Re: Clarification
 

Did Caro join a table of fish/noobs or some decent players and he was just trying to get an edge? I think there is a difference, at least in my small mind.

Getting back to my pool playing, I have on occasion tried to rattle an opponent to gain a psychological edge. Mind you there are rules and ethics and lines to not cross but there are things you can do and I will do them against a skilled opponent to gain an edge. Actually, some aspects are similar to poker. For example, I might ask my opponent to rerack a perfectly good rack. I am looking for irritation. The key is to be subtle.

However, I could never suck a bad pool player into a game for money against me. Unlike poker, the luck factor is small and the skill factor is large and there would really be no hope for noob.

Great, now I feel like an [censored].

Re: Clarification
 

I'm not sure, probably playing against adequant opponents, I doubt he played much low stakes. I don't really see a difference. I think it's more uneccessary against complete noobs though, but from an ethical point of view I don't see a difference. He used to burn $100 bills aswell. He regrets doing it now.... says he should have done it with $20 instead. Funny guy.


In pool the luck factor isn't as small as you say, for a medium talented player he could still win if you make an unlikely bad miss, he gets a few lucky kicks etc. For a complete noob, yeah he will have a lot of trouble. But it's the same in poker imo.


If I ever play pool for money, I'm gonna use that tactic, I quite like the sound of it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: A morality post inspired by a response in another thread here
 

[ QUOTE ]

If any one read the Stu Ungar biography, there is a story in there about Jack Strauss. A rich business man, bought in to the NL game with Doyle and gang, predictably went busto. He goes to the window to get 20K more, and Strauss gets up from the table, goes to the window and says something to the effect. "Partner you don't want to sit back down, this is NL and those are the five best players in the world. You have no chance to win."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the story that came to my mind too when I read this.

Personally, my policy is to tell the truth in a gentle way if asked, but not to volunteer anything unless I'm worried the person may be ruining their life or something. I also make it a policy never to try and hustle a humble player. Egotistical ones can take care of themselves and are fair game, however.

Re: A morality post inspired by a response in another thread here
 

Poker is a predatory game, for certain. Our entire game is one big, bloodless ecosystem. But...there is a difference between what the guy in Tom's post seems to be asking, and what the morality question you are asking is. To the guy in Tom's post, it just seems like he's making sure he's doing the right actions, betting properly, and so forth. As for the strategy/advice question, I would go with non-committal as well...there's just no +EV in educating a fish.

Re: A morality post inspired by a response in another thread here
 

I would have told him he needs to leave the game, that he will lose all his money by playing without a clue, that gambling can be devasting and for him to be careful that he doesn't get hooked and ruin his life.

You can still make money and have integrity too.

Re: A morality post inspired by a response in another thread here
 

a quote from Frank Wallace's book "Poker, a Guaranteed Income for Life"
[ QUOTE ]

Poker is merciless.

Poker is a game of money and deception. The consequences are always deserved. The penalties go to the weak--the rewards go to the strong. The loser dissipates his time and money. The winner earns satisfaction and money. But what is the net result of poker? Is it merely time consumed and money exchanged with nothing positive produced? Is the net result a negative activity?

Poker exposes character ... poker is a character catalyst that forces players to reality. Those who evade thinking and act on whims cannot escape the penalties. Those who use their minds and act on logic are rewarded. The results are clear and true: The lazy evader loses--he can never fake success. The thinking performer wins--he is always rewarded.

The good poker player functions rationally. He views all situations realistically. With objective thinking, he directs his actions toward winning maximum money. He pits the full use of his mind against the unwillingness of his opponents to think. Thus, the good player cannot lose.

In poker, a person is on his own. He must act as an individual. No one will help him. Success depends on the rational use of his mind. Success depends on exercising his positive qualities and overcoming his negative qualities. Success depends on him alone. In poker, a person can function entirely for his own sake. The results are his own. The loser makes himself a loser. The winner makes himself a winner.

Poker is sheer justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A morality post inspired by a response in another thread here
 

Interesting quote Erik

Canada Bill Jones:

[ QUOTE ]
It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A morality post inspired by a response in another thread here
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting quote Erik

Canada Bill Jones:

[ QUOTE ]
It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you agree with this? Just because someone said it doesn't make it true...

Personally, I think it's OK for people to exist outside gambling, and to be "suckers" and never lose a cent because of it.

Re: A morality post inspired by a response in another thread here
 

of course quoting someone doesn't make it gospel, and as for it being "true", there's no such thing as being right or wrong about morals, it's all personal.

Do I agree with it? I don't know to tell you the truth, haven't really thought about it, I quite like the sound of it though, and I see his point. It's relevent to this discussion anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think it's OK for people to exist outside gambling, and to be "suckers" and never lose a cent because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean by gambling?

Re: A morality post inspired by a response in another thread here
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do I agree with it? I don't know to tell you the truth, haven't really thought about it, I quite like the sound of it though, and I see his point. It's relevent to this discussion anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it strikes me as the morals of the con artist and cheat, which is exactly what Canada Bill was.

There's some justice in the story, though, because Canada Bill was taken for all he was worth by a series of cheating faro dealers, and died broke. Maybe it was immoral for a sucker like him to have money after all [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]