MTT ethics

[Exitonly]

1) i remember chrisco having the avatar for a while
2) i dont think it's unethical to sell your seat in a tournament given the person buying it hasn't already played.
3) i dont think it happens very often; but it does happen
4) i dont think pokerstars cares, maybe other sites do

[JoseGonzlez]

There was a controversy awhile back about this.
I think Stars used to have a rule that you have to play your own account. However, since there is no definitive way to see who is playing the account i think they dropped the rule. Its not that they would not support a rule that you have to play your own account, it just that the rule in unenforceable.

I doubt it has happened often but im sure it has happened.

[kassdog]

Let me understand this. People that are playing in a live multi table tourny will offer to sell thier seat. Then someone else will come in and start playing. That seems like major bull [censored]. How can that be legal.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me understand this. People that are playing in a live multi table tourny will offer to sell thier seat. Then someone else will come in and start playing. That seems like major bull [censored]. How can that be legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, not live. online.

[Cornell Fiji]

[ QUOTE ]

2) i dont think it's unethical to sell your seat in a tournament given the person buying it hasn't already played.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exit,
I have a six part question for you (and anyone who agrees with your second point.) Sorry for the length but I think that this is clearly unethical and I am really interested in where you think the flaw in my logic is.

For the sake of this argument assume the tournament is the WSOP main event but it is not hard to see how this is analogous with a $3r tourney on Stars:

1) Do you think that if Jamie Gold had sold his seat to Johnny Chan at the start of the WSOP final table that the expected $EV would be higher for Chan than it was for Gold?

This is not an entirely unfeasable scenario considering: the Gold/Chan friendship, Gold's comments before the final table saying that he did not want to win because he did not want to be an ambassador for the game, and the fact that since Chan has his own website it would be +$EV for him to have offered Gold 100%+ of his winnings in return for the pr that he received

2) If 'yes,' then do you think that the $EV of the other players at the final table would have decreased?

3) Do you think that this could possibly create the potential for an 'arms race' where one player calling in the relief will lead to other players calling in the relief therefore deminishing the possibility of the next wave of 'Moneymaker' (anyone can get lucky) players that help catalyze the poker boom making all of us a lot of money?

it seems that scaring people who do not have good players as friends away from the tournament scene would be -ev for all of us. In reality there would probably be a lot of "free agent" players waiting in the wings who would bid each other down for the cut that they require adding a whole new element of dealmaking to our game

4) Do you think that if this practice of calling in subs was allowed that specialization could occur amongst poker players whereby poker players would organize themselves on teams akin to a MLB pitching staff: assembling the best starter (full table specialists,) set up guy (SNG specialists,) and closer (HU guy,) with a mop up guy (short stack pushbotter) waiting in the wings?

5) Do you think that there should be unlimited substitutions like in basketball (so if the pushbotter gets the team out of the danger zone the starter can be brought back in. Or if the starter gets tired from a long session he can bring in a freshly rested and well fed player) Or that it should be like baseball where once someone is removed from the game they are out for good? (in the online example obviously it is like the basketball example because these players can sub freely)

While I think scenario #5 would be an interesting idea it is certaintly an unfair advantage for the people not subscribing to team play

6) If you believe that it is unethical for people to take over in live tournaments and not in online tournaments then what is the significant difference in the two in terms of ethical obligations

[Mr Hobo]

[ QUOTE ]
not really
yes
probably

[/ QUOTE ]

[NoahSD]

not really
no
depends on the site

[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
not really
no
depends on the site

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to expand on the 'no'?

[NoahSD]

Ooops.. that was stupid. I missed the prefix "un".

FWIW, I think this is unethical, but I don't see how the sites could stop it without also stopping practices that I think are totally legal--i.e., 2p2ers taking over for each other in tournaments so they can have social lives sometimes.

[AggroMob]

So, in light of all the "What's next for TV Poker (after High Stakes)?" - anyone else this would make for some incredibly interesting TV? Poker teams like this? Selecting your players based on situation and who the other team brings in? Hrmm...