Re: On Ghosting
 

BAK,

LDO. No one is saying that. Follow the discussion in the thread.

Yuv,

For like the fourth time: I agree with the pinch hitter analogy (though it isn't necessarily +EV to let an overall better player take over for you because (1) you may be better suited for what's ahead even if he is overall a better player(i.e. given the particular structure, knowing how to capitalize over your own crafted image, better knowledge of villains), and (2) the cost he's charging you for playing in your place, may outweigh his superior skill).

Nevertheless, yes I agree that if you have no scruples and your entire goal in life is to have your name at the top of the standings for this one tournament, you should hand off to the better player. I never said that this wasn't the case.

All I am saying is this, and this is like the fifth and last time I'm saying it:
[ QUOTE ]
but it baffles me as to why people wouldn't blindly follow the advice of the better player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is a silly statement that is (1) in no way akin to the Bonds/Antonius analogies, and (2) not true given the nature of the game.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it's not unethical to do it now, but would be if there were a rule against it

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it's not unethical to do it now, but would be if there were a rule against it

[/ QUOTE ]

What? of course it's unreasonable. It's unethical to kill someone. Not because there's a law against it.

If something is unethical, it is that way if there's a rule against it or not. It makes no difference.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
(1) in no way akin to the Bonds/Antonius analogies, and (2) not true given the nature of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you don't see my point, I'll stop now as i'm basically trolling at this stage. Your 'problem' with stealthmunk's post is wrong. His statement is true. It is true, given the nature of the game. It's a game of math, and statistically, you are better off blindly following the better player's advice.
(Unless improving is a bigger goal to you than making money or you think you can improve enough to become a better player than the guy giving the advice)

Re: On Ghosting
 

eth·ics /ˈɛθɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[eth-iks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Re: On Ghosting
 

Shaniac, you state you have taken one-time advice from experts in the past on a particular hand and didn't consider it unethical. Would you do so if there was explicitly a rule against it, but the poker sites likely had no way of knowing whether you did it or not?

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it's not unethical to do it now, but would be if there were a rule against it

[/ QUOTE ]

What? of course it's unreasonable. It's unethical to kill someone. Not because there's a law against it.

If something is unethical, it is that way if there's a rule against it or not. It makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yuv,

don't want you to think I'm dogging you in this thread in any way, but I'm with Funkii on this.

In this context, I think it's unethical to break the rules.
The reason is that we're part of a community, doing something that in a lot of ways is total novel, and in being part of something like that I don't think it's unreasonable to say that we have responsibilities vis-a-vis the other members of the community to abide by the rules.

That was actually one of the most disheartening things about the whole ZJ and JJ controversy and previously the Boyd debacle. While a whole group of people are working to help build up the integrity of the game, play it with more people than ever imagined, on a new medium in which trust must be fostered, build up the sense of kinship amongst it's players and communally tackle things which stand in the way of this expansion (i.e. legislation), it was sad to see members high up in the group kind of turn their back on everyone else in it and in the process pretty much turn their backs on the game (irregardless of whether they continued to play it).

Cheesy though it may sound, we all kind of have an ethical obligation to each other to follow the rules of the game because of what has happened to poker in the last decade and what continues to happen to it. Therefore, once the game adopts a new rule, it is not unreasonable to say it is unethical for a member of the community to break it (as well players would have an ethical obligation to oppose/try to change the rule if it is bad for the game, all while still conforming to it until it is changed).

Re: On Ghosting
 

A buddy of mine and I each play the Sunday morning $39 Satellite to the Sunday Million. If one of us qualifies, we get together at one of our houses, log on and play the tourney together. We split the buy in 50-50 and if we cash, split the winnings 50-50. We talk about the hands together during the tourney and it is a great way for us to learn together and try to improve our game. I would imagine there are a lot of lower limit donks like us doing the same thing.

Is this legal? I'd say per Stars, yes.
Is it ethical? I think that's the gray area.

If I knew others were doing the same thing, I'd have NO PROBLEM with it. I would think most of you ballas would appreciate that there are a lot of dead money players in the tourney like us. But our goal is to learn to play the game. I would also think that it is good for the game overall.

I'm having trouble figuring out how this is a)unethical and b)bad for the game.

Enlighten me...I'm willing to stop that practice if the consensus is that it is unethical.

What REALLY BOTHERS me is:
1. Staking multiple players and giving directions
2. Staking multiple players and taking over at a point
3. Multiple entries in the same tourney

Re: On Ghosting
 

Huh? Of course it's unethical to break it. It was unethical to break it BEFORE there was an explicit rule as well.

If ratholing is legal in a certain site, it's still unethical. If you think 1 people to a hand is the ethical way of playing and you break it just because there's no explicit rule against it, you are unethical. The presence of an explicit rule in the poker site doesn't alter your ethics.

Re: On Ghosting
 

I assume you guys have seen the Aaron Been thread on P5's. Wow, online poker is so f***ed up, to those of us not in the know this stuff is quite mind boggling.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
ghost ride the whip

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you guys have seen the Aaron Been thread on P5's. Wow, online poker is so f***ed up, to those of us not in the know this stuff is quite mind boggling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

Re: On Ghosting
 

KneeCo's explanation of rules vs. ethics is a good one. Although something like murder might be unethical regardless of rules, plenty of things are unethical only because there are rules against them.

When one person breaks the rules, he gives himself an unfair edge over those following the rules, and that is unethical. If the same action were allowed by the rules, then it would no longer be unethical, because everyone would have the opportunity to do it.

You're in BB. SB moves all in. Is it ethical for you to fold? Most of the time, of course it is. But if you are playing a flippament, then folding becomes unethical because there is a rule against it.

Re: On Ghosting
 

This is meaningless if you think not keeping the '1 person per hand' guideline is unethical in poker to begin with.

If it's not unethical, why do we need a rule against it?

Re: On Ghosting
 

yuv you're using a really oversimplistic definition of ethical

rules aren't always to keep things 'ethical'

like I said, I don't know if I support a 1 person to a hand rule, but if I did I would argue that it's to prevent unethical behavior, which does not include getting advice from a friend on a single hand (others of course disagree, and say that this is unethical), but which does include shady stuff like using the lack of a 1 person to a hand rule to essentially legally multiaccount

there's not some rule from on high about what is ethical and what is not

Re: On Ghosting
 

I'm not arguing that. All I'm arguing that if UCLA thinks getting advice from a friend on a single hand is unethical, then doing so right now is still unethical, even if there isn't a specific rule against it.

So, if his assumption is correct, then those people are unethical to begin with, they just aren't rule breakers.

If it's not unethical, then a rule against it is meaningless. If we argue that people don't break the rules due to a sense of community, then just place the rules somewhere correct. Like getting someone to make the decisions for you, or whatever you think is unethical.

Kinda weird to think people follow rules, so we should just ban ethical stuff just to make sure they don't break the rules that are already set?

It's either unethical to begin with and thus those people are unethical or it will be impressively stupid to make it illegal.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ghost ride the whip

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Bakes,

Such a blue-sky position is only remotely possible in tech right now. Given time, you can certainly implement draconian solutions.

Consider the implications of such security features. It's an Orwell wetmare that shouldn't happen. Any implications go much further than a [censored] card game. Fine if you're automatically credded to a superclass in such a society. It's not like it's been happening for years anyway, but where do you draw the buffer zones? The toilet bowl?
-------

Rest of ya:

FWIW, I play very little these days. Focusing on other things, but I've ghosted somebody for 3/4 of a year. We talk thru hands (usually after they occur), I refuse to play cash when the player in question also sits at the table, unless it's HU. It's ego and I don't feel I need that edge. I'm too honest when it comes to cards anyway, probably something that costs and will cost me money in the long-term. Whatever.

I get the feeling most of you would run in the red if you sat down at any cash game where the other players were actively colluding against you.

Been away a bit on break, but was told there was a huge NVG dramabomb wrt multiaccounting, etc. Don't know, don't care, probably too arrogant to really want to do that on a personal level.

Cheating in poker? How unthinkable. Do pardon the sarcasm, but some of you younger players do show remarkable naviete when it comes to whitewash solutions for this stuff. And there are some of you who simply don't care. All's fair, no honor amongst, etc. Standard enough that it's unavoidable anyway.

Sure, it can be self-policed. Here's the thing, though, I wonder about. The major sites have full, unfettered access to HH's, and if there's anything I wonder about with regards to that, it's how much time and effort they have put into developing due vigiliance, both in real-time and post-tournament in looking through this stuff.

If such precautions haven't been put into place or developed yet, they should. Why should they?

Then again I'm just a first-gen cyberpunk who knows exactly what value money actually has.

ansky,

lol.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cheating in poker? How unthinkable. Do pardon the sarcasm, but some of you younger players do show remarkable naviete when it comes to whitewash solutions for this stuff. And there are some of you who simply don't care. All's fair, no honor amongst, etc. Standard enough that it's unavoidable anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Still with all the "I'll take whatever advantage I can get, gray areas are my turf" mentality of most poker players (with an especial mention to the younger crowd), it should be up to the sites to do something about it, but why they would? They're pretty happy making tons of money and threads like this one, do tell them, there's nothing to worry about.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
A buddy of mine and I each play the Sunday morning $39 Satellite to the Sunday Million. If one of us qualifies, we get together at one of our houses, log on and play the tourney together. I would imagine there are a lot of lower limit donks like us doing the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my experience of playing poker in college anyway, this is soooo common.

Fact is, the average player doesn't play that often, doesn't read the forums, is a EV- player, and doesn't see anything wrong with his buddy giving him advice while hanging out on a Sunday afternoon.

Conceptually, I think the "One player to a hand" rule is the only way to quell the "problem." Even if it was written into law however, 95% of the recreational players I know simply wouldn't care...."well how the [censored] are they gonna catch me? hahaha."

Re: On Ghosting
 

Yeah, pretty much. As long as it doesn't keep food off marginal grinders' tables, they can well rot.

Different breed of fish anyway. Just as beatable long-term. Don't lose hope.