100-200 Lifeline

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure there are guys who ask seemingly innocent questions like you did while others find out what their buddy folded on a key hand before deciding on a course of action while still others collude every chance they get.


[/ QUOTE ]

An awfully slippery slope, no? I wrote out a long defense of my position, but I honestly feel that my position is so clear that defending it is unnecessary. For those that play online poker as their primary hobby and I know over a 100 probably, everyone talks to other poker players while they play (not in the same game, unless to trash talk.) Talking about hands they've played, other players tendencies, bad beat stories, current tourney stack size, girls they are trying to get with etc.

I want to be clear that the player I IMed was not playing.

If you assumed we were in the same game, then I can sort've see the slippery slope, otherwise not at all.

You've obviously established that your actions are totally legal. I completely disagree.



What you did is not allowed at live games.

PokerTracker and PaHUD are fine in my opinion. There is nothing stopping a live player from standing at tables and recording every play that goes on. There is nothing wrong with a live player paying someone else to watch other tables and record everything that is going on.

As a matter of fact it's more reliable for a live player.
They can be sure the info is recorded accurately. They can record tells as well. And if someone changes their name, it doesn't matter.

I don't have a problem with IMing people either. There is nothing that stops a live player from talking to other players at the table or at another table for that matter. They can discuss strategy, they can even ask other players at other tables about players at their table. So, no problem.

Here is the line that I think you crossed:

You asked another player about someone in your game DURING a hand. AND you are then changing the way you played against that opponent in that SAME hand based on that information.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

As I said before - do your research BEFORE you sit down to play a hand, not DURING.

[elindauer]

Hi Kwaz,

You make an interesting argument and it's certainly consistent. What you need to consider though is that your definition of what is moral and what isn't is arbitrary. It could be anything.

For example, we could all agree that collusion is perfectly legal. The whole game of poker could be a complicated conflict between teams signalling each other whole cards and coming up with strategies for beating other teams at the table. This would certainly be a fantastic, intellectually stimulating game, right? There's no reason this has to be "immoral", aside from us deciding arbitrarily that it is so.

So, what's the point? Well, once you see that defining morality is a rather arbitrary exercise, you start to ask yourself why you've defined the lines the way you have. One thing that I've come to realize is that in many ways it seems silly to draw these lines in ways that go against human nature, especially if those ways are totally unenforcable, and really especially if there isn't some overwhelming societal good that comes from drawing the lines this way.

In this case, there really isn't any harm done at all. All the information gathered is essentially public knowledge, and the difference between gathering the info before the hand or during the hand is aesthetic.

We've all agreed that sharing non-public information, in particular hole card information, is immoral. This is very difficult / impossible to enforce but we do see a major "societal" benefit to it, that of keeping the game as the contest between individuals that we enjoy so much.

Essentially what I'm saying is, your definition of morality, while consistent, is not very useful. It's rather arbitrary and refuses to acknowledge the reality of the world we live in. Further, your definition doesn't make the game any better then it is otherwise. In light of all that, it seems clear that your definition is flawed and you should just accept that public information can morally be traded at all times.

If you want to keep the "old" definition in place for live play, fine. It's easy enough to police. But that doesn't make it any less arbitrary or unecessary.

-Eric