Poker Coaching and Other Ethical Grey Areas (for BillytheKidd)

[WhoIam]

BillytheKidd suggested the following topic. His original post is below and I have added a short statement after it.

We all saw brief moments of how Johnny coached Gold in the WSOP. I was curious as to what he said throughout the tournament, advice he gave etc.

This got me thinking about online coaching, which led to lots of ethical questions. For example, Johnny couldnt coach during the actual play of the hand, but appeared to be available for post hand discussion and at least validation of decisions/style of play appropriate for the situation. However, online this restriction is not really there. Where is the ethical line between coaching and two players per hand? This line seems like it could easily be blurred. I'll use ElD in my example since he is flame retardent. For example:

I hire ElD as a coach, we work out a small flat fee (cuz I'm smalltime fish) plus percentage of my Sunday Million (as adjustment for ElD agreeing to small fee). Things are going good, he is coaching well, I am learning/applying well. As the Sunday Million goes on, I find myself pretty deep in the tourney and way over my head. ElD, is coaching his butt off, to keep me from throwing away this great opportunity at the final table, but it is all between hands; "Stay away from seat 1, rob seat 2, call the shorty with almost any two etc". I raise from the BTN, Strassa puts on the squeeze play from the BB, I vomit and ElD ??? What can he say/not say. Obviously, if I tell him my cards that would be unethical. Has the line already been crossed by giving info about seat 1, seat 2 etc.?

Just something I was wondering about as I contemplated my first shot at the million and what would I do if I found myself deep. My first thought was, PM Strassa and give him 10% to finish for me
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I put my minor in philosophy to good use and came up with some related scenarios:
*You are friends with a top poker pro and he is at your house critiquing your play and giving advice for ongoing hands. He expects no compensation.
*Same as above but he gives feedback only when you are not actively in a hand.
*Your online poker pro friend plays for a few hours on your account. He utilizes reads on players he has played before.
*You get deep into a tournament and your friend takes over completely. He expects no compensation.
*Same as above, but you contact a pro who wants 50% of winnings.
*Three novices pool their money to enter a Saturday-night tournament. They huddle around a computer and make decisions based on consensus.
*Same as above but with three pros.
*There are three tables left in a large tournament. Your poker pro friend watches the other two and then briefs you on the other players when you reach the final table.
*Taylor Caby makes a video for cardrunners.com in which he points out a certain player's weakness. A CR member sees the video and is later able to profitably utilize the read when he finds himself at the same table as the player in the video.

My point is that it's very hard to draw a clear line between what is ethical and unethical in some of these situations. Some things that would clearly be unethical in live play may become ok when players are not face-to-face. Discuss.

[Your Mom]

I guess I dont see why you cant tell El D your cards and have him make the decision for you. There is not a one player to a hand rule online.

[RiverFenix]

I remember an old HSNL player where a lot of players got riled up because two HSNL players were playing in the same room (maybe durr/raptor) and one needed analysis on a river call and the person not involved in the hand said he thought he was good and would take a % of the call. He was correct and they won the hand. Lots of people werent too happy about it as its unethical but not illegal.

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I dont see why you cant tell El D your cards and have him make the decision for you. There is not a one player to a hand rule online.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly what I was going to say. There are rules that exist in B&M that players seem to assume exist online. One of these is the 1-player-to-a-hand rule. Another is the idea of computer assistance. (Ranging from weak stuff like odds calculators to PokerTracker up to very controversial things like PokerEdge.)

My definition of an 'ethical' game is one in which the rules are clearly stated, enforced, and symmetric between players. If you get to talk to ElD during a hand, you'll have an advantage over me. But if you got to talk to him before the hand, that's an advantage too; we're not disallowing advantages, just "unfair" advantages.
-Sam

[HP]

IMO if your opponents don't recognize your handle, every one of your proposed scenarios is fine, 0.0 badness has been achieved

However, if you are against an opponent who recognizes you, and thinks you are the only one who's previously played on your handle, then

[ QUOTE ]

*You are friends with a top poker pro and he is at your house critiquing your play and giving advice for ongoing hands. He expects no compensation.


[/ QUOTE ]
0.2 units of bad

[ QUOTE ]
*Same as above but he gives feedback only when you are not actively in a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
0.05

[ QUOTE ]
*Your online poker pro friend plays for a few hours on your account. He utilizes reads on players he has played before.

[/ QUOTE ]
0.3

[ QUOTE ]
*You get deep into a tournament and your friend takes over completely. He expects no compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]
0.5

[ QUOTE ]
*Same as above, but you contact a pro who wants 50% of winnings.

[/ QUOTE ]
0.5

[ QUOTE ]
*Three novices pool their money to enter a Saturday-night tournament. They huddle around a computer and make decisions based on consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]
0.2

[ QUOTE ]
*Same as above but with three pros.

[/ QUOTE ]
0.2 (however it's much more likely opponents will recognize the handle and assume it's a certain player)

[ QUOTE ]

*Taylor Caby makes a video for cardrunners.com in which he points out a certain player's weakness. A CR member sees the video and is later able to profitably utilize the read when he finds himself at the same table as the player in the video.

[/ QUOTE ]
0.05

btw, I would add 0.1 to all of these simply because the player is playing poker in the first place.

[SamIAm]

At Party, you used to be able to change your handle every 6 months or something. (Maybe it's still true or at other sites; I dunno.) This is a way to block that recognition you were walking about. Would you say that going to the Party.com website and filling-out the name-change form is then bad? (I wouldn't.)

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
At Party, you used to be able to change your handle every 6 months or something. (Maybe it's still true or at other sites; I dunno.) This is a way to block that recognition you were walking about. Would you say that going to the Party.com website and filling-out the name-change form is then bad? (I wouldn't.)

[/ QUOTE ]

no I don't think it's bad. I think this is different

[El Diablo]

Who,

Just saw this thread. I think that fundamentally pretty much all of those things are fine online.

The things you list fall into two categories.

1) One player to a hand. Sites have explicitly said (Stars for sure and at least one other site) that there is no one player to a hand rule online. When you play against an online opponent, that may be one person or ten person gathered around a computer.

2) Misrepresenting who the online id represents. So, you are some unknown name and a top pro is playing the account. Or you are a LAG pro and you play on a very tight pros account. I used to consider this unethical. However, over the last couple of years, this has become almost standard practice for many players and sites and players have not really objected to it, thus it has imo become part of the online game. I do, however, consider it unethical to lie if asked. Definitely not against the rules, but if someone says "whoa, how did you know to make that call? Have we played before? Do we know each other?" and you then answer dishonestly, I feel that is unethical.

Obviously, any sort of collusion or information sharing when both players are involved in the game or tournament is a completely different situation.

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
Who,

Just saw this thread. I think that fundamentally pretty much all of those things are fine online.

The things you list fall into two categories.

1) One player to a hand. Sites have explicitly said (Stars for sure and at least one other site) that there is no one player to a hand rule online. When you play against an online opponent, that may be one person or ten person gathered around a computer.

2) Misrepresenting who the online id represents. So, you are some unknown name and a top pro is playing the account. Or you are a LAG pro and you play on a very tight pros account. I used to consider this unethical. However, over the last couple of years, this has become almost standard practice for many players and sites and players have not really objected to it, thus it has imo become part of the online game. I do, however, consider it unethical to lie if asked. Definitely not against the rules, but if someone says "whoa, how did you know to make that call? Have we played before? Do we know each other?" and you then answer dishonestly, I feel that is unethical.

Obviously, any sort of collusion or information sharing when both players are involved in the game or tournament is a completely different situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with pt. #2 ElD. I view online as anonymous poker. You can play on whatever acct. you want whenever you want and say or not say who you are or aren't.

[El Diablo]

YM,

I don't think there's anything wrong with your position. I personally just feel that it is unethical if someone asks me a question "Hey, are you El Diablo?" and then I say "No, I am not." I don't think I have any obligation to answer the question, though. I really have no problem with your position, though.