On Ghosting

[McMelchior]

There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

[BAK]

[ QUOTE ]
There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This left me absolutely speechless.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This left me absolutely speechless.

[/ QUOTE ]

speechless as in good? i think it's pretty much nonsense but i will stop now since I don't feeling like being an even bigger dick than i already am in this thread.

[BAK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This left me absolutely speechless.

[/ QUOTE ]

speechless as in good? i think it's pretty much nonsense but i will stop now since I don't feeling like being an even bigger dick than i already am in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL No, not as in good.

[Ansky]

mcmelchior,

a big lol @ 1000 idiots is all luck, but 1000 top pros is mostly skill. On what basis? That is absolutely ridiculous.

stealth,

For one thing, multiaccounting will allow the possibility of collusion, whereas stake/ghosting does not.

funkii,

By ghosting I merely mean sweating someone and giving advice. NOT clicking the buttons yourself.



ucla,

Where are you? Thought you'd be all over this thread.

[ASPoker8]

[ QUOTE ]
There's something [censored] up in the debate.

On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?

Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?

Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.

For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.

We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).

So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.

Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.

So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.

It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.

[/ QUOTE ]

[nath]

hey, that loldog kind of looks like your avatar!

[ASPoker8]

[ QUOTE ]
hey, that loldog kind of looks like your avatar!

[/ QUOTE ]

coincidence? i think not

[bobneptune]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not think that getting sweated by a better player is unethical really, given that there is not, and has never been, and likely never will be a precedent for 1 player to a hand in online poker. People need to stop using live as a frame of reference for online poker. The fact is, they are just 2 different beasts in this day, and I do not see why we need to say "well x should happen online, because it happens live."

Anyways, I'm willing to be convincned I am wrong, so discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]


hello ansky,

this entire thread reminds me of the famous quote by justice potter stewart when deciding an obscenity case in the 1960's he essentially said, don't ask me to define pornography.... but i know it when i see it.

it's pretty much the same here. i can't give a concise definition for the difference between ghosting , sweating and coaching, but when any of them occur during the play of an individual hand, it is cheating. well.... maybe cheating is a little strong (only be`cause i don't know of a particular statute it violates), but it is surely unethical.

i believe, when i sign up for any tournament, i should have a reasonable expectation that i am actually playing ansky, not a G.E.College Bowl*** panel of ansky, gobboboy, wpthero, bond, etc.

to my frame of ethical reference, consulting with others DURING THE PLAY OF AN INDIVIDUAL HAND is a gross violation of ethical play.


that being said, it is perfectly ethical to discuss over the phone or any other way any situation with whomever AFTER the play of a particular hand.

*** for those not so long in the tooth, the G.E. College Bowl was a tv game show in the 1960's that pitted 4 university students from different schools in a "jeopardy-like" team competition.