Ratholing and Short Stacking in NL Poker

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]



I chastizing people for complaining about the short-stackers is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]



complaining about short stacks is justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]

Short-stackers who hit & run multi-way tables are scum bags abusing the system and it's definitely unethical. It's the whole definition of "ethics". No, it's not strictly against the rules, but you are being a bastard to everyone involved, taking advantage of a flaw in the system.



[/ QUOTE ]
Is using a PAHUD 'being a bastard to everyone' as long as it is not strictly against the rules? What about using Poker stove? You can't use a computer at a live game to tap resources like this can you?

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I sent Diablo this PM and he thought it'd make a good thread:

For awhile, I have felt like ratholing was unethical, however I am beginning to reconsider.

If I open a table and there is one 20bb stack, and the other 100bb stacks continue to play with him, then that means that they support his right to play with 20bb's. If they disagree with the his right to rathole/play 20bb's, then they should immediately sit out. When you play in a game, you are essentially agreeing to the rules of that game, and there is no room to complain or argue. Its not much different in signing a contract.

What are your thoughts about this?

He responded:

Here's the thing. Online, players can choose not to play with this sort of player. There are unlimited tables and options. But people want the best of both worlds. They want to play the idiots who are the same type of guy as the typical bad short stacker, but they don't want solid players short stacking. Nobody cares aobut the idiots who are just pushing any two / any pair w/ short stacks. Those guys are donating such huge money.

Anyway, point is simple. Guys online have the ability to play wherever they want. However, they want to play with the fish. Part of playing with the fish is playing with these guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

i always buy in for the minimum and add on as necessary. i feel i play my best in a solid game w/ appx. 75-100bb's (i try to avoid solid games). if the other players dont call me out (usually when the game is short) i ratthole my "bills" at a pee break whenever i get over 150bb's. if there is an obvious donator in the game who cant lay down an overpair i play for whatever he has even if it is a ridiculous amount. the rules of any given poker game sorta float around. i take advantage of whatever is available.

[/ QUOTE ]

isnt this basically considered downright cheating live?

[bkholdem]

When people complain about 'wanting x' at a poker game I think of my grandmother who always used to say "People in hell want ice water" in response to me whining about something as a little boy.

[fnord_too]

There is nothing unethical about shortstacking. It is exploiting a very profitable situation within the rules, as opposed to say exploiting the rebuy trick before it was fixed, which was pretty sketchy from an ethics perspective. Does it cut into where some peoples profit comes from? Sure, but so does rake, and so does letting those annoying players who are better than you sit, and those bastards who think about the game and do math and analysis away from the table, and those other bastards who publish books and articles explaining things for people who can't work them out on their own, and those damn parents who stopped their kids from growing up to be degenerate gamblers with a good upbringing.

I have yet to here someone whos earn wasn't hurt by these guys complain about them (vice lots of people who were not affected by the rebuy trick, or softplay, or god playing on Roland de Wolf's account complaining about the same). Also, there are many people who are negatively impacted by these players who don't have a problem (philosophically) with them.

Poker is attracting more and more people who are really good and learning, adapting, and exploiting. They may do it in ways that one finds distasteful, but to sugest that something like short stacking is unethical when it is within the codified rules is just insane, and feeling offended by it in any way is probably hypocritical.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



I chastizing people for complaining about the short-stackers is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]



complaining about short stacks is justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

So I take it you're a ratholer?

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
taking advantage of a flaw in the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the part I find absurd with regard to short-stacking. It's not like the site or it's software is using fuzzy math to calculate the minimum buy in, or the players are using some exploit to get below it. It was set deliberately by site management. How is that a flaw?

Ratholing is a little different in online play when the site's software allows you to rebuy back to the same table for less. If it is an oversight by the software designers, I can see a case for calling it unethical. If it is a deliberate feature of the software because the site just doesn't care (they just want bodies in the seats paying rake), then you can always take your business elsewhere.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I sent Diablo this PM and he thought it'd make a good thread:

For awhile, I have felt like ratholing was unethical, however I am beginning to reconsider.

If I open a table and there is one 20bb stack, and the other 100bb stacks continue to play with him, then that means that they support his right to play with 20bb's. If they disagree with the his right to rathole/play 20bb's, then they should immediately sit out. When you play in a game, you are essentially agreeing to the rules of that game, and there is no room to complain or argue. Its not much different in signing a contract.

What are your thoughts about this?

He responded:

Here's the thing. Online, players can choose not to play with this sort of player. There are unlimited tables and options. But people want the best of both worlds. They want to play the idiots who are the same type of guy as the typical bad short stacker, but they don't want solid players short stacking. Nobody cares aobut the idiots who are just pushing any two / any pair w/ short stacks. Those guys are donating such huge money.

Anyway, point is simple. Guys online have the ability to play wherever they want. However, they want to play with the fish. Part of playing with the fish is playing with these guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

i always buy in for the minimum and add on as necessary. i feel i play my best in a solid game w/ appx. 75-100bb's (i try to avoid solid games). if the other players dont call me out (usually when the game is short) i ratthole my "bills" at a pee break whenever i get over 150bb's. if there is an obvious donator in the game who cant lay down an overpair i play for whatever he has even if it is a ridiculous amount. the rules of any given poker game sorta float around. i take advantage of whatever is available.

[/ QUOTE ]

isnt this basically considered downright cheating live?

[/ QUOTE ]

i could just get up, put myself on the nonexistent list and then sit down again but thats pretty pointless. if someone tells me to put more on the table i might or i might go to bed then they usually just say [censored] it and play becuase they need me to keep a game together that has one live one who wont play heads up. poker is 20% of my time i dont play unless i like it. its complicated, ive never broken a game, slowed the action, chased off a fish or wasted peoples time w/ angles, im well liked in the games i play but im gonna play as close to MY WAY as possible w/o causing any issues.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
then you can always take your business elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sort of argument is preposterous. No you can't, there aren't that many sites with good games and so far as I know they all have this flaw.

When a group of people are sitting at a table all with roughly 100 BB's, they have implicitly agreed to play each other in a poker game that functions a certain way based on 100 BB stacks. Because you can't choose who sits in at a public table, anyone can sit in unwanted with a 20 BB stack. Even if you all leave and join some other table, he can easily sit in any of those. If he ever doubles up he can leave and join in anywhere. You have no way of saying you don't want short stackers on your table.

Now, if someone wants to buy in really short, but will stay if they get deep - that's sort of annoying but it's not unethical. Also if you're short because it's like your whole roll and you sit with it, that's fine too. It's when you take advantage of the ability to hit & run and rat-hole that it's unethical IMHO.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]

i could just get up, put myself on the nonexistent list and then sit down again but thats pretty pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

not in any cardroom ive ever played in.

edit-i guess im not really sure about commerce, esp whetehr they enforce or not, but I would be v surprised to see a cardroom wehre this is not against the rules. Do you leave and then sit back down when you get called to the main game and are in a juicy must move game too?