is this considered cheating?

[dollyfan]

If me and two friends went in together online and all three discussed every decision we made. Remember, We are not playing on seperate accounts on the same table. We are all playing infront of one computer with one account, just splitting the profit. If this is considered cheating what kind of punishment would we be looking at. Thanks in advance.

[DeadMoneyOC]

That is a silly idea. Three people playing one poker hand is crazy. Y'all would end up fighting like monkeys.

[Alobar]

3 people splitting the profits = not much money

Personally I'm against this. I think it should be one player to a hand. I know there are lots of people around here who IM other players the situation in the middle of the hand and ask for advice, and to me thats just not kosher. Even when I'm helping someone learn to play the game or giving a friend advice, I wont give him my advice until after hes made his decision.

[dollyfan]

[ QUOTE ]
That is a silly idea. Three people playing one poker hand is crazy. Y'all would end up fighting like monkeys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually we have done this before and it worked out really well. Our games compliment eachother very well, and we have all been friends for years so there is no fighting or bickering. But IS IT CHEATING?

[DeadMoneyOC]

Yeah. It is cheating. One player to a hand.

Would you ever get caught. Hell na.

[random]

No, it is not cheating.

[TomCollins]

Try searching Paul Phillips' blog. There was a debate on this earlier.

It really doesn't give you an unfair advantage, and its completely unenforceable online. Most sites do not list this as against their policies.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
If me and two friends went in together online and all three discussed every decision we made. Remember, We are not playing on seperate accounts on the same table. We are all playing infront of one computer with one account, just splitting the profit. If this is considered cheating what kind of punishment would we be looking at. Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not really cheating--just kind of sad and lame.

[Tony Corbett]

On the poker channel in the UK they have a show called "The Poker Godfather" where a pro goes to an online players home and gives advice on how to play hands during a tournament. I don't think the site would allow this if they considered it against the rules.

[James282]

It's not cheating at all.
-James

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
3 people splitting the profits = not much money

Personally I'm against this. I think it should be one player to a hand. I know there are lots of people around here who IM other players the situation in the middle of the hand and ask for advice, and to me thats just not kosher. Even when I'm helping someone learn to play the game or giving a friend advice, I wont give him my advice until after hes made his decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

so um whats your stance on sweat session coaching??

[spaminator101]

I don't think so. But of course that's just my personel oppinion

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3 people splitting the profits = not much money

Personally I'm against this. I think it should be one player to a hand. I know there are lots of people around here who IM other players the situation in the middle of the hand and ask for advice, and to me thats just not kosher. Even when I'm helping someone learn to play the game or giving a friend advice, I wont give him my advice until after hes made his decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

so um whats your stance on sweat session coaching??

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont give advice until after the player has made their decision. I also dont really do sweat session coaching.

To all the people who say its no big deal. Would you think it was ok if some big name pro like Ivey or Helmuth bought some entries for other people to play in a tourny, and if they themsleves busted out, they just went and stood behind their "friend" and told them every move to make?

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3 people splitting the profits = not much money

Personally I'm against this. I think it should be one player to a hand. I know there are lots of people around here who IM other players the situation in the middle of the hand and ask for advice, and to me thats just not kosher. Even when I'm helping someone learn to play the game or giving a friend advice, I wont give him my advice until after hes made his decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

so um whats your stance on sweat session coaching??

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont give advice until after the player has made their decision. I also dont really do sweat session coaching.

To all the people who say its no big deal. Would you think it was ok if some big name pro like Ivey or Helmuth bought some entries for other people to play in a tourny, and if they themsleves busted out, they just went and stood behind their "friend" and told them every move to make?

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as they didn't give advice until they were busted, who the hell cares?
-James

[timprov]

I think the one-player-to-a-hand rule is a good one, although I've not always adhered to it. But this is just one of the concessions you have to make when playing online. There's absolutely no way to enforce it, so it has to be allowed.

I do think you're foolish to be doing it, though. You have to be costing yourselves.

[PokerCat69]

So what happens when friend A, is saying 'raise' and friend B is telling you to 'fold'?

[Guernica4000]

[ QUOTE ]
So what happens when friend A, is saying 'raise' and friend B is telling you to 'fold'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Player C "checks"? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[arkady]

You have no advantage over other players, you are not utilizing anything that will enhance your play - therefore by definition, this is not cheating. Cheating is something that gives you an unfair advantage.

One might think, hey 3 heads is better than one...but in poker this is not the case. if you ask Party about this, they might not be thrilled about you doing it, but will you ever get caught, nah.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3 people splitting the profits = not much money

Personally I'm against this. I think it should be one player to a hand. I know there are lots of people around here who IM other players the situation in the middle of the hand and ask for advice, and to me thats just not kosher. Even when I'm helping someone learn to play the game or giving a friend advice, I wont give him my advice until after hes made his decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

so um whats your stance on sweat session coaching??

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont give advice until after the player has made their decision. I also dont really do sweat session coaching.

To all the people who say its no big deal. Would you think it was ok if some big name pro like Ivey or Helmuth bought some entries for other people to play in a tourny, and if they themsleves busted out, they just went and stood behind their "friend" and told them every move to make?

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as they didn't give advice until they were busted, who the hell cares?
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

you seriously think that would float with everyone? You knock out helmuth, but then hes basically still in the tourny playing? I somehow really cant see this being ok with the majority of people

[Biggenx]

so if one friend says fold and another says call, and you decide to call and you lose, does the friend who said fold demand a higher cut? (since of course said profit would be higher if you hadn't been a dumbass and called the huge bet)

[Ricardido]

I dont see anything wrong with it- but one table= boring.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Online this is not considered cheating (I recall a site specifically saying this could not be policed online, and so is not forbidden).

At a B&M, this is cheating. One player to a hand is strictly enforced.

[Uppercut]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not really cheating--just kind of sad and lame.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not really cheating--just kind of sad and lame.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[aflaba]

It's not cheating--whatever works for you.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]

you seriously think that would float with everyone? You knock out helmuth, but then hes basically still in the tourny playing? I somehow really cant see this being ok with the majority of people

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it wouldn't be okay with the majority of people. Especially the loony-toon conspiracy theorists that saturate the online poker world. But since you asked, "How would you feel..." I say, I'd feel OK.

And obviously, your example is much different than the OP's. Having 3 guys sitting and playing 1 table is much different than having 1 guy go around and play multiple entries in the same tournament. If I found out that Doyle, Johnny Chan, and Howard Lederer were all playing the same entry in a tournament - I would be much more likely to laugh in their face than be upset about their working together.
-James