100-200 Lifeline

[J_V]

You pump 10-10 in MP1. You haven't lost a pot yet and feel like a million bucks. The guy directly to you left 3-bets quickly. The guy behind him instantly 4-bets, obviously using the raise any button.

You are annoyed because you hate the raise any button and call.


You quickly IM a regular in the game and ask him about the 4 bettor, "Is XXXXXX, good or bad?" He responds with "def not bad."

The flop comes 9-7-5. Two clubs. You are clubless. You think about leading but check. 3 better checks, Capper insta bets. You call as does the yokal behind you.

Turn 5 and you check fold.

Any good?

[NLfool]

y no CR if the IMer told you the capper has loose capping standards. I'd definitely like to get rid of someone with some overs

[jogumon]

It seems like you put him on an overpair. If that's the case, why call the flop. Best case scenario, you get to see the turn for one bet, spike your T, get to check raise, and maybe get enough money to justify the call, barely.

There's still the chance the yokel behind you is waiting to check raise. If you really believe the capper has an overpair, and are planning to fold the turn unimproved, fold the flop.

[J_V]

Well it's not 100% he has an overpair. If he has an overpair and I call a flop bet it's not a big mistake. Coupled with the fact that the turn could get checked around, I think calling the flop is right.

[J_V]

The IMer told me that his capping standards were probably not loose.

[stoxtrader]

c/r to fold overs can be an expensive way to find out you are against an overpair.

This is basically player dependant and of course not a clear spot, otherswise JV wouldnt post it.

Depending on the range you can put the other two on, it becomse a math question.

I'm fine with your line, A pre-flop fold is also ok, flame away on that.

[worm33]

I'm fine with your line, A pre-flop fold is also ok, flame away on that.

[/ QUOTE ]



Hasnt the math been done on this many times? Getting like 5.1/1 to flop a set alone?

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
You quickly IM a regular in the game and ask him about the 4 bettor, "Is XXXXXX, good or bad?" He responds with "def not bad."

[/ QUOTE ]

One player to a hand is an accepted and respected part of poker, except when online. One of the things B&M has over online. I'm sure that stuff is done all the time and it's cheezy, to say the least.

[roy_miami]

[ QUOTE ]
You quickly IM a regular in the game and ask him about the 4 bettor, "Is XXXXXX, good or bad?" He responds with "def not bad."


[/ QUOTE ]

Anybody have any moral issues with using IM with your buddies at the tables?

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody have any moral issues with using IM with your buddies at the tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

Say what? I'm not gonna defend myself, I'll just say that having moral issues with this is absurd.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
Say what? I'm not gonna defend myself, I'll just say that having moral issues with this is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You either didn't read or don't respond to my post. Either way it doesn't matter. Moral issues aside, IM'ing a buddy and gaining info during a hand totally violates the one player to a hand rule. You feel you don't have to defend yourself about it. That's funny. So, in other words, there's 2 sets of rules about the integrity of poker - live and online. I'd like to see your reaction when the guy sitting next to you at the table asks the buddy next to him what he knows about you. I'm guessing you'd have a problem with it. Hypocritical.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Say what? I'm not gonna defend myself, I'll just say that having moral issues with this is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You either didn't read or don't respond to my post. Either way it doesn't matter. Moral issues aside, IM'ing a buddy and gaining info during a hand totally violates the one player to a hand rule. You feel you don't have to defend yourself about it. That's funny. So, in other words, there's 2 sets of rules about the integrity of poker - live and online. I'd like to see your reaction when the guy sitting next to you at the table asks the buddy next to him what he knows about you. I'm guessing you'd have a problem with it. Hypocritical.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are your feelings on pokertracker and datamining?

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
What are your feelings on pokertracker and datamining?

[/ QUOTE ]

By asking that does it mean you feel IM'ing is the same as using PT?

What's your thoughts about IM'ing back and forth while playing a hand? Does it violate the rule, or is it different because it's hidden? I'm guessing you've done it, have no problem with it and correlate it with PT as justifiable.

BTW - there was a thread about Party not being able to be mined in the future. Not sure how accurate it is.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Say what? I'm not gonna defend myself, I'll just say that having moral issues with this is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You either didn't read or don't respond to my post. Either way it doesn't matter. Moral issues aside, IM'ing a buddy and gaining info during a hand totally violates the one player to a hand rule. You feel you don't have to defend yourself about it. That's funny. So, in other words, there's 2 sets of rules about the integrity of poker - live and online. I'd like to see your reaction when the guy sitting next to you at the table asks the buddy next to him what he knows about you. I'm guessing you'd have a problem with it. Hypocritical.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. You cant possibly compare live poker to internet poker in this way. Information has become an accepted part of the game. Pokertracker, datamining, pokerstove, pokerace, notes files etc. I remember an article Negraneu wrote a while back about him and three of his friends sitting around playing omaha on his account sharing the decisions. Spliting buy ins, sharing accounts, sharing player info etc is a part of internet poker. As long as there is no collusion, as far as Im concerned they can check their notes, IM Aunt Bula or call the Hustler for information on my play. Its all fair game on the net.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
You either didn't read or don't respond to my post. Either way it doesn't matter. Moral issues aside, IM'ing a buddy and gaining info during a hand totally violates the one player to a hand rule. You feel you don't have to defend yourself about it. That's funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you show me an online poker site out there that outlines this rule on their website?

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Steve, I'm right about the distinction existing. You've plainly stated there's 2 sets of rules about the one player to a hand rule. Online doesn't hold itself to the same level of integrity live play does. You won't like the phrasing of that but, based on everything you said, that is a true statement. You clarified that.

I never thought it was okay and get pissed when I know guys are obviously IM'ing in the middle of a hand. I got it now. It's not okay live, but is online. I'm surprised and disappointed of the attitude and acceptance of it, but have no desire to swim against the tide here. No problem.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Steve, I'm right about the distinction existing. You've plainly stated there's 2 sets of rules about the one player to a hand rule. Online doesn't hold itself to the same level of integrity live play does. You won't like the phrasing of that but, based on everything you said, that is a true statement. You clarified that.

I never thought it was okay and get pissed when I know guys are obviously IM'ing in the middle of a hand. I got it now. It's not okay live, but is online. I'm surprised and disappointed of the attitude and acceptance of it, but have no desire to swim against the tide here. No problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are your thoughts on people sharing their PT databases then?

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Steve, I'm right about the distinction existing. You've plainly stated there's 2 sets of rules about the one player to a hand rule. Online doesn't hold itself to the same level of integrity live play does. You won't like the phrasing of that but, based on everything you said, that is a true statement. You clarified that.

I never thought it was okay and get pissed when I know guys are obviously IM'ing in the middle of a hand. I got it now. It's not okay live, but is online. I'm surprised and disappointed of the attitude and acceptance of it, but have no desire to swim against the tide here. No problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I cant argue with any of that. I guess there is a lower standard to a point, and defintely a different set of rules.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fine with your line, A pre-flop fold is also ok, flame away on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hasnt the math been done on this many times? Getting like 5.1/1 to flop a set alone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have said a flop fold was fine. here is the math on pre-flop:

not sure if it has been done many times or not. You are approximately 7.5:1 against flopping a set. You are getting 11.5:2 (5.75:1) when it gets back to you assuming the 3 better calls the cap and it's 3 of you to the flop.

You will need to average a profit of an additional 3.5SB post-flop when you hit your set in order to breakeven, which seems reasaonable to assume even given the fact that you are against only two players, out of position and its possible 1 or both have overpairs and set over set is a concern. I still agree the pre-flop call is pretty easy and a fold would be bad. sorry about that.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see your reaction when the guy sitting next to you at the table asks the buddy next to him what he knows about you. I'm guessing you'd have a problem with it. Hypocritical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fully expect someone to ask questions about me. I don't care if its at lunch or during the hand. It really wouldn't even get me to flinch.

The one person to hand rule is a joke online. We need to be more worried about more than one person to an account, but apparently that is legal too.

I did read your post, I read all your posts and usually agree with them. I disagree with this one, but since it says about the same thing to roy miami's I didn't think responding twice would be prudent.

[J_V]

IM'ing is way less threatening than pokertracker.

You could be the best poker player on the planet, but if you can't figure out how to run a pokertracker, good luck handling the other good players who have every bit of information they could possibly want on you. Is that still with the integrity of the game?

[Paluka]

There are dudes sharing their hands and colluding and who knows what else online, and you want to get uppity because someone AIMs someone "dude, just how tight is this guy"?

[J_V]

If the response of the IM is "Big fish." Does that make c/r the flop or turn correct?

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
I fully expect someone to ask questions about me. I don't care if its at lunch or during the hand. It really wouldn't even get me to flinch.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as the IM'ing , etc, after reading what Steve G. wrote, it's obviously accepted by many on here so that's that. Guys do it, no one cares, so f*ck it. I obviously didn't realize good players accepted it. I thought it was only for the weasels. It's obviously not and doesn't change anything. I'm no crusader for lost causes. Now guys are asking me my thoughts on PT and mining. It's funny. Who gives a sh*t?

But tell me, why would you expect someone to ask about you? At lunch or at the table? I'm guessing you don't smell or dress funny, so what's the reason? I asked someone a while back who said he knew him if you were John Vorhaus and he said no. I'd guess he could expect to be recognized at the table. But JV from 2+2 who isn't smelling, yelling, looking funny or Vorhaus, who would give a f*ck? Seriously.

[roy_miami]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody have any moral issues with using IM with your buddies at the tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

Say what? I'm not gonna defend myself, I'll just say that having moral issues with this is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you this. Would you have been comfortable asking if the button was any good over the chat window at the table? Or announcing to the table that you and so-and-so will be discussing strategy via an IM during the session?

IMO, it is immoral to discuss strategy with another player while you are involved in a hand no matter what the medium, even if its a simple question like is he any good. I may be a bit biased on this issue because I know of a few guys that I played a lot with that were using an IM during play, I'm pretty sure they were sharing reads on me and developing counter strategies together against me and I know they were colluding by sharing hole cards.

I would not feel comfortable playing with 2 guys using IM at the table especially at a tough high limit game. If I knew 5 or 6 of my opponents were using IM I would get the hell out of dodge before you could even say IM.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you this. Would you have been comfortable asking if the button was any good over the chat window at the table? Or announcing to the table that you and so-and-so will be discussing strategy via an IM during the session?


[/ QUOTE ]

If it's an accepted strategy, the answer to this should be yes.

I nearly vomited when I read this thread.

Do your [censored] research prior to going to the table. Not during.

[skp]

IMO, it is defintely a moral issue.

I am sure there are guys who ask seemingly innocent questions like you did while others find out what their buddy folded on a key hand before deciding on a course of action while still others collude every chance they get.

There seems to be a fine line there as to what is cheating and what is not. What you did is clearly not cheating but the whole chatting with another player on MSN or whatever smells bad.

I simply would never do it.

[CanKid]

As well as an 8, 6 or 10 falling

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
But tell me, why would you expect someone to ask about you? At lunch or at the table? I'm guessing you don't smell or dress funny, so what's the reason? I asked someone a while back who said he knew him if you were John Vorhaus and he said no. I'd guess he could expect to be recognized at the table. But JV from 2+2 who isn't smelling, yelling, looking funny or Vorhaus, who would give a f*ck? Seriously.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we have a disconnect somewhere. I was talking about online play but if it were live play it would be the same.

If I played regularly in a high limit game, I would ask other friends in the game what they thought about certain players. I know if I played everyday people would be trying to get a line on me. And not just because I'm the best dressed guy in the room.

I am not John Vorhaus, so unfortunately I'm not every poker player's idol. 12 year old girls don't have posters of me on their bedroom wall and I don't play Killer Poker.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure there are guys who ask seemingly innocent questions like you did while others find out what their buddy folded on a key hand before deciding on a course of action while still others collude every chance they get.


[/ QUOTE ]

An awfully slippery slope, no? I wrote out a long defense of my position, but I honestly feel that my position is so clear that defending it is unnecessary. For those that play online poker as their primary hobby and I know over a 100 probably, everyone talks to other poker players while they play (not in the same game, unless to trash talk.) Talking about hands they've played, other players tendencies, bad beat stories, current tourney stack size, girls they are trying to get with etc.

I want to be clear that the player I IMed was not playing.

If you assumed we were in the same game, then I can sort've see the slippery slope, otherwise not at all.

You've obviously established that your actions are totally legal. I completely disagree.



What you did is not allowed at live games.

PokerTracker and PaHUD are fine in my opinion. There is nothing stopping a live player from standing at tables and recording every play that goes on. There is nothing wrong with a live player paying someone else to watch other tables and record everything that is going on.

As a matter of fact it's more reliable for a live player.
They can be sure the info is recorded accurately. They can record tells as well. And if someone changes their name, it doesn't matter.

I don't have a problem with IMing people either. There is nothing that stops a live player from talking to other players at the table or at another table for that matter. They can discuss strategy, they can even ask other players at other tables about players at their table. So, no problem.

Here is the line that I think you crossed:

You asked another player about someone in your game DURING a hand. AND you are then changing the way you played against that opponent in that SAME hand based on that information.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

As I said before - do your research BEFORE you sit down to play a hand, not DURING.

[elindauer]

Hi Kwaz,

You make an interesting argument and it's certainly consistent. What you need to consider though is that your definition of what is moral and what isn't is arbitrary. It could be anything.

For example, we could all agree that collusion is perfectly legal. The whole game of poker could be a complicated conflict between teams signalling each other whole cards and coming up with strategies for beating other teams at the table. This would certainly be a fantastic, intellectually stimulating game, right? There's no reason this has to be "immoral", aside from us deciding arbitrarily that it is so.

So, what's the point? Well, once you see that defining morality is a rather arbitrary exercise, you start to ask yourself why you've defined the lines the way you have. One thing that I've come to realize is that in many ways it seems silly to draw these lines in ways that go against human nature, especially if those ways are totally unenforcable, and really especially if there isn't some overwhelming societal good that comes from drawing the lines this way.

In this case, there really isn't any harm done at all. All the information gathered is essentially public knowledge, and the difference between gathering the info before the hand or during the hand is aesthetic.

We've all agreed that sharing non-public information, in particular hole card information, is immoral. This is very difficult / impossible to enforce but we do see a major "societal" benefit to it, that of keeping the game as the contest between individuals that we enjoy so much.

Essentially what I'm saying is, your definition of morality, while consistent, is not very useful. It's rather arbitrary and refuses to acknowledge the reality of the world we live in. Further, your definition doesn't make the game any better then it is otherwise. In light of all that, it seems clear that your definition is flawed and you should just accept that public information can morally be traded at all times.

If you want to keep the "old" definition in place for live play, fine. It's easy enough to police. But that doesn't make it any less arbitrary or unecessary.

-Eric

[bilyin]

The reason why you do not feel what you have done is unethical is because you are an unethical person.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why you do not feel what you have done is unethical is because you are an unethical person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me one online cardroom that explicity states "one person to a hand".

B&M cardrooms do it (see Canterbury Park's rules (http://www.canterburypark.com/cardclub/genrules/pokerrules.htm), section B.1.k), so it's clearly prohibited there. Maybe online sites don't prohibit it...

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
There are dudes sharing their hands and colluding and who knows what else online, and you want to get uppity because someone AIMs someone "dude, just how tight is this guy"?

[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't prosecute for assault, either, since people are getting murdered everyday.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are dudes sharing their hands and colluding and who knows what else online, and you want to get uppity because someone AIMs someone "dude, just how tight is this guy"?

[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't prosecute for assault, either, since people are getting murdered everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

but hypothetically, if one state says that assault is not a crime, then commiting assault in that state would not be grounds for criminal prosecution, as is the analogy here.

on the internet, there is no 1 player to a hand rule. i know very well known and respected players that watch each other play and discuss hands before during and after. im not willing to go that far, nor do i think its explicitly against the ruels of online poker.

for me, however, i just keep it to questions about a player at the worst. i can't remember the last time i did it but i would have no problem im'ing lee and asking: "quick, read on XYZ." since that information could be useful in decision making in the hand. i wouldn't IM him and ask, "XYZ bet the turn after raising pf and betting the flop, should i fold?" b/c that asks for a specific action that I should be able to reach by myself. getting information to make that action isn't wrong in my ethical world, but asking a specific action would be b/c its not you "playing" the hand.

in any case, neither of those would be "illegal" online b/c i have yet to see any explicit rule saying only 1 p layer may play a hand.

Barron