LOL, Donkaments.

[timex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is probably unethical in most people's opinions, but at the same time its still sort of a gray area. It is very rare that I make a final table and don't have either people in the room helping, or people on AIM giving me advice. The same goes with friends of mine/people I stake. I will tend to give them advice at final tables, which is not far from actually playing for them.

It seems like a particularly gray area particularly for people in waterloo since most Sunday's we play at the same place, and anytime someone goes deep in something, they will have advice from several players, and likely all players would play the same regardless of who was holding the mouse.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all players would play the same regardless of who was holding the mouse, why is there any need for helping/coaching?

[/ QUOTE ]

The helping/coaching is the reason that all players would play very similar

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is probably unethical in most people's opinions, but at the same time its still sort of a gray area. It is very rare that I make a final table and don't have either people in the room helping, or people on AIM giving me advice. The same goes with friends of mine/people I stake. I will tend to give them advice at final tables, which is not far from actually playing for them.

It seems like a particularly gray area particularly for people in waterloo since most Sunday's we play at the same place, and anytime someone goes deep in something, they will have advice from several players, and likely all players would play the same regardless of who was holding the mouse.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all players would play the same regardless of who was holding the mouse, why is there any need for helping/coaching?

[/ QUOTE ]

The helping/coaching is the reason that all players would play very similar

[/ QUOTE ]

OK - I thought you meant that everyone would play the same regardless of the helping/coaching. I'm anti-helping and coaching others in online poker, although I know it's common among posters on 2+2. Although it may help you in the short term, I think the acceptance of team playing is hurtful to the long term success of the game online. Even though there are obvious problems with enforcement, I think all of the sites should come out against it.

[NoahSD]

I don't get what the problem is with people busting out of a tournament and then taking over for someone else. It doesn't give you any unfair edge like the one you get from playing two accounts simultaneously.

[timex]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get what the problem is with people busting out of a tournament and then taking over for someone else. It doesn't give you any unfair edge like the one you get from playing two accounts simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you like having someone like actionjeff or dim--tix at every final table you play?

[reecelights]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get what the problem is with people busting out of a tournament and then taking over for someone else. It doesn't give you any unfair edge like the one you get from playing two accounts simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an unfair edge against the mid-level players who, say, satellite into an event like the Million when a higher level player who can afford two buy-ins gets to re-enter. Say Gank pays for my buy-in on the condition that I play really tight and let him take over when he busts out. Meanwhile he plays a super LAG game trying to accumulate chips, but ends up busting out. Would you rather play against me or Gank?

They don't let people take over for the people they stake live, there's no reason it should happen online.

Edit to add: In this time when we are trying to get Congress to make an exception for Poker or overturn UIGEA we should keep our online noses as clean as possible. Don't give Bill Frist any "examples" of how poker is corrupting young people in this country when another scandal of a 20-year-old breaking the online poker rules becomes public.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get what the problem is with people busting out of a tournament and then taking over for someone else. It doesn't give you any unfair edge like the one you get from playing two accounts simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you like having someone like actionjeff or dim--tix at every final table you play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are they playing on my account?

[Rekwob]

sorry to get back to talking about the OP, but I guess I needed some clarification

basically you're saying, if you have a big enough bankroll that you're not going broke any time soon and therefore overrolled for $1k buyins, just play big tourneys, because the others are just a waste of time, you'll still profit around as much, having put in much less work

i kind of agree, but when you get to the top in online tournament poker, there are so few tournaments really worth playing (100r+ and the sundays), that a lot of pros spend their time needlessly playing 10rs etc, because they've spent so much time playing constantly that they dont know how to take time off, for pocketfives points, just for something to do or just because variance really sucks

i play tournaments all week because my records for sunday/wcoop/ftops events is played 111, down 20k. add down another 8k in 66 stupers, and well you get it, id have been pretty pissed by now if id just played them so, "because the other 90% of the tourneys you enter only exist to make you feel better about the variance of the tournaments that matter." this, while true, is good enough reason for me.

however, if when you mean bankroll, you mean rolled to play 200/400 NL, or something equally high, then yeah, you're right, and i have no idea why these people do this, other than for pocketfives points, which by now im thinking this is a shot at, but ill just leave this in case my first thought was right

btw, i know you thought i was kwob20s second account or something jeff, dunno whether that was real or a joke, no problem either way (although i was more flattered a few months ago than now), just in case, i have the same last name, and thats it, i spoke to him once when i was on the same table as him on stars the first time, we live in different continents and i played my first stars tourney over a year before him

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get what the problem is with people busting out of a tournament and then taking over for someone else. It doesn't give you any unfair edge like the one you get from playing two accounts simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a very similar edge if you have a piece of the person you take over for. (edit: i.e. you essentially have >1 entry in the tournament)

[ActionJeff]

[ QUOTE ]


"With trivial exceptions, a player may play on only one account during a tournament and may not "hand off" his seat in mid-event to a different player. Violation of this rule may result in penalties ranging from a warning, to disqualification from the tournament (with partial or full forfeiture of winnings), to barring from PokerStars.



[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, this is prohibited now. It wasn't 2 months ago, so this is a pretty recent addition.

[Evenkeal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get what the problem is with people busting out of a tournament and then taking over for someone else. It doesn't give you any unfair edge like the one you get from playing two accounts simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you like having timex at every final table in existence?

[/ QUOTE ]