Zoo Ethics Question

[[Phill]]

I wouldnt collude and i wouldnt play at a site that allowed it.

That said by definition i dont consider it cheating or unethical simply because the site allows it.

So i guess there is no high and low imo as to what is and isnt cheating, its simply where the goal posts are set. If a site says HUDs arent allowed, then it is cheating on THAT site. So if another allows it, its not cheating on THAT site.

Similarly if XYZpoker allowed bots, then bots arent cheating.

Morality != Legality

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by 'OK' in the poll? Ethically I find collusion wrong but unless stated otherwise legally there's nothing wrong with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I meant by 'OK' was that if a site didn't prohibit collusion in their T&C, would you collude? Would you have a problem with others colluding?

[/ QUOTE ]

some more thoughts: i wouldnt play a site that allowed collusion so long as there were other profitable places for me.

say every site allowed collusion. i wouldnt collude unless it was necessary to me for winning. the reason is bc im lazy and i figure colluding will take more effort.

im pretty sure i could collude right now with very little chance of getting caught at mid stakes limit. i also know ppl personally running bots that arent profitable, but with some tweaks (by me) im sure would beat micros and proly low stakes. i have no plans to pursue either of these avenues due to laziness. i make ok money now.

[Alobar]

If the site allows it (which they would be by not forbidding it), then why would it be wrong to do it? By definition it cant.

I still wouldnt do it tho. Honestly mostly cuz like Victor, im lazy.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt collude and i wouldnt play at a site that allowed it.

That said by definition i dont consider it cheating or unethical simply because the site allows it.

So i guess there is no high and low imo as to what is and isnt cheating, its simply where the goal posts are set. If a site says HUDs arent allowed, then it is cheating on THAT site. So if another allows it, its not cheating on THAT site.

Similarly if XYZpoker allowed bots, then bots arent cheating.

Morality != Legality

[/ QUOTE ]Well stated.Ive made similar statements and been flamed,gl lol [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[5thStreetHog]

"What's really ethical in online poker? Is it up to the players or the sites to determine?"

Just to add something,ive also said this before,but it fits here and it is true.The rules of a good game are supposed to cover this.The idea that individuals add their own ethical standards to the game rules is very shady and would lead to nothing but trouble.As others have stated,if you dont like the rules then dont play the game period.If you do play and dont follow the rules,know you are a cheater.Its irrelevant what you consider right or wrong in regards to the game rules.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
would you collude?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[ QUOTE ]
Would you have a problem with others colluding?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be just another factor in deciding whether to play the site. If I could make more at a site that doesn't specifically doesn't make collusion illegal then at one that does then I would still play there. I can also change tables if i suspect collusion, and it's not like collusion is impossible to beat in NL cash games.

[captZEEbo]

I first voted no, but I think the answer is yes. The game wouldn't be the same "texas holdem" everyone is used to, but you'd have to play it differently to be the most profitable. If you didn't want to be colluded against, you shouldn't play at the site.

[Albert Moulton]

No. Not unless there was a "team" icon available on the interface to indicate who is playing you your team. I suppose, if everyone knew who was colluding with whom, you could end up with a fair game of poker/bridge. Colluding to steal money from another at the table not in on the collusion is just cheating with the intent to steal money.


[ QUOTE ]
What about botting?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is no good. Having a computer play for you is not OK.

[ QUOTE ]
Deposit fraud?

[/ QUOTE ]
Fraud is no good either, for obvious reasons, I would hope.

[ QUOTE ]
Chip dumping? Chat scamming?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what these are, but they don't sound OK to me with names like "dumping" and "scamming."

[ QUOTE ]
PokerEdge? HUDs? etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
As long as these are available equally to all players, I think these are all fine. They make the nature of "reads" a little different than in a live game, but I think that's fine. Once again, as long as the software is available equally to all players, then these are fine to use even if many players opt not to use them.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is...

What's really ethical in online poker? Is it up to the players or the sites to determine?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think cheating is unethical, and it's usually pretty clear as to what constitutes cheating. I suppose some might think the PokerTracker/HUD software is close to cheating, but I don't think it is for the reasons I listed above. The rest - collusion, etc. - is clearly cheating and as such would be unethical.

[David]

His question is not "Is collusion ok anywhere?" His question is very different. If a site allowed "team" play and stated this then there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with team play. If a site said they were adding the jokers back into the deck would you refuse to use the joker if dealt to you? You would be foolish if you played the game knowing the joker was to be dealt but refusing to use it yourself. If you don't like playing with a joker then play a different site. So simple. I have never and never would collude or play a site that allowed collusion. But the question is NOT a moral one, it is about an alteration to the game.

[[Phill]]

Exactly david.

A fair real world comparison is to compare differing laws in countries.

Whilst it is ok to smoke weed and screw hookers in Holland, you shouldnt expect it to be allowed in Dubai.

Similarly if you want to live in a country that doesnt allow hookers and weed, dont live in Holland.