Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
hey, that loldog kind of looks like your avatar!

[/ QUOTE ]

coincidence? i think not

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shane:

I agree that what I am suggesting be banned is standard, but here is my reasoning:

1. Allowing backing/swapping creates an opportunity for collusion and multiaccounting, which is the thing that everyone on this thread, for the most part, seems to be against.

2. Even among players with the highest ethical standards, backing and swapping creates conflicts of interest which should not exist, and which may at the very least enter into the minds of those affected. For example, suppose Tony Soprano, known to be an ethical guy, stakes 25 players and plays himself in the 109 rebuy, and insists to all his players that they play as hard as they can against him and each other. Even if every one of Tony's players believes him, when it comes down to a key decision in the tournament where one of his players can knock Tony out, that player is going to at least think about the fact that pissing Tony off could potentially mean the end of the road for that player playing in these tournaments. This should never be on anyone's mind. The same considerations exist, perhaps to a lesser extent, when two players are playing for the same backer.

3. The existence of these backing/swapping arrangements creates the appearance of collusion, which can enter into the minds of the other players and influence their decisions. For example, I was once down to the final 3 in a tournament, with a lot of money at stake, with a well-known pro and one of his horses. I believed, rightly or wrongly, that I was playing against 2 people at that point, and made a deal that I otherwise would not have made.

4. It makes the sport/game/pastime, whatever you want to call it, look bad to those who play and the outsiders we are trying to bring into the game. What would happen if it became known that Lebron James had placed a small wager on the Spurs during the finals (which might explain the Cavs performance, lol)? Or that Tiger Woods was paying Phil Mickelson's expenses because Phil could not afford to do so himself? Yet this is what is commonplace in poker, and it should not be.

We should not have to read rumors/speculation that Z had his horses dump chips to him at the $50K HORSE event, or that X dumped chips to Y at the FT of the Bellagio Cup because they had the same backer (which, given the hand, was completely ridiculous since Y was all in on a draw, and in fact they didn't have the same backer).

Why do you think enforcing my suggestions would have negative effect on the legitimacy of the game?

Re: On Ghosting
 

I agree with most people on this topic that any financial interest and ghosting is bad, however as a friend, or a better player ghosting someone of lesser skill, i am in 100% approval for.

The reason i say this is because, I, am ALWAYS the lesser player and the one being ghosted. I believe it IS the best way to teach the game of poker. Sure, the better player and I can discuss specific hands w/e but when ghosting both you and the player ghosting have the same information. When you have the same information you can come up with your OWN decisions and then discuss them. I may think a guy is super tight/aggro when in fact i missed some signals and the person ghosting me believes he weak/tight..

At the moment im not trying to win any huge money, infact i dont care about the $25 i work 2 hours hard for in my $5 sng..the reason im playing is to LEARN and get better, and ghosting IS the best way to learn.

my definition of ghosting is "i have AQ here...im thinking about calling his reshove although were approaching the FT bubble, thoughts?" and then the ghoster will offer his advice and thoughts on the hand

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

dude, seriously, [censored] you. you have no idea what happened that night. i made every single [censored] decision. the fact that you can't wrap your head around the possibility that someone who doesn't regularly play the online majors is capable of making good decisions in a [censored] 20BB game says a lot about your ridiculously overblown ego. i'm glad you got your account closed. you're a [censored] joke. you might be a good poker player, but you're a piece of [censored] human being.

cheers,
mlagoo

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]

ucla,

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

[/ QUOTE ]

last night he was high out of his mind, he might be coming down now

Re: On Ghosting
 

My position remains unchanged and has been spelled out previously. What is right and wrong is not dependent upon, in any way, what is enforceable. It is unethical to take or give advice during a hand, and by explicitly stating it is allowed the poker sites have invited this "grey area" disaster we have found ourselves in.

ONE PLAYER TO A HAND rule eliminates all of this grey area as far as I can tell. Then the problem is not what is right and wrong, only how it can be enforced, if at all. But it does not leave any players in limbo, and pushes the "grey area" cheating to where it should be, clearly against the rules and anyone who does it will know they are a cheater, instead of hearing these lame excuses that we do now.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ucla,

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

[/ QUOTE ]

last night he was high out of his mind, he might be coming down now

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you last night I have not inhaled (other then contact highs at concerts, I'm going to 311 tonight I'm sure I'll be stoned out of my mind) since I was 15 years old. I'm just high on life man!

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
My position remains unchanged and has been spelled out previously. What is right and wrong is not dependent upon, in any way, what is enforceable. It is unethical to take or give advice during a hand, and by explicitly stating it is allowed the poker sites have invited this "grey area" disaster we have found ourselves in.

ONE PLAYER TO A HAND rule eliminates all of this grey area as far as I can tell. Then the problem is not what is right and wrong, only how it can be enforced, if at all. But it does not leave any players in limbo, and pushes the "grey area" cheating to where it should be, clearly against the rules and anyone who does it will know they are a cheater, instead of hearing these lame excuses that we do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

He shoots; he scores!

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
My position remains unchanged and has been spelled out previously. What is right and wrong is not dependent upon, in any way, what is enforceable. It is unethical to take or give advice during a hand, and by explicitly stating it is allowed the poker sites have invited this "grey area" disaster we have found ourselves in.

ONE PLAYER TO A HAND rule eliminates all of this grey area as far as I can tell. Then the problem is not what is right and wrong, only how it can be enforced, if at all. But it does not leave any players in limbo, and pushes the "grey area" cheating to where it should be, clearly against the rules and anyone who does it will know they are a cheater, instead of hearing these lame excuses that we do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds good to me.

Re: On Ghosting
 

I'm undecided on whether I agree that they should make a one person to a hand rule, but I'm 100% sure that banning AIM while playing poker is completely retarded

Re: On Ghosting
 

no one lets you text or talk on the phone while you play live poker. if it came down to it, would you pick AIM over eliminating multiaccounting? i sure wouldn't.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do not think that getting sweated by a better player is unethical really, given that there is not, and has never been, and likely never will be a precedent for 1 player to a hand in online poker. People need to stop using live as a frame of reference for online poker. The fact is, they are just 2 different beasts in this day, and I do not see why we need to say "well x should happen online, because it happens live."

Anyways, I'm willing to be convincned I am wrong, so discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]


hello ansky,

this entire thread reminds me of the famous quote by justice potter stewart when deciding an obscenity case in the 1960's he essentially said, don't ask me to define pornography.... but i know it when i see it.

it's pretty much the same here. i can't give a concise definition for the difference between ghosting , sweating and coaching, but when any of them occur during the play of an individual hand, it is cheating. well.... maybe cheating is a little strong (only be`cause i don't know of a particular statute it violates), but it is surely unethical.

i believe, when i sign up for any tournament, i should have a reasonable expectation that i am actually playing ansky, not a G.E.College Bowl*** panel of ansky, gobboboy, wpthero, bond, etc.

to my frame of ethical reference, consulting with others DURING THE PLAY OF AN INDIVIDUAL HAND is a gross violation of ethical play.


that being said, it is perfectly ethical to discuss over the phone or any other way any situation with whomever AFTER the play of a particular hand.

*** for those not so long in the tooth, the G.E. College Bowl was a tv game show in the 1960's that pitted 4 university students from different schools in a "jeopardy-like" team competition.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
no one lets you text or talk on the phone while you play live poker. if it came down to it, would you pick AIM over eliminating multiaccounting? i sure wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. not that it would eliminate multiaccounting or even close to it. but yes I'd pick aim in a second. Now maybe if I could personally close my AIM while playing poker and that magically eliminated multiaccounting I'd do it, but I'd rather not make everyone else do it, cause uh... I want people to want to play poker, and I think people are way more likely to avoid playing poker because they can't use AIM than because of multiaccounting

Re: On Ghosting
 

I think we've talked about this before, but if sites created some kind of mechanism so that you wouldn't be able to run IMs while playing (in the same way you can't run certain apps now) I think you'd be shocked at the toll that would have on online poker because (1) people don't want to know that poker sites can/are scanning their PC activity, and more importantly (2) IMs is one of the few internet addictions whose power exceeds/rivals that of poker, and given the choice between the two a lot of fish would choose their ability to send emoticons to the cute girl in the office over playing poker. Tournaments especially, given the length, would suffer I imagine.

Also to SM,
I'm pretty sure your involvement in this thread is partially serious and mostly rabble rousing and I guess that's fine, if immature. However mlagoo is right, we've been over the Sunday mil thing and we know happened both from a bunch of people in the house, and from gobbo and mlagoo themselves and we have no doubt about the trust. If the same thing had happened and rather than them it was you and JJP, yes there probably would have been a ruckus. That isn't undue prosecution of anything, it's just common sense, people are trusted and given the benefit of the doubt only where they've earned it and if they haven't earned that trust naturally questions, doubts and even accusations are sure to arise.

Re: On Ghosting
 

Matt, it is obviously a similar situation if you pretty much played on Gobbo's advice. I wasn't there, but knowing you I can almost be 100% you weren't.

That is basically the line. Ghosting is a made up word that is too wide to have any meaning. It becomes unethical at some point on an invisible line, which is why it's impossible to define. The reason this whole JJ thing exploded is basically since we know that JJ doesn't give a crap about any lines, so he is way more prone to crossing it.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
My position remains unchanged and has been spelled out previously. What is right and wrong is not dependent upon, in any way, what is enforceable. It is unethical to take or give advice during a hand, and by explicitly stating it is allowed the poker sites have invited this "grey area" disaster we have found ourselves in.

ONE PLAYER TO A HAND rule eliminates all of this grey area as far as I can tell. Then the problem is not what is right and wrong, only how it can be enforced, if at all. But it does not leave any players in limbo, and pushes the "grey area" cheating to where it should be, clearly against the rules and anyone who does it will know they are a cheater, instead of hearing these lame excuses that we do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely.

And to the people saying live coaching during a tourney is OK, that is wrong. Coaching in poker is so totally different than coaching in other sports that it would be akin to someone's bowling coach throwing the ball for them during a tournament. It is completely unethical and I cannot understand how anyone can say otherwise.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
Coaching in poker is so totally different than coaching in other sports that it would be akin to someone's bowling coach throwing the ball for them during a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the opposite of correct. Coaching or giving advise in a tournament is more like the bowling coach saying, "If you throw the ball with more spin, you will hit more strikes" and is equally unlikely to influence the outcome of the game beyond the player's actual skill level.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think enforcing my suggestions would have negative effect on the legitimacy of the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the tougher issues you are addressing are not unique to online poker but applicable to all forms of poker. If we start putting in place a bunch of rules designed to regulate these things which are impossible to regulate, it will just turn people off from online poker.

In the instance where you were playing against a horse and his backer, what makes you think anything shady was going one if they themselves agreed to the deal?

I feel most players act ethically and in the proper, self-interested manner without needing rules to tell them what's right and wrong. Making a big show of enforcing rules that are only meant to police already-unethical players who won't follow the rules to begin with creates a worse image for new players entering the game and, in reality, won't change the ethical composure of online poker for us full-timers.

"Ah judge, your damn laws--the good people don't need 'em and the bad people don't obey 'em."

Re: On Ghosting
 

ucla,

If say, we completely ignore any precedent set by live poker, why, objectively speaking, is more than 1 player to a hand unethical? Can you explain it?

(Not saying I disagree/ just playing devils advocate)

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coaching in poker is so totally different than coaching in other sports that it would be akin to someone's bowling coach throwing the ball for them during a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the opposite of correct. Coaching or giving advise in a tournament is more like the bowling coach saying, "If you throw the ball with more spin, you will hit more strikes" and is equally unlikely to influence the outcome of the game beyond the player's actual skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]


In other sports there are two elements needed to succeed - knowing what to do and having the skills to do it. In poker there is one - knowing what to do. Clicking a mouse takes no skill. Telling someone where they should be placing their bowling ball is not the same as telling someone they should raise $4k in this situation. The player's skill in bowling determines whether they can succeed in that situation. There is no poker skill needed by the student to succeed if Shaniac tells them to raise in this situation.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coaching in poker is so totally different than coaching in other sports that it would be akin to someone's bowling coach throwing the ball for them during a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the opposite of correct. Coaching or giving advise in a tournament is more like the bowling coach saying, "If you throw the ball with more spin, you will hit more strikes" and is equally unlikely to influence the outcome of the game beyond the player's actual skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]
The difference is, in bowling or other sports, there's a physical aspect that the coach can't perform. If the coaching involves giving advice while a hand is still playing out, that is very different from other forms of coaching. This is pretty obvious isn't it?

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
In other sports there are two elements needed to succeed - knowing what to do and having the skills to do it. In poker there is one - knowing what to do. Clicking a mouse takes no skill. Telling someone where they should be placing their bowling ball is not the same as telling someone they should raise $4k in this situation. The player's skill in bowling determines whether they can succeed in that situation. There is no poker skill needed by the student to succeed if Shaniac tells them to raise in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you understand poker goot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coaching in poker is so totally different than coaching in other sports that it would be akin to someone's bowling coach throwing the ball for them during a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the opposite of correct. Coaching or giving advise in a tournament is more like the bowling coach saying, "If you throw the ball with more spin, you will hit more strikes" and is equally unlikely to influence the outcome of the game beyond the player's actual skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]


In other sports there are two elements needed to succeed - knowing what to do and having the skills to do it. In poker there is one - knowing what to do. Clicking a mouse takes no skill. Telling someone where they should be placing their bowling ball is not the same as telling someone they should raise $4k in this situation. The player's skill in bowling determines whether they can succeed in that situation. There is no poker skill needed by the student to succeed if Shaniac tells them to raise in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I disagree is because I feel like a lot of the true success at the table comes from being in tune with the rhythm of the game, being able to absorb all the game dynamics and create your own style/opinions based on that. Anyone who's tried coaching a rank amateur in a tournament can tell you that giving them specific instructions on plays during a hand does not easily translate to that person being able to play well.

Getting one-time advise from an expert friend when I am in a tournament has been useful at times for me, and I never thought it was unethical, although I guess it's possible that I am a scumbag, too.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally dislike stealthmunk's posts, and I generally like your posts, but Justin is spot on here. Your sarcasm is kinda absurd considering he's right.

Yes, Matt wasn't being unethical since he did play on his own. BUT, if he thinks gobbo is better than him and doesn't care about ethics, he should have let gobbo play for him. It makes no sense not doing so. The only reason other than ethics is pure pride.

If you don't care about the rules, let the best player make the decisions.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coaching in poker is so totally different than coaching in other sports that it would be akin to someone's bowling coach throwing the ball for them during a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the opposite of correct. Coaching or giving advise in a tournament is more like the bowling coach saying, "If you throw the ball with more spin, you will hit more strikes" and is equally unlikely to influence the outcome of the game beyond the player's actual skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]


In other sports there are two elements needed to succeed - knowing what to do and having the skills to do it. In poker there is one - knowing what to do. Clicking a mouse takes no skill. Telling someone where they should be placing their bowling ball is not the same as telling someone they should raise $4k in this situation. The player's skill in bowling determines whether they can succeed in that situation. There is no poker skill needed by the student to succeed if Shaniac tells them to raise in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I disagree is because I feel like a lot of the true success at the table comes from being in tune with the rhythm of the game, being able to absorb all the game dynamics and create your own style/opinions based on that. Anyone who's tried coaching a rank amateur in a tournament can tell you that giving them specific instructions on plays during a hand does not easily translate to that person being able to play well.

Getting one-time advise from an expert friend when I am in a tournament has been useful at times for me, and I never thought it was unethical, although I guess it's possible that I am a scumbag, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the couching during a tournament may not have a dramatic effect on their poker skills over the long term, it certainly can during the particular tournament and that is completely unfair to the other participants in the tournament.


Whether that makes you a scumbag, well, if the shoe fits. Not that I expect anyone ro really care. But this whole thread has been very disappointing.

Re: On Ghosting
 

Bak, i'm not sure you two are talking about the same thing. If Partrik Antonius tells Shane during the break that he should be raising more in EP or that he should c-bet less, that's not unethical.

If your coach online tells you to raise a specific hands and walks you thru it, it's def unethical.

I think you're correct about the difference between poker and other sports. I'm not sure that what Shane means qualify for the bowling analogy.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]

While the couching during a tournament may not have a dramatic effect on their poker skills over the long term, it certainly can during the particular tournament and that is completely unfair to the other participants in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point completely. It has a negligible short-term effect, too. If I go up to my friend in a live tournament and whisper to him information I have on one of his opponents such as a tell or playing patterns, that's equally unfair. Having friends who are good at poker gives you an advantage in poker, it's true.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether that makes you a scumbag, well, if the shoe fits. Not that I expect anyone ro really care. But this whole thread has been very disappointing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you sound like a self-righteous jerkoff.

Re: On Ghosting
 

Yuv,

The first part of SM's post is the part that I strongly disagree with and is inconsistent with the pinch hitter analogy (although the JJP = Bonds reference is quite good in a lot of ways).

SM says:
"it baffles me as to why people wouldn't blindly follow the advice of the better player?"
To me this is laughable statement.

He then says "But isn't that kind of like.... not having Barry Bonds pinch hit for you? "
But that's not what it's like at all.

It is true that, ethics be damned, if having our name at the top of the results is all we care about we should hand over the controls to the better player, I agree with that (although notice that I said, if all we care about is having our account win the tournament, rather than if all we care about is $$$. Although off-topic, I'll mention that if all we care about is money I think it isn't the right decision in a lot of sitautions to hand over the controls, given the real possibility of being caught and the monetary consequences of having our account(s) frozen and/or having our reputation in the poker community destroyed).

However, having a pinch hitter, i.e. handing over the controls, is very, very different then "blindly following the advice" of the better player while we are in the hand. There are a bunch of times better players than I have ghosted me given me a piece of advice that I wouldn't agree with because of X, Y and Z and we would then talk about it, and sometimes I can convince the player that my line was better, but more important than convincing him after the fact, I understood at the time I rejected the advice why it was flawed IMO.
Similarly, I've sweated worse players than me and they've made moves contrary to my advice which, upon further inspection, made a lot of sense.

A huge part of this is in what Shaniac posted, but also it's just the nature of the game, in fact it's kind of what 2p2 hand posting is based on. There are a ton of posters on here who are way better than me, but in a given thread, on a given line, my decision might actually be better. In fact, the idea that where there is disagreement the better player's line is always right, is completely preposterous, and I stand by my statement that someone who thinks like that still has a lot to learn about poker.

Even if JJP is 100 times the player Platts is overall, it doesn't change the fact that even JJP has leaks (ZOMG NO!!) and in some spots Platts might, because he is better in that situation and/or he is in the tournament in a way JJP can't be, recognize that the advice is flawed and ignore it.

This is so completely different than having a pitch hitter. The analogy breaks down because the cards have already been dealt so there is concurrency between the advice and the situation, which is totally different than choosing to hand off before the next decision arises (which again, is the way to go if you are amoral, know the pinch hitter is better than you and you're primarily interested in getting the gold FTOPS avatar for your account).

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While the couching during a tournament may not have a dramatic effect on their poker skills over the long term, it certainly can during the particular tournament and that is completely unfair to the other participants in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point completely. It has a negligible short-term effect, too. If I go up to my friend in a live tournament and whisper to him information I have on one of his opponents such as a tell or playing patterns, that's equally unfair. Having friends who are good at poker gives you an advantage in poker, it's true.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether that makes you a scumbag, well, if the shoe fits. Not that I expect anyone ro really care. But this whole thread has been very disappointing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you sound like a self-righteous jerkoff.

[/ QUOTE ]


We were talking about coaching during an online tourney. We are not talking about a situation like posting in this forum that you are at someone's table in a tourney and having people post their thoughts on how that person plays. I also see those situations as different. That is not the point I was addressing. I was adressing your point that coaching online during a tourney and coaching a bowler were the same thing. They are not.

If the shoe doesn't fit, that is good.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
A huge part of this is in what Shaniac posted, but also it's just the nature of the game, in fact it's kind of what 2p2 hand posting is based on. There are a ton of posters on here who are way better than me, but in a given thread, on a given line, my decision might actually be better. In fact, the idea that where there is disagreement the better player's line is always right, is completely preposterous, and I stand by my statement that someone who thinks like that still has a lot to learn about poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This obviously goes out the window if the coach/sweater has followed the whole/most of the tournament. In that case, following the advice of the better poster will, in general, be better.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
This obviously goes out the window if the coach/sweater has followed the whole/most of the tournament. In that case, following the advice of the better poster will, in general, be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we disagree but don't know which line is better, yes, the better player's opinion is more likely to be (more) correct.

However I'm talking about situations where the player understands the prob with the advice.

A)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: Well I usually just fold... I dunno.

B)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: No, a 4b is problematic because of A and B factors and a fold is good because it accomplishes X, Y and Z.

Do you see the difference? It's not like the player is going to have time to express his concerns the 'ghost', he's going to have to act, and I'm just saying it's silly to say that the player should "blindly follow" the ghost in scenario B.

Re: On Ghosting
 

People have been mass staking and then ghosting/replacing for a very long time. I for one find it a bit unfair to play against such a field, I might be to the right of a world champ and have no knowledge of it whatsoever, obv -EV. That being said...I have learned to get used to it. Good luck enforcing a rule against ghosting. Because this form of play WILL ALWAYS EXIST AND ALWAYS HAS, I can't say it's unethical. I just think live tournament play is a much better way to judge others individual skill/ability.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do not think that getting sweated by a better player is unethical really, given that there is not, and has never been, and likely never will be a precedent for 1 player to a hand in online poker. People need to stop using live as a frame of reference for online poker. The fact is, they are just 2 different beasts in this day, and I do not see why we need to say "well x should happen online, because it happens live."

Anyways, I'm willing to be convincned I am wrong, so discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. Want to know why?

I go downstairs into the turning stone poker room. I find a random donkey playing 100max and say, yo I'm stealthmunk, best poker donkamenter in the world. Let me back you in the sunday million for 90% and I'll coach and ghost you over AIM. He obviously agrees, who wouldn't?

Is there any difference from what happens above and multiaccounting? NOPE. Only multiaccounting is against sites TOS and ghosting is legit as it is clear there is no 1 player to a hand rule in online poker.

I win.

[/ QUOTE ]


Right. The sites rules and regulations don't define "ghosting" (new term for me) as multi-accounting because they have chosen not to take a stance. Unless the sites decide to take stance (and they probably won't, because they probably haven't for a reason) it will remain a gray area.

-Deuce2High

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This obviously goes out the window if the coach/sweater has followed the whole/most of the tournament. In that case, following the advice of the better poster will, in general, be better.

[/ QUOTE ]


If we disagree but don't know which line is better, yes, the better player's opinion is more likely to be (more) correct.

However I'm talking about situations where the player understands the prob with the advice.

A)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: Well I usually just fold... I dunno.

B)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: No, a 4b is problematic because of A and B factors and a fold is good because it accomplishes X, Y and Z.

Do you see the difference? It's not like the player is going to have time to express his concerns the 'ghost', he's going to have to act, and I'm just saying it's silly to say that the player should "blindly follow" the ghost in scenario B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not the ghosted player follows the advice is irrelevant to the question of the ethics of the situation.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This obviously goes out the window if the coach/sweater has followed the whole/most of the tournament. In that case, following the advice of the better poster will, in general, be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we disagree but don't know which line is better, yes, the better player's opinion is more likely to be (more) correct.

However I'm talking about situations where the player understands the prob with the advice.

A)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: Well I usually just fold... I dunno.

B)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: No, a 4b is problematic because of A and B factors and a fold is good because it accomplishes X, Y and Z.

Do you see the difference? It's not like the player is going to have time to express his concerns the 'ghost', he's going to have to act, and I'm just saying it's silly to say that the player should "blindly follow" the ghost in scenario B.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah of course I see the difference and agree with you.

However, I can certainly see situations where inexperienced players have way better friends/coaches, especially on big FT's where nerves, experience etc play a big part more or less take over.

In addition, this affects the other players in a different way than pure EV due to skill: if a player changes his playing style, this will throw off reads and change the dynamic between the player in question and his opponents, in all likelihood to his opponents' detriment.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This obviously goes out the window if the coach/sweater has followed the whole/most of the tournament. In that case, following the advice of the better poster will, in general, be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we disagree but don't know which line is better, yes, the better player's opinion is more likely to be (more) correct.

However I'm talking about situations where the player understands the prob with the advice.

A)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: Well I usually just fold... I dunno.

B)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: No, a 4b is problematic because of A and B factors and a fold is good because it accomplishes X, Y and Z.

Do you see the difference? It's not like the player is going to have time to express his concerns the 'ghost', he's going to have to act, and I'm just saying it's silly to say that the player should "blindly follow" the ghost in scenario B.

[/ QUOTE ]

You basically get offered 50% of all of Antonius' (or any player you respect the most) action, free of charge. You can choose if you want to play for yourself with some general advice or let him play for you. Which one are you picking? In the bigger picture, it will be retarded of you to not let the better player play.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
You basically get offered 50% of all of Antonius' (or any player you respect the most) action, free of charge. You can choose if you want to play for yourself with some general advice or let him play for you. Which one are you picking? In the bigger picture, it will be retarded of you to not let the better player play.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the pinch hitting analogy, which I stated I agree with but, as I feel I've established in my previous two posts, is in no way tantamount to saying you should "blindly follow" mid-hand advice.

Further, saying that the analogy is an argument for unquestioned conformity to the better player's in the moment advice shows a limitation in one's understanding of poker, hence the 'you understand goot' comment.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think enforcing my suggestions would have negative effect on the legitimacy of the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the tougher issues you are addressing are not unique to online poker but applicable to all forms of poker. If we start putting in place a bunch of rules designed to regulate these things which are impossible to regulate, it will just turn people off from online poker.

In the instance where you were playing against a horse and his backer, what makes you think anything shady was going one if they themselves agreed to the deal?

I feel most players act ethically and in the proper, self-interested manner without needing rules to tell them what's right and wrong. Making a big show of enforcing rules that are only meant to police already-unethical players who won't follow the rules to begin with creates a worse image for new players entering the game and, in reality, won't change the ethical composure of online poker for us full-timers.

"Ah judge, your damn laws--the good people don't need 'em and the bad people don't obey 'em."

[/ QUOTE ]

Very incorrect. I know tons of fellow online poker players that will and do ask for and give advice during hands. They are not bad people, it's just that Lee Jones and others have stated explicitly it is allowed, so they do it. If it were explicitly banned, regardless of enforceability, most of these same people would never do it, because they are ethical people, not rule breakers.

This is exactly why a "one player to a hand" rule is vital for online poker. It will remove all this grey area stuff, and make it very clear that anything involving anything other then the actual player playing a hand, on his own, is unethical and against the rules, and then the only question left is just enforcing it, which admittedly is quite difficult but it's better then having the free-for-all endless grey area crap that we're dealing with now.

Re: On Ghosting
 

But you explanations are wrong. Sure, if he just jumps mid-hand and say you should raise, you should re-think and all. But if you can get someone better to flat out replace you, why should you even think about that? Sure, he might make a blatant mistake or two, but in the long run you'll be making more money.

Getting a better player to play for you is +ev, for the both of you. Most decisions are a matter of style and game plan, not clear right and wrong. If not blindly follow his instructions, it should be pretty close to it.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
Very incorrect. I know tons of fellow online poker players that will and do ask for and give advice during hands. They are not bad people, it's just that Lee Jones and others have stated explicitly it is allowed, so they do it. If it were explicitly banned, regardless of enforceability, most of these same people would never do it, because they are ethical people, not rule breakers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are unethical people, just not rule breakers. (If the activity is unethical to begin with)