Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

I had this situation come up the other day, and thought it might provide for some interesting discussion. After playing out my hands for the day, I decided to play some microlimit crazy pineapple on UB (we're talking .25/.50). The game was unusually chatty and friendly, which was fine with me...during the conversation, I let slip that I normally play hold'em & was just relaxing with this game. One of the other players at the table asked me if I wanted to play some heads up hold'em.

A bit about me--I'm a proven winner at online LHE up through 5/10, over the past year+. I have ventured slightly higher than that at times, up to 15/30, with mixed but far from terrible results. I believe, and other 2+2'ers that I've played have confirmed, that one of my strengths is in HU situations. That, plus having observed this guy's play at crazy pineapple, left me with absolutely zero doubt that I would clean him out in a HU match.

Now, as I said, the game was friendly. I was playing seriously and not donking it up, and there were no ill feelings between myself and the challenger; I believe that he honestly just wanted a friendly HE game. I finally declined his offer after he told me that he only had about $30 in his account--that didn't seem nearly worth the effort to me.

Now, here's where the moral issue comes up: even if he'd said that he had $200, I don't think I would have played him. I had absolutely no doubt that I was the (far) superior player, and while the cards can even the field somewhat, it would have taken nothing short of a miraculous run of cards for him to avoid losing money. But I had nothing against the guy, as he wasn't being an ass at the table or anything like that...I guess you could say that I didn't feel he "deserved" to be beaten.

On the other hand, I recognize that I am taking advantage of worse players every single time I play, many of whom seem like genuinely nice people. This doesn't bother me in the least; nobody is forcing them to play poker, and they are free to walk away from the game at any time (or to improve their game). So, assuming that this guy had had enough money to make it "worth my time", why should it have bothered me to take his money, heads up? In fact, I wound up winning about $5 from him in the pineapple game, and this didn't bother me in the least. However, if this guy had been annoying or abusive at the table, I wouldn't have thought twice about taking him up on his challenge, for $5 or $5,000.

If any of you psych guys can shed a little of your insight as to what exactly is going on (am I just a selective "nice guy"?), and/or tell me what you would do in a similar situation, I'd appreciate it.

Or, just tell me what an idiot I would've been for passing up an easy $200. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

Hi Harv,

You seem like your heads up play is very good. You made some impressive moves the last time I played with you.

I probably would have responded the same way. If he told me he had 200 in his account and wanted to play 2/4 hold em, but his usual game was .25/50, then I wouldn't feel that comfortable. OTOH, if I saw the same guy sitting alone at a 2/4 table waiting for a challenger, I'd sit down. There's a difference.

Cheers,
Snowball

Re: Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

You clearly feel good about what you did, or rather what you didn't do. I'd guess that's worth more to you than a little money.

Re: Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

i had a similar situation come up this week. i was playing hu on stars and the guy and the guy and i were being friendly and chatty despite the fact that it was a competitive match. eventually, i went on a rush and picked up some patterns and took him for about 50bbs. at that point it was obvious he was tilting.. he wasn't chatty anymore and he was pretty much going maniacal. for some reason i began to feel shitty and i told him he should leave since he's tilting. he didn't respond and i ended up leaving myself. afterward, i was upset w/ myself as a poker player because i could probably have made another 2k off him, but something inside me just made me stop. i think part of the reason is that i'm a college student and i've made enough playing poker that winning that extra 2k won't affect my life at all. no rent, no insurance, no bills, so no real worries. i think if winning money at poker was necessary to survive, i'd have taken the guy's heads up challenge. sorry this is long-winded, i'm stoned.

Re: Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

Their opponents in the future won't be so nice. Considering that you were considering not taking advantage of these players who were throwing money away, you should think of yourself as a better person than those who wouldn't give it a second thought (although probably a worse professional gambler based on this "weakness" alone). Think that by letting this person 'off the hook', they'll just do the same thing and lose it to a worse person. Might as well let a noble player like yourself take the profits while teaching the fish a lesson that he/she will learn regardless of whether or not you profit off of it.

Re: Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

This really isn't much about him, it's about you. And in reading your comments, I can see that you have some moral sense, which not everybody on this forum has.

How you feel about yourself, in a situation like this, has more value than the money (it's sort of "morally +EV"!) and that's a real plus for you.

If you want to feel good about yourself, as you seem to want to, then do the things that make you feel good, and avoid the acts that make you feel bad.

Over the past year, I have read a lot of your posts and you are a terrific player. Your posts have been interesting and helpful. Good to see that you are also a decent human being.

bill

Re: Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

I don't think there is anything unethical about taking someone's money playing poker, regardless of whether it was a mismatch, a bad beat, or whatever. The whole goal is to make money and enjoy the thrill of victory. You're not responsible for his having made the decision to open an account online and start playing poker. He shouldn't be there with money he can't afford to lose, true, but (1) you don't know if thats the case, and (2) it's not your problem. People are responsible for their own actions. Would you feel bad about taking it if you found out that his net worth was 300 times yours? How do you know it wasn't? The point is- what someone else chooses to do with their money isn't your problem. You are not stealing by beating someone in a fair game in which there is no cheating. Being much better than someone isn't cheating. There is no unwritten rule that says you have to suck to accept a challenge from someone at a low-limit table. Did it ever occur to you that he was a shark, playing poorly on purpose at a low table, looking for someone weak to try to take down in an HU match? You're a good player that decided to play at a weak table- why do you think no other good player would ever do this?

By the way, assuming he was a bad player, taking a moderate amount of money from him like $200 is probably a good thing for him. Here is why: he's only losing $200 but he's learning a valuable lesson, and maybe it will stick. Maybe he'll think about this experience down the road when he's debating whether or not to make an early withdrawl from his kid's college fund to go play someone in a heads up challenge. Not saying this justifies it, but it could very well be true.

Re: Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

What if this player realized you were a better player and still wanted to play you? He may want a chance to more closely observe what he feels is a better player, or just trying to improve his heads-up play. There are a few players out there that look upon their accounts as tuition money. Just another way of looking at it. Overall, we all must do what salves our conscience.

Re: Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

I'm sorry, but this issilly. You didn't knock on the guy's door and challenge him to a match; hell, you didn't even seek him out online. There is no scam, no moral dilemma, nothing wrong at all about playing whomever you run into, because:

You're on a poker site to PLAY POKER.

You don't see Roger Federer refusing to play his first-round matches against a qualifier, do you?

No, you don't.

Accept the challenge, take his money, and know you just gave him a valuable lesson.

Re: Moral dilemma? (When a low-limit fish challenges you HU)
 

There could be all kinds of reasons the guy wants to play you, none of them having to do with him being a gambling addict hitting rock bottom (which is probably the only case I'd consider turning it down).

He may be hustling - playing like crap for the small money, then increasing the stakes and "getting lucky." (Not a big-time hustler if he's starting out at $30, but it still adds up.)

Or he might want to learn hold'em and considers $30 a small price to pay for some HU experience.

Or he might just consider it fun.

My guess is it's one of the last two.

But, the bottom line is that you said you turned him down because it wasn't worth it to you, and that's a respectable reason - if it's not as much fun or as profitable as you need it to be, don't do it.