More than 1st chop

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
Taking advantage of these people in a game they didn't sign up to play is, to me, unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, however it's my argument that they sign up to play as soon as they decide to start talking chop and again this is an argument for chopping being problematic not chopping being problematic when the CL gets > than 1st.

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taking advantage of these people in a game they didn't sign up to play is, to me, unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, however it's my argument that they sign up to play as soon as they decide to start talking chop

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I somewhat disagree because at this point in the tournament players are under a lot of pressure and often in a once in a lifetime situation. I think introducing the new game at this point is unfair to inexperienced players.

[ QUOTE ]
and again this is an argument for chopping being problematic not chopping being problematic when the CL gets > than 1st.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. But CL getting > 1st is a clear example where the CL is taking advantage in this new game. Things like chip-chops hu between two approximately equal players, which are strictly to reduce variance, I have less of a problem with.

Steve

[registrar]

I'm a bit surprised by this thread. In the murk that is the ethics of online poker, this seems pretty straightforward. If dealmaking is allowed, then we are entitled to seek out the best deal we can. Everyone else is entitled to say 'no' at any stage, in the same way that, when down to three at final table and you have a 10:4:1 chip lead, the guy in second is entitled to play back at you. He often won't, and in some ways we demean ourselves by hissing 'suck it bitch' at the screen as he gives up his tenth BB in a row, but we're allowed to do it and we're also allowed to make the profitable deal we can.

[stealthmunk]

This is a shameless brag post. But I'm going to live vicariously through my past since we all know that money is long goooooooooone. (I'm sure some of you nitty ethical idiots think its kharma too loflcopta)
The Worst Deal In The History Of Online Poker

[gobboboy]

I don't see how it can be construed as unethical at all. Is not telling people that, over the long run, it's better to go for broke on the money bubble to accumulate chips and win the tournament, unethical? They use the reason 'oh, I need the 15k to pay my bills.' The chip equity when we make deals at the final table doesn't determine anything other than what we would expect the final placement to be and what percentage we have of winning the tournament if everyone is equal. If first is a million, second is 500k and 3rd is 300k and one of them DESPERATELY needs 400k or else their life will implode, we're doing them a favor by letting them have 2nd place money or 400k or whatever. Would that be unethical?

[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
I somewhat disagree because at this point in the tournament players are under a lot of pressure and often in a once in a lifetime situation. I think introducing the new game at this point is unfair to inexperienced players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Playing for that much money at final table is a new game for inexperienced players.

[Exitonly]

i think it depends how you go about it.

if the people at the table want to deal, you have a massive chip lead, and have no incentive to deal, just be straightforward with them. Say that you're very confident you'd win, and that they'd have to give you more than first. If they're still up for it, theres nothing wrong. Doing it the way you said ("You each get 61k i get the rest") is like angle-shooting in a dealtalk so thats pretty shady.

It's all about making yourself clear/not using deception.

[Art Vandelay]

[ QUOTE ]
If your moron opponents are morons, then they will get a deal worthy of a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Count me in this camp.

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I somewhat disagree because at this point in the tournament players are under a lot of pressure and often in a once in a lifetime situation. I think introducing the new game at this point is unfair to inexperienced players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Playing for that much money at final table is a new game for inexperienced players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really...?

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
i think it depends how you go about it.

if the people at the table want to deal, you have a massive chip lead, and have no incentive to deal, just be straightforward with them. Say that you're very confident you'd win, and that they'd have to give you more than first. If they're still up for it, theres nothing wrong. Doing it the way you said ("You each get 61k i get the rest") is like angle-shooting in a dealtalk so thats pretty shady.

It's all about making yourself clear/not using deception.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this a lot more. Maybe it's just the way I've seen people go about making deals that I don't like. This seems better to me somehow.