On Ghosting
 

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.

Re: On Ghosting
 

I happen to agree with you but this:

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

is a poor explanation as to why you feel something is not unethical.

Re: On Ghosting
 

I agree that it is fine, I doubt I could be convinced otherwise.

Re: On Ghosting
 

ansky ghost me plz tell me i'm too much of a station

Re: On Ghosting
 

I see nothing wrong with ghosting, and can't see myself ever being convinced otherwise

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with ghosting, and can't see myself ever being convinced otherwise

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: On Ghosting
 

I don't know what ghosting is, but while I have no problem giving/receiving advice during a hand, there is also the JJ factor where its pretty easy to essentially multiaccount via telling people what to do (is it no longer multiaccounting if you hire child labor to press the buttons for you? it's a thin line)

but I also really don't see a solution to it, so I dunno

Re: On Ghosting
 

ghost ride the whip

Re: On Ghosting
 

I agree with Ansky and co., "ghosting" (I learned a new word, yay!) is fine by me, and in fact like the best way to teach/learn.

I also agree that it's not unethical to do something online just because it is unethical to do it live (e.g. I wouldn't ask to see opponents' cards at showdown live every time if they would prefer to muck, but I'm damn sure checking online).

Back to 'ghosting', I am however uncomfortable with the idea that one player buys another into an online MTT and "ghosts" him when the person giving the directions is (1) in the MTT himself, (2) doing this with multiple players in said MTT or (3) clear that he's not going to back the player in future events if the player doesn't follow his "advice".

But that's something else all together and there's no logical reason to ban ghosting (if such a thing we even possible) because of this. 'One person to a hand' isn't a part of online poker and I have no quarrel with that.

Re: On Ghosting
 

I believe that it is highly unethical.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with ghosting, and can't see myself ever being convinced otherwise

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Say someone stakes 20 neutral EV players in a tourney and when they get far he ghosts them. You guys have no problem with this?

Re: On Ghosting
 

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.

Re: On Ghosting
 

HEY SOMEONE DEFINE THIS WORD BEFORE STUPID ARGUMENTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE DEFINITION OCCUR

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
HEY SOMEONE DEFINE THIS WORD BEFORE STUPID ARGUMENTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE DEFINITION OCCUR

[/ QUOTE ]
seriously, is "ghosting" "sweating and giving advice" or "taking over when the big money is on the line"?

Re: On Ghosting
 

the former

Re: On Ghosting
 

if its the former, its fine. if its the latter, its not fine at all. but there's really no way to stop it, so there's nothing we can do about it.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HEY SOMEONE DEFINE THIS WORD BEFORE STUPID ARGUMENTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE DEFINITION OCCUR

[/ QUOTE ]
seriously, is "ghosting" "sweating and giving advice" or "taking over when the big money is on the line"?

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the OP or any of the replies possibly indicates it could be the latter??

Re: On Ghosting
 

From what ansky is saying, ghosting = sweating and giving advice without any financial interest in the sweatee.

Gets a bit more murky if a backer sweats/coaches his backee though imo.

Re: On Ghosting
 

OP didnt mention financial interest, and that doesnt really make a difference IMO.

i.e. if a staker was on the phone with one of the guys he backs while the backee wins a tournament, i think it's fine

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HEY SOMEONE DEFINE THIS WORD BEFORE STUPID ARGUMENTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE DEFINITION OCCUR

[/ QUOTE ]
seriously, is "ghosting" "sweating and giving advice" or "taking over when the big money is on the line"?

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the OP or any of the replies possibly indicates it could be the latter??

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, considering it's KIND OF A BIG DEAL RIGHT NOW, I think it's totally fair to assume that it fits in the discussion-- especially if we're trying to define what's ethical and what isn't, we have a reference point for "clearly isn'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 ]

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.

Re: On Ghosting
 

Justin, you would be paying a fee to multi account therefore it's okay.


duhhh

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 ]

aren't you agreeing with him?

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

aren't you agreeing with him?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just because it is permitted by the site (legit) doesn't mean it is ethically sound. Ghosting/AIM/"multiaccounting" are all part of a huge grey area that is how rigged online poker is, [censored] is rampant yo. you can't say x is legit but y isn't. it all isn't legit. its the internet. and when there is a lot of money to be won, smart people will ALWAYS do whatever it takes to get that chedda. facts are facts.

point of my post was saying ghosting is just multiaccounting 90% lolz (above post). and as multiaccounting is seen as unethical, ghosting should be seen as unethical too.
PERIOD.

Re: On Ghosting
 

We should just put a ban on ghosting. That would end all this multiaccounting ish, no being on the phone, aim, etc. Obviously this would be incredibly difficult to enforce but I think its worth doing for our ROIs. Why can't we make online poker as legit as possible ourselves?

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
OP didnt mention financial interest, and that doesnt really make a difference IMO.

i.e. if a staker was on the phone with one of the guys he backs while the backee wins a tournament, i think it's fine

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of examples: Staker has been in the same tournament with his backee and then he ghosts his backee.
OR
Staker has more than one backee in the same tournament and he ghosts more than one of his backees.

In my opinion, both of these examples are the equivalent of multi-accounting.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ 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

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
We should just put a ban on ghosting. That would end all this multiaccounting ish, no being on the phone, aim, etc. Obviously this would be incredibly difficult to enforce but I think its worth doing for our ROIs. Why can't we make online poker as legit as possible ourselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I lold at your utopian logic. You can't prove ghosting so it would just create a witch hunt. Even though that is happening now. Online poker won't be legit, yo. Its the internet. There will never be a 1 player to a hand rule on the internet and it makes more sense to condone multiaccounting as a whole than try to ban ghosting / aim lolz.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ 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 ]

Enforceability has nothing to do with acting ethically. Also, you can't make ethical decisions based on what everyone else is doing.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ 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...

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 ]

nah i'm pretty sure bakes is trying to help his ROI lolz.

Re: On Ghosting
 

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.

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 ]


This is ridiculous. I said the same logic in the mlagoo gobbo thread that because gobbo had 50% if gobbo told him what to do he would be effectively 1.5 accounting. I'm still right, and people are just realizing this now? So where do you draw the line? is 1.9 accounting wrong like in the example I gave? But 1.05 accounting, like in the example you gave is legit?

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
From what ansky is saying, ghosting = sweating and giving advice without any financial interest in the sweatee.

Gets a bit more murky if a backer sweats/coaches his backee though imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

so if JJProdigy's buddy was in a tourney and got to the money..it would be fine if JJ told him how to play every single hand as long as he wasn't getting any money out of it??????

but what if afterwards the buddy is like man I would never have won without all that advice..I should give him something for helping me...

does it then become not ok after the fact?

Re: On Ghosting
 

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.

Re: On Ghosting
 

i don't care to debate whether or not this or that is or isn't ethical because I'm too much of an idiot, but I feel like anything other than sitting at a computer by yourself playing without receiving advice by any means is wrong in some way. I'm not going to complain because it is pretty impossible to stop, but I get a yucky feeling when I hear of things like the recent JJProdigy stuff and all that.

The fact that there is no rule against it should not even be involved in the discussion. The only reason there is no rule against it is because it is too unreasonable to enforce.

Lots of people seem to say that certain things are ok, while certain things are not. I disagree, they are all bad. For the record, I think that multiaccounting, physically sweating while giving advice, account switching, coaching, receiving advice over the phone, aim, etc, and pretty much whatever else has come up should not be done. I will clarify one thing that I think is ok. Coaching where the teacher plays on their own account while explaining what they are doing to the student is pretty fine by me, though I do WISH people wouldn't do it.

One thing I find kind of amusing considering all the hype it gets is that I put multiaccounting below most of the other things in terms of scumminess.

Also, I will admit to doing one or more of those things I talked about above, but I'm not that ethical really, and if other's are doing it and getting an advantage I will too. I have only done those things for maybe an hour, I just don't feel the need to do it too often. If you couldn't get banned and your money taken from multiaccounting, and lots of people did it I would probably do it on occasion.

So if you do all that stuff, whatever, I don't have any ill feelings toward you, just don't try to act like its perfectly ok.


I think it all comes down to, you're getting an unfair advantage by doing this stuff. Don't tell me it is not unfair because there is no rule against it. I don't know what to tell you if you don't see why it isn't fair.

Re: On Ghosting
 

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.

Re: On Ghosting
 

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.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From what ansky is saying, ghosting = sweating and giving advice without any financial interest in the sweatee.

Gets a bit more murky if a backer sweats/coaches his backee though imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

so if JJProdigy's buddy was in a tourney and got to the money..it would be fine if JJ told him how to play every single hand as long as he wasn't getting any money out of it??????

but what if afterwards the buddy is like man I would never have won without all that advice..I should give him something for helping me...

does it then become not ok after the fact?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was just clarifying what was meant by ghosting.

Personally, I have never ghosted nor been ghosted by anyone and think that in principle, it's unethical. I also think it's impossible to enforce. I still think sites should have rules in place against the practice though.

Re: On Ghosting
 

[ 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.