On Ghosting

[stealthmunk]

[ 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 ]

nah i'm pretty sure bakes is trying to help his ROI lolz.

[LearnedfromTV]

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.

[stealthmunk]

[ 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 ]


This is ridiculous. I said the same logic in the mlagoo gobbo thread that because gobbo had 50% if gobbo told him what to do he would be effectively 1.5 accounting. I'm still right, and people are just realizing this now? So where do you draw the line? is 1.9 accounting wrong like in the example I gave? But 1.05 accounting, like in the example you gave is legit?

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
From what ansky is saying, ghosting = sweating and giving advice without any financial interest in the sweatee.

Gets a bit more murky if a backer sweats/coaches his backee though imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

so if JJProdigy's buddy was in a tourney and got to the money..it would be fine if JJ told him how to play every single hand as long as he wasn't getting any money out of it??????

but what if afterwards the buddy is like man I would never have won without all that advice..I should give him something for helping me...

does it then become not ok after the fact?

[LearnedfromTV]

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.

[DLizzle]

i don't care to debate whether or not this or that is or isn't ethical because I'm too much of an idiot, but I feel like anything other than sitting at a computer by yourself playing without receiving advice by any means is wrong in some way. I'm not going to complain because it is pretty impossible to stop, but I get a yucky feeling when I hear of things like the recent JJProdigy stuff and all that.

The fact that there is no rule against it should not even be involved in the discussion. The only reason there is no rule against it is because it is too unreasonable to enforce.

Lots of people seem to say that certain things are ok, while certain things are not. I disagree, they are all bad. For the record, I think that multiaccounting, physically sweating while giving advice, account switching, coaching, receiving advice over the phone, aim, etc, and pretty much whatever else has come up should not be done. I will clarify one thing that I think is ok. Coaching where the teacher plays on their own account while explaining what they are doing to the student is pretty fine by me, though I do WISH people wouldn't do it.

One thing I find kind of amusing considering all the hype it gets is that I put multiaccounting below most of the other things in terms of scumminess.

Also, I will admit to doing one or more of those things I talked about above, but I'm not that ethical really, and if other's are doing it and getting an advantage I will too. I have only done those things for maybe an hour, I just don't feel the need to do it too often. If you couldn't get banned and your money taken from multiaccounting, and lots of people did it I would probably do it on occasion.

So if you do all that stuff, whatever, I don't have any ill feelings toward you, just don't try to act like its perfectly ok.


I think it all comes down to, you're getting an unfair advantage by doing this stuff. Don't tell me it is not unfair because there is no rule against it. I don't know what to tell you if you don't see why it isn't fair.

[Bakes]

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.

[Bakes]

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.

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From what ansky is saying, ghosting = sweating and giving advice without any financial interest in the sweatee.

Gets a bit more murky if a backer sweats/coaches his backee though imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

so if JJProdigy's buddy was in a tourney and got to the money..it would be fine if JJ told him how to play every single hand as long as he wasn't getting any money out of it??????

but what if afterwards the buddy is like man I would never have won without all that advice..I should give him something for helping me...

does it then become not ok after the fact?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was just clarifying what was meant by ghosting.

Personally, I have never ghosted nor been ghosted by anyone and think that in principle, it's unethical. I also think it's impossible to enforce. I still think sites should have rules in place against the practice though.

[stealthmunk]

[ 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.