On Ghosting

[Bond18]

Man i wish i knew where to come down on this issue. I'm all for anything that decreases multi accounting and the image that online poker is rigged but then there are a ton of gray areas here.

Take coaching for example, it seems almost everyone that being ghosted by a coach your paying but doesn't have a % in terms of financial issue is normally ethical. In fact, i'd even say ghosting in that manner is good for the game since players will introduce new players to the game and teach them through this manner.

What about when i really need to use the bathroom and a friend covers my tournaments?

What about when a tournament i really want to play is at an inconvenient time or theres a conflict for the beginning part of it, so a friend covers?

What about an example such as last night, where i told a bored Kramer over AIM to come sweat me in a Tilt tournament, and while he never told me what to do we discussed the strategy of a situation? He had no financial interest in the situation, but if he saw something i didn't and brought it to my attention i would have most certainly used it towards my advantage. Is that cheating?

What about when my girlfriend is in a hand on her computer and asks for my advice? Unethical to answer? If so i get to spend a lot of nights on the couch.

Just seems there's a lot of situations that would be both common and pretty harmless but are in a murky area ethically.

[tubasteve]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]


some people in this world have a sense of pride.

also, its a donkament...not 200/400 NL vs brian townsend. i doubt the worse player is really giving up THAT much EV unless they are really bad.

edit: that last part is probably wrong.

[T_Mac]

god damn you all for actually making the agony of live poker sound appealing

Anyway I'm against all this shady crap. I don't need a poker site's rules to tell me its unethical, and I don't need anyone else backing me or telling me how to play.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]

Take coaching for example, it seems almost everyone that being ghosted by a coach your paying but doesn't have a % in terms of financial issue is normally ethical. In fact, i'd even say ghosting in that manner is good for the game since players will introduce new players to the game and teach them through this manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coaching is just a better player giving advice to a student who pays them. It seems to me that this is even worse than having a better player guide you through a tournament if its any different. If I hire some MTT genius when I'm deep in a tournament to help me win and pay him a fee is that better than if he's a personal friend and does it for free?


Also, Bakes, really? I mean come on. Explain to me how that would work. I am 99.9% sure you are very very wrong here. In fact I would probably put up a huge amount in a prop bet and give you odds that it would ever happen. If I think you are suggesting what I think you are then wtf, maybe you could explain it better? I don't think close-minded is a good thing to call me here. I'd be more inclined to call you naive than me closeminded.


tubasteve - HU 200/400 with Brian Townsend buyin = max 40k
HU for the Sunday Million is what?

[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.

[tubasteve]

[ QUOTE ]


tubasteve - HU 200/400 with Brian Townsend buyin = max 40k
HU for the Sunday Million is what?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i sorta retracted that statement...either way though, luck is a larger factor HU of the sunday mil than skill just because the stacks are shorter.

[Bakes]

dlizzle - how about every time you play poker, you sign off aim? that would be a good way to keep one player to a hand. how about recognition hardware made mandatory by the sites? that would keep bots and account sharing off the map.

Or how about starting with yourself, and the people you have influence over? There are a lot of people on these forums that care a lot about multiaccounting; thats a start. Just because its gonna be difficult isn't a reason not to try, or maybe just because you wouldn't do it.

[Todd Terry]

There are tons of laws and rules outside of poker that are difficult if not impossible to enforce. That's not a reason not to have them in the first place. If the sites adopted these rules and put teeth into enforcement (freezing accounts, permanent bans) and all of the honest players agreed to abide by them, that would at least be a start.

It seems like the following things should be banned, and there really is no argument as to why they should be allowed (other than I do it, everyone is doing it, or everyone else is going to do it anyway, so I should be allowed to do it too).

1. One player to a hand, no discussion/advice during a tournament.

2. You can only have a financial interest in 1 competitor in a tournament, either you if you're playing or 1 player if you're not. At the beginning of every tournament, declare who if anyone has a piece of your action. That way there could be tax consequences, assuming the IRS ever got the records, which they probably won't as long as the sites are operating on the fringes of the law, but perhaps that will change one day. I'm sure if Howard Lederer got indicted, Full Tilt would turn over the records lickety split.

3. One account per player, period. Meaning no multiaccounting during a tournament, and no alternate screen names.

Edit: If the sites adopted these rules, and someone were caught breaking them, he/she could be prosecuted and imprisoned in the United States for wire fraud, which I'm sure would be a sufficient deterrent to people to do it once a few people got thrown in jail.

[NHFunkii]

[ QUOTE ]
dlizzle - how about every time you play poker, you sign off aim? that would be a good way to keep one player to a hand. how about recognition hardware made mandatory by the sites? that would keep bots and account sharing off the map.

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me this is a joke

[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.