Why is team consultation banned in B&M?

[Easy E]

Why do we have a "one player to a hand" rule at all? Should this only encompass restrictions against colluding, or is team consultation an important part of "one player" ideals?

The posts and resulting discussions/flames about Jerrod and his "team" on various sites (here, RGP, Paul Phillips' journal) got me thinking about this.

<font color="blue">Before I go on- Jerrod, I think I will pull back now from my hard-line stance on this issue for online poker, with a partial apology to you and Bill for questioning your judgement. I still don't like the concept and I still don't know if it's "ethical" or not, but I can clearly accept that it isn't technically cheating. This is only true, however, because online cardrooms have no need to make a pointless rule against it, so your team isn't violating a written rule.</font>

As has been pointed out by many posters in the various locations, there are a large number of tools available to online players that are not allowed, by practice or written rule, in B&amp;M games. Analysis software, books, players notes, data mining- all of these and more can be used by a player who has the ability to avail herself of them during play online. All of these tools give the player the opportunity to improve their abilities during actual play, potentially making them a better player than they normally would be.

What I would like to question here is, are all of these tools inherently "shared" in ability among any online player, while team consultation play is not, so that they don't provide a unique advantage to any one player? Anyone can buy and use software, or collect their own notes (we won't address sharing of notes for this discussion), and combine those information sources with their own skills and abilities to play their hand.

Since these non-human tools are ubiquitous, they don't confer an unfair advantage to any one person, as long as any other player can have access to the same types of tools/reference materials. Is the team consultation play that Jerrod is involved with different enough that it shouldn't be considered ethical to use?

<font color="green"> Here's an extreme example- I somehow convince myself to overcome all of my reservations and start playing online. I manage to make it to the final table- better yet, the last two players- in the WCOOP or an equivalently large online tournament. So, a significant amount of money has already been won and a significant amount remains to be awarded.

I decide to contact my good friends Johnny Chan, TJ Cloutier, Howard Lederer, Phil Ivey, Danny N or anyone else that you prefer. I offer three or four of them 5-10% of the prize money yet to be won if they will consult with me during play and try to help me win.

Does this unfairly change the game for you, on the other end of the match, or not? Would it make any difference if my new consulting team was revealed or not? You of course don't have access to this crack team of consultants- whether you have your own equivalent team is not the point of the question. </font>

Returning to the title of my post- if one is making the claim that team consultation play is ethical online, as long as collusion is not involved, should it be any different for b&amp;m play? If so, why? If the above is considered "okay" for online, why don't we consider it okay for the WSOP main event?

Should we be talking about changing poker from an individual-ability contest? Or is this only acceptable for online, since we can't legislate against team consultation and other information-enhancement methods?

Side question- Can someone explain to me why bots should be banned but team consultation play should not? What are the significant differences between the two, other than the technical (bot playing your hands for you, whether you are there or not)? Is there a significant difference between using a bot and using PokerTracker or other software to recommend hand play?


<font color="red">As another topic of discussion, this is a question I raised in Paul's journal that no one has answered yet:

Are all ethical standards relativistic in your mind?
I'm using this definition of relativism- " A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them." </font>

Flame away on any of the above.

[kutuz_off]

I feel pretty strongly that you can do this kinda consultation in the middle of the tournament if and only if your opponent knows (or has the ability to find out) about this. I'm trying to think of a logical reason why I feel this way, but so far I haven't been able to come up with one.

I wouldn't expect that you declare each and every one of your consultations, or that you say, "I may be consulting with persons A, B, and C", each time you join a table, but it has to be stated in your player profile.

[CardSharpCook]

Consulting takes time, offers distraction, and may cause problems as to who is "in control" of the money. Two people talking to each other could also pull some elaborate acting/needling by the things they say to each other. Not to mention, there really isn't room at a poker table for 20 people to play 10 hands.

CSC

[kutuz_off]

I assume that was meant as a response to the OP. I of course considered only online play when I posted my post.

[sdplayerb]

because tourney's would screech to a halt.

[randommuppet]

just because something isnt illegal doesnt mean it isnt immoral

i personally feel this kind of consultation process is a form of cheating if it goes on during a game

if you KNEW that your opponent heads up had called with a draw because someone wandered into the room and mentioned "i always call with those kind of hands" when they were about to fold and then they outdrew you would you feel this was "fair"? it wasnt collusion (they didnt discuss the hand it was a throwaway remark) but someone other than the person whose money is on the line influenced the decision...

just an opinion....

[randommuppet]

ps i understand "fair" may be a relative concept as well...

[betgo]

Because it's considered cheating.

[TomCollins]

Thats the question... WHY is it cheating? What is so wrong with it?

[TomCollins]

The main reason I can think, is that in the history of poker, most people around were playing, and not watching. Getting advice from someone who had cards is clearly wrong, and that's where it probably originated. Also, talking about a hand is clearly impractical and slows down the game (if you had 2 players who were to play together).