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