On Ghosting - Page 5

Bakes · #41 08-17-2007, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its fine as long as the ghoster doesn't have a financial interest in the horse , if it meant no ghosting and no multiaccounting / JJprod super sweats I would give it up in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

wouldnt this require full disclosure of who stakes/bought action of who, and also require everyone to know who everyone else was talking to at all points of the tournament? completely & utterly unenforcecable

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's saying the sites should enforce this, Rather that in his own personal opinion this is where the ethical line is drawn...

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah. if you back someone it should be because you are willing to lay your money on the line for their poker skill. not your poker skill. back yourself if you think you are the best, move up limits or something.

stealthmunk · #42 08-17-2007, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
suck my dick stealthmunk, obviously its in my financial interest to care about the ethics of your cheating little buddy JJ, no one ghosts me and i'm pretty sure you are just a lucky donkey with zero skill. TLB challenge anytime pussy.

well that is if you are taking a shot at me with your previous comment. if not no offense lolz.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wanna play hu 50-100nl live right now? I could use a new car.

DLizzle · #43 08-17-2007, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sweating and giving advice to someone in whom you have no financial interest: fine

Sweating and giving advice to someone in whom you have a financial interest, but who is allowed to and chooses to make his own decisions: fine

Sweating and giving advice to someone in whom you have a financial interest, with the understanding that he will do exactly what you say, in a tournament you are also playing: equivalent to multiaccounting and unethical.

Scenario 3, but in a tournament you aren't playing: fine.

Tough to distinguish between 2 and 3 in terms of writing rules, but as an ethical question that's the key distinction.

A secondary issue is the degree of the finanicial interest; a full stakee "following orders" is more concerning than someone who has sold 5%. Of course only full stakees are likely to always follow the ghoster's advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

now i said i was an idiot, but I know enough to know that this kind of stuff is ridiculous. There is no range of ethicalness. It's either ethical or it's not. There is no debating this fact. Should one thing be more heavily punished, of course, but if 100% financial interest is wrong, so is 0.000001%. Also, all of your scenarios are either fine or wrong IMO. I could see an argument being made for 1 being fine, but you can't say 2 is fine but 3 is not.

Bakes · #44 08-17-2007, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't there, but if mlagoo was hearing advice but making his own decisions, I think that's ok. And that's what those who were there have said was happening.

As for the 1.05 thing, it's like the difference between stealing a car and a candy bar, and whatever your ethical opinion is on that distinction applies here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they are different levels of wrong. It doesn't matter. OP was asking whether or not it was wrong/right. It is wrong.

This thread came up because plattsburgh won the 300r with JJ ghosting him. I know for a fact that plattsburgh actually didn't 4bet sometimes when JJ told him to. This is so similar to the mlagoo/gobbo situation it is sick. Two breakeven 11rebuy players make the FT of a million dollar tourney and win it with the aid of a backer that is a well known poker superstar. I know people say that mlagoo just went outside and focused by himself, and gobbo will say mlagoo is better than him, it doesn't matter. They admitted to giving advice, and the gobbo/mlagoo shouldn't be viewed any differently than this incident.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there might be a bit of a difference with JJ because of history, DUCY?

DLizzle · #45 08-17-2007, 06:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the players themselves can enforce this kind of stuff far more effectively than the sites. if having a player supported and enforced ban on ghosting is what it takes to prevent multiaccounting in every form, count me in.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would be a part of this if it were real, but lol at anything like this ever coming close to happening.

stealthmunk · #46 08-17-2007, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't there, but if mlagoo was hearing advice but making his own decisions, I think that's ok. And that's what those who were there have said was happening.

As for the 1.05 thing, it's like the difference between stealing a car and a candy bar, and whatever your ethical opinion is on that distinction applies here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they are different levels of wrong. It doesn't matter. OP was asking whether or not it was wrong/right. It is wrong.

This thread came up because plattsburgh won the 300r with JJ ghosting him. I know for a fact that plattsburgh actually didn't 4bet sometimes when JJ told him to. This is so similar to the mlagoo/gobbo situation it is sick. Two breakeven 11rebuy players make the FT of a million dollar tourney and win it with the aid of a backer that is a well known poker superstar. I know people say that mlagoo just went outside and focused by himself, and gobbo will say mlagoo is better than him, it doesn't matter. They admitted to giving advice, and the gobbo/mlagoo shouldn't be viewed any differently than this incident.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there might be a bit of a difference with JJ because of history, DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya but it obv wasn't JJ multiaccounting, it is verified that it is plattsburgh physically playing at TS while being ghosted by JJ. If Plattsburgh wasn't in a casino, I could understand people thinking JJ=matty v. However! the whole point of my argument is that there is no difference ethically, but the sites approve of it, and EVERYONE DOES IT, so online poker is rigged.

Bakes · #47 08-17-2007, 06:48 PM

lol at being to closeminded to think so.

Bakes · #48 08-17-2007, 06:52 PM

stealth -

i mean, people aren't really worried about that specific incident. But what keeps JJ from demanding control of the account when plattsburgh/anyone isn't at a casino with a bunch of online players? He does, after all, have a history of this sort of thing.

stealthmunk · #49 08-17-2007, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
lol at being to closeminded to think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

did you see my hu live 50-100nl challenge? I guess I'm a pussy if refusing to do a TLB challenge makes me a pussy. I'm sure you would just have Shaun Deeb play for you anyway and it would be gg me.

Marduk · #50 08-17-2007, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol at being to closeminded to think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

did you see my hu live 50-100nl challenge? I guess I'm a pussy if refusing to do a TLB challenge makes me a pussy. I'm sure you would just have Shaun Deeb play for you anyway and it would be gg me.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh i think he was responding to dlizzle