A morality post inspired by a response in another thread here
 

the post was by tomek322, he brought up a moral question that I was faced with (kind of) the other day. I think it deserves a new thread.

Here is the post:

[ QUOTE ]
I thought about this while playing this weekend. Two newbies sat down at 1-2NL. They did the typical, play every hand to the end, bad bluffs into the nuts type stuff. On a cig break one of them asks me, "hey you seem to have some experience, this is my first time at a casino, how am I doing?"

The human part of me wants to grab him and tell him to go home. It was apparent that he will leave broke, but the other part of me just looked at him like an ATM. And since I was stuck 200, I answered him like I answer all questions while playing. I shrugged and said, "I really wasn't paying attention, but aren't you up since you sat down." He nods and goes, "yeah, I guess I am." He busted half hour later, bluffing with 73off into an AAJ92 three flush board.

I think you have to remove your sympathy for incompetent opponents, as no one forces people to play, it is their conscience choice. The total newbs are the only ones I have any internal conflict playing against. The remainder of players I couldn’t care less about. I don’t hate my opponents, I have such a competitive streak in me that once the cards I dealt I don’t need anything to psyche me up to play. Most, if not all, poker players believe they have an above average skill set so I never feel bad about taking their money. I even go out of my way to try and bust the super cocky.

In today’s world, every one is told they are special, above average and great. Unfortunately poker is a game were disillusions of grandeur are costly. Poker is one of the few disciplines were self criticism is necessary. It is absolutely critical to be able to accurately rank yourself at the table and tailor your play accordingly. I have no sympathy for people who are ignorant to their own incompetence.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this question is about encouraging players to play even though you know that they will lose.

O.k. First of all I don't agree with feeling sorry for a person if they are losing at a table, that's the name of the game (I'm quite sure there was a similar thread a few months ago about this). If you don't take their money, they will take yours. Plus, it's their decision that you have in no way influenced (purposely).

However, this is quite different in my opinion. Here, the player asked for your help. That get's rid of his ignorance right? O.k. so tomek322 gave a rather ambiguous answer, but it still hid the truth. It implied that he was winning through his skill. This, after him asking directly for tomek322's help. Recognising that he was a decent player. Is this wrong? What about if tomek322 had said "no you are a very good player, carry on"


My experience (confession)

it was a home poker game and my friend had never played before and has no naturaly ability for a game of this sorts. However, in practise he'd hit alot of cards and won some chips off us all. I asked him whether he wanted to play for real money, and he (sensibly) said that he didn't. Then I said "go on, you're doing so well against us". I think that was wrong

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

I think I need to give some more background info. The player that asked my opinion(not help), talked about playing "a bunch" of cash games back home. But none the less, I don't really think that the poker table is the place for these qustions.

While my response was misleading per se, telling him that he is a terrible poker player would probably make him confrontation and defensive. More importantly might make an uncomfortable situation for me. And since I am a big selfish bugger, I wanted to avoid that.

I didn't grab some random kid at the slots and tell him "go on, you're doing so well against us." He chose to sit. I was sucker at one point too, most likely still am the sucker.

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."

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

[ QUOTE ]
However, this is quite different in my opinion. Here, the player asked for your help. That get's rid of his ignorance right? O.k. so tomek322 gave a rather ambiguous answer, but it still hid the truth. It implied that he was winning through his skill. This, after him asking directly for tomek322's help. Recognising that he was a decent player. Is this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might be giving him too much credit for asking for 'actual' help on top of his ability of assessing players.

I'm sure the guy wasn't asking so he could change his ways right then and there depending on how it was answered. Some might, but it's rare. And most that might do that would give up, or forget, and revert back to their donating ways since playing 'right' can be too boring or whatever.

He also isn't likely to really recognize a 'decent' player from any other player. Think about what he'd be basing that on? Especially if this was his first time playing with tomek, not to mention him being a newbie. Most think that the guys with the most chips in front of them are the better players. Not how they got those chips. Or a guy who doesn't play many hands. Which is usually a sign, but even some donators get bad runs of cards or some tight guys don't play that well postflop. This isn't to say anything about tomek, just in general terms.

Most of the time, this is more casual of a question than it seems. I'd give them some vague answer to placate them and encourage them to stay or whatever. I don't like to teach at a table. After all, if you answer that question, others might be listening in at that point.

It is amusing, though, listening to a guy who isn't that good give an assessment of a player like this as if he really does know what he's talking about when most of what he's saying is wrong. Usually it involves the guy answering bragging about himself to some degree and stating wrong strategy. Question: In that case, would you jump in and correct the guy giving a wrong assessment/strategy of a newbie player?

If a guy came up to me away from the table, I'd have no problem giving him an assessment. Though in doing so, you have to watch as you answer to see how he's reacting. Ego can still rear it's head in that situation. Sometimes they just want a pat on the back and don't like criticism. In that case, you just cut it short, change the subject and save any other analysis. They're not ready to learn at that moment.

For instance, a bud of mine is tough to really talk to when we get into some poker discussions as he really doesn't do much to improve his game. Even after I've pointed him in the right direction from different angles on different topics. For some reason he'd just rather be superstitious about seats and play on a short BR.

b

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

I think tomek322 did the right thing by giving a nice non-committal answer. The guy went away with no persuasion to keep playing, only that tomek322 didn't have an opinion he wanted to voice. After all, the tea breaks during a game are still part of the game. It's only over once you've all cashed in your remaining chips.

If your case, I don't think you did anything bad either. The guy is your friend and surely he's going to know more about your skills than some random so he'll at least be wary and thinking which will help him. Besides afterward I'm sure you can stretch to buying him a couple of beers as consolation for playing above his head and getting busted. You weren't playing outside of his reasonable price range, were you? If you were it might be different.

One of my friends who plays in both my home games is rubbish and has earned the nickname 'cashpoint'. He knows it but views a night playing poker in the same way as a night on the beers. £40 is okay (about 4 buyins for our game). Away from the games I give him as much coaching as he can listen to but once at the table his actions are his choices.

Imo the moral here is directly comparable to persuading someone to go out for a few beers. In both circumstances, they'll probably enjoy themselves and it won't cost the earth to do so. If your friends aren't enjoying playing with you, you need to learn to be nice!

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

Here is my sad story.

I was just busting out of noob status while back and starting to get a grip on Limit holdem. So I'm playing a little over my head at a 3/6 table. During a break, a guy at the table has a smoke with me outside. I wasn't really into reading players quite then but I did notice he seemed to have a little bad luck and also bad cards because he wasn't playing many hands. Anyways I did feel sorry for him and went on for not one but two cigarettes worth of advice. I kinda felt good about myself. Well back at the table over the next few hours my luck got a little worse and he seemed to do better and better. Well, I left down quite a bit and chatted up later with a good friend of mine who had been tutoring me in holdem. I described that afternoon to him and he stunned me with his reaction. He said most likely that the guy in question was a very good local player and simply stood there for two cigarettes while I explained to him exactly how I play. Can you imagine that?

While I do realize that that sort of thing is rare, I have completely stopped giving any advice to anyone at my table or any other stranger in a casino. And as a matter of fact, I do the opposite and try and find out how the other guy is playing. If a guy asks me for advice, I do the psychiatrist thing and ask him back how he thinks he's doing and where he think's he is going wrong.

How's that for unethical? Frankly, I don't care. I will play fair but if you plunk money on a poker table I am sitting at, I have every right to win all of it. It's legal thievery and I love it.

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

Seems to me that telling any guy that he's a bad poker player is a great way to lose some teeth.

Just tell 'em what they want to hear. If they were into reality, they'd be home reading 2+2 books instead of donking away hundreds of dollars.

Re: Clarification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways I did feel sorry for him and went on for not one but two cigarettes worth of advice. I kinda felt good about myself.

[/ QUOTE ]
He begged for advice and I gave up everything I could think of. I had suspected he was perhaps the worst player at the table behind me and two or three others so I thought I was helping him (and boy, was I).

Re: Clarification
 

I don't think what tomek322 did was bad, I didn't when I made the post (although I know it sounds like I did!), but I was curious of other peoples opinions, it also reminded me of what I did about a week ago to my friend. Also, I don't think [ QUOTE ]
What about if tomek322 had said "no you are a very good player, carry on"


[/ QUOTE ] has been addressed


would any of you ever hustle someone? Say in a game of pool (if you are any good! If not, choose another sport) Do the ol' pretend to be playing bad, pressure them to play for realy money. Even though they are reluctant to. Then when the money is wagered beat them. That's just one example. Emotions about this player aside.

Re: Clarification
 

[ QUOTE ]
would any of you ever hustle someone? Say in a game of pool (if you are any good!

[/ QUOTE ]
I am actually quite good at pool although I have never hustled anyone. As a matter of fact, I don't even like playing for money, especially in bars. It just leads to trouble.

No, I don't feel the need to hustle anyone and I think it is somewhat dishonest and unethical. And as far as poker, I think there can be hustling here too. For example, you join a table of newbies and say this is your first time and lose a few dollars by mucking some winning hands etc. Well, that would be unethical in my books. Also a form of poker hustling would be to give a noobie the absolute wrong advice on how to play.

Re: Clarification
 

[ QUOTE ]
For example, you join a table of newbies and say this is your first time and lose a few dollars by mucking some winning hands etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I read a funny story about this once. Mike caro sat down at a 5 card draw table. 1st hand he called a raise, swapped one card. There was just him and one more opponent in the hand. After the sawp the opponent bet again. Caro announced that if he hadn't got that particular card from the swap he would have called(I forget the details), he then turned over something like 4sJc8h2dKc. Of course the players at the table were shocked (and probably licking their lips). Caro then played very good 5cd keeping his crazy image and made alot of money. I don't think that's unethical. That's just creating an image and making opponents play badly from it. I do it myself (not quite as extreme as that though!) Phil Helmuth once called bets down with A high playing limit hold em online, then typed "you cannot bluff me!". That being his screen name aswell, and he claimed that for the rest of the session none of the players did. That's all part of poker imo.



[ QUOTE ]
Also a form of poker hustling would be to give a noobie the absolute wrong advice on how to play.


[/ QUOTE ]
if he asks for it, then yeah I'd agree with that in general.



I'd say that me trying to convince my friend to play for money is hustling

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]

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

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it strikes me as the morals of the con artist and cheat

[/ QUOTE ]

true, I guess it's how for you go to say someone's a "sucker", some people aren't meant for games like poker and they know it. Putting pressure on them to play and them eventually giving in, does that make them a sucker? Or for them realising this and seeking someone's advice mid-game, then getting bad advice. Does this make them a sucker? I don't know.

Re: Clarification
 

Sorry, but millions of people travel to play in casinos every year with absolutely no chance of winning...there is nobody at the door warning them.
Life is about choices, and this is just another one. Whatever someone's reasoning for gambling, or playig poker, it is not for me to decide.
But part of those choices that those people could be making include learning more about the games they wish to play.

These people are here on vacation, and entertainment, I am trying to make a living...and part of that entertainment is trying to bust the local grinders. So who am I to stand in their way.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, it strikes me as the morals of the con artist and cheat

[/ QUOTE ]

true, I guess it's how for you go to say someone's a "sucker", some people aren't meant for games like poker and they know it. Putting pressure on them to play and them eventually giving in, does that make them a sucker? Or for them realising this and seeking someone's advice mid-game, then getting bad advice. Does this make them a sucker? I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I can say is that I know what my personal moral choices in this vein are: I will not coerce someone to play a game they don't want to play for money unless it's part of a mixed-game negotiation. I will not lie to a person who asks me my opinion of their play. I will not, however, volunteer that opinion unless it appears that someone is trashing their life by playing. I will not cheat or shoot an angle. I will not hustle via sandbagging.

However, I no longer play for a living, and have held different opinions in the past when I did.

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

interesting, I think I am the same, howver I have never played for a living.

[ QUOTE ]
I will not, however, volunteer that opinion unless it appears that someone is trashing their life by playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't do this, I wouldn't think that it is any of my business.

Re: Clarification
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think what tomek322 did was bad, I didn't when I made the post (although I know it sounds like I did!), but I was curious of other peoples opinions, it also reminded me of what I did about a week ago to my friend. Also, I don't think [ QUOTE ]
What about if tomek322 had said "no you are a very good player, carry on"


[/ QUOTE ] has been addressed


would any of you ever hustle someone? Say in a game of pool (if you are any good! If not, choose another sport) Do the ol' pretend to be playing bad, pressure them to play for realy money. Even though they are reluctant to. Then when the money is wagered beat them. That's just one example. Emotions about this player aside.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think telling someone they're good when they aren't is fine during the game. I think some people mistake breaks in the game as non-game time (if that makes sense). I think that the game starts when you buy-in and doesn't finish until you cash out. It's like when Linford Christie used to warm up for the 100m sprint in other people's lanes. They weren't racing at that point but they'd stepped out on to the track and anything legal goes until they cross the finish line. I also think that many people keep their game head on when they post on 2+2 (something which may be worth a post on it's own?). I get the feeling sometimes when reading reponses to posts that some people are deliberately focusing on certain limited aspects of the hand in an almost (but easily mistaken as misreading the post) deliberately misleading way. Although clearly there could be a number of other reasons than them trying to play the whole forum.

I've hustled at pool. I spent the whole of my first term at uni telling my mates I was rubbish and playing adequately. Then at the end of term I asked to double the stakes and after winning a few games told them I was actually very good and then won 20 (or something equally ridiculous) odd games on the trot. It was good natured though and I did buy the beer for the night.

As for hustling strangers, I haven't tried it but then I'm very bad at talking to people I don't know anyway. I have had several people try to hustle me but I've won them all and in everytime I can remember (it was a few years back) I think I actually warned them before accepting!

Anyway, during a game, telling someone they are good is the same as slowplaying. In both you're giving them one impression when in fact it's false. Away from the game just be nice.

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

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not, however, volunteer that opinion unless it appears that someone is trashing their life by playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't do this, I wouldn't think that it is any of my business.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a general principle of pretty much all respectable moral systems that the wellbeing of your fellow human being IS your business, at least to a certain extent.

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

Splawndarts you have a very good point. It's just that once at the poker table, it's a fairly widely considered view that it's everyman for himself (except cheats o'course). At the table you simply don't know people well enough to judge whether busting them on a particular hand will cost them jail or divorce or whatever. Even if they tell you it's the case, your natural bs detector pings and you have huge doubts.

I know we're trying to read people at the table but deciding someone shouldn't play because it's ruining their life after knowing them for a mere hour is, well, cringeworthy in my mind. It'd be embarassingly wrong in overwhelming majority of cases and in the rest just plain ignored.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Splawndarts you have a very good point. It's just that once at the poker table, it's a fairly widely considered view that it's everyman for himself (except cheats o'course). At the table you simply don't know people well enough to judge whether busting them on a particular hand will cost them jail or divorce or whatever. Even if they tell you it's the case, your natural bs detector pings and you have huge doubts.

I know we're trying to read people at the table but deciding someone shouldn't play because it's ruining their life after knowing them for a mere hour is, well, cringeworthy in my mind. It'd be embarassingly wrong in overwhelming majority of cases and in the rest just plain ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under normal circumstances I don't think anything that could happen in one sitting would make me want to talk to them (ie. I would rarely do what Treetop did). I'm mostly speaking about people I know better, or friends.

I did un-invite a compulsive gambler from my home game once, though, and he later thanked me for it when he got help. I think I did the right thing even though I cost myself and a few players some money by doing so.

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

Ah, I see we're talking about different groups of people. Me - randoms, you - regulars/friends. Then yeah, I agree, you do have cause (and the info) to make a comment, especially when it's your game. Good work with helping that guy.