Is This Cheating?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Woah. You're changing your stance here or I didn't understand you correctly. It's foolhardy for them to believe that it isn't possible or never goes on, but they have a VERY reasonable expectation (given their knowledge) that this isn't going on in the game they are playing.

If you are playing with one of these people and you are using PT/PA, AND if he would leave the game if he knew about it. Are you cheating based on your stance? I don't see how you can say "it depends here" it has to be either yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between having information that is supposed to be available to you, very conveniently laid out, and having information that is not supposed to be available to you at all.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Woah. You're changing your stance here or I didn't understand you correctly. It's foolhardy for them to believe that it isn't possible or never goes on, but they have a VERY reasonable expectation (given their knowledge) that this isn't going on in the game they are playing.

If you are playing with one of these people and you are using PT/PA, AND if he would leave the game if he knew about it. Are you cheating based on your stance? I don't see how you can say "it depends here" it has to be either yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between having information that is supposed to be available to you, very conveniently laid out, and having information that is not supposed to be available to you at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that wasn't what he said. He said only having a reasonable assumption that it isn't going on. I agree that PA/PT is not cheating.

[schroedy]

I still don't see why . . . in the context of a game where the whole idea is to exploit opponent's mistakes, anyone has any obligation to do anything other than exploit all available information to the highest degree possible.

Folks, this is poker -- exploitation is at the heart of it.

Actually, I got into this discussion in another forum on the topic of whether it was cheating/wrong to "fix" a sporting event. My position was/is that the sports betting handicapper has an obligation to handicap all possible outcomes, including a possible "fix."

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Woah. You're changing your stance here or I didn't understand you correctly. It's foolhardy for them to believe that it isn't possible or never goes on, but they have a VERY reasonable expectation (given their knowledge) that this isn't going on in the game they are playing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't changed my stance. I still believe it is not reasonable to expect NO ONE to use the software. Maybe the probability of someone using it at a particular game is less than 50%, or even less than 10%, although at the highest limits I'd say it could be over 50% that at least one person uses it against you in a 4-hour session, say.

This contrasts with marked cards, ESP, X-ray vision, hidden cameras etc. where it's reasonable to assume a 0% probability.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing with one of these people and you are using PT/PA, AND if he would leave the game if he knew about it. Are you cheating based on your stance? I don't see how you can say "it depends here" it has to be either yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say no you are not cheating. What his actual preference is is irrelevant. What matters is what he is entitled to reasonably expect. I believe he is not entitled to reasonably expect no one to use the software, seeing as it is readily available and there is no mention of it being against the rules (as far as I'm aware).

I suppose there could be an online poker room that does forbid such software and asks players to make statements saying they wont use such software on their site. In that case it would be cheating.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
So if he has Parkinson's disease and sometimes exposes them to seat 3,its OK to look? Is it OK to move to seat 3 for that purpose. What about lowering your chair?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a player called "Precious", I'm sure you knew him, he used to play at Bellagio everyday, don't know where he is now. Anyway he couldn't see real well. Used to always sit in the 4 or 5 seat. He picked his cards up and held them in front of his face to see what they were. Anyone sitting in to his immediate left or right could clearly see his cards. Whenever I was sitting next to him I would tell him, "Precious I can see your cards". He would say thank you and keep on doing what he was doing.

There is a 15-30 pro playing right now at Bellagio that continuously shuffles his cards with one hand when they are dealt to him. Because he uses only one hand he raises the right edges of both cards on each shuffle. By watching his shuffle you can see his cards. There are other mid limit pros at Bellagio that are also sloppy with their card handling.

leaponthis

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think X-ray vision would be cheating. You would simply have a superior skill that would enable you to play better. You've done nothing unnatural or fraudulent to violate the rules (such as marking the cards, or straining to see your opponents' cards). If you had ESP, and used it to your advantage, would that be cheating?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that using both x-ray vision and esp that you did not announce to your opponents would indeed be cheating. These two hypothetical traits are things that your opponents could not possibly suspect, have themselves nor know about unless you told them. They are not information gleaned from an opponent because of some mistake like wearing reflective glasses or a facial tell that they are responsible for and for which they can make allowances. Putting backs on the cards is expected by all because of human chacteristics to create a game of imperfect information. Using x-ray vision is akin to marking cards in terms of cheating.

leaponthis

[Marvl]

Yes, Wearing reflective glasses is a mistake. It maybe a mistake if you don't put a lead plate on your holecards to protect yourself against x-ray vision.
Maybe all victims of cheating made a mistake.

You are cheating if you intentionally use a secret mechanism against your opponent.
It doesn't matter if you use x-ray vision or if the mechanism is as trivial as reflecting glasses.

The principle is the same.

[schroedy]

[ QUOTE ]
You are cheating if you intentionally use a secret mechanism against your opponent. . . .

The principle is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

How broadly is mechanism defined? Would it include processes?

Such as working out your opponents' probably holdings from his bets? From her facial reaction? From the reactions of someone sweating her?

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if you use x-ray vision or if the mechanism is as trivial as reflecting glasses.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reflective glasses are not worn by the player that gains the information. They are worn by the player looking at his cards and someone else gaining information about his cards. That is a correctable mistake by the person wearing the glasses. It may be personally and morally wrong not to inform the glasses wearer or to use this information but it is not cheating. In the case of x-ray vision the only one that knows abbout the x-ray vision or even the possibility of x-ray vision is the user. He is cheating if he uses his ability without making others aware of this trait. Opponents, who should not be expected to consider x-ray vision, can then demand that the game be played with lead backed cards thus keeping everything even.

leaponthis