Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

wouldnt this require full disclosure of who stakes/bought action of who, and also require everyone to know who everyone else was talking to at all points of the tournament? completely & utterly unenforcecable

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's saying the sites should enforce this, Rather that in his own personal opinion this is where the ethical line is drawn...

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah. if you back someone it should be because you are willing to lay your money on the line for their poker skill. not your poker skill. back yourself if you think you are the best, move up limits or something.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
suck my dick stealthmunk, obviously its in my financial interest to care about the ethics of your cheating little buddy JJ, no one ghosts me and i'm pretty sure you are just a lucky donkey with zero skill. TLB challenge anytime pussy.

well that is if you are taking a shot at me with your previous comment. if not no offense lolz.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wanna play hu 50-100nl live right now? I could use a new car.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sweating and giving advice to someone in whom you have no financial interest: fine

Sweating and giving advice to someone in whom you have a financial interest, but who is allowed to and chooses to make his own decisions: fine

Sweating and giving advice to someone in whom you have a financial interest, with the understanding that he will do exactly what you say, in a tournament you are also playing: equivalent to multiaccounting and unethical.

Scenario 3, but in a tournament you aren't playing: fine.

Tough to distinguish between 2 and 3 in terms of writing rules, but as an ethical question that's the key distinction.

A secondary issue is the degree of the finanicial interest; a full stakee "following orders" is more concerning than someone who has sold 5%. Of course only full stakees are likely to always follow the ghoster's advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

now i said i was an idiot, but I know enough to know that this kind of stuff is ridiculous. There is no range of ethicalness. It's either ethical or it's not. There is no debating this fact. Should one thing be more heavily punished, of course, but if 100% financial interest is wrong, so is 0.000001%. Also, all of your scenarios are either fine or wrong IMO. I could see an argument being made for 1 being fine, but you can't say 2 is fine but 3 is not.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't there, but if mlagoo was hearing advice but making his own decisions, I think that's ok. And that's what those who were there have said was happening.

As for the 1.05 thing, it's like the difference between stealing a car and a candy bar, and whatever your ethical opinion is on that distinction applies here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they are different levels of wrong. It doesn't matter. OP was asking whether or not it was wrong/right. It is wrong.

This thread came up because plattsburgh won the 300r with JJ ghosting him. I know for a fact that plattsburgh actually didn't 4bet sometimes when JJ told him to. This is so similar to the mlagoo/gobbo situation it is sick. Two breakeven 11rebuy players make the FT of a million dollar tourney and win it with the aid of a backer that is a well known poker superstar. I know people say that mlagoo just went outside and focused by himself, and gobbo will say mlagoo is better than him, it doesn't matter. They admitted to giving advice, and the gobbo/mlagoo shouldn't be viewed any differently than this incident.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there might be a bit of a difference with JJ because of history, DUCY?

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
the players themselves can enforce this kind of stuff far more effectively than the sites. if having a player supported and enforced ban on ghosting is what it takes to prevent multiaccounting in every form, count me in.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would be a part of this if it were real, but lol at anything like this ever coming close to happening.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't there, but if mlagoo was hearing advice but making his own decisions, I think that's ok. And that's what those who were there have said was happening.

As for the 1.05 thing, it's like the difference between stealing a car and a candy bar, and whatever your ethical opinion is on that distinction applies here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they are different levels of wrong. It doesn't matter. OP was asking whether or not it was wrong/right. It is wrong.

This thread came up because plattsburgh won the 300r with JJ ghosting him. I know for a fact that plattsburgh actually didn't 4bet sometimes when JJ told him to. This is so similar to the mlagoo/gobbo situation it is sick. Two breakeven 11rebuy players make the FT of a million dollar tourney and win it with the aid of a backer that is a well known poker superstar. I know people say that mlagoo just went outside and focused by himself, and gobbo will say mlagoo is better than him, it doesn't matter. They admitted to giving advice, and the gobbo/mlagoo shouldn't be viewed any differently than this incident.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there might be a bit of a difference with JJ because of history, DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya but it obv wasn't JJ multiaccounting, it is verified that it is plattsburgh physically playing at TS while being ghosted by JJ. If Plattsburgh wasn't in a casino, I could understand people thinking JJ=matty v. However! the whole point of my argument is that there is no difference ethically, but the sites approve of it, and EVERYONE DOES IT, so online poker is rigged.

Re: On Ghosting
 

lol at being to closeminded to think so.

Re: On Ghosting
 

stealth -

i mean, people aren't really worried about that specific incident. But what keeps JJ from demanding control of the account when plattsburgh/anyone isn't at a casino with a bunch of online players? He does, after all, have a history of this sort of thing.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol at being to closeminded to think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

did you see my hu live 50-100nl challenge? I guess I'm a pussy if refusing to do a TLB challenge makes me a pussy. I'm sure you would just have Shaun Deeb play for you anyway and it would be gg me.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol at being to closeminded to think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

did you see my hu live 50-100nl challenge? I guess I'm a pussy if refusing to do a TLB challenge makes me a pussy. I'm sure you would just have Shaun Deeb play for you anyway and it would be gg me.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh i think he was responding to dlizzle

Re: On Ghosting
 

I was responding to DLizzle. 50/100 nl is so ridiculous i'm not going to grace it with a response.

And lol at YOU accusing me of multiaccounting.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was responding to DLizzle. 50/100 nl is so ridiculous i'm not going to grace it with a response.

And lol at YOU accusing me of multiaccounting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine 10-20/25-50? I'm down for a grudgematch.

I wasn't accusing u of multiccountinging, i was accusing you of "HIVING/TOGNI-GIDWULFING" lolz

someone needs to get an unethical activities dictionary.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was responding to DLizzle. 50/100 nl is so ridiculous i'm not going to grace it with a response.

And lol at YOU accusing me of multiaccounting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine 10-20/25-50? I'm down for a grudgematch.

I wasn't accusing u of multiccountinging, i was accusing you of "HIVING/TOGNI-GIDWULFING" lolz

someone needs to get an unethical activities dictionary.

[/ QUOTE ]
so very very sad.

Re: On Ghosting
 

you have an edge hu. but, i'm not scum then either. i don't hang out with cheaters. why don't we draw the line right now and say that the cards of an account are for the eyes of that particular player only? If you want to see some cards, play on your own account.

That would be a start at least. Who would adhere to that here?

Re: On Ghosting
 

I don't have a general problem with people playing on multiple accounts, or different people playing the same account, or two people making decisions together for a single account. All the switching names stuff is fine with me.

So there's no reason for me to be opposed to anything other than stuff going on when a player is involved in the operation of two accounts in the same tournament.

If the person giving advice was/is in the same tournament, but the person playing the account is making their own decisions, I think that's fine, as long as the advisor isn't at the same table or giving mutually beneficial advice (late in tournaments two accounts still in the tournament shouldn't be in the same room with each other). The difference between this and multiaccounting being that a multiaccounter can't avoid being at the same table with himself or being aware that a neutral or slightly negative EV decision (calling to a bust a short stack, for example) will benefit his other account. Two friends playing the same event in the same room and occasionally sharing ideas can.

What I have a real problem with is someone making all the decisions (or being the final decision making on the majority of decisions, or on the majority of key decisions) for more than one account in the same tournament, especially when they have a financial interest in both accounts. I didn't really think about the scenario where a much better player makes all the decisions for a friend without getting anything in return. This does bother me, as does it happening with a 5% stake, but the greater the financial interest, the more it bothers me. I don't think that's unreasonable. Ethics aren't black and white, and two versions of the same unethical behavior can be different degrees of unethical.

edit: Generally, though, I think it'll be either the worst case unethical behavior, or not at all. That is, there will be way more cases of someone unethically controlling an account in which they have 50%+ financial interest than with a 5% interest, simply because someone who owns 95% of himself is way more likely to make his own decisions and not to be in an predetermined arrangement where they give up control.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a general problem with people playing on multiple accounts, or different people playing the same account, or two people making decisions together for a single account. All the switching names stuff is fine with me.

So there's no reason for me to be opposed to anything other than stuff going on when a player is involved in the operation of two accounts in the same tournament.

If the person giving advice was/is in the same tournament, but the person playing the account is making their own decisions, I think that's fine, as long as the advisor isn't at the same table or giving mutually beneficial advice (late in tournaments two accounts still in the tournament shouldn't be in the same room with each other). The difference between this and multiaccounting being that a multiaccounter can't avoid being at the same table with himself or being aware that a neutral or slightly negative EV decision (calling to a bust a short stack, for example) will benefit his other account. Two friends playing the same event in the same room and occasionally sharing ideas can.

What I have a real problem with is someone making all the decisions (or being the final decision making on the majority of decisions, or on the majority of key decisions) for more than one account in the same tournament, especially when they have a financial interest in both accounts. I didn't really think about the scenario where a much better player makes all the decisions for a friend without getting anything in return. This does bother me, as does it happening with a 5% stake, but the greater the financial interest, the more it bothers me. I don't think that's unreasonable. Ethics aren't black and white, and two versions of the same unethical behavior can be different degrees of unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but it baffles me as to why people wouldn't blindly follow the advice of the better player? Does it matter who gets the "final" decision? I know plattsburgh went against JJ's advice, as apparently did mlaggoo/that crew's advice. But isn't that kind of like....
not having Barry Bonds pinch hit for you?

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point, but it baffles me as to why people wouldn't blindly follow the advice of the better player? Does it matter who gets the "final" decision? I know plattsburgh went against JJ's advice, as apparently did mlaggoo/that crew's advice. But isn't that kind of like....
not having Barry Bonds pinch hit for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you understand poker goot.

Re: On Ghosting
 

In the bottom of the 9th in the world series nonetheless?

Re: On Ghosting
 

As much as anybody can say it isn't unethical or against the rules, being able to be coached midgame by a very good player and have them influence your decisions is a huge advantage that most players deep in the big tournaments don't have.

The fact is that there's no way to enforce it at all, but I think it's still kinda shady when it does happen.

Re: On Ghosting
 

i am still unclear as to the opinion on "ghosting" while coaching, in which a person pays a better play a fee, regardless of the outcome of the session, to give advise and teach them to be a better poker player, i do not see how this is on the level with multi-accounting.

Re: On Ghosting
 

Man i wish i knew where to come down on this issue. I'm all for anything that decreases multi accounting and the image that online poker is rigged but then there are a ton of gray areas here.

Take coaching for example, it seems almost everyone that being ghosted by a coach your paying but doesn't have a % in terms of financial issue is normally ethical. In fact, i'd even say ghosting in that manner is good for the game since players will introduce new players to the game and teach them through this manner.

What about when i really need to use the bathroom and a friend covers my tournaments?

What about when a tournament i really want to play is at an inconvenient time or theres a conflict for the beginning part of it, so a friend covers?

What about an example such as last night, where i told a bored Kramer over AIM to come sweat me in a Tilt tournament, and while he never told me what to do we discussed the strategy of a situation? He had no financial interest in the situation, but if he saw something i didn't and brought it to my attention i would have most certainly used it towards my advantage. Is that cheating?

What about when my girlfriend is in a hand on her computer and asks for my advice? Unethical to answer? If so i get to spend a lot of nights on the couch.

Just seems there's a lot of situations that would be both common and pretty harmless but are in a murky area ethically.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a general problem with people playing on multiple accounts, or different people playing the same account, or two people making decisions together for a single account. All the switching names stuff is fine with me.

So there's no reason for me to be opposed to anything other than stuff going on when a player is involved in the operation of two accounts in the same tournament.

If the person giving advice was/is in the same tournament, but the person playing the account is making their own decisions, I think that's fine, as long as the advisor isn't at the same table or giving mutually beneficial advice (late in tournaments two accounts still in the tournament shouldn't be in the same room with each other). The difference between this and multiaccounting being that a multiaccounter can't avoid being at the same table with himself or being aware that a neutral or slightly negative EV decision (calling to a bust a short stack, for example) will benefit his other account. Two friends playing the same event in the same room and occasionally sharing ideas can.

What I have a real problem with is someone making all the decisions (or being the final decision making on the majority of decisions, or on the majority of key decisions) for more than one account in the same tournament, especially when they have a financial interest in both accounts. I didn't really think about the scenario where a much better player makes all the decisions for a friend without getting anything in return. This does bother me, as does it happening with a 5% stake, but the greater the financial interest, the more it bothers me. I don't think that's unreasonable. Ethics aren't black and white, and two versions of the same unethical behavior can be different degrees of unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but it baffles me as to why people wouldn't blindly follow the advice of the better player? Does it matter who gets the "final" decision? I know plattsburgh went against JJ's advice, as apparently did mlaggoo/that crew's advice. But isn't that kind of like....
not having Barry Bonds pinch hit for you?

[/ QUOTE ]


some people in this world have a sense of pride.

also, its a donkament...not 200/400 NL vs brian townsend. i doubt the worse player is really giving up THAT much EV unless they are really bad.

edit: that last part is probably wrong.

Re: On Ghosting
 

god damn you all for actually making the agony of live poker sound appealing

Anyway I'm against all this shady crap. I don't need a poker site's rules to tell me its unethical, and I don't need anyone else backing me or telling me how to play.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]

Take coaching for example, it seems almost everyone that being ghosted by a coach your paying but doesn't have a % in terms of financial issue is normally ethical. In fact, i'd even say ghosting in that manner is good for the game since players will introduce new players to the game and teach them through this manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coaching is just a better player giving advice to a student who pays them. It seems to me that this is even worse than having a better player guide you through a tournament if its any different. If I hire some MTT genius when I'm deep in a tournament to help me win and pay him a fee is that better than if he's a personal friend and does it for free?


Also, Bakes, really? I mean come on. Explain to me how that would work. I am 99.9% sure you are very very wrong here. In fact I would probably put up a huge amount in a prop bet and give you odds that it would ever happen. If I think you are suggesting what I think you are then wtf, maybe you could explain it better? I don't think close-minded is a good thing to call me here. I'd be more inclined to call you naive than me closeminded.


tubasteve - HU 200/400 with Brian Townsend buyin = max 40k
HU for the Sunday Million is what?

Re: On Ghosting
 

There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]


tubasteve - HU 200/400 with Brian Townsend buyin = max 40k
HU for the Sunday Million is what?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i sorta retracted that statement...either way though, luck is a larger factor HU of the sunday mil than skill just because the stacks are shorter.

Re: On Ghosting
 

dlizzle - how about every time you play poker, you sign off aim? that would be a good way to keep one player to a hand. how about recognition hardware made mandatory by the sites? that would keep bots and account sharing off the map.

Or how about starting with yourself, and the people you have influence over? There are a lot of people on these forums that care a lot about multiaccounting; thats a start. Just because its gonna be difficult isn't a reason not to try, or maybe just because you wouldn't do it.

Re: On Ghosting
 

There are tons of laws and rules outside of poker that are difficult if not impossible to enforce. That's not a reason not to have them in the first place. If the sites adopted these rules and put teeth into enforcement (freezing accounts, permanent bans) and all of the honest players agreed to abide by them, that would at least be a start.

It seems like the following things should be banned, and there really is no argument as to why they should be allowed (other than I do it, everyone is doing it, or everyone else is going to do it anyway, so I should be allowed to do it too).

1. One player to a hand, no discussion/advice during a tournament.

2. You can only have a financial interest in 1 competitor in a tournament, either you if you're playing or 1 player if you're not. At the beginning of every tournament, declare who if anyone has a piece of your action. That way there could be tax consequences, assuming the IRS ever got the records, which they probably won't as long as the sites are operating on the fringes of the law, but perhaps that will change one day. I'm sure if Howard Lederer got indicted, Full Tilt would turn over the records lickety split.

3. One account per player, period. Meaning no multiaccounting during a tournament, and no alternate screen names.

Edit: If the sites adopted these rules, and someone were caught breaking them, he/she could be prosecuted and imprisoned in the United States for wire fraud, which I'm sure would be a sufficient deterrent to people to do it once a few people got thrown in jail.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
dlizzle - how about every time you play poker, you sign off aim? that would be a good way to keep one player to a hand. how about recognition hardware made mandatory by the sites? that would keep bots and account sharing off the map.

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me this is a joke

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This left me absolutely speechless.

Re: On Ghosting
 

Agree with Cornell, unless player(s) disclose to the table. If players are unwilling to disclose, then, I'd like to hear why they think it is ethical to ghost & not to disclose. But, then, who really has an expectation of actually "knowing" who you are facing in on-line play.

Re: On Ghosting
 

Todd, I totally disagree: trying to enforce the list of things you enumerated is not only impractical, it would criminalize aspects of online poker that are often standard and ethical; measures to enforce those things would have a much worse affect on the legitimacy of the game.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dlizzle - how about every time you play poker, you sign off aim? that would be a good way to keep one player to a hand. how about recognition hardware made mandatory by the sites? that would keep bots and account sharing off the map.

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me this is a joke

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me others are seeing the retardedness of this. Yes, Bakes, I could personally do that. No, you are not going to get thousands of people to do this.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This left me absolutely speechless.

[/ QUOTE ]

speechless as in good? i think it's pretty much nonsense but i will stop now since I don't feeling like being an even bigger dick than i already am in this thread.

Re: On Ghosting
 

quick reply-- I have a sense that we're going to need to be self-policing about this, as players, but right now I don't have many ideas about what that would entail. I'll get back to you on that part.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This left me absolutely speechless.

[/ QUOTE ]

speechless as in good? i think it's pretty much nonsense but i will stop now since I don't feeling like being an even bigger dick than i already am in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL No, not as in good.

Re: On Ghosting
 

mcmelchior,

a big lol @ 1000 idiots is all luck, but 1000 top pros is mostly skill. On what basis? That is absolutely ridiculous.

stealth,

For one thing, multiaccounting will allow the possibility of collusion, whereas stake/ghosting does not.

funkii,

By ghosting I merely mean sweating someone and giving advice. NOT clicking the buttons yourself.



ucla,

Where are you? Thought you'd be all over this thread.

Re: On Ghosting
 

i think ghosting is fine. hell i think backing someone, playing in the same tournament, and then ghosting them when they go deep is fine, though kinda [censored].


I think that backing people and ghosting them from the start/taking over or when you bust, etc is def not fine.

hell i dont even think this is bad if it even happens rarely - as more of a ill coach you while we play kinda thing, though perhaps it would be more appropriate to do this when the coach doesn't have a financial interest.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://danstheman.com/BigDogTongueLOL.jpg

Re: On Ghosting
 

hey, that loldog kind of looks like your avatar!