100-200 Lifeline

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

[bilyin]

The reason why you do not feel what you have done is unethical is because you are an unethical person.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why you do not feel what you have done is unethical is because you are an unethical person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me one online cardroom that explicity states "one person to a hand".

B&M cardrooms do it (see Canterbury Park's rules, section B.1.k), so it's clearly prohibited there. Maybe online sites don't prohibit it...

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
There are dudes sharing their hands and colluding and who knows what else online, and you want to get uppity because someone AIMs someone "dude, just how tight is this guy"?

[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't prosecute for assault, either, since people are getting murdered everyday.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are dudes sharing their hands and colluding and who knows what else online, and you want to get uppity because someone AIMs someone "dude, just how tight is this guy"?

[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't prosecute for assault, either, since people are getting murdered everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

but hypothetically, if one state says that assault is not a crime, then commiting assault in that state would not be grounds for criminal prosecution, as is the analogy here.

on the internet, there is no 1 player to a hand rule. i know very well known and respected players that watch each other play and discuss hands before during and after. im not willing to go that far, nor do i think its explicitly against the ruels of online poker.

for me, however, i just keep it to questions about a player at the worst. i can't remember the last time i did it but i would have no problem im'ing lee and asking: "quick, read on XYZ." since that information could be useful in decision making in the hand. i wouldn't IM him and ask, "XYZ bet the turn after raising pf and betting the flop, should i fold?" b/c that asks for a specific action that I should be able to reach by myself. getting information to make that action isn't wrong in my ethical world, but asking a specific action would be b/c its not you "playing" the hand.

in any case, neither of those would be "illegal" online b/c i have yet to see any explicit rule saying only 1 p layer may play a hand.

Barron