Re: Moral Dillema on PartyPoker
 

I would have done the same thing. I'm not going to defend my point-of-view, but give me a break, this guy is just some random awful player and you guys don't want to take his money.

-Michael

More thoughts and another question
 

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for their responses so far, including the really harsh ones. As I already said, before and after I took this guys money, I felt really conflicted about my choice (which shows I'm not a completely heartless a**hole, right?) and that’s why I posted here.

After thinking this through, I can't get away from the fact that tons of my profits in poker have come from compulsive gamblers and other people who gambled with money they couldn't afford to lose. It is a sad fact that poker players are predatory in nature (who doesn't change tables because a known donator has shown up, or offers a heads up challenge to weak player in a full ring game) and we generally don't consider it our duty to make sure the donators will not be hurt by taking their money.

What made me decide to go ahead with the heads up match was his insistence that the money he was playing with was hardly a drop in the bucket compared with his executive salary. Had this not been the case, I would not have played him heads up and would have persisted in my efforts to stop him in the full NL game.

So, considering it was money that he could afford to lose, why wasn't my proposition akin to a pro in Vegas challenging Rene (Celine Dion's husband - a billionaire with a gambling problem) to a heads up match? What is it about the grief that my opponent feels, as opposed to the many other things that put opponents on tilt, that makes him off limits here?

Re: Moral Dillema on PartyPoker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because there are lots of people out there who would steal your car if don't lock it doesn't mean that you should run around stealing cars.

[/ QUOTE ]

That´s pretty much my opinion too.

All this law-of-the-jungle-macho-BS (Feed of the weak!! It was me or him!!!) is pretty silly, I think. Situations like these are such a rare beast that I can´t see why normal decency wouldn´t fit - Party Poker is full of "normal" fish that you can feed of so it´s not like you are giving up much EV in return for sleeping well at night.

We don´t go around stealing candy from kids just because we are stronger. We don´t stick our dicks in women just because they pass out on the floor after one beer too many. We don´t try to fill our home games with mentally challenged people. Well, some of us does, but that is not the norm.

There are plenty of "opportunities" that we pass on, so why should this be any different, if you truely belive the guy?

(That said, I think he was full of it.)

Re: Moral Dillema on PartyPoker
 

That said, I think he was full of it.

If you are talking about the guy I played heads up, he referred me to a website where his wife had written a lengthy account of her pregnancy and subsequent tragedy.

In my mind, it was like 100-1 that his story was legit.

Re: Moral Dillema on PartyPoker
 

I could refer you to a site about a dog that died in a car accident. Would you belive me if I told you my dog was hit by a truck?

But yeah, it could very well be legit. It is (like they say around here) situation dependant.

/twang

Re: Moral Dillema on PartyPoker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just because there are lots of people out there who would steal your car if don't lock it doesn't mean that you should run around stealing cars.

[/ QUOTE ]

That´s pretty much my opinion too.

All this law-of-the-jungle-macho-BS (Feed of the weak!! It was me or him!!!) is pretty silly, I think. Situations like these are such a rare beast that I can´t see why normal decency wouldn´t fit - Party Poker is full of "normal" fish that you can feed of so it´s not like you are giving up much EV in return for sleeping well at night.

We don´t go around stealing candy from kids just because we are stronger. We don´t stick our dicks in women just because they pass out on the floor after one beer too many. We don´t try to fill our home games with mentally challenged people. Well, some of us does, but that is not the norm.

There are plenty of "opportunities" that we pass on, so why should this be any different, if you truely belive the guy?

(That said, I think he was full of it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't some ethics class, and it doesn't concern your personal relationships. It's business, pure and simple. If you think I'm going to give some guy I don't even know $1700 because he has some sob story, you're f'n nuts.


I hope the original poster put this guy on his buddy list so he can track him down next week after he can deposit again.

BTW, you have some serious misconceptions about poker if you think the law of the jungle doesn't apply.

Re: Moral Dillema on PartyPoker
 

And I could give you links to a handful of sites of journals of people who have cancer and eventually died or people who committed suicide, only to later reveal that it was a sham.

In fact, far more often than not, this kind of story is a lie. Usually something that starts out as a way to get attention that ends with "tragedy" when it either gets old or spirals way out of control and people do research and find the holes.

It's far more likely that this guy found that webpage/site and read it and is using it as cover than it is that the ludicrous series of events "Infant dies, wife and husband are depressed, husband is prescribed medication, husband decides to piss away thousands while telling everyone he's depressed and giving out all kinds of technical info and backstory on his family"

I'm not entirely sure what the real story is, or even the point. I'd bet that a stolen credit card is in there somewhere. Why would he ask you for a $$ transfer after you cleaned him out of $1700? Is that just an attempt at money laundering for retards (not that you're involved, but that he's trying to chip dump and then cover his tracks or something).

Re: Moral Dillema on PartyPoker
 

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't some ethics class,

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it is. The original poster asked for opinions about his moral action.

[ QUOTE ]
and it doesn't concern your personal relationships. It's business, pure and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
So is selling crack to kids.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, you have some serious misconceptions about poker if you think the law of the jungle doesn't apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said it didn´t. Obviously law of the jungle-mechanics applies to life in general, not only poker. That doesn´t change the fact that vulgar application of power is silly and childish at it´s best, immoral or criminal at it´s worst.

/twang

Re: Moral Dillema on PartyPoker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming this story is true, I think it was pretty low of you to challenge him to a HU match. If he is truly in crisis, and wants to play to drown his sorrows, I don't see anything wrong with gambling it up with him at a full table, where he is fair game for anyone, and where he can at least try to have his escapism and possibly not lose too much too quickly. But to drag him aside specifically for the purpose of raping him sounds pretty disgusting to me.

Remember...what goes around in this world comes around.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off Enon did not "drag" him aside. This particular man consciously knew what he was doing. It was his choice to play HU. It was his choice to go all-in a bazillion times. No one forced him to play, and quite the contrary told him to get off the table. He insisted on staying and playing.

However, I believe Enon should have given back a bit to the man. Yes, what goes around comes around.

People have different ways of escaping reality and the cold truth that reality brings.

Re: More thoughts and another question
 

[ QUOTE ]
After thinking this through, I can't get away from the fact that tons of my profits in poker have come from compulsive gamblers and other people who gambled with money they couldn't afford to lose. It is a sad fact that poker players are predatory in nature (who doesn't change tables because a known donator has shown up, or offers a heads up challenge to weak player in a full ring game) and we generally don't consider it our duty to make sure the donators will not be hurt by taking their money.

What made me decide to go ahead with the heads up match was his insistence that the money he was playing with was hardly a drop in the bucket compared with his executive salary. Had this not been the case, I would not have played him heads up and would have persisted in my efforts to stop him in the full NL game.

So, considering it was money that he could afford to lose, why wasn't my proposition akin to a pro in Vegas challenging Rene (Celine Dion's husband - a billionaire with a gambling problem) to a heads up match? What is it about the grief that my opponent feels, as opposed to the many other things that put opponents on tilt, that makes him off limits here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two years ago I had a friend who broke up with his x-girlfriend. He called me and told me he really needed to get his mind off things because he felt semi-suicidal. That night we went out and talked a lot, but it didn't help him at all. Gradually during our talks, we got into discussing poker. During the conversation I told him how I was always in a "zone" when playing cards and that my mind was always focussed on the game when I played.

Well, that night he wanted to go to the cardroom because he said he wanted to see if the cards would help him ease his mind. He had zilch knowledge of texas hold'em, but knew how to play poker. He played every single hand that night. After the first two rounds of playing, I pulled him off and said gave him the old "you play like that your gonna drop a few g's" speech. He didn't care. He wanted to play every hand and he didn't care how much he lost or won. He just wanted to get his mind off the broken relationship. Surprisingly that night he only managed to lose about $600, but it really helped him mentally to get his mind off his x.

I took some of his money. I knew he was giving it away. Does that make me wrong to play with him knowing that I am full well taking advantage of him?

No. He knew consciously and responsibly what he got himself into. For that, I have no moral regret. What was more important was that as a friend, I helped him to get his mind of thinking about suicide. To me, that's what mattered. Not the money, not the fact he was a total fish that night, but the fact he didn't think about jumping off a damn bridge for a good few hours.