|
|
#41
12-09-2004, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Apples and oranges I think
Its no more cheating than how ESPN runs down NFL playoff scenarions and tells us(and the teams who happen to be watching) who must win what game and who must lose in order for a certain team to make the playoffs.
If ESPN was on the playing field, or there were more than two teams competiting in a game, then your example might be analogous. Still wavering.... It's probably been argued before (I'm sure pointlessly) but a debate on whether ethics in poker is an oxymoron might be interesting, given poker's duplicitious nature as a core functionality of the game. 
|
|
#42
12-10-2004, 02:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
I didn't read through all the text of all the responses, but uh, it is unlikely, that having told the person who lost the first freezout of this fact, the 3rd place finisher would then proceed to NOT take every shot at steeling chips from that person that they could, no? So collusion, no. Exploitable and fun, yes.
citanul
|
|
#43
12-10-2004, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many tables?
It was a complete mess! Side pots up the ying yang and the majority of the players totally clueless as how to handle a side pot let alone multiple side pots.
There were fourteen tables and almost everyone of them had all ten players remaining becuase they changed the rule for the first 1 1/2 hours from NO LIMIT to LIMIT 10/20 with everyone starting with T1000. So basically the chips got passed around for the first 1 1/2 hours and then a few people got knocked out in the 1/2 hour left of NO LIMIT. I had built up a decent stack because I got cards during the limit portion and considered folding but pushed at my table (I was the 5th person All-in). I ended up making the right decision because my stack wouldn't have held up for 12th or better if I had folded. I lost the last hand. It was a 9-10 person showdown and A high won the hand. I gladly went home.
|
|
#44
12-11-2004, 04:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I vote yes
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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 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 ] I'm wavering on this, but I think that making an "alliance" with another player, in order to affect play, is similar to selling pieces or agreeing to slow-play or anything else. It changes the play of the game. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. This invites a sort of implicit (maybe even explicit) collusion (in the literal sense, not in the "schooling" sense).
|
|
#45
12-11-2004, 05:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why would you do that?
I don't know what kind of tournament this is, but what's the advantage of telling a player you can't bust them? I would think that it'd be to your advantage to not do this. As for the ethics, there's nothing wrong with it. You're not colluding, you're serving your own best interest.
|
|
#48
12-12-2004, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: An Intesting Ethics Situation
The question was easy enough for Rice grads to handle.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
