On Ghosting

[Bakes]

I was responding to DLizzle. 50/100 nl is so ridiculous i'm not going to grace it with a response.

And lol at YOU accusing me of multiaccounting.

[stealthmunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I was responding to DLizzle. 50/100 nl is so ridiculous i'm not going to grace it with a response.

And lol at YOU accusing me of multiaccounting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine 10-20/25-50? I'm down for a grudgematch.

I wasn't accusing u of multiccountinging, i was accusing you of "HIVING/TOGNI-GIDWULFING" lolz

someone needs to get an unethical activities dictionary.

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was responding to DLizzle. 50/100 nl is so ridiculous i'm not going to grace it with a response.

And lol at YOU accusing me of multiaccounting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine 10-20/25-50? I'm down for a grudgematch.

I wasn't accusing u of multiccountinging, i was accusing you of "HIVING/TOGNI-GIDWULFING" lolz

someone needs to get an unethical activities dictionary.

[/ QUOTE ]
so very very sad.

[Bakes]

you have an edge hu. but, i'm not scum then either. i don't hang out with cheaters. why don't we draw the line right now and say that the cards of an account are for the eyes of that particular player only? If you want to see some cards, play on your own account.

That would be a start at least. Who would adhere to that here?

[LearnedfromTV]

I don't have a general problem with people playing on multiple accounts, or different people playing the same account, or two people making decisions together for a single account. All the switching names stuff is fine with me.

So there's no reason for me to be opposed to anything other than stuff going on when a player is involved in the operation of two accounts in the same tournament.

If the person giving advice was/is in the same tournament, but the person playing the account is making their own decisions, I think that's fine, as long as the advisor isn't at the same table or giving mutually beneficial advice (late in tournaments two accounts still in the tournament shouldn't be in the same room with each other). The difference between this and multiaccounting being that a multiaccounter can't avoid being at the same table with himself or being aware that a neutral or slightly negative EV decision (calling to a bust a short stack, for example) will benefit his other account. Two friends playing the same event in the same room and occasionally sharing ideas can.

What I have a real problem with is someone making all the decisions (or being the final decision making on the majority of decisions, or on the majority of key decisions) for more than one account in the same tournament, especially when they have a financial interest in both accounts. I didn't really think about the scenario where a much better player makes all the decisions for a friend without getting anything in return. This does bother me, as does it happening with a 5% stake, but the greater the financial interest, the more it bothers me. I don't think that's unreasonable. Ethics aren't black and white, and two versions of the same unethical behavior can be different degrees of unethical.

edit: Generally, though, I think it'll be either the worst case unethical behavior, or not at all. That is, there will be way more cases of someone unethically controlling an account in which they have 50%+ financial interest than with a 5% interest, simply because someone who owns 95% of himself is way more likely to make his own decisions and not to be in an predetermined arrangement where they give up control.

[stealthmunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a general problem with people playing on multiple accounts, or different people playing the same account, or two people making decisions together for a single account. All the switching names stuff is fine with me.

So there's no reason for me to be opposed to anything other than stuff going on when a player is involved in the operation of two accounts in the same tournament.

If the person giving advice was/is in the same tournament, but the person playing the account is making their own decisions, I think that's fine, as long as the advisor isn't at the same table or giving mutually beneficial advice (late in tournaments two accounts still in the tournament shouldn't be in the same room with each other). The difference between this and multiaccounting being that a multiaccounter can't avoid being at the same table with himself or being aware that a neutral or slightly negative EV decision (calling to a bust a short stack, for example) will benefit his other account. Two friends playing the same event in the same room and occasionally sharing ideas can.

What I have a real problem with is someone making all the decisions (or being the final decision making on the majority of decisions, or on the majority of key decisions) for more than one account in the same tournament, especially when they have a financial interest in both accounts. I didn't really think about the scenario where a much better player makes all the decisions for a friend without getting anything in return. This does bother me, as does it happening with a 5% stake, but the greater the financial interest, the more it bothers me. I don't think that's unreasonable. Ethics aren't black and white, and two versions of the same unethical behavior can be different degrees of unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but it baffles me as to why people wouldn't blindly follow the advice of the better player? Does it matter who gets the "final" decision? I know plattsburgh went against JJ's advice, as apparently did mlaggoo/that crew's advice. But isn't that kind of like....
not having Barry Bonds pinch hit for you?

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point, but it baffles me as to why people wouldn't blindly follow the advice of the better player? Does it matter who gets the "final" decision? I know plattsburgh went against JJ's advice, as apparently did mlaggoo/that crew's advice. But isn't that kind of like....
not having Barry Bonds pinch hit for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you understand poker goot.

[stealthmunk]

In the bottom of the 9th in the world series nonetheless?

[Zimmer4141]

As much as anybody can say it isn't unethical or against the rules, being able to be coached midgame by a very good player and have them influence your decisions is a huge advantage that most players deep in the big tournaments don't have.

The fact is that there's no way to enforce it at all, but I think it's still kinda shady when it does happen.

[furyshade]

i am still unclear as to the opinion on "ghosting" while coaching, in which a person pays a better play a fee, regardless of the outcome of the session, to give advise and teach them to be a better poker player, i do not see how this is on the level with multi-accounting.