call him and the person who did it a p**** for not having the balls to put it on the line. If they even dared brag about their championship, I'd laugh back at them not having the confidence in winning the whole thing.Let's get real, the reason people are splitting pots is not because everyone's a nice guy and giving away money.......it's because you're afraid to lose.Doug Drinen said:Agreed.What did he say, "Even though 24 hours ago I was too scared to play against you for any real stakes, I justPeter_Griffin said:you!!!!1"? Doesn't really sting. I'm not much of a trash-talker, though, so maybe I just don't get it.I'm also a little surprised by the general consensus that chopping is fine. "It's not about the money" is an argument that could just as easily be used on either side. "It's not about the money" means you don't really care whether you win $X or $Y. If you don't care, then why the need to insure against the possibility of only winning $X?I'm a firm believer that this and almost all questions of this nature should be determined by league culture. If your league thinks it's OK, then it's OK. So, while I wouldn't do it, I don't have a problem with the chop itself. I'm just surprised. I fully expected 90% of the posts in here to be anti-chop.
Same here. I would not do it because I want EVERYTHING. Money. Title. Bragging rights. I agree with a previous post that bragging after splitting winnings would sound pretty lame.Another reason and I don't think I saw it...I would be pissed to split a pot and wind up winning the league.
It's Ha Ha you can't beat me. However, if you split the pot beforehand....that doesn't hold any water. Like I mentioned, we're not all in this because we're nice guys and give away money. If a person wants to protect their investment as you call it, that's fine but at the same time, don't beat your chest and tell me how great you thought your team was when you didn't have the balls to stand on your own with the money on the line. Split the money, shake hands and call it a day.For me, I want it all and you'll know about it when I get it.
Some people are all about maximizing their dollar-expectation.There's nothing inconsistent about thinking, before the season starts, that you've got a positive expectation in a particular league, but thinking that, with one week left, you're an underdog in the championship game. In that situation, you'd happily join the league before the season started, and just as happily chop before the championship game.Doug Drinen said:
I don't beat my chest whether I win or lose, whether I chop or not, just my personality, especially in a game heavily contingent on luck.But I wouldn't consider a champion who split the pot, any less of a champion.It's not like I would request to have a asterisk by his team name indicating, he didn't really have the balls to think his team was in fact the best.I just think it's more a personality thing, it's not like that decision makes their team any better or worse. To each his own...
Maybe we're not playing the same game. I'm playing a pretend football game where I have no control over how my players perform in the game and pretty much anything can happen on any given week. You seem to be playing a game where you have to have the stones to "put it on the line" and "have confidence in winning." Do you have more control over the outcome of your game than I do?Is it so different from "Ha! Put it on the line. I'm choosing tails. You pick heads. Man up! Don't you have confidence that you're going to win?"Well said Doug. I also expected more people against the chop and am surprised to see so many doing it. I don't think it's cheating or anything, as one said as long as you pay it out to 1st and 2nd, you can't really do anything about where that money goes afterwards.However, I know if it was the league I was in......I'd call him and the person who did it a p**** for not having the balls to put it on the line. If they even dared brag about their championship, I'd laugh back at them not having the confidence in winning the whole thing.Doug Drinen said:Agreed.What did he say, "Even though 24 hours ago I was too scared to play against you for any real stakes, I justPeter_Griffin said:you!!!!1"? Doesn't really sting. I'm not much of a trash-talker, though, so maybe I just don't get it.
I'm also a little surprised by the general consensus that chopping is fine. "It's not about the money" is an argument that could just as easily be used on either side. "It's not about the money" means you don't really care whether you win $X or $Y. If you don't care, then why the need to insure against the possibility of only winning $X?
I'm a firm believer that this and almost all questions of this nature should be determined by league culture. If your league thinks it's OK, then it's OK. So, while I wouldn't do it, I don't have a problem with the chop itself. I'm just surprised. I fully expected 90% of the posts in here to be anti-chop.
Let's get real, the reason people are splitting pots is not because everyone's a nice guy and giving away money.......it's because you're afraid to lose.
Our league payouts are $0, $30, $100, and $400. I made the finals and offerred a 60/40 chop as a -1 point underdog. I've always felt that an 80/20 split for one game is too much when luck is 80% of the determining factor in a one game scenario. Waivers closed before the playoffs so I was stuck starting Favre in the snow on the west coast over and injured Ferotte and questionable Garcia and lost. I had a good year and $100 basically covers the entry. Wanted a little something to show for my efforts. That cash will go to a nice new Garmin on my bike.Addressing Doug's question, the difference is when the outcome of one game starts impacting your return by 4x or such. 2x seems like enough to ride on one game.Doug Drinen said:
Anyone who has not been eliminated has potential winnings equity. It should be treated as any other asset. Honestly, I'm surprised people have been only talking about 50/50 chops between the diff of 1st and 2nd place. Many have pointed out that they would only chop if they thought their team was unlikely to win. How about the next logical step? Give yourself odds on winning, be it one or a series of games, then appropriately determine your expected stake in the winnings. From the above example: 1st place gets 3500, 2nd gets 1500. The diff between the two values is what is being played for as both players have already gotten 1500 by getting at worst 2nd place. That leaves 2000 to play for. If you believe your team will win 60% of the time, any deal where you recieve 1200 or more is great and any deal where you receive less is odds on less desirable. There are even competitive advantages to be gotten in such a deal similar to any other fantasy football situation. You could exploit an opponents miscalculation of odds to win, or their own fear of losing. Such as, the winner that has a true 60% chance to win, accepting a lesser equity of say 55% just to reduce overall variance and the chance they have of winning the minimal amount.Doug Drinen said:
I don't understand how acknowledging realistic chances, of winning or losing, is a sign of a lack of confidence. When I weigh my teams odds in a given game I'm usually quite confident in my own analysis. I'm also confident that its never been anywhere close to 100%. From the tone of your post I would say your opinion of people being afraid to lose is some sort of undesirable filthy emotionWell said Doug. I also expected more people against the chop and am surprised to see so many doing it. I don't think it's cheating or anything, as one said as long as you pay it out to 1st and 2nd, you can't really do anything about where that money goes afterwards.However, I know if it was the league I was in......I'd call him and the person who did it a p**** for not having the balls to put it on the line. If they even dared brag about their championship, I'd laugh back at them not having the confidence in winning the whole thing.Doug Drinen said:Agreed.What did he say, "Even though 24 hours ago I was too scared to play against you for any real stakes, I justPeter_Griffin said:you!!!!1"? Doesn't really sting. I'm not much of a trash-talker, though, so maybe I just don't get it.
I'm also a little surprised by the general consensus that chopping is fine. "It's not about the money" is an argument that could just as easily be used on either side. "It's not about the money" means you don't really care whether you win $X or $Y. If you don't care, then why the need to insure against the possibility of only winning $X?
I'm a firm believer that this and almost all questions of this nature should be determined by league culture. If your league thinks it's OK, then it's OK. So, while I wouldn't do it, I don't have a problem with the chop itself. I'm just surprised. I fully expected 90% of the posts in here to be anti-chop.
Let's get real, the reason people are splitting pots is not because everyone's a nice guy and giving away money.......it's because you're afraid to lose.
. Ignoring the likelyhood of losing isn't a sign of bravery, it is a sign of recklessness.
I dont know where I stand on the chopping argument as originally presented... but as a Commish, I sure like it less when some players have already played. There's a real thin line for me between this arrangement and paying/colluding someone to sit their players. Perhaps I am over thinking this, but once the game has started, "the rules" should stay the same. I realize I am stretching the definition of "the rules" here, but it sure feels problematic to me. What would the league think/say if your buddy's team was up by 40 points, and you had Chicago D left on Monday night, and you both agreed to split the pot at that stage, "because he was conservative or risk averse"? I dont think I'd want that kind of a Pandora's box opened...Dexter Manley said:
But there's the rub. You could afford to lose the $200 you put up to start the league, and play just as much for the fun of it as the "gambling".If first is worth $1000, and second is worth $400....then you're risking $600. For many of us, the $200 in summer is no biggie, but an extra $300 gaurenteed during the holidays is a huge deal. I realize you're playing with house money...but that doesn't change the fact that $300 is there just for agreeing to the split.JamesTheScot said:See, there's the misconception. People afraid to lose DON'T gamble to begin with. And anyone who gambles money they can't afford to lose is a fool anyway.omahabrad said:Not telling anyone what to do with their money. Just saying what I think about it. If you're afraid to lose you shouldn't be playing and if you can't afford to lose you're playing in the wrong leagues.JamesTheScot said:You're not splitting it up with everyone. You're only splitting it up with your acknowledged equal. The rest of the stepping stones in the league don't have a say in it by virtue of not playing well enough to be there.Don't like to chop? Make the finals and then you can refuse to.omahabrad said:
Until then, you're a loser telling a winner what they should do. By definition, who are you to criticize them? If you aren't at the final table, have a seat and ####. Their ability to weigh risk vs. reward may be the very reason they are in the championship and you are not.
All the "you's" in this post are not directed at omahabrad, but to those who aren't in the championships generally.
So what does "fear" and "afford" have to do with chopping a pot? Absolutely nothing.
I'll usually take the 100% odds of carrying home $500 than to risk an all or nothing shot at $0 or $1000 if my odds of taking home the $1000 are less than 50%. A 100% shot at a 400% return on my $100 investment is better than a long shot at a 900% return if the odds favor of me taking a 100% loss on my investment.
Anyone know what system the banker uses on Deal Or No Deal?
That's exactly what I've done before as commish. The rules state X, I'm paying X and if you guys work out a deal, then that's up to you.Rovers said:If I were commish, I send out the prize money according to the rule set. If they want to split the pot, let them, but as commish, I send the prize $ out as per the rule set. They can swap spit and checks as they see fit.
You are 100% correct, and :goodpost:Rovers said:If I were commish, I send out the prize money according to the rule set. If they want to split the pot, let them, but as commish, I send the prize $ out as per the rule set. They can swap spit and checks as they see fit.
Good question. Somehow I doubt all the people in here who say "play to win" and "grow a pair" would not reverse chop if the payout was $1,000 grand prize and $500 to second place. But they wouldn't chop, either.
