Was Hachem being unethical?

[BKyef]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see why these statements are much different than what he actually said. He could be lying when saying these statements too.

Are you saying it's ok to narrow your hand range by some amount but not down to only 1 or 2 hands? Where do you draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's lying it's ok since he hasn't exposed his hand he has simply employed gamesmanship.

But according to your account Joe never once made any statement at all in anyway regarding the contents of his hand. He said 'I know what you have'. Huge difference.

[Alex Jacob]

how the f are you still misspelling the world champion's name? you must be doing it on purpose because i don't see how you could miss the correct spelling in the title of the post, in every post in the thread, on TV, etc.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that most likley his only reason for wanting Watkinson to fold was becuase he was worried about being drawn out if he was called by too many hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if that is the case, I do not think it was unethical at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

blah, this thread is a bit circuitous.

it's ethical if he says or does anything purely to make himself a +ev move.

it's unethical if he says or does anything in any way *because* it would be +ev for another player. particularly, if he does something that is +EV for one player that he wouldn't do for another player in the same spot.

is this the sort of distinction you're making el d?

[/ QUOTE ]

As ez says, some +ev tactics are unethical angle shots or against the rules.

However, my basic point was simply this:

Let's ignore the actual table chatter and assume the specific stuff he said was not inherently unethical:

If he is doing something to "save Lee chips" that he wouldn't do if it were a random player in that spot, I think that's unethical.

If he is trying to get Lee to make the action that he would try to make any other player take, I think it's fine.

That's all I'm saying.

[KneeCo]

How many chips does Watkinson have here?

Pescatori's range is obviously huge, from Watkinson's POV Hachem can easily be on an isolation push with AT+/99+ or the like (though the little I know of Hachem tells me he's fairly tight in tournaments), in Watkinson's mind does Hachem egging him on to fold make such a move more likely or less likely? The way the hand played out, it seems to be the latter, though I don't think we can assume that that was Hachem's intent.

In any case, I have a hard time calling foul on this.


EDIT: I agree with El D. that there is cause for concern if Hachem's actions were somehow done for Watkinson specifically. But there is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

[WinBig]

It is quite obvious you feel very strongly that this was unethical. If that is the case why didn't you say something as it occurred at the table instead of writing about it here and completely ignoring any arguments that conflict with your point of view?

I strongly doubt that Hachem would be telling someone who was a 4-1 dog to lay down his hand because he was worried about dodging a bunch of cards. He is a poker pro and a world champ to boot. The sidepot with the small stack cost him 22,500 to call. Why would he scare off a player with a lesser hand that could almost double him up in a sidepot? Do you really think Hachem would pass on a chance to bust someone with a stack of $110K as a 4-1 favorite? If he loses the pot with the small stack so what!

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
I care because I don't think that's poker and I came there to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read all of the exhaustive analysis in this thread, but I agree with the basic tenor of your point.

I detest when people start yammering on about their hands or the situation that their opponents are finding themselves in, and that's because it's often hard to figure out what's going on, whether the players involved know each other, and/or if the conversation is an effort to induce a non-self-interested outcome or just some random, benal chatter.

Andrew Black's coffeehousing with Neverwin during the WSOP while there was a third player involved in the hand (who happened to have been holding the winner and might have actually played the hand further if Black didn't start blabbing) was a prime example of how a Buddhist douchebag could possibly influence the outcome of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tournament equity.

I'm beginning to think a "no coffeehousing during the hand" policy is the best way to regulate this vague area of poker ethics.

[kflop]

I thought that he verbally trapped Dannerman in the last hand of the main event. Taking advantage of Dannerman's naivity and good nature. It's Hachem style of play and his sense of etiquette or lack of it. I'm with you, I'd just rather play cards and find that bullsh*t offensive. It brings up the question "when does gamesmanship cross the line" Should you be allowed to say anything to your oppenents in the middle of a hand? Then again, how can you legislate it?

[BKyef]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm beginning to think a "no coffeehousing during the hand" policy is the best way to regulate this vague area of poker ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

They've done that. It's called "online poker" I'm pretty sure you know about it.

Seriously though, it's always been part of the game and should continue to be so. Some people are good at it and use it to greatly add to their game, some people are bad at it and give away tons of information. Either way it is as much a part of the game as body language, facial ticks, betting patterns, or starting hand requirements.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm beginning to think a "no coffeehousing during the hand" policy is the best way to regulate this vague area of poker ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have real mixed feelings on this, because while I agree w/ some of the collusion concerns, I have often induced calls I want with a couple of well-placed comments. I consider that part of poker.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]

They've done that. It's called "online poker" I'm pretty sure you know about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also called Poker in England.

[ QUOTE ]
Either way it is as much a part of the game as body language, facial ticks, betting patterns, or starting hand requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where you're wrong. We wouldn't be discusing it here if it were as standard to the game as starting hand requirmenents.

A lot of people simply don't know how to behave at the poker table. We see many variations on this, but in this case, talking about your hand in a way that's too-specific or otherwise innapropriate does present an potential problem for the integrity of poker tournaments. Part of the inherent trouble is that there isn't a clear code of rules that governs coffeehousing. Discussions such as these do bring us closer to establishing such a code, though.