Hypothetical Ethics Situation.

[Q8offsuit]

This never actually happened, but I would like some input as to what should be the correct course of action in case it ever does. Actually, I just woke up a few minutes ago and dreamed this exact situation. I have very vivid dreams.

It was the very end of a lengthy 7-card stud cash game. Six people have already busted out, some with rebuys. Let's say there is exactly $100 in the pot. It is now heads-up, Me against the Villain. I am severely short-stacked: I have around $2.50, the Villain has $97.50. I will be most likely forced all-in by the river on any hand that I see fourth street.

I play the next hand I am dealt blind (never looking at my hole cards). I am all-in by the river. When my down cards are revealed, it is found that I have two pair, Aces and sevens.

My opponent (who is dealing) announces that he has a straight. I am exasperated and vow to give up poker forever (hey, I'm dreaming and allowed to go on tilt). I push my paltry stack towards him. He then starts matching my stack from his own (huge) stack and pushes me the whole pot (about $5).
I protest, and say that he won fair and square because of the straight, and I didn't want his charity.

He then candidly admits that he dealt himself eight cards in the last hand in order to make the straight. Upon inspection, he does have eight cards; without the eighth card, a 10, he would not have even had a pair. Villain admits that he dealt himself another card when I was not looking, but felt guilty and didn't want to win the pot.

So, his idea was to play out the game as it stood with me winning the pot, him with $95 in chips, me having doubled up, now with $5.

I had a very different idea. I took the entire $100 pot and left.

My opinion- any revelation of cheating, of any kind, voided his claim to any part of the pot. I didn't care if he had a dominating chip lead or not. I win it all because I am the only "legitimate" player left in the game.

Of course there was a big argument. I woke up before anything was resolved but dammit, I was determined to keep the entire $100 pot!!

What would you guys do in this exact situation? Obviously never play with the guy again, but would you demand the entire pot? Perhaps split it with the other (already busted out) players?

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
This never actually happened, but I would like some input as to what should be the correct course of action in case it ever does. Actually, I just woke up a few minutes ago and dreamed this exact situation. I have very vivid dreams.

It was the very end of a lengthy 7-card stud cash game. Six people have already busted out, some with rebuys. Let's say there is exactly $100 in the pot. It is now heads-up, Me against the Villain. I am severely short-stacked: I have around $2.50, the Villain has $97.50. I will be most likely forced all-in by the river on any hand that I see fourth street.

I play the next hand I am dealt blind (never looking at my hole cards). I am all-in by the river. When my down cards are revealed, it is found that I have two pair, Aces and sevens.

My opponent (who is dealing) announces that he has a straight. I am exasperated and vow to give up poker forever (hey, I'm dreaming and allowed to go on tilt). I push my paltry stack towards him. He then starts matching my stack from his own (huge) stack and pushes me the whole pot (about $5).
I protest, and say that he won fair and square because of the straight, and I didn't want his charity.

He then candidly admits that he dealt himself eight cards in the last hand in order to make the straight. Upon inspection, he does have eight cards; without the eighth card, a 10, he would not have even had a pair. Villain admits that he dealt himself another card when I was not looking, but felt guilty and didn't want to win the pot.

So, his idea was to play out the game as it stood with me winning the pot, him with $95 in chips, me having doubled up, now with $5.

I had a very different idea. I took the entire $100 pot and left.

My opinion- any revelation of cheating, of any kind, voided his claim to any part of the pot. I didn't care if he had a dominating chip lead or not. I win it all because I am the only "legitimate" player left in the game.

Of course there was a big argument. I woke up before anything was resolved but dammit, I was determined to keep the entire $100 pot!!

What would you guys do in this exact situation? Obviously never play with the guy again, but would you demand the entire pot? Perhaps split it with the other (already busted out) players?

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense. Where did the $100 in the pot come from?

[Q8offsuit]

[ QUOTE ]


This makes no sense. Where did the $100 in the pot come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

"It was the very end of a lengthy 7-card stud cash game. Six people have already busted out, some with rebuys. Let's say there is exactly $100 in the pot."

The game was originally full (Eight-handed). The six other players (who are now broke and dropped out) have pumped up the pot. It is now heads-up for the entire $100.

[elwoodblues]

So what is the ethical dilemma? Why would the other guy be entitled to any of the money? I know it was a dream, but this just doesn't make sense to me.

Is the $100 in the pot or is there $100 total on the table. If it's in the pot, you get it all. If it's just on the table, you are stealing $95 from the guy.

[Q8offsuit]

Righto, sorry. There was $100 total in play. There was only $5 in the POT in question. I didn't word it very well.

The basic question is, if someone is caught cheating in any way, shape, or form, they forfeit any right to any money immediately, right?

In my instance, even though I was so short-stacked as to be ineffective, I still get all the money both in the pot and on the table, so $100, right?

I see now where the confusion comes from. If there is, say, $100 in play, we (my friends and I) would call that the "pot," even though that is not the immediate "pot" for the hand in play (that would be significantly less). So, to avoid confusion in the future, what should we call the group of buy-ins that represents the total amount of money on the table at a given time? The "Bank"? Because "pot" just leads to confusion, obviously! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Q8offsuit]

[ QUOTE ]

Is the $100 in the pot or is there $100 total on the table. If it's in the pot, you get it all. If it's just on the table, you are stealing $95 from the guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really the crux of the issue. Villain has been caught cheating in one specific hand that has little impact on the result of the game (i.e., he would have won the entire $100 available instead of allowing me to meaninglessly double up).

The point is, does any revelation of cheating completely void any poker played up until that point? In my opinion, if he is caught cheating at any point, he should give up any claim to any money won prior to that as well. After all, in my example, he could have been dealing himself eight cards all night!

You think that taking the entire $100 in play would be tantamount to stealing $95 from the Villain, who has apparently won that money fair and square. I would argue that any cheating voids any claim to any money won in the game, period. Therefore I would take the $100, being the only player left who has not cheated. I think I would give the other players their buy-ins (whatever they were) back, but that is immaterial.

1. Do you take your "rightful" $5 pot and leave and never play the guy again, and let him keep his (assumed ill-gotten) $95?

2. Do you seize the entire $100 on the table and give him none of it?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
After all, in my example, he could have been dealing himself eight cards all night!


[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the fact that dealing 8 cards would have been painfully obvious and he confessed to it (suggesting it was a one-time joke.)

[MCS]

I think you get only the $5. His cheating entitles you to the pot in which he cheated. You don't get extra money that he may happen to have with him, though if you want to rob him, maybe he deserves it.

Do you also get to take money out of his wallet? I think taking his $95 is basically the same thing.

[Marm]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you get only the $5. His cheating entitles you to the pot in which he cheated. You don't get extra money that he may happen to have with him, though if you want to rob him, maybe he deserves it.

Do you also get to take money out of his wallet? I think taking his $95 is basically the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless, of course, you can prove he was cheating at other hands. Which is probably likely since he busted out everybody else. IN that case, his money should be split between the orignal players, seeing at it was theirs to start with. But why would he be cheating for $100? Thats like 12.50 a player. Not worth the risk to his rep and future earnings.

[bigmac366]

remember what happened to matt damon and edward norton when they were caught cheating in rounders....thats how you deal with cheaters.