Ethicality of High Stakes HU - DaEvila

[g-p]

[ QUOTE ]
i actually have a pretty funny story about 'conferencing' or two or three people playing on the same name, but the world will never know..

[/ QUOTE ]
CLICK IT BACK

[imabigdeal]

[ QUOTE ]
what if you explicitly stated to your opponent that you have krantz and whitelime next to you and helping you? Im not saying that they put out that disclaimer, but its no secret and most of their opponents do know.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah esp by now everyone knows that its a strong possibility whenever they play against one of their 3 accts

[Ship Ship McGipp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i actually have a pretty funny story about 'conferencing' or two or three people playing on the same name, but the world will never know..

[/ QUOTE ]
CLICK IT BACK

[/ QUOTE ]

holllurrrrrrrrr, such ownage

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I was open about it in chat because I think there's nothing wrong with it.

It's within the rules which shapes a reasonable expectation of risk of this happening when one plays online. I've been duped into playing numerous high-stakes players I wouldn't probably play if I knew who they were before and I never really get upset: it's just a part of high-stakes online poker and you just have to be vigilant sometimes.

The coaching argument is one I've always made and I think is very relevant: if you're fine with the very widespread practice of coaching, then you should be fine with conference playing. In fact, during coaching a player who often has a certain image plays different from his standard plays giving him the advantage of reads on his opponents while having them operate under flawed assumptions about the student's game whereas during conference playing the style of play is consistent so at least your opponents are having accurate reads of your patterns and the tendencies they're responding to are at least actually operative in the inter-player dynamic.

Really weird to me that lots of people are flipping their [censored] over this but the hundreds of posts in which people say "I coach" (I do coach by the way) don't invoke such uproar.

I think if this were 5/10 and everybody found out that some okay but not great regs sit in a room together and conference play nobody would flip out. But this was 300/600 and good players talking so all of a sudden some people are quick to start a scandal. But stakes and quality of the players involved really shouldn't affect whether or not it's ethical.

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I was open about it in chat because I think there's nothing wrong with it.

It's within the rules which shapes a reasonable expectation of risk of this happening when one plays online. I've been duped into playing numerous high-stakes players I wouldn't probably play if I knew who they were before and I never really get upset: it's just a part of high-stakes online poker and you just have to be vigilant sometimes.

The coaching argument is one I've always made and I think is very relevant: if you're fine with the very widespread practice of coaching, then you should be fine with conference playing. In fact, during coaching a player who often has a certain image plays different from his standard plays giving him the advantage of reads on his opponents while having them operate under flawed assumptions about the student's game whereas during conference playing the style of play is consistent so at least your opponents are having accurate reads of your patterns and the tendencies they're responding to are at least actually operative in the inter-player dynamic.

Really weird to me that lots of people are flipping their [censored] over this but the hundreds of posts in which people say "I coach" (I do coach by the way) don't invoke such uproar.

I think if this were 5/10 and everybody found out that some okay but not great regs sit in a room together and conference play nobody would flip out. But this was 300/600 and good players talking so all of a sudden some people are quick to start a scandal. But stakes and quality of the players involved really shouldn't affect whether or not it's ethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree w/ this.

I have gotten pissed in the past when I played someone who I thought was someone else... but I coach, and w/ all the ambiguity, it just seems that there really is no precedent whatsoever.

[SILLYGOOSER]

I THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTE [censored] AND WILL BE TALKING TO FULL TILT ABOUT IT

[pocketpared]

Hmmm..3 huge egos arguing and fighting about how to play every hand on every street. Where's the edge?

[gbporkpie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they do play him sometimes, im pretty sure there's a hand in HSNL right now that Krantz played vs PA, genius played him recently too i think. Its just that game selection is super important HU.

[/ QUOTE ]

i meant that this is a huge advantage for them playing as a team, againts 1, in "heads up" match, which supposed to be 1-on-1, and not 2-on-1 (maybe even more), and it's not like it is 2, 0.25/0.50 players,againts a 300/600 player.
it's like putting 2 of the best 20 chess players againts 1 Kasparov, i'm pretty sure they will put money in, if that kind of match was offered, and will beat him together.

[/ QUOTE ]


This isn't right. I don't know how Krantz etc. operate but for the most part deomacritc teamwork blows. You're better off with one clear leader. This is especially true when you have to make quick decisions.

It's funny you mention chess and Kasparov. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_The_World

I think people playing on other people's accounts/changing usernames is a much bigger issue for HU.

[questions]

In my opinion, only someone young and not that smart is going to try to debate that this sort of collusion is unethical with poker players who insist that it totally is ethical. It's very obviously NOT ethical, case closed.

[Bryan15]

if it is known by the opposing player that he is up against the 3 of them, then what is the problem? If they hide the fact that they are working together then I think it would be wrong.