An Intesting Ethics Situation

[David Sklansky]

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?

[Easy E]

[ 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.

That being said, as the 3rd place finisher in round 1, I don't know if I'd take advantage or not.

[3rdEye]

[ 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).

[Rasputin]

The more I think about it, the more I think it isn't.

Since it's all about structure, and something that anyone could work out if they took the time, I don't think it's a problem.

Now should they do it is another question.

You can't explain it without pointing out that the fourth place finisher can't bust anyone but the second place finisher. If you're the third place finisher, do you want someone behind you to refrain from busting out the first place finisher knowing that it effectively eliminates two people from the overall title? I don't think so.

[One Word Answer]

no

[TheCodeDog]

This almost seems similar to where you shouldn't read the board for another player.

[Vee Quiva]

I believe telling the other player the structure is collusion and therefore unethical. Everyone received the same explanation of the structure and they are free to figure it out for themselves. As soon as someone approaches another player with the intention of pointing out a reason why the opponent should not bust him, it becomes collusion.

By the way, I hope the organizers of this event hire you as a consultant in the future to come up with a better structure.

I also agree with one of the previous posters that this is similar to players who have bought pieces of other players soft playing against them. This is the big pink elephant in the corner of these major tournaments that will need to be addressed soon before a scandal tears down all the goodwill poker has built up over the last few years.

[Myrtle]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

In my mind this is ALMOST correct....If you change it to......

I believe telling ONLY the other player the structure is collusion and therefore unethical.

It goes to the question of "priviledged information". I know that one can easily make the argument that all players should be totally aware of the rules of this tournament, and therefore, should be responsible for figuring it out on their own.

I liken it to the "show one, show all" rule.

In this case, it's...... "tell one, tell all".

IMHO, the moral dilemna is solved by either saying nothing or telling all players involved.

[RogerZBT]

When I first read your post, I agreed with you that if he tells one, he should tell all, but now I'm wavering. On the one hand, it's not like the information isn't out there for everyone already. It's possible the 4th place finisher (as well as the 1stPF and the 2ndPF) is already aware of this little quirk to the system. On the other hand, by telling, the 3rdPF now has reason to believe that the 4thPF will never go all-in against him (if he could knock him out) and that little piece of info can be pretty unbalancing if only the two of them know it.

In any case, I don't think saying anything is unethical and the 3rdPF should be able to do so. Maybe telling the whole table is more ethical, but IMO not telling the table info they already have access to wouldn't automatically make it wrong. (But I'm still wavering.)

[Beavis68]

[ 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?