[prophet73]

So basically, after reading this long-ass thread there is only one conclusion you can come to based on the online pro's arguments and descriptions of their actions:

Online poker ISN'T real poker.

Besides the obvious differences with the lack of actual physical attendance and interaction, it is becoming more apparent that online poker isn't just a close "cousin" to actual poker, but in fact, a bastard offspring.

I don't even need to go too deeply into the obvious unethical nature of multi-accounting. It's unethical before it was a rule and always will be. If you don't care about ethics/morals, as some have stated in this thread, then you need to wake up. I don't need to go into a lecture on the importance of ethics/morals, but, in a nutshell, ethics and morals are supposed to be in place so each and everyone of us doesn't F**KED at some point based on someone else's greedy/evil nature. Without it, you can never rest assured that you are safe from getting screwed. If you don't get that, go pick up a book or take a class on it.

Anyway, more importantly, does everyone in here realize and understand the implication and intentions of the "one person to a hand" rule in live poker?

At the very least, during a hand, poker is an INDIVIDUAL game, not a team sport. That's the essence of the game. Taking/receiving advice is giving one player an unfair advantage over another player in the heat of the moment in which the players should be making the decision completely on their own without influence.

Sure, you can talk about hands afterwards to discuss and improve, but in the moment, poker is about that individual competition. By ignoring that, you are simply not playing poker and are playing some other game where there are basically "think tanks" and teams and whatnot.

Let me give an example: Let's say you are playing heads-up with some guy who is best friends with Phil Ivey (and therefore giving him advice on hands). Is it fair that since he just happens to be best friends with an elite player, the other player gets that advantage over you? Sure, you can have friends advise you too, but can the majority of people say with certainty, that Phil Ivey's advice isn't much more valuable than others?

And the reason they don't have it in the PS/FTP TOC? Not because it's deemed fair. Not because it's deemed ethical. But simply because it's deemed "unenforcible". That means they know realistically they can't determine who does what, but that does NOT change how unfair and unethical it is to do that. I guarantee if you ask them if would enforce it if they could, they would absolutely say yes. That's why EVERY live tournament has that rule.

From the way you guys describe it, it sounds almost like one of those old quiz shows with two panel of kids competing and answering questions. Sure, maybe only ONE student gives the final answer, but it's obviously a team competition.

But it sure as hell isn't poker.

Just as I'm starting to realize online poker sure as hell ISN'T real poker.