Sold my losing stack for a profit.Views?

[cianosheehan]

At quite a messy homegame, a good while ago, we were playing a $50 buy in, winner takes all, no re-buys. Ten people put $50 in. I was in the remaining three people, but was rediculously out-stacked. Because the game was going on quite late, (it was about 6am, one guy had to be in work for 8am or something!) we came to an agreement that if it reached a certain time the pot would be split three ways. But I knew I would probably not stay in the game because I was so outstacked. To one of the guys who had been knocked out, I said jokingly that I would sell my stack to him for $100. He agreed. This guy loves gambling, is quite a bad poker player and can throw his money away very quickly. So, I gave him my stack for $90 (I let him off $10 for some reason), and he was next to be knocked out.
Views?

[Toro]

Can you give me his phone #. I want to invite him to my next game.

[cianosheehan]

Do you think in any way it was an un-ethical thing to do? Or against the essence of poker?

[LikesToLose]

Your move was +EV and his was -EV. I think that IS the essence of poker.

[J.A.Sucker]

It may not have been as bad a deal as you think. However, this depends on a few things:

1. How deep the stacks are.
2. How big the blinds are.
3. How well you play vs. your opponents
4. How well your buddy plays vs. your opponents.
5. How much your time is worth.
6. How much his time is worth.

You may have made a good deal for you, but playing it out may have been better. Saying that he busted out next and therefore it's a bad deal for him is results oriented. If he doubles up on that hand and is even in chips with the others who play like idiots, then it may actually be close to EV-neutral or even slightly +EV. People underestimate the smallest stack in these situations in tournament deals all the time, especially in NL/PL tourneys.

[cianosheehan]

Yeah I know what you mean. But it wasnt really a tournament game, it was more like a ring game, where no-one can re-buy, and it keeps going until one person has everything. Back then we didnt know alot about tournament structures, with proper blind increases etc. So for that reason the game was going on for hours. And for me to have played, even at the best I could possibly play, to win that game would have taken another good few hours. And I didnt think, at that stage I was going to last until the appointed time limit. It was just one of those messy, big games, when no-one yet knew the best way of doing things.

[Bob T.]

It depends on exactly how small your stack was at the time.

[neotope]

I would think in a winner take all situation you made a pretty good move. Normally when I setup something like that I will run it like a $50 Sit-N-Go so you would have been getting money either way for being in third place. However if the winner takes all and you really feel that you can't win then getting your buy-in back plus money on top seems like a good thing to do. I doubt it is really unethical as long as everybody agreed to what was going on. What would you have done if the other person left would have said no?