possibly important info if you play with twin/h@ll

[Requin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly what is 'ethical' is not simply what is defined in the rules as 'legal'


[/ QUOTE ]

For the 100th time, I never said that ethics are determined by the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
Zee, I know that and I was agreeing with your stance.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly what is 'ethical' is not simply what is defined in the rules as 'legal'


[/ QUOTE ]

For the 100th time, I never said that ethics are determined by the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
Zee, I know that and I was agreeing with your stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I knew the second half of what you said was in agreement with my point of view, but I wans't sure about that opening line. No hostility intended.

[LyinKing]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm not trying to say that something is only unethical if it's against the rules. I'm saying that if something is explicitly allowed according to a GOOD set of rules, then it is almost always ethically acceptable.



[/ QUOTE ]

sort of OT, but germane to the overall:
how does one determine if said set of rules is in fact good? the generic Judeo-Christian good? Not trying to play meaningless semantic games, but attacking the notion of inherent good in law/rule is a start towards greater questioning...

proceed.

[Requin]

When a certain percentage of players are satisfied by the rules, its a 'good' set of rules. What that % is is open to debate.

[captZEEbo]

ALL, can someone formulate a well-written message with reasons clearly stated that this kind of behavior should not be allowed on pokerstars and send it to lee jones?

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly what is 'ethical' is not simply what is defined in the rules as 'legal'

[/ QUOTE ]

For the 100th time, I never said that ethics are determined by the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zee,

Not in those exact terms, but yes that is what you said. This of course is one of the half dozen or so times you contradicted yourself but who's keeping score.

As for why I posted this, as it is obvious everyone knows you are dead wrong here, I hate seeing blatantly incorrect posts from anyone but a complete troll. This behavior is not correct and certainly not ethical.

This should certainly be PM'd or better formally mailed to Lee Jones as high stakes collusion is a very nasty problem.

J

[citanul]

Stars support:

[ QUOTE ]
In tournament play, this would not be acceptable. However, in ring game
play, there is no rule requiring players to bet hard when headsup. What is
being discussed here is not against the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

With regards to the possible scenario earlier outlined where 1 bets, 2 calls, forcing 3 out of the pot, then 1 and 2 checking it down:

[ QUOTE ]
What you are suggesting is something that was considered. However, as
stated elsewhere in the thread, we have reviewed these players and have
found no evidence of them doing what you suggest.

If we found players who were clearly changing their action on the
expectation of being headsup, we would consider advising them that *this*
is unacceptable (as they are changing their behaviour when there are still
multiple players in the pot). These two players are not, and as such, not
violating the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Continuing:

[ QUOTE ]
In a tournament setting, you rely on others to eliminate your opposition
(unlike cash games). Let us assume, for example, that you are three handed
in a tournament, and that the prizes are $1000, $500, and $100. If two
players refuse to eliminate each other, that has a direct impact on the
third player's chances of winning or finishing second.

In ring game, you do not rely on other players to bust each other, and as
such, whether two players play hard or soft against each other has no real
impact on your chances to win money.

[/ QUOTE ]

c

[KaneKungFu123]

Twin has been running bad for a very long time.

[Jehaim]

In casino's they allow HU softplay among friends all the time.

[jaydub]

Jehaim,

In casinos they let you beat the [censored] out of house hookers if you pay well enough. What's this gotta do with ethics?

J