On Ghosting

[KneeCo]

BAK,

LDO. No one is saying that. Follow the discussion in the thread.

Yuv,

For like the fourth time: I agree with the pinch hitter analogy (though it isn't necessarily +EV to let an overall better player take over for you because (1) you may be better suited for what's ahead even if he is overall a better player(i.e. given the particular structure, knowing how to capitalize over your own crafted image, better knowledge of villains), and (2) the cost he's charging you for playing in your place, may outweigh his superior skill).

Nevertheless, yes I agree that if you have no scruples and your entire goal in life is to have your name at the top of the standings for this one tournament, you should hand off to the better player. I never said that this wasn't the case.

All I am saying is this, and this is like the fifth and last time I'm saying it:
[ QUOTE ]
but it baffles me as to why people wouldn't blindly follow the advice of the better player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is a silly statement that is (1) in no way akin to the Bonds/Antonius analogies, and (2) not true given the nature of the game.

[NHFunkii]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very incorrect. I know tons of fellow online poker players that will and do ask for and give advice during hands. They are not bad people, it's just that Lee Jones and others have stated explicitly it is allowed, so they do it. If it were explicitly banned, regardless of enforceability, most of these same people would never do it, because they are ethical people, not rule breakers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are unethical people, just not rule breakers. (If the activity is unethical to begin with)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it's not unethical to do it now, but would be if there were a rule against it

[Yuv]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very incorrect. I know tons of fellow online poker players that will and do ask for and give advice during hands. They are not bad people, it's just that Lee Jones and others have stated explicitly it is allowed, so they do it. If it were explicitly banned, regardless of enforceability, most of these same people would never do it, because they are ethical people, not rule breakers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are unethical people, just not rule breakers. (If the activity is unethical to begin with)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it's not unethical to do it now, but would be if there were a rule against it

[/ QUOTE ]

What? of course it's unreasonable. It's unethical to kill someone. Not because there's a law against it.

If something is unethical, it is that way if there's a rule against it or not. It makes no difference.

[Yuv]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) in no way akin to the Bonds/Antonius analogies, and (2) not true given the nature of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you don't see my point, I'll stop now as i'm basically trolling at this stage. Your 'problem' with stealthmunk's post is wrong. His statement is true. It is true, given the nature of the game. It's a game of math, and statistically, you are better off blindly following the better player's advice.
(Unless improving is a bigger goal to you than making money or you think you can improve enough to become a better player than the guy giving the advice)

[Ansky]

eth·ics /ˈɛθɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[eth-iks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

[uclabruinz]

Shaniac, you state you have taken one-time advice from experts in the past on a particular hand and didn't consider it unethical. Would you do so if there was explicitly a rule against it, but the poker sites likely had no way of knowing whether you did it or not?

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very incorrect. I know tons of fellow online poker players that will and do ask for and give advice during hands. They are not bad people, it's just that Lee Jones and others have stated explicitly it is allowed, so they do it. If it were explicitly banned, regardless of enforceability, most of these same people would never do it, because they are ethical people, not rule breakers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are unethical people, just not rule breakers. (If the activity is unethical to begin with)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it's not unethical to do it now, but would be if there were a rule against it

[/ QUOTE ]

What? of course it's unreasonable. It's unethical to kill someone. Not because there's a law against it.

If something is unethical, it is that way if there's a rule against it or not. It makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yuv,

don't want you to think I'm dogging you in this thread in any way, but I'm with Funkii on this.

In this context, I think it's unethical to break the rules.
The reason is that we're part of a community, doing something that in a lot of ways is total novel, and in being part of something like that I don't think it's unreasonable to say that we have responsibilities vis-a-vis the other members of the community to abide by the rules.

That was actually one of the most disheartening things about the whole ZJ and JJ controversy and previously the Boyd debacle. While a whole group of people are working to help build up the integrity of the game, play it with more people than ever imagined, on a new medium in which trust must be fostered, build up the sense of kinship amongst it's players and communally tackle things which stand in the way of this expansion (i.e. legislation), it was sad to see members high up in the group kind of turn their back on everyone else in it and in the process pretty much turn their backs on the game (irregardless of whether they continued to play it).

Cheesy though it may sound, we all kind of have an ethical obligation to each other to follow the rules of the game because of what has happened to poker in the last decade and what continues to happen to it. Therefore, once the game adopts a new rule, it is not unreasonable to say it is unethical for a member of the community to break it (as well players would have an ethical obligation to oppose/try to change the rule if it is bad for the game, all while still conforming to it until it is changed).

[bobbycharles]

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. We split the buy in 50-50 and if we cash, split the winnings 50-50. We talk about the hands together during the tourney and it is a great way for us to learn together and try to improve our game. I would imagine there are a lot of lower limit donks like us doing the same thing.

Is this legal? I'd say per Stars, yes.
Is it ethical? I think that's the gray area.

If I knew others were doing the same thing, I'd have NO PROBLEM with it. I would think most of you ballas would appreciate that there are a lot of dead money players in the tourney like us. But our goal is to learn to play the game. I would also think that it is good for the game overall.

I'm having trouble figuring out how this is a)unethical and b)bad for the game.

Enlighten me...I'm willing to stop that practice if the consensus is that it is unethical.

What REALLY BOTHERS me is:
1. Staking multiple players and giving directions
2. Staking multiple players and taking over at a point
3. Multiple entries in the same tourney

[Yuv]

Huh? Of course it's unethical to break it. It was unethical to break it BEFORE there was an explicit rule as well.

If ratholing is legal in a certain site, it's still unethical. If you think 1 people to a hand is the ethical way of playing and you break it just because there's no explicit rule against it, you are unethical. The presence of an explicit rule in the poker site doesn't alter your ethics.

[Todd Terry]

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.