Ethics: two computers, two players, same room, one tournament?

[dtbog]

I read another post on the MTT forum today which presented the following ethical dilemma -- but, to acquiesce to the OP's request, I didn't want to hijack the thread.

Situation: one online tournament. Say it's a $200+15 MTT on PartyPoker, though it makes no difference whatsoever.

Which of the following situations do you consider "unethical", and why?

As you think, consider for each scenario how you would feel using such a strategy yourself, and how you would feel playing against someone using such a strategy.

1) Two players in the same room on different computers, each staring at both monitors at the same time. These players are playing on two different accounts, paid with two tournament buy-ins. (Both players could be at the same table, or each could be at different tables... it is obviously random)

2) Two players in the same room, two tournament buy-ins etc etc as described above. The difference between this and (1) is that in this scenario, the players are sitting on opposite sides of the room, and only consult their partner if a crucial hand comes up.

3) Two players anywhere in the world who speak on the phone, over AIM, or in a chat room (off of the poker site) while playing in the same tournament.

4) Two players sitting in front of a single computer, playing a single tournament with a single account. These two players agree to split the entry fee and prize two ways.

5) A "tournament consultant" that agrees to answer players' questions ("should I call this all-in with QQ?") in real-time, for a fee. This consultant is, himself, playing in the tournament.

6) Same as (5), but the "consultant" is not himself playing in the tournament.

All responses welcome!

-dB

[DireWolf]

Here are my thoughts on this.

Personally i am fine with a player consulting with other people who are not in the tournament. Live, or online, i think its allright, since you are not gaining any information that the other players can not access.

When two players are in the same tournament it gets trickier. Live or online, i don't like it. If these players were on the same table, i think it would be too human not to cheat if the situation arose. If I had AA and my buddy had KK, are you really not going to say anything?

[yecul]

I don't think players should discuss ongoing hands with anyone currently in the same tournament. If the hand has already happened then I don't care (like in the official threads on this board).

If they're playing next to each other and can see their hole cards, but are at different tables... hmm... I don't like it, but they're currently using different decks, so...

Now, if they're at the same table then I have a huge problem with it.

[tiger7210]

I have a very good friend that we consult each other during a hand on certain decisions but ultimately we each make our own choices. I don't see that as cheating the other player as we still can't know what the other player is holding. I f I wanted to pay Phil Ivey to sit in my living room and consult me in a tournament I can't see how that should affect anyone else.

Now i do play in many of the same tournaments as my friend and if we do, which has been rare, end up t the same table we no longer consult each other because i do believe that is unethical. I've evn ben in a hand with him where I reraised him all in to try and knock him out just as I would with anyone else if I think I have him beat.

[pokerraja]

I think these are the problems with online poker. There are so many situations that are almost impossible to police. In a live tourney could you imagine talking to your freind on the table next to yours, "hey should I call this with AK?"? Online poker brings so many scenarios that are absolutely illegal in a live sanctioned tourney, but online they are "legal". There are so many top notch players who are playing 2-3 different accounts on the same tourney! Unethical? Of course.

[A_PLUS]

For the most part, having two people in the same house play in the same MTT is innocent. Being at the same table would be problematic if they could see each others monitors. But the general, "ohhh, I raised 3X BB from the button with AQ, and that aggressive big stack reraised me, should I fold?"
comments that occur most often during play are harmless. You are rarely going to have the 2nd player adding much insight anyway in the 30 seconds you have to act.

I think it is extremely common, especially for younger players to have freinds milling in the background, who are consulted about hands. I think this is fine. Id rather play against 4-5 players than one. Too many chefs in the kitchen.

That being said, who wants to sign up as my new set-up man? I am fairly good at accumulating chips early, and am respectable from the bubble to the final table, I just need someone to give me 2-3 levels in the middle. Maybe we can recruit a math whiz from the STT forum to close for us. I like it!

Actually, that is a very good idea, and definitely unethical.

[imported_torgeauxSA]

If you are both in the same tournament, you don't consult with each other, and you don't provide each other information that other players don't have. So, if you want to chat where the other players can see it, fine, otherwise, it's a no no.

Hire a consultant? Fine, if he isn't playing, otherwise, same rules as above.

[yoadrians]

1) Becomes a problem if they are ever placed at the same table. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with it.

2) See answer to No. 1

3) See answer to No. 1

4) Two heads are better than one ... doesn't bother me one bit

5) See answer to No. 1

6) See answer to No. 4

Answers to ethical questions, obviously, vary from person to person. As such, the only problem I have with any of this stuff is when two players, playing under two different accounts, playing in the same tournament, playing at the same table in said tournament, share information with each other.

Example: A friend and I very frequently buy into the same online tournaments. We watch each other's tables, chat with each other on the poker site or, during an interesting hand, will call each other and ask for advice. Also, we send hand histories to each other in mid-tournament. We're friends who enjoy poker and competition. We're OK with this interaction.

However, one or two times we have actually been at the same table midway to late in a tournament. At that point, the phone calls end and the real competition begins. I don't want to help him. He doesn't want to help me. We want to bust each other very badly - mostly for bragging rights and, of course, to better our position in the tournament and much some good $$$. And the second we're at different tables again, we begin chatting and using the phone and e-mail when we see fit.

Just my two cents.

[CardSharpCook]

One player, one hand. Isn't that the rule? My line has always been to refuse to discuss a hand in progress. If someone asks me, "what should I do?" or "what would you do here?", I either wait silently, or if they are clearly waiting for me, I tell them, "I'll talk about it when the hand is over." It isn't right to have a ringer on standby whenever you are faced with a difficult decision.

I don't mind letting others see my hole cards, so long as they give no comment AND they are out of the hand. The first time they give a comment is the last time they see my cards.

One player, one hand.

As for 2 players in the same room/tourney. I have no problem so long as they can behave honorably. Hell, back in the day, ALL tourney players used to be in the same room.... and it is always easy to stare across at your friend and give him a meaningful look - you just shouldn't do it.

So, live consultant is ok, so long as he only comments after the hand is complete.

CSC

[yoadrians]

"One player, one hand."

CSC, I haven't heard this before, but I definitely will have to re-evaluate my thinking on the 'two buddies playing together as one player' in a tournament question.

Have a friend who loves poker but his wife won't let him play for money. So, when he comes over, we 'play together' on an SNG or MTT. He gives me half the buy-in in cash, and, whatever we win, I always share with him. I never thought there was anything wrong with that, but, like I said, I will have to re-evaluate my thinking on the subject.

We all have lessons to learn, and I certainly am no different. Thanks again for the insight.

- yoadrians

[Lurshy]

[ QUOTE ]
One player, one hand. Isn't that the rule? My line has always been to refuse to discuss a hand in progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rick Diesel]

I would say that #4 and #6 are fine, the rest are collusion.

[IHateKeithSmart]

[ QUOTE ]
One player, one hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely - reading top down, I was waiting to see this. It is absolutely not right to give/solicit advice about a hand in progress. It's certainly easy enough to do online, but you will be bitched at/run if you try this live (assuming the dealer is sensible).

RE: The consultant - this should only happen after the tourney is done (e.g. pay him to review your HH). Never while play is underway.

[DireWolf]

The problem is, This is completely unenforceable and it happens all the time. Think about how many college kids play with their roommates looking on or something like that. I think in the vast majority of cases it doesn't help that much.

mediocre player + mediocre player != Great Player

[IHateKeithSmart]

Agree about the unenforcability. Ultimately, it's up to the individual to play honestly and honorably (not unlike golf).

[tiger7210]

My situation is exactly the same.

I certainly think live is a different story of course but with the online poker boom there are thousands of college kids who play in the same room together.

I don't feel 10 of them discussing if they should bet/call/or fold has any impact on me and how I play and whether I win or lose since they can't get a physical tell on me and can't see my cards.

My friend and i consult with one another from time to time, never at the same table, since we both simply aspire to become better players and we both respect each other's opinions but ultimately we make our own decisions. I just don't see in an online environment how I'm cheating anyone. I don't see this as giving me an edge on anyone.

[octaveshift]

One person per hand.

Why are we even having this conversation?

Jesus.

[ZootMurph]

First, and most obviously... any information that all players do not have access to is unethical. Therefore, any time a player has access to other information AT HIS TABLE, that is unethical. So, two players seeing each other's hands are fine. If they are at the same table, and obvious advantage is given to both.

As for asking others what should be done or getting advice WHILE A HAND IS IN PROGRESS is also unethical. I can just get 10 friends to watch and every time a tough situation comes up, utilize the information and reads they all got. If two heads are better than one, 11 are even better. If I miss a read and make a bad call, it's my fault. If I miss a read and a friend doesn't and advises me during the hand, then there is an unfair advantage being given.

Consider playing chess against someone. You and this other person are evenly matched. However, you bring in a 'consultant' to help you. Is the game still fair and evenly matched?

In closing, this is a game of information. The more information you have access to, the better you can play. Whether you can see other's hands, or you have a person or people advising you, you are getting the opportunity to garner more information than others have the opportunity to gain. Getting ANY information that you couldn't get yourself during the playing of a hand is unethical.

[JaBlue]

What if each of you are playing enough tournaments at the same time so that your friend will not be able to give you any information in regards to reads of other players? He will only be giving you information that you also have access to; i.e. which line to take for what reason. Also, what if you listen to the friend but choose not to take his advice? Is this not the equivalent of considering the second line yourself and passing up?

[DireWolf]

[ QUOTE ]

As for asking others what should be done or getting advice WHILE A HAND IS IN PROGRESS is also unethical. I can just get 10 friends to watch and every time a tough situation comes up, utilize the information and reads they all got. If two heads are better than one, 11 are even better. If I miss a read and make a bad call, it's my fault. If I miss a read and a friend doesn't and advises me during the hand, then there is an unfair advantage being given.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the theory of this, but not the reality of it. Go ahead get 11 guys to help you out. What happens when you have a read and people disagree? are you most likely to trust your read.

What happens when 10 of the people say one thing, but the other one is right. Obviously if u had MLG, 2005, Strassa, Che, etc, in the same room you would have a big advantage. But will that ever happen? no. First of all, if they were that good, they would probably be playing themselves. Second, there just aren't that many good players.

I wouldn't really care if someone had 11 players helping him in a random online tourny. I think it would produce more confusion than help.

[ZootMurph]

JaBlue... did you come up with the line or did your friend? What if you are up against an allin and are ready to fold, but your friend tells you he's bluffing and you call, and he is bluffing? The information was available to you, but you didn't consider it until someone else told you. So, again, there are two people against one... I can use the chess example again here. You and I are playing. I set up a trap and you are ready to move your piece into it, but someone comes over and tells you about the trap. You evade the trap. Is that fair? No. Is that ethical? No.

At a table, there are tells and reads for everyone to use. If you can't use them, then getting others to help you is unethical. Need I go on?

[sloth469]

Well since we know that Lee Jones is lurking, why not ask him the legality as opposed to the ethics of each of these situations. Lee?

I'm not sure exactly how some of these situations could ever be detected, but I know for a fact there are quite a few people (without naming names) who coach or sweat and offer advice during a tourney. Personally I think it is fine as long as the person sweating or coaching is not in the same tourney. Is there an actual written rule on any poker site that states 1 player 1 hand?

-sloth

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
One player, one hand. Isn't that the rule?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the rule in a B&M cardroom, but not online.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
JaBlue... did you come up with the line or did your friend? What if you are up against an allin and are ready to fold, but your friend tells you he's bluffing and you call, and he is bluffing? The information was available to you, but you didn't consider it until someone else told you. So, again, there are two people against one... I can use the chess example again here. You and I are playing. I set up a trap and you are ready to move your piece into it, but someone comes over and tells you about the trap. You evade the trap. Is that fair? No. Is that ethical? No.

At a table, there are tells and reads for everyone to use. If you can't use them, then getting others to help you is unethical. Need I go on?

[/ QUOTE ]


You didn't address my question. What I was trying to say is that my friend and I are playing enough different tournaments each that we are completely unable to have reads of players on the friends' games.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Two players in the same room on different computers, each staring at both monitors at the same time. These players are playing on two different accounts, paid with two tournament buy-ins. (Both players could be at the same table, or each could be at different tables... it is obviously random)

2) Two players in the same room, two tournament buy-ins etc etc as described above. The difference between this and (1) is that in this scenario, the players are sitting on opposite sides of the room, and only consult their partner if a crucial hand comes up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both of these are unethical, first because of the possibility that they could at some point be placed at the same table, second because even if they're at different tables it might be possible at certain key points to act together for their mutual advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Two players anywhere in the world who speak on the phone, over AIM, or in a chat room (off of the poker site) while playing in the same tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unethical if they talk about the tournament at all. As a general principle, I'd say that two players in the same online MTT should not communicate with each other, in any way except through the online cardroom's own chat function.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Two players sitting in front of a single computer, playing a single tournament with a single account. These two players agree to split the entry fee and prize two ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing wrong with this.

[ QUOTE ]
5) A "tournament consultant" that agrees to answer players' questions ("should I call this all-in with QQ?") in real-time, for a fee. This consultant is, himself, playing in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unethical.

[ QUOTE ]
6) Same as (5), but the "consultant" is not himself playing in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is fine, as long as the consultant is not advising more than one player in the tournament.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Two players in the same room on different computers, each staring at both monitors at the same time. These players are playing on two different accounts, paid with two tournament buy-ins. (Both players could be at the same table, or each could be at different tables... it is obviously random)

2) Two players in the same room, two tournament buy-ins etc etc as described above. The difference between this and (1) is that in this scenario, the players are sitting on opposite sides of the room, and only consult their partner if a crucial hand comes up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both of these are unethical, first because of the possibility that they could at some point be placed at the same table, second because even if they're at different tables it might be possible at certain key points to act together for their mutual advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Two players anywhere in the world who speak on the phone, over AIM, or in a chat room (off of the poker site) while playing in the same tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unethical if they talk about the tournament at all. As a general principle, I'd say that two players in the same online MTT should not communicate with each other, in any way except through the online cardroom's own chat function.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Two players sitting in front of a single computer, playing a single tournament with a single account. These two players agree to split the entry fee and prize two ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing wrong with this.

[ QUOTE ]
5) A "tournament consultant" that agrees to answer players' questions ("should I call this all-in with QQ?") in real-time, for a fee. This consultant is, himself, playing in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unethical.

[ QUOTE ]
6) Same as (5), but the "consultant" is not himself playing in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is fine, as long as the consultant is not advising more than one player in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

MBE can you please explain why you consider it unethical for more than one player to act on the same hand when the second is also in the tournament? I don't understand why it makes a difference for the two players to be in the same tournament as long as they are not at the same table.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
MBE can you please explain why you consider it unethical for more than one player to act on the same hand when the second is also in the tournament? I don't understand why it makes a difference for the two players to be in the same tournament as long as they are not at the same table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with MBE on this -- in fact, this is the reason I posted this thread -- because I feel that an MTT is one extended "game", in which each contestant should be a separate and individual entity.

It seems basic to me that whether or not two players are at the same table, they are clearly playing in the same event and are therefore expected to be playing without regard to each other.

If you don't see why, imagine it from the other perspective -- you're looking at the list of entries to an online MTT, and someone looks over your shoulder and points out eight different "partnerships" that could potentially be in play during the tournament. Doesn't this make you a little uneasy? The fact is that a tournament is called such because it is a competition between each of the individuals who entered. Aiding another contestant in reaching the final table is contrary to the spirit of an individual competition, and therefore seems unethical.

I didn't address same-table concerns, but I think that one's pretty obvious.
-dB

[VoraciousReader]

Personally, I would argue that there are 2 standards we can use here, both of which should apply:
1) Would a nonpoker-playing individual off the street look at a scenario and say, "yes, that's cheating"?
2) Assuming the answer to question 1 is "no"; overall is it good or bad for the game of poker and good or bad for online poker?

Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 5, I believe the average person would define as cheating. Whether or not you are playing at the same table, you have in a sense divided your interests in the tournament. You are not acting exclusively in or on your own behalf, and the players you are competing against do not have knowlege of this. Would they play differently if they knew that "BroncsFan1964" and "OKCatLover" are strategizing together? Probably. Additionally, if you are both successful, eventually you WILL be at the same final table.

4 and 6 are more borderline. However, 6, at least, fails test #2. I do not believe it is good for the game of online poker for people to have hired consultants available to advise them on every hand while the tournament is running . If that became common practice, and that became known, it would drive most players away from the sites/tournaments. So it is not in the best interest, collectively, of those of us that enjoy playing online and should be considered unacceptable.

4, on the other hand, is likely to be good for online poker. It's more of a social evening for the 2 players involved, and it is certainly debatable whether 2 heads are actually better than one. It might even be considered a way for beginning players who are nervous about trying it out to get their feet wet. This one doesn't worry me.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't see why, imagine it from the other perspective -- you're looking at the list of entries to an online MTT, and someone looks over your shoulder and points out eight different "partnerships" that could potentially be in play during the tournament. Doesn't this make you a little uneasy? The fact is that a tournament is called such because it is a competition between each of the individuals who entered.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different from me and my college buddies going up to Turning Stone for the Saturday rebuy? At every break the 3,4,5 of us get up and consult - and we see other groups of friends do the same. Are these not "potential partnerships"? You seem to be getting to the point of saying that friends shouldn't play in the same tourney because they might end up at the same table and they might be unable to resist the temptation to cheat.

As far as communicating during play in the same tourney - can't Johnny walk over to my table and say "hi"? True, the difference is that online Johnny's "hi" can't be heard unless he uses the tourney chat box. However, I go back to: Is there any reason to assume that these players are unethical?

At some point we have to give a little credit to the individuals who play poker and say that "yes, they do have some honor, and as long we can't prove anything, or have any reason to suspect something, why sweat it?"

Threads like these are nice because they awaken the ignorant. That is, players who never conceived of a practice as being construed as cheating, are now aware that many players see it that way.

What about this one player per hand rule? Does this really not apply online?

CSC

[RoyalLance]

1) Not wise, especially if at one table.

2) Websites look for this type of behavior with betting patters (like one player folding trips aces because he "read" another player for twos fulls or playing a king high heart flush while another that folded the Ace of Hearts.

3)Can be very dagerous if the phone or chat involves gameplay.

4) Not sure if it is allowed by poker sites.

5) Troulble, especially if the two parties are at the same table

6) No sure if there is any problems with that.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
MBE can you please explain why you consider it unethical for more than one player to act on the same hand when the second is also in the tournament? I don't understand why it makes a difference for the two players to be in the same tournament as long as they are not at the same table.

[/ QUOTE ]
At certain times in the tournament (particularly near the bubble and near the final two tables) there are situations where you'd play a hand differently if you were acting in the joint interest of you and your friend (at a different table in the same tourney) than if you were acting just in your own interest.

But aside from that, even if it's the very start of a tournament with over a thousand entrants, and you and your friend are at different tables, you still are in competition against your friend. That's incompatible with consulting each other in real time about the play of a hand. There's nothing wrong with saying hi, but you can use the cardroom's own chat function to do that.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MBE can you please explain why you consider it unethical for more than one player to act on the same hand when the second is also in the tournament? I don't understand why it makes a difference for the two players to be in the same tournament as long as they are not at the same table.

[/ QUOTE ]
At certain times in the tournament (particularly near the bubble and near the final two tables) there are situations where you'd play a hand differently if you were acting in the joint interest of you and your friend (at a different table in the same tourney) than if you were acting just in your own interest.

But aside from that, even if it's the very start of a tournament with over a thousand entrants, and you and your friend are at different tables, you still are in competition against your friend. That's incompatible with consulting each other in real time about the play of a hand. There's nothing wrong with saying hi, but you can use the cardroom's own chat function to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fundamental view that you are in competition with the friend and therefore should not consult each other makes sense intuitively and ideologically but it doesn't make sense practically.

If we are entering the same tournament with 1000 players then the competition amongst players that aren't at each other's tables only happens once we are in the money. I am not making decisions based on whether or not it suits my friend and I defy you to come up with a situation where I am even capable of making one of these decisions, say, on the first round of a 1000 player tournament where we are at different tables.

The bubble situation is hairier but we each have paid for our own entry fees and only win what the single person wins so therefore have no vested financial interest in the other friend. I'm not going to say that I'm incapable of softplaying a friend because although I would like to think that this is true, the situation has never arisen yet, and anyway as one poster pointed out, to say that friends should never play the same tournament based on the chance that maybe they end up at the same table and maybe they softplay each other is ridiculous.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I would argue that there are 2 standards we can use here, both of which should apply:
1) Would a nonpoker-playing individual off the street look at a scenario and say, "yes, that's cheating"?
2) Assuming the answer to question 1 is "no"; overall is it good or bad for the game of poker and good or bad for online poker?

Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 5, I believe the average person would define as cheating. Whether or not you are playing at the same table, you have in a sense divided your interests in the tournament. You are not acting exclusively in or on your own behalf, and the players you are competing against do not have knowlege of this. Would they play differently if they knew that "BroncsFan1964" and "OKCatLover" are strategizing together? Probably. Additionally, if you are both successful, eventually you WILL be at the same final table.

4 and 6 are more borderline. However, 6, at least, fails test #2. I do not believe it is good for the game of online poker for people to have hired consultants available to advise them on every hand while the tournament is running . If that became common practice, and that became known, it would drive most players away from the sites/tournaments. So it is not in the best interest, collectively, of those of us that enjoy playing online and should be considered unacceptable.

4, on the other hand, is likely to be good for online poker. It's more of a social evening for the 2 players involved, and it is certainly debatable whether 2 heads are actually better than one. It might even be considered a way for beginning players who are nervous about trying it out to get their feet wet. This one doesn't worry me.

[/ QUOTE ]

VoraciousReader: how is situation 6 different from backing somebody in a tournament?