This is a discussion on Should I have chopped or not? within the online poker forums, in the Tournament Poker section; I started a $3 NLHE game on PokerStarsPA at 10 p.m. and ended at 1:30 a.m. With a few bounties and guaranteed 2nd place, we
I would look at who has the edge, if you think he has an edge over you then I would consider a chop and if you think you have an edge over him then I would play it out. That being said I personally would seldom consider chopping and almost always want to play it out.
The fact, it was a bounty tournament, changes things quite a bit. I assume, it was not possible to chop the bounty, and that you had to play out anyway? In that case part of the argument for chopping or making a deal does not exist.
If on the other hand each player got to keep his own bounty, then a deal is very unfavourable for the player with the smallest bounty on him. In a similar fashion a 50/50 split is only fair, if chip stacks are equal. So without more information it is impossible to say, if this was a good deal or not.
I play on 888 Poker, and there deals are based on ICM, so its automatic and does not require assistance for a staff member. Its also fair, so if I feel, I dont have a skill edge on the opponent(s), I will usually accept a deal when 3-handed or heads up. This saves me time and reduce variance somewhat, both of which I am happy with.
For instance yesterday I made it to the final two in a 5,5$ R+A. The difference between first and second was around 100$, and we had very deep stacks of around 60BB with 10 minute blind intervals. The opponent was a solid regular, and I think, I can find better use of my time than spending up to an hour playing heads up with a solid regular to potentially win another 50$.