You Know Your Opponent Never Bluffs

[doucy]

[ 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.

[eMbAh]

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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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?

[ALawPoker]

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."

[MatthewRyan]

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

[Edukashun]

[ 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.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[im a model]

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.

[vhawk01]

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.