Ethics of Intentionally Putting People on Tilt

[The Dude]

I'm sure I'll get some heat from quite a few for being a softie, but all comments appreciated.

While we have all benefitted from someone at our table being on tilt, where do you guys draw the line between the desire for profit, and the desire to be "a good neighbor." I have won countless pots from people steaming, and I make no apologies for that. But to me it is a whole 'nother ball game when it comes to doing things that encourage someone to go/stay on tilt.

I have no reservations profiting from someone on tilt, but the idealist in me would like to see poker become so clean that everybody plays in a healthy, stable manner. That means no gambling addicts and nobody on tilt.

Comments?

[GuyOnTilt]

Comments?

Dude, you're up way too early. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

GoT

[The Dude]

Up early? No, no, no. I'm up LATE. I'm about to hit the sack now! Get a good night's rest, then head to the office, if you know what I mean. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[LetsRock]

Personally, I don't care for the tactic of forcing someone into tilt. Once in a while, I'll play with a real meathead that is a total obnoxiuos PITA who I will encourage to get steamed, but in general, I'll try to be the "good neighbor".

[Al Schoonmaker]

In about two weeks cardplayer.com and cardrooms will have "Part II: Creating It," in my four part series on tilt. "Part I, Avoiding It," is currently available at both places. Since I don't want to compete with my own column, I won't take a position here. I'll just say that the first section is titled, "The Ethical Issue: How far can you go?"
I will be very interested in reactions to my position.
Regards,
Al

[Robk]

I don't think there's anything unethical about it. If someone exhibits tells when they talk during a hand, you're taking advantage of a psychological weakness. If someone goes nuts when you needle them, you're taking advantage of a psychological weakness. Is there some distinction I'm missing? It may not be classy, but that's another debate.

[toots]

Depends on the person, I guess.

If it's someone I've been having a pleasant game with, I wouldn't want to. If it's some guy who's spent the last five hands complaining about the bad beat he got six hands ago, I might be inclined to push him over the edge just for entertainment value.

Then again, I'd probably do that independently of any potential winnings I might see. Like I said: simply for the entertainment value.

I know that's rather harsh of me, but what the heck?

[aces_full]

I normally like to be a good neighbor, but if I see someone beginning to tilt, I have no problem pushing them over the edge and kicking them when they are down, especially if this person has been acting like a jerk.

The best time I had doing this was with a calling station who lost and lost and kept beating himself up for it. In one hand I had made a full house and he called me down with top pair. He got mad when he turned his cards over. I told him if he ever wanted to win he needed to fold a little more often. So a few hands later we end up heads-up in a pot. I have nothing but I bet it out. He folds, and I quickly turned over my cards. That sent him over the edge. It wasn't 30 more minutes until he was broke.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

In a live cardroom, I am always gentlemanly, nice, pleasant whether winning or losing, and will only purposely put someone on tilt when they are being a real JERK and totally deserve it. In those circumstances, I certainly know how to get under someone's skin, especially if I manage to beat them a few times. I have never claimed to be Mr. Nice Guy.

Online, I find the whole environment SO irritating and annoying that most of my live play ethics go straight out the window. Many of the advantages of a pro go out the window online, because the software protects the fish from making mistakes they would normally make live. Plus, there are a million fish waiting to get into your game online, so if you accidentally offend one, no biggie, 999,999 more are waiting for your table to have an open seat. So online I'll do all kinds of stuff to get an edge, even stuff I'd normally consider to be excessively ruthless in a casino. The anonymous nature of online play - I both despize it and take full advantage of it at the same time.

al

[GuyOnTilt]

Up early? No, no, no. I'm up LATE.

Same here. I hit the sack a couple minutes after posting. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

then head to the office, if you know what I mean.

Dude, what? No invite?

GoT

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone exhibits tells when they talk during a hand, you're taking advantage of a psychological weakness. If someone goes nuts when you needle them, you're taking advantage of a psychological weakness. Is there some distinction I'm missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is. One is a byproduct of maintaining the same behavior in all situations, and the other involves malice and the desire to see somebody make emotionally unstable decisions.

Anybody who has the desire to see poker lifted above the scummy, addict infested world so much of our society sees it as needs to support all players playing off tilt at all times.

Tilt at best leads to decisions that resemble the symptoms of a gambling problem. At worst it is the cause of many's gambling problems.

[The Dude]

Al,

Your response is one in particular I was looking for, but I respect your reasons for not posting quite yet. I eagerly await your article.

Others I am interested in hearing responses from: John Feeney, Mason Malmuth, David Sklansky, Ed Miller, Ray Zee. (I know, a bit of wishful thinking, but I'd like to hear thoughts from those who are shaping the industry.)

[bigpooch]

You're not sick enough. Would you drive a person who is
losing week in and week out to commit suicide?

[bigpooch]

That's nothing. There was a woman who was complaining about
my asking to see her hole cards (Not classy, but I just saw
that she didn't like it, and I really wanted to see her hand
to verify some ideas about how she played! In any case, I
was technically doing what is allowable because of these
ridiculous rules at the casino whereby anyone at the table
can ask for a live hand to be exposed!). So, obviously, she
was a bit upset over this, but this is even worse: exposing
that she is upset about this little thing (so it's a trigger
that can push her over the edge in the future by any of the
other thinking players!).

Then this hand came up: I was in the CO with Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
and took the flop with almost the full field when this
woman on the button raised, so 7 or 8 to the flop! The flop
came down something like A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif
giving me second-nut flush draw. So, I made the standard
play and checkraised this woman on the flop: again, 7 or so
players to the turn! The turn paired on 8s and everyone
checked. I had now easily deduced that the woman held a
pocket pair between 9s and Ks inclusive. The river brought
an ace, and if anyone is going to win this ridiculously big
pot, it's going to be me with my squeaky clean tight image!
After a bunch of checks to me, I bet and of course, this
woman took a few seconds and then mucked (she probably held
QQ or KK for the hesitation!) and after everyone folded, I
gladly obliged to let her see MY cards. And of course, she
could very well have gone on tilt for weeks after that, but
why expose such psychological frailty to people that might
take advantage of it and put you over the edge? And
especially someone that not only would induce future tilting
but is able to endure all sorts of juice and never tilt!

[rodeoclown]

With the growing legitamacy of poker as a skill game,
it is becoming clearer that the mainstream will soon
see poker as the sport that I believe it is. ESPN
broadcasts of the World Series are old news as NBC
will air the WPT Battle of Champions prior to the Super
Bowl today.

With this growth in the game will come all sorts of
"ethical" issues, and some issues of "fairness" that
have nothing to do with ethics. I'm a Pats fan myself,
but was it "fair" that all the AFC playoff teams had
to come through the cold of New England for a shot at
the Super Bowl? In poker, "home field advantage" can play
a part, and I'm not sure anyone on this forum would
suggest that we should make the tourists feel all warm
and cozy when they sit down. Poker is a competition,
and one that I like to win, so I don't see why I should
wish anyone to be on their best game. As far as putting
someone on tilt purposely, I think that's part of the
game. If you can't handle the pressure, you shouldn't
be playing at that table. The last thing I want to see
in poker is the type of "taming" there is in the NFL,
where players get fined for celebrating a touchdown.
You see "trash talk" constantly in sports, and I can
think of no more appropriate sport for it than poker,
which, at its crux, is a game of psychological warfare.
Whether I'm trying to captain a table, tilt a big stack,
or simply hide the fact that I'M tilting, I'm going to
use any weapons I have at my disposal, and I don't see
anything unethical about it. Tilt away.

P.S. There are places I draw the line. At the Sahara
tournament I played in, they allowed smoking, which
suited me just fine. The smoke bothered some of the
field, which was also just fine with me, but one of
the players who showed up late happened to be pregnant.
As much as I love to tilt people, my butts went out
until I busted her from the game. Cold and competitive
I may be, but there are lines I won't cross.

[spamuell]

I'm not sure anyone on this forum would suggest that we should make the tourists feel all warm and cozy when they sit down.

I'm pretty sure almost everyone on this forum would suggest that that's exactly how you want the tourists to feel when they sit down. If they sit down and start to feel miserable and not have fun, they'll leave, which is exactly what you don't want.

As for whether or not it's ethical to put someone on tilt intentionally - it's certainly not very nice. But, when people sit down at a poker table, they understand that they're going to risk the money that they buy-in. It happens to be a tactic that I'm reluctant to employ, as I prefer to play in a pleasant environment, but it's all part of the game.

[CrisBrown]

Hi rodeo,

Yes, poker is emerging as a "sport," but there are many models for sportsmanship, and I don't think poker must or should follow the testosterone-charged, win-at-all-costs model exhibited in the NFL.

Golf and tennis are no less sports than football, yet golfers and tennis players don't trash-talk each other. A handful of "colorful" tennis pros trash-talk the linesmen and referees, but even McEnroe and Connors didn't trash-talk each other.

I'd prefer that poker follow the golf/tennis model than the football model. The game has plenty of aggression inherent in its structure. I don't see a reason to add more, just to massage the egos of guys who want to believe they're on a masculine par with NFL stars....

Cris

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a competition, and one that I like to win, so I don't see why I should wish anyone to be on their best game. As far as putting someone on tilt purposely, I think that's part of the game. If you can't handle the pressure, you shouldn't be playing at that table.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are elements of truth in what you say. You are referring exclusively to tournament play, which - by its very nature - is much more competitive than live, ring play. I suppose I didn't specify, but I was more referring to live play.

I don't have any data to support this supposition, but I would imagine that there is a great deal more "unhealthy gambling" going on in live games than tourneys. Because of the nature of addictive behavior, problem gamblers are much less likely to be involved in tournaments than live.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't handle the pressure, you shouldn't
be playing at that table.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is merit to this statement when referring to the final table at a WPT tournament. I think we all agree that a regular ring game is a whole 'nother story.

Comments?

[Dov]

I think that this comment applies to ring games as well. You are not actually doing yourself or anyone else a favor by playing softly.

I understand that you are referring to deliberately making someone lose their emotional calmness to degrade their decision making ability, but let me ask you this:

Would you bluff a gambling addict or play your cards in a straightforward way?

This is essentially the same question at the table because they both cause the opponent to make bad decisions which will negatively affect his financial situation.

Since you are not responsible for his finances, I think that we need to assume that he knows the risks going in. Therefore, anyone who is sitting at the table is fair game.

If you are not financially responsible, you will go broke no matter what your area of endeavor. (unless you get lucky)

I think that if you know for a fact that someone is an addict, and you don't like playing against them, then you should quit the game. Anything else borders on collusion whether it is intentional or not.

BTW, there are many addicts in the business world as well. Nobody has any problem with taking their money.

I think what it comes down to is your motivation for playing the game. If you live by your earnings, then you must treat it like a business. That is not to say that you can't be nice away from the table, but at the table you have to play to win. That includes exploiting players who can be tilted easily.

[goofball]

correct. poker is a competition. the other guys at the table are your opponents and you are trying to win. To that end there is no ethical dilemma with doing anything you can to win, so long as you do not gain an unfair advantage (knowing what the next card is etc).

You shouldn't feel bad for taking someone's money who sits down at the poker table, and you shouldn't feel bad for employing any other psychologicla tactics necessary to win.

However, whether being an [censored] and attmepting to put someone on tilt is an effective strategy is in my opinion highly debatable.

[warlockjd]

Michael Jordan talked more trash than any other basketball player I've seen.

Hmm....

[Ed Miller]

I'm certainly no authority on this issue...

I don't try to put people on tilt for the sake of putting them on tilt. Occasionally I have been known to egg on a steamer who is being whiny/abusive to others. I have little tolerance for people who are abusive to others at the table... especially to live ones or inexperienced players.

If someone is doing that, I might say something if I think it will humiliate him or push him over the edge a bit.

[The Dude]

Ed,

The basis for my question is this: I believe firmly that the poker industry will benefit TREMENDOUSLY from its ability to remove itself from problem gambling behavior.

Statistically, poker is much less likely than other forms of gambling to cause/attract addictive or problematic behavior. Even so, those interested in promoting the industry should do everything they can to reduce the connection between poker and problem behavior... and that means keeping people off tilt.

Am I wrong here?

[Lunamondo]

Bad manners are bad ethics, more or less be barred, but there are also player who know that someone goes more or less to some sort of tilt or imbalance when he loses many hands or something, faces type of play he is not comfortable or skilled with, and so some of his opponents might adjust to it by trying to draw out more often in marginal cases, change their way of play to get the best of it, like check-raise someone who can't handle it emotionally.

The only problem here is that if one becomes a personality that tries to produce nastiness out of people, even without being nasty (we are more or less like that when we tilt, while here we do not, but just try to make money with it), it comes to the boarder of ethics, even though it's so only because of the other's weakness of tolerating them.

We adjust to the way the opponents play, also weighting their egos etc., as it affects especially the actions of the less skilled/experienced (= less controlled) players. We create some confusion if necessary to make us less predictable, and we can try to imbalance the opponents psychologically, causing them to not play their best game; these tricks are part of poker and are ethical, while if someone can't handle something emotionally, why one would not be ethically allowed to take advantage of it? As long as it does not make one a nasty person, I don't see there is anything wrong about it, even though it's not part of card skills, just part of the psychological factors.

[Dov]

I think you are.

Take this common scenario...

A 20-40 player is playing 10-20 while waiting for a seat in his regular game. He is raising almost every hand on every street because he knows that the other players at the table aren't comfortable playing at that level. He is essentially putting them on tilt. (one form anyway)

I agree that there shouldn't be bad behavior at the table. The difference is that people play this sport with their own money, and that same money is used to keep score. Many people are emotionally attached to money and if that attachment is too great, then they shouldn't play.

But who is to say when enough is enough? Do you really want some floorperson to come over and tell you that you're done for the night because you're tilting? How does he know? It's your money! Right?

The nature of the game makes it very difficult to implement what you are discussing in the middle of the game. Someone with tilt issues should address them outside of the game or expect to lose.

[The Dude]

Dov,

Thanks for your replies. You think logically, and you explain your position well.

[ QUOTE ]
...He is essentially putting them on tilt. (one form anyway)

[/ QUOTE ]
I will grant that not all forms of tilt lead to problem gambling (perhaps even most forms). As long as that form of tilt doesn't cause emotional instability and/or problem behavior (not the same as poor poker play), it's fair game. I see no ethical dilemma.

Here's one example of unethically tilting someone. When you bust someone out, goading them on so they will continue to rebuy, especially if this happens more than once. I saw this happen where a good player egged on a complete fish in a live NL game. The fish rebought four times, and it was clearly more than he was willing to lose.

Here's where it becomes a problem:
1.When we lose respect for the other person as a human being (i.e. not caring about the damage we are doing to someone - financially, emotionally, etc. - the way we would if it were a good friend)... the idealism.
2. When we fail to make efforts to remove poker from the stereotyped "dirty gambling industry." The long term benefits of the industry as a whole must be weighed against the one-time profit we make from exploiting this tiliting customer. Do we want to take all the customer's money this one time, or would we rather build the industry as a whole and have more repeat customers?... the realism.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really want some floorperson to come over and tell you that you're done for the night because you're tilting? How does he know? It's your money! Right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe there is a great deal of responsibility on the casinos themselves to recognize problem gambling and stop it when they can. As much as we love the poker industry, we cannot ignore the truth that gambling addictions are real, and we cannot adopt the "not on us" philosophy that leads to social apathy. This is the reason most bars and restaurants across the country do not let people leave intoxicated.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
As much as we love the poker industry, we cannot ignore the truth that gambling addictions are real, and we cannot adopt the "not on us" philosophy that leads to social apathy. This is the reason most bars and restaurants across the country do not let people leave intoxicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the reason bars and restraurants do not allow overly intoxicated persons to leave by themselves is because of the physical harm they may inflict on themselves (e.g. passing out in the snow) or someone else (e.g. driving). I have never seen an establishment refuse to allow a patron to spend too much money on drinks, especially if the patron is buying drinks for others. This is no different from allowing a poker player to lose all of his money.

[The Dude]

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> No, the reason bars and restraurants do not allow overly intoxicated persons to leave by themselves is because of the physical harm they may inflict on themselves... or others... </pre><hr />

Are you denying that those with problem gambling behavior do major harm to themsleves and those in thier lives? I hope not, because that position is simply undefendable in light of real data.

Granted, intoxication is much easier to observe/ predict than problem gambling, but let's not be naive here and pretend we haven't all seen it clear as day.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> No, the reason bars and restraurants do not allow overly intoxicated persons to leave by themselves is because of the physical harm they may inflict on themselves... or others... </pre><hr />

Are you denying that those with problem gambling behavior do major harm to themsleves and those in thier lives? I hope not, because that position is simply undefendable in light of real data.

Granted, intoxication is much easier to observe/ predict than problem gambling, but let's not be naive here and pretend we haven't all seen it clear as day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response, while valid, has nothing to do with my response, which was to explain that places that serve alcohol try to prevent some drunks from leaving alone do to the immediate harm they may cause to themselves or someone else.

Bars and taverns that wanted to help alcoholics would not serve them at all...which only happens in Fantasyland.

Indeed, casinos that wanted to help gambling addicts would refuse to take any of their action...also occurs only in Fantasyland.

[bomblade]

I find very few things unethical at a poker table. I look at what other perceive as unethical as my edge. If a player is flashing his cards, I peek. If a player prematurely throws his hand over, I raise. If a player is on tilt, I try to put them on worse tilt.
Is it unethical to exploit someone's tell for maximum profit? No one would think so, because reading someone is a skill. So is putting someone on tilt.
There are a few different kinds of tilt player however. The most common would be the one who loses with AA a couple times and starts playing all suited cards. They loosen up their game, but after the flop, they're not necessarily a maniac. This player you don't really put on worse tilt, this is basically the limit to their tilt.
One other type is the one that starts raising and trying to bully his way into pots. This player often times acts like a complete [censored], talks a lot of trash, and seeks revenge against those who took advantage of his poor play. This is the player I want to put on worse tilt.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I find very few things unethical at a poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm.