Heads Up Grand V Dillemma: What do you do?

[forssell]

I really don´t know what I would have done in that situation. But I gotta respect you giving him even stacks. Gongrats on the win.

[Rickyroodido]

Good posts guys!
I was feeling bad about this witch effected my perception. I guess its a part of the deal with online poker; to have a good connection.
To me this is very tricky emotionally bacause it doesnt feel right to win against somebody who isnt there. In other sports it would be a walk over, but in this case your playing it out anyway. It would be better if they just announced a winner if the other is disconnected.

Im sorry for saying that I was disgusting. Clearly I didnt think this thru.

[adanthar]

You did the right thing Joe (I voted #1 in both questions, BTW)...grats on the win. You've earned it and have an awesome story to tell in addition to that.

[suited_jock]

Wasnt there like PR admin about or something? Get them to pause the tournie... Give him 5 mins then ask it to restart... doesnt take 5 mins to reboot.

[Spee]

Great post!

Something like this would have never dawned on me.

Thanks for Joe for being so open and honest with the facts.

Thanks to posters like CSC and others for presenting insightful discussions that I would have never thought of.

Like poker, like life. Play hard but play fair. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[CardSharpCook]

Joe, congrats on the win. If you feel strongly about wanting to give him some money as compensation, you can contact pokerroom support and sask them to help. However, I don't think you are under any ethical obligation to do so. In your mind you reached a fair conclusion and then played it out. Feeling guilty because you went on to win is silly.

On the other hand, feeling guilty because you took advantage of another human being when he was weak and unable to defend himself, stealing money from him in the form of chip equity, is, of course, perfectly human. Of course you should feel bad. You stole from him. You took advantage of him. Does it really matter that it was within the rules?

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
What if instead of showing you his hole cards, he just audibly whispered them to himself when looking at them?

What if instead of that, he had a tell so reliable that you always knew the strength of his hand?

What if he folded every hand except for AA heads up?

Which of these would you tell him about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Lord, Jman, do you really need help determining right from wrong?

1. Whispering his hole cards to himself is a mental defect he should be aware of. You tell him. There is no skill invovled in over-hearing his mutterings.

2. Tells are a part of poker. Spotting tells takes skill.

3. His play choices are part of poker. I don't need to teach him to play better poker.

4. Come on, man. Your mommy taught you right from wrong, didn't she? She may not have played poker, but you can still use her lessons and apply them to a new situations. Mommy raised a fully functioning adult who can reason all by himself.

[Bullet_Dodger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its irrelavant if "villian" is clumsy, or watevr because there is a clear choise to either wait for him or steal his blinds.
Im really suprised so many people here approves to this, very digusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if the "hero" was dealt AA, KK, QQ, etc. for some of those steals? does that matter at all? since one can assume he'd be raising those hands anyway, is it still unethical for him to raise if his opponent are disconnected?

if you are going to argue that it's unethical to "steal" from a disconnected player, you must also argue that one can't raise "legitimate" raising hands against a disconnected player or else you end up on a slippery slope of trying to define a "legitimate" raising hand in a HU situation vs. a "pure steal".

we can all agree that he'd probably be raising all pairs, most likely any Ace, two Broadway cards, etc. even if the villain was still connected. but what about K3o? J8s? what if those were actually the best hand against the disconnected blind? are you required to fold the best hand against a disconnected player?

this is why i think it's perfectly ethical to steal from a disconnected player ... too many "what ifs?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Edit: Im curious if OP folded a bunch of hands when he got back, let him get even (because he felt sorry for him) and then Villain went on to give consecutive bad beats to him ... what he would think?

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, feeling guilty because you took advantage of another human being when he was weak and unable to defend himself, stealing money from him in the form of chip equity, is, of course, perfectly human. Of course you should feel bad. You stole from him. You took advantage of him. Does it really matter that it was within the rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

wouldn't this line of reasoning, for example, obligate sober players to refuse to play drunk players?

[Copernicus]

You are the coach of a football team. The free safety twists an ankle and has to sit out, and his backup sucks. Do you exploit the backup or continue to play into the strengths of the defense?

If you consider disconnects, like injuries, to be part of the online game,and both sides take the same risk, then there is no ethical reason to not take advantage of them.

If you consider online poker and B&M poker to be identical to each other, and playing online is a matter of convenience only, then you should hold off as long as possible before making each raise. Once he returns, however, you are under no obligation to restore the game to where it was. To argue that you should is to say that you should suspend the game indefinitely until he returns, which I think is going too far under any circumstances.

I have been the "victim" of this several times, and not once have my opponents done anything but vacuum up as many chips as possible in my absence.