Was Hachem being unethical?

[BKyef]

[ QUOTE ]
After some time Hachem turns to Watkinson and says "I know what you have."
Watkinson replies "You know what I have? OK tell me what I have."
Hachem says "There are other players behind you I can't say yet but before the cards are turned over I'll tell you what you have."
Watkinson keeps deliberating. Hachem is figiting and to me it was clear he wanted Watkinson not only to fold but was making it clear he had Watkinson beat and that he would be making a mistake to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is purely your interpretation. From what he actually said he never exposed anything about his own hand, he simply implied he knew the contents of his opponents hand.

[ QUOTE ]
After some more time Hachem says to Watkinson "You should have folded a long time ago."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well considering he is holding KK and Lee didn't beat him to the pot any half-wit can figure this out since he is only behind AA and AA isn't taking more than 10 seconds to make his call. Again he hasn't exposed anything it is table talk and 100% ethical.

You are combining your read of the situation, additional information given to you after the hand, and your own conjecture to come up with a possible ulterior motive that was in play. Additionally remember you are still Joe's opponent here so anything he says to you has to be taken with a grain of salt. I still find absolutely nothing unethical.

As to your assertion that Ly is at some disadvantage because he doesn't speak english as well as some others....ummm too bad. If Ly does have that much trouble understanding then he misses tons of stuff all the time. English is the official language of this tournament and entering it without a full grasp of the language that is used for play does not deserve any special consideration.

[Ezcheeze]

Here's something that's really been bothering me about this situation. Even assuming your interpretation is correct and what Hachem did was not unethical. If he is to be allowed to do what he did then we must also allow other poeple who do not care about what is right or wrong but only about winning money, to take advantage of this situation. If the two people involved know eachother well enough to know they won't lie to eachother, then they can say exactly what Hachem said and no one will think anything is wrong but in fact they essentially colluded. There can be no recourse against them though if there isn't to be any against Hachem.

[Ezcheeze]

[ QUOTE ]
You are combining your read of the situation, additional information given to you after the hand, and your own conjecture to come up with a possible ulterior motive that was in play. Additionally remember you are still Joe's opponent here so anything he says to you has to be taken with a grain of salt. I still find absolutely nothing unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as Hachem said "You should have folded a long time ago" and before anything else happened I thought what he was doing was wrong.

[tshak]

[ QUOTE ]
For the purposes of this discussion, I ask that everyone assume that Hachem actually wanted Watkinson to fold and was telling the truth with his statements and that Lee Watkinson actually had QQ and believed Hachem.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're asking us to assume something that many of us won't agree to assume. The original topic is, "was Hachem being unethical". By asking us to make these assumptions the topic is now, "in this hypothetical situation with these arguable assumptions, would this behavior be unethical"?

The answer to the original topic is a clear "no" for me. I believe that Hachem was trying to induce a call. I think that your read was "so certain" because you're not giving these players enough credit for their acting ability.

If I'm wrong and you're right about the read , the answer regarding ethics is still "no". Unless we can prove that they had some sort of agreement before the tournament to honestly reveal to each other when they are strong, I'd have to believe that Hachem didn't want to gamble here as opposed to wanting Watkinson to fold.

[Ezcheeze]

I believe that most likley his only reason for wanting Watkinson to fold was becuase he was worried about being drawn out if he was called by too many hands.

The reason I asked you guys to make some assumptions is because I realized that alot of poeple were just making up their own assumptions about what happened even though they weren't there and most of those assumptions made it clear it wasn't unethical. If I thought these were what was actually happening then I would most likely agree with you guys and there would be no reason for the post. So you see, in order to have a discussion about the situation I wanted you guys to see what was happening through my eyes and whehter you would then still think it was ethical. Since if you did still think it was ethical then I'd have some reconsidering to do.

[BKyef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are combining your read of the situation, additional information given to you after the hand, and your own conjecture to come up with a possible ulterior motive that was in play. Additionally remember you are still Joe's opponent here so anything he says to you has to be taken with a grain of salt. I still find absolutely nothing unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as Hachem said "You should have folded a long time ago" and before anything else happened I thought what he was doing was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

All table talk serves a purpose. Whether he wanted a call or didn't want a call there is nothing unethical about talking to induce an action at the table. Revealing the contents of his hand would be unethical, but I don't believe he did this at any point. If he said "only one hand can be ahead of mine" or "I've got a really big pair here" then it crosses the line.

But even if he had looked right at Lee and said "I have you beat, fold." There is nothing at all wrong with that type of talk. His bet made the same exact statement.

For what he said to be unethical we would have to be playing in Europe where any table talk is considered wrong.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that most likley his only reason for wanting Watkinson to fold was becuase he was worried about being drawn out if he was called by too many hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if that is the case, I do not think it was unethical at all.

[Ezcheeze]

[ QUOTE ]
If he said "only one hand can be ahead of mine" or "I've got a really big pair here" then it crosses the line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why these statements are much different than what he actually said. He could be lying when saying these statements too.

Are you saying it's ok to narrow your hand range by some amount but not down to only 1 or 2 hands? Where do you draw the line?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that most likley his only reason for wanting Watkinson to fold was becuase he was worried about being drawn out if he was called by too many hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if that is the case, I do not think it was unethical at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

blah, this thread is a bit circuitous.

it's ethical if he says or does anything purely to make himself a +ev move.

it's unethical if he says or does anything in any way *because* it would be +ev for another player. particularly, if he does something that is +EV for one player that he wouldn't do for another player in the same spot.

is this the sort of distinction you're making el d?

[Ezcheeze]

[ QUOTE ]

it's ethical if he says or does anything purely to make himself a +ev move.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is way too general to be right.