You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

But you know it because of the color of his skin.

Or because his house was searched without a search warrant.

Or because of Nazi experiments.

Should you play against him and use this information?

In all cases assume you found these things out strictly through innocent reading.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

No I would tell him about his disadvantage, then if he continued to play, I'd use it against him.

Btw- I do the same thing when someone sitting next to me is flashing their cards. I warn them one time. After that, I use the info. I actually have a problem with this, because it gives me an advantage not just over him, but with ALL my opponents. I'm thinking of changing my policy here. Should I?

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

generally there's a common understanding of what's fair play and that includes what information is available.

These all sound unfair, so cheaters and angle shooters will make use and honest folk wont.

I agree with lestat that once they've been warned then anything goes.

chez

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

How is knowing someone never bluffs the same as someone
flashing his cards? I wouldn't say anything. Just use it
against him.
There are many players who rarely bluff. It's a skill to
identify these players quickly.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
How is knowing someone never bluffs the same as someone
flashing his cards? I wouldn't say anything. Just use it
against him.
There are many players who rarely bluff. It's a skill to
identify these players quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Identifying it quickly is fine, learning about it from nazi experiments or house-breaking less so.

chez

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

Let's say I know he just had a big fight with his wife and a near miss auto accident just before arriving at the club. I used to arrive early to games at small clubs just to smell the armpits. How they walk, how they talk, etc.

When I sit down at a poker table I have no expectation that my playing style is a secret. Maybe somebodies talked to my best friend, perhaps sat behind me on a plane/restaurant as I discussed strategy, watched me play last month, etc.

Since he has no right to expect incognito playing conditions, I have no obligation to deliver them to him. ( he has no right to expect he is 'mr mystery').

Showing cards is a different, I won't peek, but if shown carelessly I'll use it against him ( HE has violated a basic premise of poker 'protect your cards') but not against the field. He's not entitled to have me tell him, but I may as a personal favor.

In bridge, I'll immediately tell them to hold their cards back and I won't use the info gained even if they persist( so do, some don't, I won't).

luckyme

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
No I would tell him about his disadvantage, then if he continued to play, I'd use it against him.

Btw- I do the same thing when someone sitting next to me is flashing their cards. I warn them one time. After that, I use the info. I actually have a problem with this, because it gives me an advantage not just over him, but with ALL my opponents. I'm thinking of changing my policy here. Should I?



[/ QUOTE ]

I always let someone know that they are flashing cards, and I say it loud enough for the table to be aware. In the past, I would force myself not to look, if the person persisted. This is crazy though, and I refuse to do it any more, because, it causes me not to look at a particular side of the table. I’m constantly looking around the table when the cards are dealt, and I will no longer put myself at a disadvantage because some schmoe continues to flash his cards after being warned. Besides, usually some other person at the table is far more demanding than I, that he not flash his cards.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

Using information obtained in an ethically questionable way for personal goal will almost undeniably be a questionable act. The poker table might seem like an innocent enough arena to 'overlook' it I guess, but the question at hand wasn't _how_ wrong it was anyway.

I guess my answer is that I'd use it, but I would know it was ethically wrong to when the information was obtained in an ethically wrong manner. Call me non-caring.

On larger scale stuff that is similar, for example illegal inside trading or something like that, I would not.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I know he just had a big fight with his wife and a near miss auto accident just before arriving at the club.

[/ QUOTE ] So how do you know? A friend of yours that has wiretapped his house illegally told you? The nature of the information is not the important issue here, it's how you get the information.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I know he just had a big fight with his wife and a near miss auto accident just before arriving at the club.

[/ QUOTE ] So how do you know? A friend of yours that has wiretapped his house illegally told you? The nature of the information is not the important issue here, it's how you get the information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took DS at his word -

[ QUOTE ]
In all cases assume you found these things out strictly through innocent reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, scanning his brain while he's playing would be like having a hidden pocket cam.

luckyme

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
But you know it because of the color of his skin.

Or because his house was searched without a search warrant.

Or because of Nazi experiments.

Should you play against him and use this information?

In all cases assume you found these things out strictly through innocent reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the examples you give, it seems like the information would be available to everyone at the table, including the suspect himself. If the information is available to everyone, then I use it. I can't be responsible for someone else's neglecting to notice all the info available to him.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

I think it's a wierd question since how would he never bluff because of the color of his skin?

I think that any good poker player would never not use this against him since thats pretty much what they already do, so if you look at it this way poker players have a low moral since they exploit weakness in their opponent.

But if you just use poker as an example of reference i think that anyone should point it out to him, being a responsible human being.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you know it because of the color of his skin.

Or because his house was searched without a search warrant.

Or because of Nazi experiments.

Should you play against him and use this information?

In all cases assume you found these things out strictly through innocent reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the examples you give, it seems like the information would be available to everyone at the table, including the suspect himself. If the information is available to everyone, then I use it. I can't be responsible for someone else's neglecting to notice all the info available to him.

[/ QUOTE ]



The question is does HE know that his opponents (or at least some of them and maybe even just one) know this about him? If the answer is yes and he chooses to play anyway, then he's just a sucker and you should take his money.


However if that's not the case, then the answer (for those who care about ethics/morality), can be determined from the answers to the following questions:

1) Do the ends justify the means?

2) Do you have an ethical obligation not to take unfair advantage or not?

3) Will your using this information against him somehow make it more likely that the wrong actions that made that information available will be repeated?

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

It's funny the lengths people are going to to answer anything other than "Yes, of course I would use the best information available to me."

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

Of course you cannot use this information because it would be fraud.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
In all cases assume you found these things out strictly through innocent reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key IMO. If you found it out through research how is it any different than learning another players style?

Plus this is the weirdest possible way you could word this question.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny the lengths people are going to to answer anything other than "Yes, of course I would use the best information available to me."

[/ QUOTE ]
You really think no-on ever tells anyone they are showing their cards?

Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is like you.

chez

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you know it because of the color of his skin.

Or because his house was searched without a search warrant.

Or because of Nazi experiments.

Should you play against him and use this information?

In all cases assume you found these things out strictly through innocent reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the examples you give, it seems like the information would be available to everyone at the table, including the suspect himself. If the information is available to everyone, then I use it. I can't be responsible for someone else's neglecting to notice all the info available to him.

[/ QUOTE ]



The question is does HE know that his opponents (or at least some of them and maybe even just one) know this about him? If the answer is yes and he chooses to play anyway, then he's just a sucker and you should take his money.


However if that's not the case, then the answer (for those who care about ethics/morality), can be determined from the answers to the following questions:

1) Do the ends justify the means?

2) Do you have an ethical obligation not to take unfair advantage or not?

3) Will your using this information against him somehow make it more likely that the wrong actions that made that information available will be repeated?

[/ QUOTE ]
I (and suspect many others) would tell someone I could see their cards for none of those reasons. Its simply a matter of not wanting to take unfair advantage.

chez

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

what a bunch of goodie two-shoes you are. whenever i have the opportunity, i move to the 4/5/6/7 seat so that i can better see the person to my left's hole cards. i guess i think of it as part of the game, but i know that even if i didnt think of it as part of the game i would do it anyway as it has netted me many thousands of dollars. i think im one of the few on these boards who thinks of angle-shooting as part of the game. its like a trick play in football to me. when you see a team do a flea-flicker against another team the prevailing reaction is never, "what a disgusting spectacle--having to resort to that sort of trickery to score points. they should be ashamed." i know it isnt a perfect anology (i dont even know if looking at your opponents hole cards is against the rules), but thats the way i see it.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

I snatch waiters tips off tables when I walk out of a restaurant too, sure its angle-shooting, but its part of the game. If they want their tips, they have to be quicker than me. I know it isnt a perfect analogy, but thats the way i see it.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

In all life situations there are the rules/laws and there are social expectations/customs. Part of what you're reading in this thread is the melding of those in a poker setting.

Amirillo Slim wrote about a pot being taken from him in England because he spoke during the hand he was in. Trying to talk somebody in or out of a call would be grounds for lynching. So, if your asking a brit ( in those days) you'd expect a different answer from the one a Texan would give. Neither is right/wrong.

I've played in clubs where you didn't leave your chips to go to the bathroom without a friend to watch over them. do you think I had a valid expectation that somebody wouldn't use access to my poker notes against me, or take advantage if I showed them my cards?

I was raised with cards in my crib, my family played games, games and games. We played strictly by the rules and honestly ( no cheating type maneuvers) but if we said in a hi-lo pot "sure you can call, it's good for the both of us" it probably meant "It'll make me a winner and give you a nice clear spot to deal from". No Westminster burial for my granny, I 'spose.

Knowing somebodies playing style from whether they are winning or losing, whether you were in the game from the start or your friend nudged you when you got there and said " He's down 100 quid tonight" is not elicit knowledge in our games. If my friend said of a stranger ( to me) "I've played 1000 hours with him and he has never bluffed" likewise. It's not information that I gathered by observation but it's information he has no right to think I don't have.

If somebody loose gambler bets the farm and I have KK ( so easy call/raise), they show me AA accidently as I ponder ... at the poker table I fold, in the equivalent bridge situation I call.

Context matters. Poker is not bridge, bridge is not real estate selling or politics, politics is not marriage, ... what you do in one does not mean you short change blind people.

luckyme

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

My thinking is that as soon as you sit down at the table you're a player, and the aim of the game is to win. You maximise your winnings by limiting your mistakes and exploiting the mistakes of others.
This may be playing the best poker, being adept at reading tells, or in the examples discussed it may be researching your opponents so you know they'll never bluff or taking advantage of a player who doesn't protect his cards.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
My thinking is that as soon as you sit down at the table you're a player, and the aim of the game is to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Games don't have aims. Games have rules and occur in a social setting. In business, I'd be nuts to play my A game if it jeopardizes bigger business deals, or if a fake sympathy talk lures an opponent into the hand and I'm looked at as a person that can't be trusted or as an emotional phoney. It doesn't matter what I think 'should' be the way we behave in the game.

[ QUOTE ]
You maximise your winnings by limiting your mistakes and exploiting the mistakes of others.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But in every setting there are boundaries and the above isn't unrestricted.

[ QUOTE ]
This may be playing the best poker, being adept at reading tells, or in the examples discussed it may be researching your opponents so you know they'll never bluff or taking advantage of a player who doesn't protect his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the key is "may be". All options are not on the table at any given time and which ones are depends on the context.

luckyme

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My thinking is that as soon as you sit down at the table you're a player, and the aim of the game is to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Games don't have aims. Games have rules and occur in a social setting. In business, I'd be nuts to play my A game if it jeopardizes bigger business deals, or if a fake sympathy talk lures an opponent into the hand and I'm looked at as a person that can't be trusted or as an emotional phoney. It doesn't matter what I think 'should' be the way we behave in the game.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's debatable. All games have rules, true. But all games have an aim, an object or a desired outcome (*winning*). I'm not sure that all games occur in a 'social setting,' whatever that is. Do you mean all games have real-world consequences linked to the behaviour of the players? Or the outcome?

My point about maximising winnings still holds up though, of course you wouldn't take a small win in the short term at the expense of the long term, if (for example) it would jeopardize your professional reputation.
To maximise your win doesn't mean obviously screwing someone once but being unable to play with them again. If you knew your opponent would realise you were scoping his hole cards it probably wouldn't be the right play. But you'd have to consider risk/reward and if he was a moron, and you were able to disguise your advantage a little, it would absolutely be the best play in terms of profit.

If your only goal is to maximise profit, you should take any edge you can, so long as you can exploit it without hurting your game long-term.
If you have a different goal, say to maximise profit without compromising your moral standards, it wouldn't be the right play.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
All games have rules, true. But all games have an aim, an object or a desired outcome (*winning*).

[/ QUOTE ]

It may seem like nitpicking, and perhaps it is, but thinking of a game as having 'aims' is like thinking a gun wants to shoot. Games have rules because that is what makes it a specific game. It's almost like species.. you morph one rule at a time an eventually NLholem turns into chinese checkers.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that all games occur in a 'social setting,' whatever that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are playing a game of solitaire locked in your cell in prison, you are still in a social setting ( bleak as it is). There will be outside factors that influence how you play ... you may not SMACK the cards down like you would in your den at home, or you may :-)

Whether to smack the cards down isn't in the rules, it's in the social setting.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you mean all games have consequences linked to the behaviour of the players? Or the outcome?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can be any of that and a bizillion other things.

luckyme

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

I expect that *you* will kick their ass in that situation.

You don't propose that particular conundrum in any of your books. Seems like the point of your books on poker is to win...

Ehhhh

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

Everyone would surely use this information. You've innocently come across this information.

If he whacks in a big bet on the river and you know you MUST be beat you will fold. I don't think anyone can honestly say they would call a bet they KNOW they will lose in this situation.

<font color="blue"> </font> Can you really tell if someone is bluffing from the colour of their skin?

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

Does anyone ever think that poker was just a game before it was "The Cheating Game"...sort of like a baby before the world gets ahold of him and corrupts him...Just an innocent game...
I think I would tell him on the side that critical information on his game was in print and I had come across it by accident...There's no reason why I should leave him to be a sitting duck for the rest of his life for any predator coming along...How he decides to change up his game is up to him..but I'd warn him...

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]

I snatch waiters tips off tables when I walk out of a restaurant too



[/ QUOTE ]
If I saw you doing that I would shoot you on the spot. No trial, no judge, no jury - instadeath. You are beneath scum.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

Would you guys answer differently in situation A than in situation B?

A) He is hideously wealthy, having acquired the wealth by inheritance, his father having stolen the money, literally, from orphan's mouhs. He is known far and wide as a selfish and uncharitable soul.

B) He is a working man, plying the trade at which he is most skilled, in order to feed, clothe, and educate his family. He is a very charitable man as well.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

The fact one person was a rich jerk and the other was a very good hardworking man probably wouldn't change the situation for me...What might change the situation is if he seemed to have an unbeatable game without the use of a bluff..if that was the case then no action is required by me...and that is a possibility...

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]

I snatch waiters tips off tables when I walk out of a restaurant too, sure its angle-shooting, but its part of the game. If they want their tips, they have to be quicker than me. I know it isnt a perfect analogy, but thats the way i see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snatching tips is part of what game exactly?

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would you guys answer differently in situation A than in situation B?

A) He is hideously wealthy, having acquired the wealth by inheritance, his father having stolen the money, literally, from orphan's mouhs. He is known far and wide as a selfish and uncharitable soul.

B) He is a working man, plying the trade at which he is most skilled, in order to feed, clothe, and educate his family. He is a very charitable man as well.

[/ QUOTE ]


I would andy, but subjective ethical evaluations almost always have magnitude to them. And action can (and should!) be seen as worse as the circumstances change, even if the action is much the same.

I also think people have some questions confused. When discussing this question people seem to discuss three separate questions.

1.) Is it wrong?
2.) How wrong is it?
3.) Will I do it?

And to further confuse the issue, the original question reads 'Should you do it?' which causes further mixing up in terms (ie, is it a fundamental ethical question, a question of your personal choice in the matter, a question of legal issues...it is hard to tell from the phrasing).

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I snatch waiters tips off tables when I walk out of a restaurant too



[/ QUOTE ]
If I saw you doing that I would shoot you on the spot. No trial, no judge, no jury - instadeath. You are beneath scum.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone who almost never posts about non religious matters, what on earth promted you to write this?

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]

For someone who almost never posts about non religious matters, what on earth promted you to write this?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been dependent on tips in my life. Not being tipped is hell. Having them stolen by some dip is unthinkable.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

It's not really analogous because with people who have the inherent disadvantage you can assume they know about it or at least should know about it and choose to play anyways.

What you should be comparing this to is the people who continue to show you their hole cards after you warn them.

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For someone who almost never posts about non religious matters, what on earth promted you to write this?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been dependent on tips in my life. Not being tipped is hell. Having them stolen by some dip is unthinkable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed his point.

Edit: By that I mean vhawks

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

Notready,

You thoroughly missed his horridly misguided point

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
But you know it because of the color of his skin.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can judge a bluffer
By the color of his skin
Then mister you're a better man than I

Re: You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For someone who almost never posts about non religious matters, what on earth promted you to write this?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been dependent on tips in my life. Not being tipped is hell. Having them stolen by some dip is unthinkable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about forgiveness and all that turn the other cheek stuff? Is that just all biblical interpretation too?