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.

[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.

[West]

I would have to say no. Though it is clearly in their self interest to do so, all the third place finisher is doing is stating the plain truth. However, I would add the caveat that the the third place finisher should if at all possible demonstrate unequivocally *how* this is true, so that there is no ambiguity in the mind of the last place finisher.

It would seem to me that the real problem is the structure of the event.

[hockey1]

This is not an interesting ethics question. Poker is a game of rules accepted by the participants played with the objective of winning (however defined). I can't think of a situation where following rules accepted by all (implicitly or explicitly), at least in poker of all things, could possibly be considered unethical. I suppose what I'm saying is that poker is a-ethical or ethics neutral.

Now, if you can point me to a specific rule that the behavior you describe violates then that MAY be different.

If anything the two interesting ethics question that arise are (a) is there any role for "ethics" in poker as something independent from the system of rules that formally govern the game, and, relatedly, (b) even if someone breaks the rules, is that necessarily *unethical* (assuming for example that a system is in place to penalize those caught cheating).

[rickthekeg]

Since I've been wavering between yes and no, I would say that this is probably unethical. However, if the last-place finisher realizes on his own that he must bust the 2nd-place finisher first, and soft plays the other two, I don't see how this is really any different, except that no one has acknowledged the colluding. (I guess it's kinda like when there's three people left in an online MTT and one is absent, the other two can fold away as long as they don't acknowledge it.)

On a side note, could the 1st and 2nd place finishers not collude to bust 3rd place first and automatically move on?

[tipperdog]

No. It is perfectly ethical for the player to explain his understanding of the rules of the game to any other player. That his explanation may affect the play of that opponent is irrelevant.

At the WSOP this year, remember when Gus Hansen "reminded" his table that they were officially on the bubble--after the next player was eliminated, they'd all cash? He was obviously hoping they'd tighten up after he "enlightened" them (as if they didn't know!) However, his comment clearly wasn't unethical. It was a simple statement of fact.

Here's another hypothetical (and one that's closer to David's example). Let's say that you're playing in the final event of a big tourney, and that tourney has a big cash award for best all-around player. A player in the running for best all-around (we'll call him Jim), is at your table. He's a good player with position on you; you don't want to tangle with Jim. Fortunately, you're a math whiz and understand the very complex formula by which they'll determine the best overall player. In an effort to get Jim to tighten up, you say to him (assuming it's true), "Hey Jim, if you're not one of the next four players eliminated, you'll be guaranteed best overall player." Is saying that unethical? Of course not! All you're doing is making a statement of fact. Yes, it might affect Jim's play, but that doesn't make your speaking out unethical. (Obviously, if you're lying to Jim and presenting that lie as a statement of fact, your conduct would be clearly unethical IMO).