Jump to content

would you cheat????



Recommended Posts

Deceiving the incompetent or 'lesser abled' poker players in order to take their money (in the form of expected values) isn't exactly the epitome of righteous behavior either.There's obviously a pretty big difference, but so is there one between robbing an old lady and using this kind of a program. I don't know if i'd try it. It'd be tempting.Most poker players are scum and deserve it anyways. :wink:(yes, im potentially one of them)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't weighed in yet, so I figure... what the hell.I didn't vote, because the results of the poll have already been tainted beyond any decent statistical meaning. If I had voted, I would have voted "yes". I know that this is morally reprehensible and much worse, but I have to admit that if the chance came up for me to acquire and use such a program, I would definately use it. I don't quite have the willpower to resist. I'm not saying that I would particularly feel proud of myself, or feel like an upright individual while doing so, but it would probably happen. I know that I used a lot of Game Genie when I played Nintendo back in the day, so that's probably the seeds of distruction right there.However, I don't know for just how long I would use it. I think at some point I would begin to feel guilty for cheating people out of their money. I would be nothing more than a con man, and not even a very good one. I would have someone else's property (the program) that I would be using to cheat others out of money. I mean, I wouldn't even have to DO anything!I try to make moral, upstanding decisions. However, I think this is the way I would behave. I would like to think that I wouldn't do this if the situation really came up, but being honest with myself I feel this is the way I would behave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Deceiving the incompetent or 'lesser abled' poker players in order to take their money (in the form of expected values) isn't exactly the epitome of righteous behavior either.There's obviously a pretty big difference, but so is there one between robbing an old lady and using this kind of a program.  I don't know if i'd try it.  It'd be tempting.Most poker players are scum and deserve it anyways.   :wink:(yes, im potentially one of them)
before i just say something like your an idiot or something like that i would like for you to explain how it is different between robbing an old lady and robbing many people that could be of any race, gender or age.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am looking for an ethical/moral argument, and I would like to be convinced that theft is wrong, given that:a) no one is physically harmedB) no one is deprived of money/goods that they will suffer through significant hardships withoutc) no one is deprived of money/goods that they were not willing to at least put at risk (similar to B).d) the people are not aware that they lost their money due to any cheating or irregularitiesCheers,Daniel
But what about the psychological effects stealing and cheating can do to the people? Some people feel violated or scared after being robbed and cheated, no matter how insignificant the amount of money is.Do you still feel it is a "victimless crime" to steal from the old lady, even if months later she is still scared, or shaken by the experience itself? Now the poker players will never know that they have been cheated, but what if they begin doubting their abilities or skills based on your actions, and possibly give up poker because of these doubts? Can you ever be sure that you aren't harming the people, even if it isn't physical?Just trying to find some leaks in your theories. I can actual see what you're trying to say about some points (like people saying it's wrong, just because they "know" it's wrong, without any real reason for thinking it) and I feel like you're not too far off. Maybe just a lil across the line. (robbing the elderly is not a respectable profession after all :club:) BTW I voted yes to the question.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You will notice that the example did not involve harming the woman.  I also stated (or else I think I did) that if it involved physically harming her in any way, than it was wrong, since none of us have the right to physically injure anyone else.Frankly, I don't think you've responded to me at all.  I am looking for an ethical/moral argument, and I would like to be convinced that theft is wrong, given that:a) no one is physically harmedB) no one is deprived of money/goods that they will suffer through significant hardships withoutc) no one is deprived of money/goods that they were not willing to at least put at risk (similar to B).d) the people are not aware that they lost their money due to any cheating or irregularitiesI think this argument is exactly the same as going back in time with a sports almanac (an excellent example).  Except in the latter, you are stealing for bookies and companies instead of other poker players.  Logically, you feel bad for the example where you steal from poker players since we are ones, but there shouldn't be any difference in a truly ethical argument.  Therefore if you said "no" to the theft question, but "yes" to the sports almanac question, I think you are contradicting yourself.  I would like to hear responses from people who answered differently as to why they feel their answers are justified.I hope I'm not coming off as a jerk in these posts.  I'm really interested in discussing this, but I don't want it to turn ugly.  I hope I am answering thoughtfully and good-naturedly.So to summarize, I will agree that harming another person is wrong, but I feel that stealing is only wrong for certain reasons.  Those reasons are the above bolded reasons, and I feel that the example where you have a program no one knows about, and you use it smartly, then all of those qualifications are met, and I don't see how theft under those circumstances is wrong.Cheers,Daniel
Since you added stipulation D, this is a morals only issue. In this case, theft is wrong but you're never caught so you feel it is a healthy action. You are not Robin Hood, though. To maintain a healthy society, we adhere to the belief that some actions are wrong and some actions are acceptable. Stealing another's property without their consent is deemed wrong. This is a product of the society that we live in, designed to offer protection to all those who live in it.If you choose to disobey the rules of the society in which you live, you should shed all protections offered by that society as well. That is why you shouldn't steal - you are breaking the very rules that you expect others to follow to guarantee your safety.That's my primary answer to your question. Here's some other stuff I typed while thinking about it.Just because you're not harming a human being *physically* does not free you from the implications of harming a human being in a different way. The society you live in right now would be anarcy if we followed this model - you are free to commit any act so long as you believe that you aren't harming the target or putting the target of the act in a destitute state. Your four stipulations have some ambiguities; they leave a great deal to personal interpretation. Stipulation A is fairly evident - harming someone is harming someone. After that, however, you get into a grey area. Exactly how much property can you relieve a person of before you can no longer steal from them? Can you rob them down to $100000 net worth? $250000? Can you rob $1000 max from a single individual? Can you rob them until you and the victim are in the exact same condition as yourself? You can't have a functioning society where the individual makes his own laws. As well, stipulation C falls apart once you back off and look at the picture of what exactly is "at risk" money. I mean, if I put a $100 bill in my wallet, I am putting that money at some level of risk. As well, if I put it in a bank, I'm putting it at risk. I don't think you ever can say that anything is 100% safe, therefore it is at greater than 0% risk.Hope this answers your question.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am looking for an ethical/moral argument, and I would like to be convinced that theft is wrong, given that:a) no one is physically harmedB) no one is deprived of money/goods that they will suffer through significant hardships withoutc) no one is deprived of money/goods that they were not willing to at least put at risk (similar to B).d) the people are not aware that they lost their money due to any cheating or irregularitiesCheers,Daniel
But what about the psychological effects stealing and cheating can do to the people? Some people feel violated or scared after being robbed and cheated, no matter how insignificant the amount of money is.Do you still feel it is a "victimless crime" to steal from the old lady, even if months later she is still scared, or shaken by the experience itself? Now the poker players will never know that they have been cheated, but what if they begin doubting their abilities or skills based on your actions, and possibly give up poker because of these doubts? Can you ever be sure that you aren't harming the people, even if it isn't physical?Just trying to find some leaks in your theories. I can actual see what you're trying to say about some points (like people saying it's wrong, just because they "know" it's wrong, without any real reason for thinking it) and I feel like you're not too far off. Maybe just a lil across the line. (robbing the elderly is not a respectable profession after all :club:) BTW I voted yes to the question.
Great post, thanks. That is an important difference between the old lady analogy and the OP's post. If the old lady is scared from the robbery, than I am depriving her of some form of freedom and good mental health. That (IMO) is wrong, which makes my action wrong.As it applies to poker players, therefore, that would make the stealing action wrong. I hadn't considered that point, although I think a person stealing smartly would not take enough from any one player to make them doubt their abilities.Of course robbing an elderly woman (or anyone) is not ok, since it is bound to have some of the effects that I bolded, or this one that Tate pointed out. The original question though, seems to have none of the effects if done well, although it could unknowingly have Tate's effect. I don't know if that's significant enough a problem to change it from being "ok" to "wrong" but that is just my opinion.As for being a little across the line, I certainly am. I can't imagine a set of circumstances that would lead to robbing an old lady being acceptable without unrealistic assumptions, so I hope no one thinks I am actually suggesting it.Cheers,Daniel
Link to post
Share on other sites
You will notice that the example did not involve harming the woman. I also stated (or else I think I did) that if it involved physically harming her in any way, than it was wrong, since none of us have the right to physically injure anyone else.Frankly, I don't think you've responded to me at all. I am looking for an ethical/moral argument, and I would like to be convinced that theft is wrong, given that:a) no one is physically harmedB) no one is deprived of money/goods that they will suffer through significant hardships withoutc) no one is deprived of money/goods that they were not willing to at least put at risk (similar to B).d) the people are not aware that they lost their money due to any cheating or irregularitiesI think this argument is exactly the same as going back in time with a sports almanac (an excellent example). Except in the latter, you are stealing for bookies and companies instead of other poker players. Logically, you feel bad for the example where you steal from poker players since we are ones, but there shouldn't be any difference in a truly ethical argument. Therefore if you said "no" to the theft question, but "yes" to the sports almanac question, I think you are contradicting yourself. I would like to hear responses from people who answered differently as to why they feel their answers are justified.I hope I'm not coming off as a jerk in these posts. I'm really interested in discussing this, but I don't want it to turn ugly. I hope I am answering thoughtfully and good-naturedly.So to summarize, I will agree that harming another person is wrong, but I feel that stealing is only wrong for certain reasons. Those reasons are the above bolded reasons, and I feel that the example where you have a program no one knows about, and you use it smartly, then all of those qualifications are met, and I don't see how theft under those circumstances is wrong.Cheers,Daniel
Since you added stipulation D, this is a morals only issue. In this case, theft is wrong but you're never caught so you feel it is a healthy action. You are not Robin Hood, though. To maintain a healthy society, we adhere to the belief that some actions are wrong and some actions are acceptable. Stealing another's property without their consent is deemed wrong. This is a product of the society that we live in, designed to offer protection to all those who live in it.If you choose to disobey the rules of the society in which you live, you should shed all protections offered by that society as well. That is why you shouldn't steal - you are breaking the very rules that you expect others to follow to guarantee your safety.That's my primary answer to your question. Here's some other stuff I typed while thinking about it.Just because you're not harming a human being *physically* does not free you from the implications of harming a human being in a different way. The society you live in right now would be anarcy if we followed this model - you are free to commit any act so long as you believe that you aren't harming the target or putting the target of the act in a destitute state. Your four stipulations have some ambiguities; they leave a great deal to personal interpretation. Stipulation A is fairly evident - harming someone is harming someone. After that, however, you get into a grey area. Exactly how much property can you relieve a person of before you can no longer steal from them? Can you rob them down to $100000 net worth? $250000? Can you rob $1000 max from a single individual? Can you rob them until you and the victim are in the exact same condition as yourself? You can't have a functioning society where the individual makes his own laws. As well, stipulation C falls apart once you back off and look at the picture of what exactly is "at risk" money. I mean, if I put a $100 bill in my wallet, I am putting that money at some level of risk. As well, if I put it in a bank, I'm putting it at risk. I don't think you ever can say that anything is 100% safe, therefore it is at greater than 0% risk.Hope this answers your question.
Interesting arguments, and I thank you as well for your thoughtful posts. I hadn't considered either yours or Tate's ideas in detail.I should clarify I don't necessarily consider theft a healthy action, just one that is not necessarily unhealthy. While I'm painfully straddling the fence, I'll point out that I think people making up their individual laws and people committing victimless crimes leading to anarchy as you argued, is a stretch.The fact is, there are few victimless crimes. Prostitution comes to mind, as its only harm seems to be offending the sensibilities of people. Prostitution laws seem anachronistic (sp?) to me and I would consider them as acceptable as theft under the circumstances I described.As for the ambiguity, you are correct that I made no concrete statements. How much can you rob from people? What condition can you leave them in before it becomes unacceptable?The only answer I can give is an ambiguous one, that is, you can rob them insofar as it does not significantly affect their ability to lead their lifestyle in a similar fashion. Obviously this is a poor answer, but I do believe it has some meaning. As for putting your money at risk, I think there is a real distinction between the risk you accept by putting money in your wallet or in the bank, and playing poker with it. One is necessary risk and one is unnecessary. An analogy might be carrying $50 in your wallet on an average day (a necessary risk) and carrying $5000 sticking out of your shirt pocket while walking through a rough part of town at 2 in the morning.I think you picked out the main problem with my argument though. That is, I say that people can commit crimes, so long as victims are not "significantly" effected. And the word "significantly" is open to personal interpretation, so people can effectively make their own laws. I don't think that intellectually this leads to anarchy, but in reality, it could conceivably follow a slippery slope towards anarchy.Cheers,Daniel
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently cashed out from a poker site for $150 and two days later I get an e-mail for netter telling that $380 has ben deposited it my account. Is it stealing if i don't tell them about it? Is it my responsability to point out thier mistakes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently cashed out from a poker site for $150 and two days later I get an e-mail for netter telling that $380 has ben deposited it my account. Is it stealing if i don't tell them about it? Is it my responsability to point out thier mistakes?
What do you think?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there was this episode of the Twlight Zone where a "gambler" was in this alternate reality where every bet he placed won. It was like his personal hell 'cause the thing about gambling that got him off was the risk, not the reward. Now I'm not saying that I'm anywhere near that, but if there were no risk, or skill involved I think playing cards would be kinda boring. Don't get me wrong, I like winning money, but mostly I like the competitiveness of outplaying somebody in a big pot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You will notice that the example did not involve harming the woman. I also stated (or else I think I did) that if it involved physically harming her in any way, than it was wrong, since none of us have the right to physically injure anyone else.
Your position is so logically inconsistent it's not even funny. It's not morally self-evident that taking someone else's property is wrong, but it is morally self-evident that harming someone physically is? People have a right to be free from physical harm, but they dont even have a right to keep their own property?Do you think you have a right to someone else's property? If so, then what's your address? I'm sure you'll agree that I have a right to any of your property that I deem surplus. I'll be by with a van later. Unless you're a Marxist, and believe that property is theft, I cant see any consistency in your views on rights and ethics. Even if you were a Marxist, your beliefs are inconsistent since you dont give property holders any right to their property, but you believe that thieves have every right to it nonetheless. What kind of a system of morals do you have that gives thieves more rights to property than those who earned the property in the first place?Finally, do you know that you are not doing any harm by taking the old lady's million dollars? How do you know what life-saving charities you might be depriving of funds? How do you know the woman herself might not become stricken with a condition that is very expensive to treat? Property law is the cornerstone of civil society. Anarchy and/or communism only work in small societies and only where people behave in a basically moral fashion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently cashed out from a poker site for $150 and two days later I get an e-mail for netter telling that $380 has ben deposited it my account. Is it stealing if i don't tell them about it? Is it my responsability to point out thier mistakes?
NO WAY. It is their mistake, enjoy the good luck. If you accidentally misclicked and lost a 150 dollar pot would they refund it? No.So when they misclick you dont need to refund either.
Link to post
Share on other sites
before i just say something like your an idiot or something like that i would like for you to explain how it is different between robbing an old lady and robbing many people that could be of any race, gender or age.
Well, before you get a chance, i might as well say that "your" likely not qualified to question anyone's intelligence.The difference is that there's no significant net loss in social welfare in most situations from using this alleged program if you aren't caught.If you judge your action on a utilitarian ethic, the loss from one is roughly identical to your own gain; assuming both you and the person in question have roughly identical incomes. This is what dannyng is talking about.The money that people put into a poker site is discretionary income for the most part and in your pocket as discretionary income. Yes, there are professionals that depend on poker income, but what you're potentially taking from each individual is marginal and only marginally reduces their income when you're playing at the table. The integrity of the law in the eyes of citizens and the peace of mind of individuals in that society aren't hurt if they don't know about the program. The primary damage is that using the program repeatedly will result in an inequitable distribution of wealth. When you have a high income, each additional dollar taken from then results in greater damages than what you gain.If you're taking away money that was needed to feed a family, the damages they incur exceeds the benefits that you gain. You also steal her ID, purse and sentimental items that harm her, but provide virtually no benefit to you. Additionally, she (and a lot of society) will fear for their own well being knowing that there's a robber out there; and she's probably not gonig to be too pleased on account of the trauma associated with being robbed. There's a net loss in the social well being and a substantial one at that. There may be a net loss when using this program for your own benefit, but it doesn't come close to comparing to the net loss associated with stealing an old ladies purse.There are obviously systems of ethics besides utilitarianism. Some conceptions of morality require that you consider if everyone else acted in a way consistant with what you'er doing, would society be worse off? If the answer is yes, then that course of action would be ethically unjustified. If you were to ask "how much worse off?", the answer would likely be far greater in the case where everyone in a society robbed each other than in a situation where everyone used this program.Public policy is in large part predicated on utilitarian ethics. Laws are legislated in order to serve the collective best interest. They're intended to prevent behavior that results in a net loss to society in terms of utility or welfare. When evaluating the effect of crime on society, the conventional way of approaching it is to disregard net transfers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, before you get a chance, i might as well say that "your" likely not qualified to question anyone's intelligence. Not a flame, just ironic that you posted something telling someone that they are at fault for questioning another posters intelligence because of their lack of intelligence, yet clearly you mispelled "your" when in that context its "you're" which is you are, and not your

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people who think that this program wouldn't be stealing:1. A simple ethical principle known as universilizability. What would happen if everyone did what I am doing right now? Using a simple concept like this one, it is plain to see the disaster that would happen if many people used this program. Poker would no longer be a fair game, only the ones using this obvious and unfair edge would come out as winners.2. You continue to base the bulk of your justification on quantity of money taken. The fact is that you, nor anyone here, can possibly judge the financial situation of the people you are playing against. You cannot say "oh, this isn't a lot of money that I'm taking from them." This is an awefully big assumption. This could be someone's bankroll, or part of someone's rent money, or all the extra money that some poor kid has on the site. Trying to categorize stealing based on the quantity taken is therefore and insufficient arguement.3. Another simple, universally accepted moral code: Golden Rule (no, this is not just a religious term, ask any ethics professor). In any way you want to put it, "treat others as you would want to be treated." It is highly doubtful that you would want the tables turned on you in this situation, where you could be doomed to lose your money without ever having a fair chance.4. People put their money on a poker table with the knowledge that the "can" lose it. This does not imply that they expect or wish to lose it. People invest money in companies with the knowledge that they "could" lose it, but then look what happened with Enron and other crooked company executives.You have basically made the arguements that stealing isn't morally reprehensible as long as the victim doesn't know it took place and the money isn't too great. Both of these arguements are questionable, at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To the people who think that this program wouldn't be stealing:1.  A simple ethical principle known as universilizability.  What would happen if everyone did what I am doing right now?  Using a simple concept like this one, it is plain to see the disaster that would happen if many people used this program.  Poker would no longer be a fair game, only the ones using this obvious and unfair edge would come out as winners..
And what was poker like in the old days, where people carried guns and robbed the winners? Poker survived those unfair days, no reason it would not continue to survive even if people knowingly cheated. People still play those online games (sorry don't know the names) even knowing that plenty of people cheat, though admittedly, not for money.
2.  You continue to base the bulk of your justification on quantity of money taken.  The fact is that you, nor anyone here, can possibly judge the financial situation of the people you are playing against.  You cannot say "oh, this isn't a lot of money that I'm taking from them."  This is an awefully big assumption.  This could be someone's bankroll, or part of someone's rent money, or all the extra money that some poor kid has on the site.  Trying to categorize stealing based on the quantity taken is therefore and insufficient arguement.3.  Another simple, universally accepted moral code:  Golden Rule (no, this is not just a religious term, ask any ethics professor).  In any way you want to put it, "treat others as you would want to be treated."  It is highly doubtful that you would want the tables turned on you in this situation, where you could be doomed to lose your money without ever having a fair chance.4.  People put their money on a poker table with the knowledge that the "can" lose it.  This does not imply that they expect or wish to lose it.  People invest money in companies with the knowledge that they "could" lose it, but then look what happened with Enron and other crooked company executives.You have basically made the arguements that stealing isn't morally reprehensible as long as the victim doesn't know it took place and the money isn't too great.  Both of these arguements are questionable, at best.
You make good points, but many of those things can be assumed away as a philosophical exercise. The part about not knowing people's financial situation for instance obviously prevents stealing from being acceptable, but that was one of my (unrealistic) assumptions.My arguments were centered around the paragraph I bolded, but you only say that the arguments are questionable - which they undoubtedly are.Daniel
Link to post
Share on other sites
And what was poker like in the old days, where people carried guns and robbed the winners? Poker survived those unfair days, no reason it would not continue to survive even if people knowingly cheated. People still play those online games (sorry don't know the names) even knowing that plenty of people cheat, though admittedly, not for money.
Yes people were robbed in the good ol' west. The reason the game survived is because the "game" was still pure and competitive. The place where the game took place, the collection of players, yes would sometimes get robbed. But the game remained true. The actions you discuss involve theft within the game itself. In this regard, poker would in fact die. When the game itself becomes unfair people will not want to play, regardless of the outside situations around the game.Soccer is widely followed and played world wide, despite the violence of the fans. This is because the game remains the same. If some people started to use a special shoe that would rocket the ball into the back of the net every time, and only a few had it, then the game would die out. If everyone used it, the game would lose its integrity and die out.Do you see how this is completely different from a casino getting robbed in the old days?The problem I also have is that you admittedly call it "cheating". Isn't cheating, by shear definition and understanding in human society, wrong? I'm sure I could quote numerous dictionary's, sports and even religious leaders to prove my point, but I doubt that is necessary.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You will notice that the example did not involve harming the woman.  I also stated (or else I think I did) that if it involved physically harming her in any way, than it was wrong, since none of us have the right to physically injure anyone else.
Your position is so logically inconsistent it's not even funny. It's not morally self-evident that taking someone else's property is wrong, but it is morally self-evident that harming someone physically is? People have a right to be free from physical harm, but they dont even have a right to keep their own property?Do you think you have a right to someone else's property? If so, then what's your address? I'm sure you'll agree that I have a right to any of your property that I deem surplus. I'll be by with a van later. Unless you're a Marxist, and believe that property is theft, I cant see any consistency in your views on rights and ethics. Even if you were a Marxist, your beliefs are inconsistent since you dont give property holders any right to their property, but you believe that thieves have every right to it nonetheless. What kind of a system of morals do you have that gives thieves more rights to property than those who earned the property in the first place?Finally, do you know that you are not doing any harm by taking the old lady's million dollars? How do you know what life-saving charities you might be depriving of funds? How do you know the woman herself might not become stricken with a condition that is very expensive to treat? Property law is the cornerstone of civil society. Anarchy and/or communism only work in small societies and only where people behave in a basically moral fashion.
I don't believe my points are as inconsistent as you believe. I don't believe harming someone or stealing from someone are self-evidently wrong. I believe harming someone is wrong insofar as you are depriving people of the liberty to physical independence. I believe theft is wrong in that it has several negative consequences, as I detailed earlier.The laws to physical property are necessary as you point out for a reasonable society. I don't doubt you are absolutely correct in that, and you phrased it well I might add.But the fact that they are necessary does not (in my opinion) mean that they are philosophically sufficient. I believe that physical property laws are necessary, but I don't necessarily believe that they are ethical/moral. (I do, but that's just my opinion)As for the old lady, as I said in my previous post, it is realities like that which relate this solely to a philosophical argument. Only by unrealistically assuming things like "the loss of money does not significantly hurt her" can I make an argument which I actually believe in.Cheers,Danielp.s. getting close to 1000!
Link to post
Share on other sites

it says alot for a persons' perception of their poker ability if they have to stoop to cheating in order to win money...Too many people on here pretend that they want to get better at the game, yet those same people would cheat just to win some money...obviously your skills are less than what you are bragging about on this site and no doubt others...I play mostly live and I play for fun...i play because I love the competition...when I win I am satisfied...but if I won because I cheated, where is the satisfaction? In the big screen that will stare at you daily and remind you that you are a disgrace? With the younger age group so heavily weighted on this site, it is a sad commentary on your generation. I am only 39 yrs old, but I was taught right and wrong, and those who say they would cheat sicken me

Link to post
Share on other sites
And what was poker like in the old days, where people carried guns and robbed the winners? Poker survived those unfair days, no reason it would not continue to survive even if people knowingly cheated. People still play those online games (sorry don't know the names) even knowing that plenty of people cheat, though admittedly, not for money.
Yes people were robbed in the good ol' west. The reason the game survived is because the "game" was still pure and competitive. The place where the game took place, the collection of players, yes would sometimes get robbed. But the game remained true. The actions you discuss involve theft within the game itself. In this regard, poker would in fact die. When the game itself becomes unfair people will not want to play, regardless of the outside situations around the game.Soccer is widely followed and played world wide, despite the violence of the fans. This is because the game remains the same. If some people started to use a special shoe that would rocket the ball into the back of the net every time, and only a few had it, then the game would die out. If everyone used it, the game would lose its integrity and die out.Do you see how this is completely different from a casino getting robbed in the old days?The problem I also have is that you admittedly call it "cheating". Isn't cheating, by shear definition and understanding in human society, wrong? I'm sure I could quote numerous dictionary's, sports and even religious leaders to prove my point, but I doubt that is necessary.
I disagree that the game remained the same, or that it remained "pure and competitive." If one player has an ace up his sleeve, the game is neither.And in soccer/sports, you say if a few people had equipment other people did not have access to, the game would die.I disagree for several reasons.a) no one would knowB) the difference between talent and equipment can be a fine line. obviously, many players have far more talent+equipment than others, even though most of that is talent. The point is, people continue to play, knowing that others are much much better.I think the fact that no one would know would prevent people from stopping playing. If people stop playing, the game will continue as is, although those in the know would realize that when I was involved, the game had little integrity.This doesn't exactly respond to your argument, but it can't be ignored. Amateurs still play poker against Johnny Chan, knowing that they have little chance. People gamble against casinos, knowing the odds are against them. You could easily argue differences, but I don't see much of a difference playing against a cheater and playing slot machines for years.I'll brilliantly segue now into your point about me referring to it as cheating. You are correct - cheating, by definition is wrong. Even if it's not in the dictionary (probably is) it is a strong enough implication that for all intensive purposes it is wrong. If I used it, I did so because I had no better word. I've admitted that what was suggested is wrong, unless you make several unrealistic assumptions. The negative connotations of the word are simply semantics, and if I knew of a word without them, I'd have used it.Cheers,Daniel
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are saying that no one will know you are seeing their holecards - you are wrong. If I sat at a table with this player using this program for an hour, I'd strongly suspect that he was cheating. Why?A) He would be unbluffableandB) He would never call a bet on the river and lose.A bad player may be unbluffable, but they constantly call on the river and lose. A good player is bluffable and will call on the river with the worse hand plenty of times because they are getting great odds.Of course you could mix up your play occasionally by making a deliberate mistake, but the better players would catch on that in the "important" pots, you were playing beyond world-class poker. And if you mix it up to the extent that you are making many mistakes, then you are defeating the purpose of the using the program.Over a short period of time, your chances of getting caught are small. But over the long term the more perceptive players would become suspicious - and eventually convinced.That doesn't even address the possibility of the poker room itself detecting the presence of this program and confiscating your funds.There is no type of stealing where you can be 100% sure that the person(s) you are stealing from will never become aware of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up:Cheating is wrong.Stealing is wrong.What is the point of creating a set of unrealistic assumptions and then discussing whether "cheating" or "stealing" is wrong in those circumstances. THESE CONDITIONS WILL NEVER OCCUR, so it doesn't matter even if you can justify cheating under those conditions.You might as well argue about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, before you get a chance, i might as well say that "your" likely not qualified to question anyone's intelligence. Not a flame, just ironic that you posted something telling someone that they are at fault for questioning another posters intelligence because of their lack of intelligence, yet clearly you mispelled "your" when in that context its "you're" which is you are, and not your
wow royal, i'm usually on your side about things, but this just makes you look like a complete moron.notice the "your" is in quotation marks. he's making fun of the person he quoted by using your like that :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...