Ethics of being a dickhead at the poker table...

[whiskeytown]

since this is ALL about ethics/philosophy/etc - and also poker..

I've been having rapid disagreement with several people on this site - there seems to be two schools of thought right now -

1. - Play poker, but be a good person - don't cheat, be moral, don't fart in other people's faces when getting up from the table, etc, etc...

2. - Play poker and try to put everyone on tilt by being the biggest douchebag you can be - this includes things like rubbing it in, claiming you "outplayed" someone when you spiked a two outer, telling someone "nh" when they fold the pot to you -

so what are the ethics of the situation? (I'm really angling for David S. to answer this one) - is there a point where our conduct is becoming harmful to the game? - is ANYTHING that allows us to get another 1/2 BB an hr justified, since the goal of playing poker is to make money?

or is the poker world and the 2+2 forums really just full of douchebags with no moral compass whatsoever?

just curious - I'd like to see some serious discussion on this - obviously, if being a dickhead is ethical because the point is to make money, then so is cheating, bots, collusion, because, after all, you're just trying to make money, right?

RB

[xniNja]

Play with class. Read Greenstein, Harrington, Brunson and stay away from Hellmuth if you don't know how to play with class & still increase +EV.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
obviously, if being a dickhead is ethical because the point is to make money, then so is cheating, bots, collusion, because, after all, you're just trying to make money, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
No way.

"Being a dickhead" as you put it, is totally within the rules of the game. Collusion and cheating are totally outside of the rules of the game, that is the difference. While being a dickhead may or may not be unethical, collusion and other forms of cheating are obviously unethical because we are violating the game's confines, and every time we sit down at the table we are entering a nonverbal contract that we will play within the rules of the game. Violating this contract intentionally seems obviously unethical to me.

Growing up, I was always extremely competitive with my little brother at just about everything, from video games to sports to grades. When we were playing a video game or
sport, it wasn't uncommon at all for one of us to "rub it in" after we beat the other badly to try to put the other player on tilt. While we often got into heated arguments and sometimes physical fights over these competitions, as we grew older we understood it was our nature and part of the nature of beating someone at something is being able to keep your mind clear and your emotions under control no matter what was going on around you. So as we grew into our teens, the ribbing remained while the altercations and particularly the physical fights died out. We both love each other very much and wouldn't say anything that we really felt would hurt the other person's feelings, but we are extremely competitive and we do naturally take every edge we can find as long as it's within the rules of the game--neither of us would ever cheat to beat the other.

Like any other mental sport, one aspect of winning at poker is the ability to remain cool and calm under different kinds of pressure, and to keep your head about you and think clearly at all times. It is not against the rules of the game to attempt to throw someone else off psychologically, through the use of a few wellplaced verbal jabs. So it does not violate the rules of the game, unlike collusion or other forms of cheating.

On the other hand, if you get to the point where it's just verbal abuse of the other player and you are constantly just hammering on them, this act could actually be harm your own spirit (emotional health) in various ways, including possibly by increasing your overall stress level. On the other hand, the additional money you gain from doing these things could increase your spirit over time--of course it could also harm it. I think the way to find the answer as to whether it is ethical to do something like this at the poker table is to compare the spiritual damage you will suffer from doing it to the spiritual gain you receive from the extra money.

So my final conclusion is that it would be unethical at times, and at other times completely unethical. If you figure it up chances are that it's a matter of whether or not that money will increase your spirit greatly (one could argue that in Barry Greenstein's case, or someone who is completely broke and needs the money badly in order to feed his family that this is going to weigh more heavily) and figure out whether what you will say will harm your own spirit. Some people are going to be affected by that type of thing a lot more than others, I would imagine.

[xniNja]

Good distinguishing of the ethics of cheating and chatting, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about with Greenstein or a broke player? Could you explain? My point about G, B, H was they increase their +EV by "killing with kindness."

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Good distinguishing of the ethics of cheating and chatting, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about with Greenstein or a broke player? Could you explain? My point about G, B, H was they increase their +EV by "killing with kindness."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well those statements were somewhat hypothetical as I haven't quite examined their truth yet (I meant to imply that, apologies if I didn't).

Barry Greenstein donates all of his tournament winnings to charity (ah, I forgot to specify tournament play ^^;;;); therefore, it is my hypothesis that he could benefit more spiritually from eeking out a few more thousand dollars of EV than someone else who is wealthy who simply keeps all his tournament winnings for himself.

The reason the broke player might benefit more spiritually from the additional money is that the additional money might allow his family to live more healthily and with more stability. It also might allow him to take more time off to spend time parenting his children and nurturing his relationship with his wife. These are things that will certainly contribute to his spiritual health, but if he has to constantly work he will never have a chance to do them.

The hypothetical player I was contrasting these two with was one that, like myself, plays poker either for a living or for recreation but probably does not really need a few additional big bets, and if he wins them will probably not spend them in ways that will particularly enhance his own spiritual growth.

I'm also not trying to imply that Barry Greenstein likes to rib other players or use table talk to put them on tilt--from what I have seen this isn't really the case, he seems pretty quiet at the poker table.

[xniNja]

I think you're misunderstanding the idea... Greenstein, Harrington, & Brunson are famous for being mild-mannered, proper-ettiquette- yet brilliantly successful players. It's not about whether their utility will increase or not by winning more money, it's that you can gain +EV (increased profits) by being kind, polite, and gentlemanly to your opponents. You don't need to engage in Matusow'ing to control a table or get reads. That's all I'm trying to say. Choose to play with class over playing like a moron. There's going to be enough morons anyway, and you should represent whatever you represent with dignity.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
"Being a dickhead" as you put it, is totally within the rules of the game. Collusion and cheating are totally outside of the rules of the game, that is the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party and any other site will ban your chat if you act like an ass. These sites will ban your account if you cheat/collude. Either way, they obviously disapprove of both behaviors. How is doing one until you are caught and punished different from the other?

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Being a dickhead" as you put it, is totally within the rules of the game. Collusion and cheating are totally outside of the rules of the game, that is the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party and any other site will ban your chat if you act like an ass. These sites will ban your account if you cheat/collude. Either way, they obviously disapprove of both behaviors. How is doing one until you are caught and punished different from the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point.

Well, if party poker considers heckling another player to be outside the confines of the game then I suppose it would be unethical to heckle other players on party, since by playing on their site you are basically entering into a contract with them and all the other players that you will play poker "by party's rules".

On the other hand, it might be that Party doesn't actually consider table talk to be part of the game. It's entirely possible that their definition of "the rules of poker" doesn't include anything about heckling. In that case, banter could potentially be ethical as long as it fits within the terms I discussed in my other post. The only additional factor that you'll have to take into account when calculating whether or not heckling is ethical is the chance of having your chat banned and the effect that would have on your short and long term spiritual growth.

Colluding with another player, using a bot, and any other forms of actual cheating are clearly outside of the rules of the game as far as I can tell. Entering into this kind of contract with the party community and then violating it would be an act of intentional dishonesty intended to take money from the community. I can't see how this sort of thing could possibly be a positive contributing factor towards spiritual growth, therefore it seems to me that all such acts are wrong.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're misunderstanding the idea... Greenstein, Harrington, &amp; Brunson are famous for being mild-mannered, proper-ettiquette- yet brilliantly successful players. It's not about whether their utility will increase or not by winning more money, it's that you can gain +EV (increased profits) by being kind, polite, and gentlemanly to your opponents. You don't need to engage in Matusow'ing to control a table or get reads. That's all I'm trying to say. Choose to play with class over playing like a moron. There's going to be enough morons anyway, and you should represent whatever you represent with dignity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe I have said anything that goes against what you are saying here. I don't understand why you feel you need to explain these things to me or what they really have to do with the situation. While it may be more +moneyEV to be civil at the table, we are not talking about optimizing the amount of money we earn. We are talking about whether a specific act is moral or immoral.

[Lestat]

My theory is that some people are just dicks. It's their natural personality and poker is just an excuse for them to do what they do best. Be a dick.

I do very well in poker and I try never to be unpleasant. I don't think being nice has hurt me any. In fact, I bleive being nice has had the effect of increasin my EV at the poker table.

[xniNja]

I'd contend it is immoral, based on societal norms, because it is not necessary to increase +EV in the game.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd contend it is immoral, based on societal norms, because it is not necessary to increase +EV in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're basically saying

Anything unncessary is wrong?
Anything society deems right is in fact right?

[xniNja]

No, that's not what I said at all. I said based on societal norms, those are the values and morals a society as a whole embodies, and because it is not a necessary or significant aspect of the game structure nor gamesmanship, it is immoral in the context of anything else seen as immoral by society, like public lewdness, or sexual harrassment.

[mike4bmp]

[ QUOTE ]
Play with class. Read Greenstein, Harrington, Brunson and stay away from Hellmuth if you don't know how to play with class &amp; still increase +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot Matusow...can't stand that f---ing guy.

[xniNja]

Hey, keep reading.. I used him as his own word later on!

[ QUOTE ]
The only additional factor that you'll have to take into account when calculating whether or not heckling is ethical is the chance of having your chat banned and the effect that would have on your short and long term spiritual growth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Got a chuckle out of that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Piers]

If I am playing to make money, them I am playing online, in which case there is no time to be a ‘douchbag’. If I am playing live, its just entertainment, and I prefer being in a pleasant atmosphere.

It would be nice if people were not annoying pricks at the poker table. It would make playing a more enjoyable experience. But I can't control the world so I've learned to ignore their BS and just concentrate on the game. After a while their annoying crap just becomes so much background noise.

[ QUOTE ]
is ANYTHING that allows us to get another 1/2 BB an hr justified, since the goal of playing poker is to make money?

[/ QUOTE ]I'm quite sure that's not the only goal of poker and any poker goal should not overshadow larger scope goals like being a good guy.

I like a little banter that might even cross the line into trash talk so long as it is good natured. Of course, good natured is a moving target, so I tend to go with what the rest of the table wants so long as it doesn't cross my personal line. No different than the way I'd act if I was invited to a friend's house for dinner and games -- with some friendly mocking is fine, with others it would be offensive.

I think guys that intentionally try to get under other peoples' skin by being a dickhead are, well, not people I'd like to associate with. In the poker world, I would put someone like Hellmuth in this category. I expect his antics are primarily an act -- I've heard bits and pieces about him being a nice guy away from the table. But, his choice to act like he does at the table tells me that he's not someone I'd like.

[hmkpoker]

Good post!

Poker played well is a means to making money. But let's go a step further than that and acknowledge that making money is a means to enjoying life (which I feel has self-evident rewards, and doesn't need to go any further).

Now let's mush this all up into a big abstract EV of some sort. Picture a 2+2er at a table, with a tight-aggressive approach to life. He's popping out 1BB/hr at his 40/80 game, but he hates it. He's not having fun, he's alienated himself, and he's miserable. Contrast with, say, a starving artist who's just barely getting by, but loves his job.

Now I won't discount that money is important; that $80/hour is why the shark plays that vicious game...but the quality of one's life is very important as well, and I would feel uncomfortable assigning value to these things.

Poker is a vicious game. I prefer playing online to playing live if there's anything significant at the table...I haven't reached the point yet where I can sit back and laugh and have comradery with others with my money on the line, and I honestly think very few people can.

When it comes to just having a good ol' time, NOT counting pot odds and outs, building a BR, and satisfying a thirst for blood, I'd rather just play a nickel-and-dime home game with friends, ignore the strategy, play wild cards, and just have a good time. Serious gaming and having fun rarely coincide, so I like to keep them as far apart as I can.