Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
The following occurred during an upcoming televised event that I was a part of:

Four players played two four handed freezeouts against each other. The top two point getters advanced to the next round. Because of the point system used, the player who came in last in the first freezeout could not advance unless he won the second freezout AND the previous winner came in precisely second while the previous second place finisher came in precisely fourth. Thus he cannot afford (at the beginning) to bust anyone but the previous match's second place finisher

The thing was that the above concept was hard to work out and some players were unaware of it. My ethics question is this. Is the third place finisher of the first round doing something wrong if before the second freezeout he approaches the last place finisher and explains to her that she can't bust him?

[/ QUOTE ]

First and foremost, the format is retarded.

Secondly, it's not unethical, and it's not close. In fact, the format of the event practically demands that the third-place finisher make sure that the fourth-place finisher understands this, as it increases the third-place finisher's chances of getting first or second. To not ensure that the fourth-place finisher is aware of this would be quite foolish.

What a dumb format for poker.

Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
 

I believe this is not unethical. The information is available to all (I assume), so there is no private information involved.

However, this does seem fairly similar to a common situation, with one all-in player and two other players with chips remaining. Would it be unethical to tell a poker novice, who may not understand the all-in rules, "If you bet into me and I fold, you go to showdown against the all-in player. You could still lose the pot." This information is available to all, and the player is both being truthful and not talking about colluding, and this information may in fact help the new player make a better decision. Where's the difference?

Mike

Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
 

Would it be unethical to tell a poker novice, who may not understand the all-in rules, "If you bet into me and I fold, you go to showdown against the all-in player. You could still lose the pot." This information is available to all, and the player is both being truthful and not talking about colluding, and this information may in fact help the new player make a better decision. Where's the difference?

If you were one of the all-in players and someone else did this to YOU, would you be so sanguine about this ethical violation?

Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, this does seem fairly similar to a common situation, with one all-in player and two other players with chips remaining. Would it be unethical to tell a poker novice, who may not understand the all-in rules, "If you bet into me and I fold, you go to showdown against the all-in player. You could still lose the pot." This information is available to all, and the player is both being truthful and not talking about colluding, and this information may in fact help the new player make a better decision. Where's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone did that in the middle of a hand, that would violate the "One player to a hand" rule. He'd be advising the novice how to play this hand and it would be unethical.

If he said the same thing between hands or on a break and was just explaining the general principle behind it, it would be ethical.

Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
 

The tournament directors created this mess and should have forseen this. Why could they not take the time to lay out a format that would avoid this in the first place??

That said, I think it is nothing more than a distraction. It's the truth, and it is up to the player what they decide to do with the information that they have received(if someone is telling them this). I don't like it and don't think I'd do it, but I think unethical is a strong choice of words here. Hrm.

Really stupid format.

Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
 

This question bothers me more than I thought possible. I really thought I understood most of the angles, variables, and ramifications of the ethics/(dare I say)morality of this game of ours. So, I guess my response to this question is . . . I don't know, but I have some thoughts to offer.

1. Structure - if the structure of the game is flawed, in the long run the game will die - ie. Malmuth's Rock game as mentioned in 'Poker Essays, Vol.II'. Now, the problem with the Rock game was more of a luck v. skill issue, but flaws in a games structure can undoubtedly affect the popularity and life of a game. This includes tournament formats.

I don't know if this particular freezeout structure would kill this game in the long run or not. Tournies, by their very nature (usually favoring survival as opposed to maximizing expectation on any one particular play), often dictate plays that are abnormal to those who are used to ring games. Examples - sometimes it is correct for a player to fold AA (rare), or make irrational checks, or practice 'implicit collusion', because it will increase their overall chances of cashing (they are on the bubble) or increase their overall expectation. One could make an argument that any format that would dictate folding AA preflop (however rare), is inherently flawed.

My point is that this particular format may need more examination before being labelled 'retarded' or untenable. Various tourney structures, of various scope, are quite popular, whether we like them or not. I may feel Rebuy tournaments encourage too much LAG play, and favor those that have unlimited rebuy potential, but these tournies seem quite popular, showing no signs of fading away.

2. One Player to a Hand - IMHO, at no point, once a tourney has begun, should players be consulting each other as to how a particular hand should be played, or as to correct strategy or tactics, even in a generalized way. (This would entail WSOP Final Event players to not even discuss hands they were involved in, or witnessed, for the entire week, because it may give someone information they could not have known, unless they were at that particular table.)

If I talk to my friend about how to play a particular tourney before the event begins . . . so be it. But once play has gotten underway, it is unethical to discuss issues of strategy/tactics/structure/player styles, etc. This is just my opinion.

In fact, this position would be unenforcable in todays megatournies.

But if I were running a tourney, I would very clearly make my position clear to the players, and enforce it.

Perhaps this is more of a question of personal ethics. So, personally, I would never - comment on play at the table, or comment on anything regarding play/players away from the table, if the tourney was still running.

Just some thoughts,

Augie

P.S. IF IF IF I were running a game, I would try to avoid even 'the appearance of impropriety' - Sklansky's hypothetical question is extremely important. I doubt he would have posed it if he thought it was trivial.

Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also this sounds like the stupidest format I've ever heard of!

[/ QUOTE ]

And you'll get to see it on FSN in March.

Kevin...

Re: As stated in YOUR version, I agree with you
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, given the public statement theme that you used, do you still think that DS's example is ethical?

Is the third place finisher of the first round doing something wrong if before the second freezeout he approaches the last place finisher and explains to her that she can't bust him



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I believe the statement is ethical, but it depends on EXACTLY what was said (and we're getting into semantics here). I think it would be unethical to say: "Jim, I want you to know that I'm going to soft play you this round, and I hope you soft play me too because it's in our interest to do so." However, I think it would be perfectly OK to say: "Jim, I don't know if you've noticed how crazy this structure is. The fact is, you can't win if you bust me out. Here's why..." I think there is a clear difference between the two.


[ QUOTE ]

This raises some other questions:

one- Is it ethical or not for Gus to make the statement ONLY to his friend, in order to take advantage of his friend's resulting play?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is ethical either way. You have a RIGHT to speak statements of fact, not an affirmative all or none obligation.



[/ QUOTE ]
three- this statement: <font color="blue">Obviously, if you're lying to Jim and presenting that lie as a statement of fact, your conduct would be clearly unethical IMO</font>

Manipulating with honest information is ethical; lying to take advantage of Jim's stupidity is not?

I'm still wavering on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes. I think the examples are quite different. Deliberately lying to a fellow player about the rules away from the table? That's waaay over the line. Think of another examples: right before a final table starts, you say to a fellow competitor "did you hear they changed the payout structure, it's now winner take all." Is that unethical. You bet. Not even close.

Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe telling the other player the structure is collusion and therefore unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now it is one person per tournamnet?

If a group of people were about to play a flat-playout structure tournament, and one player had never played a flat pay-out tourney before, and one player informed the other of the differences in play between flat payout and traditional tourney, that is colluision?

As long as it was just a logical conversation, pointing out the logic of how people had to place to have a certain out-come, and it was not an agreement to play each other in a specific matter, I see no ethical problem with it. In-fact, if you knew someone did not understand the structure, and it worked to your advantage, so you didn't try to explain it to them, that could be seen as unethical.

How can helping someone better understand a game be unethical?

Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
 

I’m really surprised so many people seem so befuddled by this situation. To me the answer seems very clear. I guess this shows why ethics are NEVER a clear cut matter.

As soon as you realize this you should inform the tournament directors of the bug right then and there and see how they respond. From that point on you should be open and honest with yourself and others. If the tournament directors do not change the format then yes of course you should approach the player and let them know what you have discovered. This is a competitive event. You are trying to win. You should use whatever method you can within the rules to do so. Also, I personally wouldn’t do it in secrecy, if someone overheard me, oh well, I’d explain it to them as well. If I later found out that I wasn’t in the “know.” I would congratulate my opponents for being more perceptive than myself.

I ran into a similar situation.
I got roped into a Texas Hold’em NL event for charity. A large percentage of the pool went to charity so the payout scheme was horrible for your original investment. I played because it was for a friend, I liked the charity and finally I figured to be one of the better players present.

We are being seated and all of sudden the tournament director announces that there will be a change in the rules. The first round will be 1 ½ hours of LIMIT and then the last ½ will be NO LIMIT with no increase in the blinds and there will be a two hour time limit. At the end of the time limit the 12 biggest stacks will advance to round 2. I immediately flagged down the tournament director and explained to him why you can’t do this. “Don’t you realize everyone is going to push ALL-IN on the last hand simply out of necessity?” “The shorter stacks will because they obviously aren’t in the top 12 and the other short stacks will obviously call and the big stacks will have to call because if all the short stacks team up on them then they risk falling out of the top 12.”

The tournament director wouldn’t budge and off we played. I didn’t know what to do so I just played poker and enjoyed myself. It was very funny when the TD yelled out “o.k. the next hand dealt will be your last hand!” I just sat back and watched all the tables slowly come to the realization of what was about to happen. It really was funny, some people were quite upset. Of course our entire table ended up ALL-IN (what a mess) along with almost all the other tables. What can you do? Besides take advantage of poor structure and remember not to do it again.