Ethics in poker - grey areas

[microbet]

Everyone knows about the recent events and I'm not talking about multi-accounting a tourney. I was thinking more of a thread in High Stakes NLHE about soft playing a friend when HU.

What about some other grey areas?

Making deals in tournaments:

Common practice and not widely thought of as unethical, but I think it is unfair to other players if you aren't publicly offering the same deal to everyone. Anyone offering a deal obviously thinks there is value in it and that value could potentially affect their playing decisions.

Owning a piece of another player in the same tourney:

Pretty obvious possibilities for problems there.

Softplaying HU in a cash game:

The problem is that if you know you are going to end up softplaying HU with someone you might play the hand differently before you are HU.

Heads Up Display:

Some people think this isn't fair, some do.

Instant Messaging while you play

I don't mean with the other players at the table. Maybe just talking about the other players at the table with someone who might know them. Talking about hands already played. Is this just part of the game when you play on-line?


Thoughts? Any others?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone knows about the recent events

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. Can you give me a link or something?

If I think I have something worthwhile to say about your other questions, I'll post later.

[microbet]

I mean the ZeeJustin stuff. It is still near the top of the multiple table tournament forum. See you back here in a week if you are going to read all of it.

[microbet]

I'll give my thoughts.

Owning a piece: I don't play many MTTs, so it hasn't come up. I would feel like it was a little problem, but not sure I would turn down a friend who wanted to trade a small piece.

Soft play: I wouldn't consider doing it.

Making deals: Same as the first. I'm inclined against, but haven't made it a rule or anything and it only came up once and I was too dense to figure out if the deal was fair so we just played it out.

HUD: I use it. I think it's fair as long as it's available for anyone to use. I can understand the opposing viewpoint though.

IM: I do IM during play sometimes. I never talk about a hand with someone in the game while it is happening. That is obviously not a grey area. I have done things like ask who is good at a table, or much more commonly, made fun of other people behind their backs.

[curtains]

Of course this is why I think everyone is being way too harsh on some of the recent cheating cases. Owning %s of pepole, which is unbelievably commonplace and many people admit to it openly, could easily be seen as cheating, to a similar degree as to what what ZJ did.

Again I think that ZJ's actions are unethical, but I have long since stopped trading action with people. The one way around it is to probably make a deal that the action is off if you are ever at the same table as the player you have a deal with.

I mean everyone saw the WPT Final table with Habib and Tuan Le. I don't know if they were cheating or not, but they were either cheating, or Habib is not so great at shorthanded huge blind play after that KJs fold. Based on some previous play I would guess it was on the up and up, however if having a % of a player was completely and totally outlawed, then we wouldn't have to worry about it quite as much.

I still think that area is more gray than this one, but the people who are so excited and want ZJ's life to be destroyed have almost surely engaged in or completely tolerated a practice that many others would consider cheating as well. For you that may be a gray area, and for ZJ what he did may be a gray area. However anyone who trades %s with each other, please realize that there are a decent number of people who think you too are "scumbag" cheaters, and that they are not clearly wrong to think that.

Personally I think trading signifigant %s is unethical. I think what ZJ did is more unethical. I also think that other things go on from time to time that are far more unethical than any of the two practices listed above. I don't expect everyone to share my exact viewpoint on the above practices, nor do I think others should expect the same of everyone else.

It all comes down to one simple question: If the site you are playing on knew exactly what you were doing, would they have a problem with it. If the answer is yes, you are cheating, if not you aren't cheating. I don't honestly know PStars stance on players trading 50% of each other in the same tournament to reduce varaince, however I would really be perturbed if they didn't see the potential problems with this. Once they see these problems, it's really quite absurd for them to come up with an "appropriate" % of yourself that you can trade. I mean is the cutoff 10%, 20%, 5%? I think that any reasonable Poker site should allow zero trading of action, although I simply don't know if this is the case. "We should ask and find out, and then everyone who trades action is a dirty rotten scumbag cheater whom should be banned from the WSOP and ostracized from the community, and perhaps anyone whom has ever done so in their life, because they should have known it was unethical."

For all those who think the two aren't comparable, I disagree. Again I agree that what ZJ did was worse, but if someone has 25% of someone and they get moved to the table, do you honestly think that someone isn't going to take it easy on their blind on the bubble?

PS - Softplaying in an MTT is without a doubt cheating IMO.

[runner4life7]

i think if its a tourney and you are the last 2 left you can do what you choose then. i.e. make a deal with some and not others.

Owning a player in a tourney you are in is probably wrong.

Softplaying HU in a cash game I don't say as a big deal.

HUD I think is fine because its the same as writing tons and tons and tons of notes.

IMing is fine as long as the perosn isnt at teh table.

[chezlaw]

My thoughts

Making deals in tournaments:
Only ok if everyone still playing agrees

Owning a piece of another player in the same tourney:
Only ok if public and everyone playing gives permission.

Softplaying HU in a cash game:
Hard to see the point. If deals are forbidden then I agree with you that its not okay in a touney.

Heads Up Display:
No problem with this but I have an issue with datamining. I datamine like mad, feels wrong when I sit with fish/newbies who know nothing of datamining. I'd be happier if it was impossible but can't concede the huge advantage it would give other regulars if I didn't do it.

Instant Messaging while you play
I'm 40



chez

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
My thoughts

Making deals in tournaments:
Only ok if everyone still playing agrees

Owning a piece of another player in the same tourney:
Only ok if public and everyone playing gives permission.

Softplaying HU in a cash game:
Hard to see the point. If deals are forbidden then I agree with you that its not okay in a touney.

Heads Up Display:
No problem with this but I have an issue with datamining. I datamine like mad, feels wrong when I sit with fish/newbies who know nothing of datamining. I'd be happier if it was impossible but can't concede the huge advantage it would give other regulars if I didn't do it.

Instant Messaging while you play
I'm 40



chez

[/ QUOTE ]


The reason people would think soft play HU in a cash game is ok is because no one else is involved at that point (still might affect earlier decisions). In a tourney, the remaining players are still affected - like say if one of you would normally have busted out.

IMing: I'm 38. Old dog. New tricks.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My thoughts

Making deals in tournaments:
Only ok if everyone still playing agrees

Owning a piece of another player in the same tourney:
Only ok if public and everyone playing gives permission.

Softplaying HU in a cash game:
Hard to see the point. If deals are forbidden then I agree with you that its not okay in a touney.

Heads Up Display:
No problem with this but I have an issue with datamining. I datamine like mad, feels wrong when I sit with fish/newbies who know nothing of datamining. I'd be happier if it was impossible but can't concede the huge advantage it would give other regulars if I didn't do it.

Instant Messaging while you play
I'm 40



chez

[/ QUOTE ]


The reason people would think soft play HU in a cash game is ok is because no one else is involved at that point (still might affect earlier decisions). In a tourney, the remaining players are still affected - like say if one of you would normally have busted out.

IMing: I'm 38. Old dog. New tricks.

[/ QUOTE ]


You wait till you're 40 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone knows about the recent events and I'm not talking about multi-accounting a tourney. I was thinking more of a thread in High Stakes NLHE about soft playing a friend when HU.

What about some other grey areas?

Making deals in tournaments:

Common practice and not widely thought of as unethical, but I think it is unfair to other players if you aren't publicly offering the same deal to everyone. Anyone offering a deal obviously thinks there is value in it and that value could potentially affect their playing decisions.

Owning a piece of another player in the same tourney:

Pretty obvious possibilities for problems there.

Softplaying HU in a cash game:

The problem is that if you know you are going to end up softplaying HU with someone you might play the hand differently before you are HU.

Heads Up Display:

Some people think this isn't fair, some do.

Instant Messaging while you play

I don't mean with the other players at the table. Maybe just talking about the other players at the table with someone who might know them. Talking about hands already played. Is this just part of the game when you play on-line?


Thoughts? Any others?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely that softplaying HU in a cash game shoudl be totally outlawed. I mean you could have some drawing hand, but play it in a certain way because you know you wont have to pay huge bets on the turn and river as long as the other guy folds. If you didn't know this, you may play differently.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone knows about the recent events and I'm not talking about multi-accounting a tourney. I was thinking more of a thread in High Stakes NLHE about soft playing a friend when HU.

What about some other grey areas?

Making deals in tournaments:

Common practice and not widely thought of as unethical, but I think it is unfair to other players if you aren't publicly offering the same deal to everyone. Anyone offering a deal obviously thinks there is value in it and that value could potentially affect their playing decisions.

Owning a piece of another player in the same tourney:

Pretty obvious possibilities for problems there.

Softplaying HU in a cash game:

The problem is that if you know you are going to end up softplaying HU with someone you might play the hand differently before you are HU.

Heads Up Display:

Some people think this isn't fair, some do.

Instant Messaging while you play

I don't mean with the other players at the table. Maybe just talking about the other players at the table with someone who might know them. Talking about hands already played. Is this just part of the game when you play on-line?


Thoughts? Any others?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely that softplaying HU in a cash game shoudl be totally outlawed. I mean you could have some drawing hand, but play it in a certain way because you know you wont have to pay huge bets on the turn and river as long as the other guy folds. If you didn't know this, you may play differently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean a hand that started multi-way, then became HU. Softplaying in that case must be wrong.

chez

[curtains]

Umm yea I guess thats what I mean. I don't know how you would define a hand that started out HU though? Do you mean if folded to the SB exactly, and only that specific situation?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

Umm yea I guess thats what I mean. I don't know how you would define a hand that started out HU though? Do you mean if folded to the SB exactly, and only that specific situation?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was just confused, I thought he meant a hand that started HU. Just ignore me /images/graemlins/blush.gif

chez

[gumpzilla]

Making deals - Making deals seems perfectly fair to me. The issue you raise of making secret private deals while the tournament in play seems very sketchy to me. There seems to be a lot of potential for abuse there, and so I'm not for it. The kind of dealing that goes on at the end of Stars weekend tournaments, that is all aboveboard, as far as I can tell, seems acceptable to me.

Owning pieces - I don't think this is unethical in and of itself, but it does have a strong tendency to put the people with such an arrangement in difficult ethical positions where there is strong incentive to collude/softplay. If one wanted to argue that such arrangements should not take place between two players in the same tournament because of the risk posed above, I certainly wouldn't be too upset, but I don't think this practice is cheating of itself.

Softplaying in the cash game - I think the MHNL guys did a pretty good job of arguing why this isn't cool. Basically it's what you said.

HUD - The computerized angle of things is what I think is most interesting to me as far as gray areas in online poker. It seems screamingly obvious to me that HUDs interfaced to databases remove a major element of skill in poker, which is making good reads based on memory. While they don't exactly seem to be illegal - a strict reading of the T&C at most places would suggest that they shouldn't be legal, but in practice nobody seems to take [censored] for using them - I don't think they are very sporting. If there were some realistic way in which they could be done away with, I would be all for it. I do not think people are cheating by using them, but I do not use one myself and I wish nobody could. I honestly don't see why some degrees of computer assistance are okay whereas taking a lot of time and cleverness to, say, write my own bot to play for me wouldn't be allowed. I think there's a lot more merit to the latter, actually.

IMing - With people who aren't involved at all, when you're not in a hand, I think this is definitely okay. Even at B&M, your friends giving you tips about players they've seen before seems pretty aboveboard to me. Soliciting advice in the middle of a hand from somebody not involved in the tournament is legal, but again seems kind of unsporting to me. I really don't like the idea of IMing somebody at the same table as you, even if it's all aboveboard, because there's a lot of room for abuse.

[suzzer99]

I would just like to say I don't have a strong opinion either way about any of these. But it would be nice if the poker world could get together and publish some kind of code of ethics, that take into account all the new possibilities with online play, so there are no "grey areas" at least according to the code. Plenty of other fields have done something like this. It's not impossible, just a lot of work and negotiation-type stuff. All the major sites would pretty much need to spearhead it. Then by some miracle ultimately agree on one code. But it can happen.

[DougShrapnel]

microbet, thank you for posting this here. There are some of us that repeatedly get involved in discussions of ethics. Chez, I'm a huge fan off, Purnell as well, Kipbond digs in evertime it come up. Sklansky did when he was still posting. Tons of others said lots of thing cogent, Dan Meziak, BluffTHIS, RJT, amongst tons of people.


SMP should be requried reading for 2+2's hot shots that drop out of college.

Just look at the recent rubix cube question to see how unethical Zee was. It should be no surprise that multiaccounting was his penchant. It is very unfortunate that alot of younger players looked up to him. This forum needs to be mandatory reading for our youngbloods in the poker community.

Making deals in tournaments:
this is fine. It part of the advantage that good palyers have. I have dealed at times getting better than what i deserved becaused nobody wanted to play me.

Owning a piece of another player in the same tourney:
No where near the cheating advanages that Zee had. It's not unethical, unless there is some chip exchnage or softplaying going on.

Softplaying HU in a cash game:
A prearanged agreement is cheating. Years ago when I first started playing poker in a cardrrom. I got many offers from people wanting to "check it down". The first time I heard it I accepted the offer. Sorry I didn't realize how bad this was cheating.

Heads Up Display: This is fine. It is the shared DB's that might cross the line.

Instant Messaging while you play:\
Totally fine


I can't wait to read the replys to this thread.

[suzzer99]

Also, while we're writing this code of ethics, can we please determine the "concealing your identity" issue? Preferably before I get to the level where it becomes worth it.

IE - some posters have suggested you can change your screen name every six months and that's all that should be allowed. Well what if two weeks into your new screen name, some 2+2er inadvertently gives it away? (assuming you are at a high enough level where this makes a significant difference) Can you get another one, or are you SOL for 5 months and 2 weeks? I have tons of questions on this and I don't think anyone really has a consensus on what is cool and what isn't. Nor are the sites own rules exactly crystal clear.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
can we please determine the "concealing your identity" issue?

[/ QUOTE ] This is an arangement between the site(mainly) and the players(lesesr extent). There is no "real" best amount of time.

Edit to add in my 1st post, Philxxx and Lestat.

[malorum]

I guess your view of poker ethics is probably related to wether you play the game of poker, or wether you are more interested in the associated meta-game.

Things that get you banned are generally not conducive to effective play of the meta-game. The value or otherwise of Good ettiquette however depends largely on environment and context.

[curtains]

Doug, the point of why exchanging action can be unethical is that when you are at the same table as the one you have exchanged action with, it encourages softplaying. This is similar to how if you are at the same table with one of your other accounts, it also encourages softplaying.

[DougShrapnel]

Right, like I said, unless there is softpaying or chip dumping going on, it is not unehtical.

[El Diablo]

curtains,

In the other thread you made this comment: "want to go out of their way to basicaly ruin his life."

That's just so ridiculous and shows such a complete lack of perspective.

ZJ is a 20yo kid who probably has well over $100,000 in the bank and has the ability to easily make over $100,000 per year for at least the next few years playing online poker. He is a young white kid with money living in LA. Even after he screwed himself over by cheating, he STILL is living the American dream and has more opportunity than the vast majority of people in America, much less the world.

To make statements like "ZJ's life is ruined" is ridiculous. He is on easy street right now unless he chooses to screw up his life himself.

[curtains]

I never said they'd be able to ruin his life, I said that people want to.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
He is a young white kid with money living in LA. Even after he screwed himself over by cheating, he STILL is living the American dream and has more opportunity than the vast majority of people in America, much less the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reminds me of the Chris Rock joke....Theres not a white man alive that would switch places with me.....AND IM RICH. Hey man wanna switch places with me? Uhh, no, I think im gonna try to ride this white thing out, see where it takes me.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

I never said they'd be able to ruin his life, I said that people want to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't wish to ruin his life, but I would love it if he could be prevented from ever again playing on-line without the label cheat/thief next to his avatar.

I also think that confiscating the balance of his account is not sufficient, they should go after his past earnings also. After all he is a thief and should get NO benefits from his thievery.

I wonder if the IRS will treat his balance confiscation as an expense. I sure hope not.

[LozColbert]

I can't believe Stars is giving him money.

[El Diablo]

All,

curtains has asked me to clarify something. curtains did not say that ZJ's life would be ruined, but that people want his life to be ruined. I did not carefully read his specific wording and apologize for misstating what he said. However, my general point to him remains the same. To talk about this situation in terms of ZJ's life being ruined is, imo, being overly dramatic. People are happy to see him lose the money and lose his formerly positive poker reputation because he cheated at poker. They also want him to lose a lot of money, because he won money due to cheating and they don't like seeing him with those gains from cheating. However, I think wanting these things is very different than wanting to see him broken down and hopeless in the streets. I believe most are full well aware that even if facing the harshest of punishemnts from all poker sites, his life will be far from ruined.

[EliotSpitzer]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said they'd be able to ruin his life, I said that people want to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it really be such a bad thing if his "poker life" were ruined? Say that ZJ is banned from every online poker site and every B&M casino in the world. Would that be so terrible?

At worst, he would have to take his $100,000+ and go to college. That was my dream when I was 20. If I had $100,000+ when I was 20 and back in school I would have been in hog heaven. I wouldn't have had to have worked for 4 years after I completed my undergrad to be able to afford grad school. Plus, with that kind of cash and ZJ's intelligence he could easily get into and afford an ivy-league school (perhaps he previously dropped out of a top school before he became a pro poker player). In any event, once he completed his undergrad, he would have no debt, great academic credentials and good connections. He could really set himself up to be successful in the business world.

Plus, it is unlikely that his tarnished poker reputation would carry over into the real world. Where I work, people are barely even aware that online poker exists. I do not know one person in my real life that has heard of ZJ or neverwin or any of these Internet phenoms. A few people have heard of Moneymaker, but that is about the extent of their poker knowledge.

ZJ can do one of two things right now. He can take the attitude that everyone is against him and that he has been unfairly targeted and then use that as an excuse to become an underground Internet poker player. Or, he can own up to the mistake he made (even if it is just to himself), pick himself up, leave the poker world behind, and go out there and give the real world a shot.

Personally, I can't believe that some of these highly-intelligent kids are dropping out of school to player poker fullt-time. I understand it from a monetary perspective, but college can provide some great learning and social opportunities that can help you grow as a person and lead to even better opportunities in the future.

When I look back on my own life, the things that I am most proud of and that bring me the most satisfaction were the things that were the most difficult to attain. Poker is easy for many of these kids and cheating is even easier, but real life can be hard, challenging, and fun and that's what leads to real growth as a person.