Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with ghosting, and can't see myself ever being convinced otherwise

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Say someone stakes 20 neutral EV players in a tourney and when they get far he ghosts them. You guys have no problem with this?

Re: On Ghosting
 

I think its fine as long as the ghoster doesn't have a financial interest in the horse, if it meant no ghosting and no multiaccounting / JJprod super sweats I would give it up in a heartbeat.

Re: On Ghosting
 

HEY SOMEONE DEFINE THIS WORD BEFORE STUPID ARGUMENTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE DEFINITION OCCUR

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
HEY SOMEONE DEFINE THIS WORD BEFORE STUPID ARGUMENTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE DEFINITION OCCUR

[/ QUOTE ]
seriously, is "ghosting" "sweating and giving advice" or "taking over when the big money is on the line"?

Re: On Ghosting
 

the former

Re: On Ghosting
 

if its the former, its fine. if its the latter, its not fine at all. but there's really no way to stop it, so there's nothing we can do about it.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HEY SOMEONE DEFINE THIS WORD BEFORE STUPID ARGUMENTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE DEFINITION OCCUR

[/ QUOTE ]
seriously, is "ghosting" "sweating and giving advice" or "taking over when the big money is on the line"?

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the OP or any of the replies possibly indicates it could be the latter??

Re: On Ghosting
 

From what ansky is saying, ghosting = sweating and giving advice without any financial interest in the sweatee.

Gets a bit more murky if a backer sweats/coaches his backee though imo.

Re: On Ghosting
 

OP didnt mention financial interest, and that doesnt really make a difference IMO.

i.e. if a staker was on the phone with one of the guys he backs while the backee wins a tournament, i think it's fine

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HEY SOMEONE DEFINE THIS WORD BEFORE STUPID ARGUMENTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE DEFINITION OCCUR

[/ QUOTE ]
seriously, is "ghosting" "sweating and giving advice" or "taking over when the big money is on the line"?

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the OP or any of the replies possibly indicates it could be the latter??

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, considering it's KIND OF A BIG DEAL RIGHT NOW, I think it's totally fair to assume that it fits in the discussion-- especially if we're trying to define what's ethical and what isn't, we have a reference point for "clearly isn't".