On Ghosting

[ASPoker8]

[ QUOTE ]
ghost ride the whip

[/ QUOTE ]

[bobbycharles]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you guys have seen the Aaron Been thread on P5's. Wow, online poker is so f***ed up, to those of us not in the know this stuff is quite mind boggling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

[Foucault]

KneeCo's explanation of rules vs. ethics is a good one. Although something like murder might be unethical regardless of rules, plenty of things are unethical only because there are rules against them.

When one person breaks the rules, he gives himself an unfair edge over those following the rules, and that is unethical. If the same action were allowed by the rules, then it would no longer be unethical, because everyone would have the opportunity to do it.

You're in BB. SB moves all in. Is it ethical for you to fold? Most of the time, of course it is. But if you are playing a flippament, then folding becomes unethical because there is a rule against it.

[Yuv]

This is meaningless if you think not keeping the '1 person per hand' guideline is unethical in poker to begin with.

If it's not unethical, why do we need a rule against it?

[NHFunkii]

yuv you're using a really oversimplistic definition of ethical

rules aren't always to keep things 'ethical'

like I said, I don't know if I support a 1 person to a hand rule, but if I did I would argue that it's to prevent unethical behavior, which does not include getting advice from a friend on a single hand (others of course disagree, and say that this is unethical), but which does include shady stuff like using the lack of a 1 person to a hand rule to essentially legally multiaccount

there's not some rule from on high about what is ethical and what is not

[Yuv]

I'm not arguing that. All I'm arguing that if UCLA thinks getting advice from a friend on a single hand is unethical, then doing so right now is still unethical, even if there isn't a specific rule against it.

So, if his assumption is correct, then those people are unethical to begin with, they just aren't rule breakers.

If it's not unethical, then a rule against it is meaningless. If we argue that people don't break the rules due to a sense of community, then just place the rules somewhere correct. Like getting someone to make the decisions for you, or whatever you think is unethical.

Kinda weird to think people follow rules, so we should just ban ethical stuff just to make sure they don't break the rules that are already set?

It's either unethical to begin with and thus those people are unethical or it will be impressively stupid to make it illegal.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ghost ride the whip

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Bakes,

Such a blue-sky position is only remotely possible in tech right now. Given time, you can certainly implement draconian solutions.

Consider the implications of such security features. It's an Orwell wetmare that shouldn't happen. Any implications go much further than a [censored] card game. Fine if you're automatically credded to a superclass in such a society. It's not like it's been happening for years anyway, but where do you draw the buffer zones? The toilet bowl?
-------

Rest of ya:

FWIW, I play very little these days. Focusing on other things, but I've ghosted somebody for 3/4 of a year. We talk thru hands (usually after they occur), I refuse to play cash when the player in question also sits at the table, unless it's HU. It's ego and I don't feel I need that edge. I'm too honest when it comes to cards anyway, probably something that costs and will cost me money in the long-term. Whatever.

I get the feeling most of you would run in the red if you sat down at any cash game where the other players were actively colluding against you.

Been away a bit on break, but was told there was a huge NVG dramabomb wrt multiaccounting, etc. Don't know, don't care, probably too arrogant to really want to do that on a personal level.

Cheating in poker? How unthinkable. Do pardon the sarcasm, but some of you younger players do show remarkable naviete when it comes to whitewash solutions for this stuff. And there are some of you who simply don't care. All's fair, no honor amongst, etc. Standard enough that it's unavoidable anyway.

Sure, it can be self-policed. Here's the thing, though, I wonder about. The major sites have full, unfettered access to HH's, and if there's anything I wonder about with regards to that, it's how much time and effort they have put into developing due vigiliance, both in real-time and post-tournament in looking through this stuff.

If such precautions haven't been put into place or developed yet, they should. Why should they?

Then again I'm just a first-gen cyberpunk who knows exactly what value money actually has.

ansky,

lol.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Cheating in poker? How unthinkable. Do pardon the sarcasm, but some of you younger players do show remarkable naviete when it comes to whitewash solutions for this stuff. And there are some of you who simply don't care. All's fair, no honor amongst, etc. Standard enough that it's unavoidable anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Still with all the "I'll take whatever advantage I can get, gray areas are my turf" mentality of most poker players (with an especial mention to the younger crowd), it should be up to the sites to do something about it, but why they would? They're pretty happy making tons of money and threads like this one, do tell them, there's nothing to worry about.

[yi style]

[ QUOTE ]
A buddy of mine and I each play the Sunday morning $39 Satellite to the Sunday Million. If one of us qualifies, we get together at one of our houses, log on and play the tourney together. I would imagine there are a lot of lower limit donks like us doing the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my experience of playing poker in college anyway, this is soooo common.

Fact is, the average player doesn't play that often, doesn't read the forums, is a EV- player, and doesn't see anything wrong with his buddy giving him advice while hanging out on a Sunday afternoon.

Conceptually, I think the "One player to a hand" rule is the only way to quell the "problem." Even if it was written into law however, 95% of the recreational players I know simply wouldn't care...."well how the [censored] are they gonna catch me? hahaha."

[FortunaMaximus]

Yeah, pretty much. As long as it doesn't keep food off marginal grinders' tables, they can well rot.

Different breed of fish anyway. Just as beatable long-term. Don't lose hope.