On Ghosting

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
This obviously goes out the window if the coach/sweater has followed the whole/most of the tournament. In that case, following the advice of the better poster will, in general, be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we disagree but don't know which line is better, yes, the better player's opinion is more likely to be (more) correct.

However I'm talking about situations where the player understands the prob with the advice.

A)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: Well I usually just fold... I dunno.

B)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: No, a 4b is problematic because of A and B factors and a fold is good because it accomplishes X, Y and Z.

Do you see the difference? It's not like the player is going to have time to express his concerns the 'ghost', he's going to have to act, and I'm just saying it's silly to say that the player should "blindly follow" the ghost in scenario B.

[unconscious]

People have been mass staking and then ghosting/replacing for a very long time. I for one find it a bit unfair to play against such a field, I might be to the right of a world champ and have no knowledge of it whatsoever, obv -EV. That being said...I have learned to get used to it. Good luck enforcing a rule against ghosting. Because this form of play WILL ALWAYS EXIST AND ALWAYS HAS, I can't say it's unethical. I just think live tournament play is a much better way to judge others individual skill/ability.

[Bonafone]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do not think that getting sweated by a better player is unethical really, given that there is not, and has never been, and likely never will be a precedent for 1 player to a hand in online poker. People need to stop using live as a frame of reference for online poker. The fact is, they are just 2 different beasts in this day, and I do not see why we need to say "well x should happen online, because it happens live."

Anyways, I'm willing to be convincned I am wrong, so discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. Want to know why?

I go downstairs into the turning stone poker room. I find a random donkey playing 100max and say, yo I'm stealthmunk, best poker donkamenter in the world. Let me back you in the sunday million for 90% and I'll coach and ghost you over AIM. He obviously agrees, who wouldn't?

Is there any difference from what happens above and multiaccounting? NOPE. Only multiaccounting is against sites TOS and ghosting is legit as it is clear there is no 1 player to a hand rule in online poker.

I win.

[/ QUOTE ]


Right. The sites rules and regulations don't define "ghosting" (new term for me) as multi-accounting because they have chosen not to take a stance. Unless the sites decide to take stance (and they probably won't, because they probably haven't for a reason) it will remain a gray area.

-Deuce2High

[BAK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This obviously goes out the window if the coach/sweater has followed the whole/most of the tournament. In that case, following the advice of the better poster will, in general, be better.

[/ QUOTE ]


If we disagree but don't know which line is better, yes, the better player's opinion is more likely to be (more) correct.

However I'm talking about situations where the player understands the prob with the advice.

A)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: Well I usually just fold... I dunno.

B)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: No, a 4b is problematic because of A and B factors and a fold is good because it accomplishes X, Y and Z.

Do you see the difference? It's not like the player is going to have time to express his concerns the 'ghost', he's going to have to act, and I'm just saying it's silly to say that the player should "blindly follow" the ghost in scenario B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not the ghosted player follows the advice is irrelevant to the question of the ethics of the situation.

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This obviously goes out the window if the coach/sweater has followed the whole/most of the tournament. In that case, following the advice of the better poster will, in general, be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we disagree but don't know which line is better, yes, the better player's opinion is more likely to be (more) correct.

However I'm talking about situations where the player understands the prob with the advice.

A)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: Well I usually just fold... I dunno.

B)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: No, a 4b is problematic because of A and B factors and a fold is good because it accomplishes X, Y and Z.

Do you see the difference? It's not like the player is going to have time to express his concerns the 'ghost', he's going to have to act, and I'm just saying it's silly to say that the player should "blindly follow" the ghost in scenario B.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah of course I see the difference and agree with you.

However, I can certainly see situations where inexperienced players have way better friends/coaches, especially on big FT's where nerves, experience etc play a big part more or less take over.

In addition, this affects the other players in a different way than pure EV due to skill: if a player changes his playing style, this will throw off reads and change the dynamic between the player in question and his opponents, in all likelihood to his opponents' detriment.

[Yuv]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This obviously goes out the window if the coach/sweater has followed the whole/most of the tournament. In that case, following the advice of the better poster will, in general, be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we disagree but don't know which line is better, yes, the better player's opinion is more likely to be (more) correct.

However I'm talking about situations where the player understands the prob with the advice.

A)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: Well I usually just fold... I dunno.

B)
Ghost says: 4 bet shove here.
Player thinks: No, a 4b is problematic because of A and B factors and a fold is good because it accomplishes X, Y and Z.

Do you see the difference? It's not like the player is going to have time to express his concerns the 'ghost', he's going to have to act, and I'm just saying it's silly to say that the player should "blindly follow" the ghost in scenario B.

[/ QUOTE ]

You basically get offered 50% of all of Antonius' (or any player you respect the most) action, free of charge. You can choose if you want to play for yourself with some general advice or let him play for you. Which one are you picking? In the bigger picture, it will be retarded of you to not let the better player play.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
You basically get offered 50% of all of Antonius' (or any player you respect the most) action, free of charge. You can choose if you want to play for yourself with some general advice or let him play for you. Which one are you picking? In the bigger picture, it will be retarded of you to not let the better player play.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the pinch hitting analogy, which I stated I agree with but, as I feel I've established in my previous two posts, is in no way tantamount to saying you should "blindly follow" mid-hand advice.

Further, saying that the analogy is an argument for unquestioned conformity to the better player's in the moment advice shows a limitation in one's understanding of poker, hence the 'you understand goot' comment.

[uclabruinz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think enforcing my suggestions would have negative effect on the legitimacy of the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the tougher issues you are addressing are not unique to online poker but applicable to all forms of poker. If we start putting in place a bunch of rules designed to regulate these things which are impossible to regulate, it will just turn people off from online poker.

In the instance where you were playing against a horse and his backer, what makes you think anything shady was going one if they themselves agreed to the deal?

I feel most players act ethically and in the proper, self-interested manner without needing rules to tell them what's right and wrong. Making a big show of enforcing rules that are only meant to police already-unethical players who won't follow the rules to begin with creates a worse image for new players entering the game and, in reality, won't change the ethical composure of online poker for us full-timers.

"Ah judge, your damn laws--the good people don't need 'em and the bad people don't obey 'em."

[/ QUOTE ]

Very incorrect. I know tons of fellow online poker players that will and do ask for and give advice during hands. They are not bad people, it's just that Lee Jones and others have stated explicitly it is allowed, so they do it. If it were explicitly banned, regardless of enforceability, most of these same people would never do it, because they are ethical people, not rule breakers.

This is exactly why a "one player to a hand" rule is vital for online poker. It will remove all this grey area stuff, and make it very clear that anything involving anything other then the actual player playing a hand, on his own, is unethical and against the rules, and then the only question left is just enforcing it, which admittedly is quite difficult but it's better then having the free-for-all endless grey area crap that we're dealing with now.

[Yuv]

But you explanations are wrong. Sure, if he just jumps mid-hand and say you should raise, you should re-think and all. But if you can get someone better to flat out replace you, why should you even think about that? Sure, he might make a blatant mistake or two, but in the long run you'll be making more money.

Getting a better player to play for you is +ev, for the both of you. Most decisions are a matter of style and game plan, not clear right and wrong. If not blindly follow his instructions, it should be pretty close to it.

[Yuv]

[ QUOTE ]
Very incorrect. I know tons of fellow online poker players that will and do ask for and give advice during hands. They are not bad people, it's just that Lee Jones and others have stated explicitly it is allowed, so they do it. If it were explicitly banned, regardless of enforceability, most of these same people would never do it, because they are ethical people, not rule breakers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are unethical people, just not rule breakers. (If the activity is unethical to begin with)