would you cheat????

[agsa6079 0]

Wow arent you the fountain of wrong today. Counting cards is not cheating. This has been established by the court system of New Jersey if you want a concrete example (Ken Uston's famous blackjack lawsuit against the Atlantic City casinos in the 80s)

Your original post, before edit, stated "Counting cards is not illegal".I'm a mental midget because I pointed out that you were wrong. Typical.Ken Ustons suit was not about blackjack, its was about property owners rights. It was against a specific casino, not AC casinos. It had nothing to do with card counting, or it's legality. It had to do with property rights. You make it appear as if some card counter went to AC and won the right to count cards.I've explained how the laws of various States have in fact been utilized to expose card counting as cheating, and cheating as being illegal and prosecutable. Ergo, card counting can land you in jail, but it is highly unlikely. I pointed that out from the beginning.

You actually said. Knowing your opponents cards shouldnt matter because you should make the same play wether you can see them or not.

Yes, I did. In context to the rest of my point, which was about the plethora of people here who profess to such knowledgable poker players, play against the person, not the cards, etc. This is a prime example of OUT OF CONTEXT STATEMENTS. In fact, the rest of the sentence describes this as being an adage from Caro and Doyle, right out of SS. Way to take 1 sentence and spin it. Bottom line, I've made my point with regards to the OP and the point at hnad. Cane, Royal, we always seem to clash, mainly when you don't seem to grasp the points that are at hand. It always comes down to your interpretation of my words. I can't help it if you misunderstand my thoughts. But then again, you guys seem to clash with a lot of people here. To each his own.

[CaneBrain 95]

Wow arent you the fountain of wrong today. Counting cards is not cheating. This has been established by the court system of New Jersey if you want a concrete example (Ken Uston's famous blackjack lawsuit against the Atlantic City casinos in the 80s)

Your original post, before edit, stated "Counting cards is not illegal".I'm a mental midget because I pointed out that you were wrong. Typical.Ken Ustons suit was not about blackjack, its was about property owners rights. It was against a specific casino, not AC casinos. It had nothing to do with card counting, or it's legality. It had to do with property rights. You make it appear as if some card counter went to AC and won the right to count cards.I've explained how the laws of various States have in fact been utilized to expose card counting as cheating, and cheating as being illegal and prosecutable. Ergo, card counting can land you in jail, but it is highly unlikely. I pointed that out from the beginning.

You actually said. Knowing your opponents cards shouldnt matter because you should make the same play wether you can see them or not.

Yes, I did. In context to the rest of my point, which was about the plethora of people here who profess to such knowledgable poker players, play against the person, not the cards, etc. This is a prime example of OUT OF CONTEXT STATEMENTS. In fact, the rest of the sentence describes this as being an adage from Caro and Doyle, right out of SS. Way to take 1 sentence and spin it. Bottom line, I've made my point with regards to the OP and the point at hnad. Cane, Royal, we always seem to clash, mainly when you don't seem to grasp the points that are at hand. It always comes down to your interpretation of my words. I can't help it if you misunderstand my thoughts. But then again, you guys seem to clash with a lot of people here. To each his own.

Again you change the argument to something else. I have said from the beginning that card counting is NOT CHEATING. You are the mental midget. Which is typical. At no point have you pointed out an error of mine. Thats because you are wrong. card counting is not cheating. nor is it illegal. but it is NOT CHEATING. have I said that enough times now?Again you are missing the forest for the trees on the Ken Uston suit.you admit that the NJ courts stated he could not be barred for counting cards. therefore, if card counting is cheating like YOU SAY, then the NJ courts RULED THAT A CASINO COULD NOT BAR A PATRON FOR CHEATING!!!! which might be the silliest, stupidest thing anyone has ever said.

[CaneBrain 95]

Wow arent you the fountain of wrong today. Counting cards is not cheating. This has been established by the court system of New Jersey if you want a concrete example (Ken Uston's famous blackjack lawsuit against the Atlantic City casinos in the 80s)

Your original post, before edit, stated "Counting cards is not illegal".I'm a mental midget because I pointed out that you were wrong. Typical.Ken Ustons suit was not about blackjack, its was about property owners rights. It was against a specific casino, not AC casinos. It had nothing to do with card counting, or it's legality. It had to do with property rights. You make it appear as if some card counter went to AC and won the right to count cards.I've explained how the laws of various States have in fact been utilized to expose card counting as cheating, and cheating as being illegal and prosecutable. Ergo, card counting can land you in jail, but it is highly unlikely. I pointed that out from the beginning.

You actually said. Knowing your opponents cards shouldnt matter because you should make the same play wether you can see them or not.

Yes, I did. In context to the rest of my point, which was about the plethora of people here who profess to such knowledgable poker players, play against the person, not the cards, etc. This is a prime example of OUT OF CONTEXT STATEMENTS. In fact, the rest of the sentence describes this as being an adage from Caro and Doyle, right out of SS. Way to take 1 sentence and spin it. Bottom line, I've made my point with regards to the OP and the point at hnad. Cane, Royal, we always seem to clash, mainly when you don't seem to grasp the points that are at hand. It always comes down to your interpretation of my words. I can't help it if you misunderstand my thoughts. But then again, you guys seem to clash with a lot of people here. To each his own.

Again you change the argument to something else. I have said from the beginning that card counting is NOT CHEATING. You are the mental midget. Which is typical. At no point have you pointed out an error of mine. Thats because you are wrong. card counting is not cheating. nor is it illegal. but it is NOT CHEATING. have I said that enough times now?Again you are missing the forest for the trees on the Ken Uston suit.you admit that the NJ courts stated he could not be barred for counting cards. therefore, if card counting is cheating like YOU SAY, then the NJ courts RULED THAT A CASINO COULD NOT BAR A PATRON FOR CHEATING!!!! which might be the silliest, stupidest thing anyone has ever said.CARD COUNTING CAN NOT LAND YOU IN JAIL. IT CANT. IT CANT. YOU ARE WRONG. sorry to resort to caps but it seems necessary here.

[ziggy587 0]

I would not cheat....People who would online are the same ones that would mark cards in their weekly home games...sad.

[CaneBrain 95]

by the way....great job quoting a line where I specifically say card counting is not CHEATING....and then saying that I had edited and at first it said something else.BRAVO! you are really taking this being wrong thing to a whole new level.

[BilliardsBoy 0]

Don't cheat, it's wrong.With regards to the legality of card counting and how, in court, you can draw a line from card counting to cheating to illegal, I find it hard to argue with a guy whose job it is to know that kinda stuff. He proved his knowledge by disproving the "landmark" case as ruling on property and not officially ruling on card counting.The important thing is that we all agree that it would be wrong to cheat and see other people's hole cards.

[JFinn08 0]

Don't cheat, it's wrong.With regards to the legality of card counting and how, in court, you can draw a line from card counting to cheating to illegal, I find it hard to argue with a guy whose job it is to know that kinda stuff. He proved his knowledge by disproving the "landmark" case as ruling on property and not officially ruling on card counting.The important thing is that we all agree that it would be wrong to cheat and see other people's hole cards.

I think everyone agrees it is wrong. The disturbing part is that a lot of people still say they would do it.

[Dan74 0]

This thread actually makes me a little sick. If you vote yes, you should go to jail, for a very long time. I love poker and it genuinely saddens me that the newer generation is so comfortable cheating the game, themselves, and flat out robbing other people. Where do you cheaters draw the line exactly? If you could rob one of your friends for money without getting caught would you do that to? Remind me not to invite you guys over to my place... my goodness, you guys need a beat down!

I have alot more respect for Mr. Negreanu for this and the other posts in this thread he made.I seriously thought to myself, "God, what is wrong with some people", when reading this thread. Certainly there are worse people in the world than just cheaters but some of you with your responses just make me sick.

[joeythep 0]

This thread makes me sick...because I don't think I can give an answer here. I suppose I would do it, if i wasn't thinking about it. If I thought about what I was doing, I wouldn't. If I was using a program, and found out what it did, i would probably initially think it was cool, and mess around with it for a while. Then I would go through a guilt trip and stop using it. If I didn't uninstall the program, temptation would probably get the best of me eventually, so hopefully i would feel guilty enough to do so. I do know I HAVE turned down free money on more than one occasion. The first time, I went to the bank to get some change for work. I needed $100 in $1's and $100 in $5's. I was halfway down the block when I realized both bundles were the same size. I had 100 $1 bills, and 100 $5 bills. $400 free dollars, that nobody could ever prove I had, since the lady wrote down that she gave me $100 in fives, not $500. I thought about the poor lady getting fired when her drawer was short $400, and turned around and gave it back. The second time was at the same bank. I went to cash my paycheck, which was around $1100. I told them I wanted $500 cash back, and to deposit the difference. They gave me $500 cash, and deposited $1100. The reciept showed no mention of $500 cashback. This time I struggled with it a bit more, and just called the bank after I got home. I just had them deduct $500 from my account. The next time I went in there, the two tellers whose jobs I had saved had made me cookies. Now, cookies aren't as cool as $900, but I'll trade $900 for cookies and integrity anyday. Another similiar situation. I mentioned at work the other day that I wanted to buy an Ipod. A kid at work said he had one his friend left in his car, and the friend didn't know where he lost it. He said he'd sell it to me for $50. I was thinking real hard about it, but not entirely comfortable. Then come to find out, his friend didn't leave it in his car, but just left it lying around the house, and the guy said he'd steal it for me if I'd give him $50. In that situation, I had to say no. So I guess, my answer to the original question is this: If i knew what the software did, I wouldn't go and download it. But if I downloaded the software, and THEN found out I could see hole cards, I would have a REAL hard time not using it. But I would like to think I wouldn't give into temptation. But, I'm not perfect, and I have to admit, there are days when I wish I'd just kept the money, and I know there are certain months where money is short when I might have done so. But I take comfort at least in knowing that I have a conscience, and at the very least HAVE turned down free money.

[Herr Baader 0]

its an old saying: "character is what guides you when no one is looking"anyone can be a good person with all eyes on them.....those who are good even if they would get away with being bad are the truly moral.however' date=' I honestly dont know what I would do with access to a program like this. I think at first I would be so tempted and eventually use it for a few days and then be disgusted with myself and stop. It is not easy to just turn down free money especially when no one would know and you cant see the people you are hurting. But I dont think I could use a program like this indefinitely....I would soon enough become too upset with myself knowing I am winning unfairly.[/quote']I'm with you 100% on this. I say I "like to think" I'd make the right choice bc I've been faced with temptation before and not always gone the right way. In fact, when I just started playing internet poker I agreed with a friend to collude on a $5 SnG. I justified it by telling myself if wasn't THAT big an edge, but obviously that wasn't the point. It was cheating, against other folks just like me. I felt horrible about it for weeks after, and I know now that's it's not something I'd do again. If I was giving access to this magical program, I'd hope I'd have the character to delete it from my HD, but I don't think you can ever really know how you'd fare against a temptation of that magnitude until you face it outside the realm of the hypothetical.(apologies for my ineptness at quoting)

[rog 0]

Bottom line, I've made my point with regards to the OP and the point at hnad. Cane, Royal, we always seem to clash, mainly when you don't seem to grasp the points that are at hand. It always comes down to your interpretation of my words. I can't help it if you misunderstand my thoughts. But then again, you guys seem to clash with a lot of people here. To each his own.

Bottom line is you've made no good point whatsoever, and yet you slog on bravely forward insisting that you have, and flip-flopping your argument to try to save face. The fact is, you made a long post stating that since you play the person not the cards, knowing their cards shouldn't change your play. You made that post in a very condescending way even though the premise is utterly ridiculous. You made several posts defending that position. Cane and Royal clash with you because they have the patience to do so. I dont clash with you because I dont have the patience for it, and I recognize that since you are too stubborn to back down, it would be an excercise in futility. Dont be deluded into thinking that just because you only clash with the 2 of them that everyone else gets your point and agrees with you. I for one dont.

[mrdannyg 274]

Bunch of hoodlums! If an old lady fell on the street and had a million in her purse, would you help her up and then rob her too? Seriously, how do y'all sleep at night? Doing this is flat out theft. Doing this makes you a two-bit criminal.

There is a difference. The difference is that poker players are putting their money out there, knowing they could lose it. Secondly, they'll never know they were cheated. Finally, the money poker players lose should not severely hurt them, whereas the old lady might go hungry if you mugged her.Doing this is theft, I agree. But you have to look at the point of laws I think. Won't get into it here, but if no one knows they are being hurt, and no one is severely hurt, I don't think its so bad.I know DN and others have religious problems with this, but that is a completely different issue. And for the record, if there was an old lady with a million dollars in her purse, and no one would know I robbed her, and she was rich enough that losing a million would not make her starve or anything, then yes I would mug her and frankly I haven't read any good reasons in this thread not to.DanielEDIT: I honestly look forward to reading and discussing thoughtful responses to this. I just hope that people will respond thoughtfully and not just say "because it's wrong" or things like that.

[TS Clark 0]

And for the record, if there was an old lady with a million dollars in her purse, and no one would know I robbed her, and she was rich enough that losing a million would not make her starve or anything, then yes I would mug her and frankly I haven't read any good reasons in this thread not to.EDIT: I honestly look forward to reading and discussing thoughtful responses to this. I just hope that people will respond thoughtfully and not just say "because it's wrong" or things like that.

You're looking forward to "thoughtful responses" to a post where you said you'd be OK with mugging an old woman for her money? I don't really think her personal circumstances (rich or poor, etc.) make much a difference here, do you?Let's read that again -- you said you would be willing to mug an old woman for money if you could get away with it.I don't think "thoughtful" is what you're going to get back (or deserve).

[mrdannyg 274]

And for the record, if there was an old lady with a million dollars in her purse, and no one would know I robbed her, and she was rich enough that losing a million would not make her starve or anything, then yes I would mug her and frankly I haven't read any good reasons in this thread not to.EDIT: I honestly look forward to reading and discussing thoughtful responses to this. I just hope that people will respond thoughtfully and not just say "because it's wrong" or things like that.

You're looking forward to "thoughtful responses" to a post where you said you'd be OK with mugging an old woman for her money? I don't really think her personal circumstances (rich or poor, etc.) make much a difference here, do you?Let's read that again -- you said you would be willing to mug an old woman for money if you could get away with it.I don't think "thoughtful" is what you're going to get back (or deserve).

Just the kind of post I was hoping people would be intelligent enough to avoid. You berate me for what I said, but give no reason at all. You imply that what I said I would do is self-evidently wrong, but to me, nothing is self-evidently wrong.If I said I would injure the woman for instance, then I would be causing harm to another person and one unable to defend themselves at that. Then mugging her is wrong.But you simply berate me and give no reasons. To me, that is ignorance. I don't "deserve" a response? Why not? Because you've never thought about the reasons behind why you think and act like you do, and simply accept it? Not really my fault.Daniel

[Crack User 0]

in the past i wouldve for sure and then prolly overdoesed a month and a half later but today i have jesus and i woulnd for sure just go to him and youll see the immorality of itGood luck.

[Pokerghost2 0]

before daniels first post the yes count was at 71%, it now stands at 56%. the true number lies at around 90% that would give it a try. there are some truly morally rooted people, mostly women, who honestly wouldnt. the rest of u who would be cheating right along with me are not only cheaters but also liars, and suckups as well. i would bet my immortal soul at even money that the true number lies above 90%, given access to such a device and the privacy to use it. probably WELL above 90%.

[jtabletop 0]

before daniels first post the yes count was at 71%, it now stands at 56%. the true number lies at around 90% that would give it a try. there are some truly morally rooted people, mostly women, who honestly wouldnt. the rest of u who would be cheating right along with me are not only cheaters but also liars, and suckups as well. i would bet my immortal soul at even money that the true number lies above 90%, given access to such a device and the privacy to use it. probably WELL above 90%.

I think you have given the best response to my original question. It is just what I thought and you are dead on with regards to the results after dn put in his response. I still stick to my answer which is no and will always be no.

[TS Clark 0]

You imply that what I said I would do is self-evidently wrong, but to me, nothing is self-evidently wrong.

If you really feel this way, then this is way too philosophical a discussion for me. Arguing morality and/or ethics with a person who needs to be convinced that harming another person for money is wrong is not a fruitful area of debate.Royal's argument about card counting is an area where people can disagree thoughtfully about an ethical issue. The other post about "going back in time with a sports almanac" is another clever ethical argument, since it involves time travel and Back to the Future (always two hallmarks for entertaining ethical debate). Whether it is "self-evidently" wrong to club an old woman like a harp seal for her money is NOT an area that is open for debate. And if you need that explained to you, then you're a jackass.

[Hobbes 1]

I enjoy reading the various debates in these forums, but this is the only one that compelled me to register (although the DN MS Paint contest was close).The question is "would you cheat?" Does it really matter what situation is presented to determine your answer? It's still cheating and the answer should be no. We'd all be better off if our actions were determined by what is right and wrong and not who we're hurting or what the consequences are to ourselves. I'm not saying there is no room for debate on what is right or wrong, but I'm surprised that there is debate on whether cheating is right or wrong.There are so many rationalizations taking place here and every single one misses the point. One in particular that I'd like to point out; someone said they would use the computer program if it was a $100 tournament because people would only be out $100 and they could all afford it. First of all, you don't know what they can afford and it doesn't matter that they shouldn't play if they can't afford it. But the bigger point is that you are stealing the prize money from whoever would have legitimately won it. So if there were 1,000 entrants and it was a winner take all prize, you just stole $100,000 from somebody. The fact that you don't know who doesn't change anything.Anyway, I hope I've contributed something meaningful to the discussion. I think cheating is a serious topic in poker whether the means to that cheating is available or not.

[Tateisgo 0]

before daniels first post the yes count was at 71%, it now stands at 56%. the true number lies at around 90% that would give it a try. there are some truly morally rooted people, mostly women, who honestly wouldnt. the rest of u who would be cheating right along with me are not only cheaters but also liars, and suckups as well. i would bet my immortal soul at even money that the true number lies above 90%, given access to such a device and the privacy to use it. probably WELL above 90%.

:clap:

[CaneBrain 95]

Don't cheat, it's wrong.With regards to the legality of card counting and how, in court, you can draw a line from card counting to cheating to illegal, I find it hard to argue with a guy whose job it is to know that kinda stuff. He proved his knowledge by disproving the "landmark" case as ruling on property and not officially ruling on card counting.The important thing is that we all agree that it would be wrong to cheat and see other people's hole cards.

actually he didnt disprove anything. he is completely wrong on the card counting issue. Card Counting is not cheating. Dont you think casinos would arrest card counters if it was to make an example of them? The fact that it is his job to know this stuff and he doesnt is what is so sad. If you dont want to take my word for it read Ben Mezrich's book "Bringing down the House" It will tell you all you want to know about card counting including the fact that it is not cheating.But you can believe he "disproved" something if you wish.

[mrdannyg 274]

You imply that what I said I would do is self-evidently wrong, but to me, nothing is self-evidently wrong.

If you really feel this way, then this is way too philosophical a discussion for me. Arguing morality and/or ethics with a person who needs to be convinced that harming another person for money is wrong is not a fruitful area of debate.Royal's argument about card counting is an area where people can disagree thoughtfully about an ethical issue. The other post about "going back in time with a sports almanac" is another clever ethical argument, since it involves time travel and Back to the Future (always two hallmarks for entertaining ethical debate). Whether it is "self-evidently" wrong to club an old woman like a harp seal for her money is NOT an area that is open for debate. And if you need that explained to you, then you're a jackass.

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

[lifelessimp 0]

To all the people who said taking money from a drunk is a completely wrong analogy, It SHOULD be correct.If people can't give consent to have sex when drunk/high (a law in many states), then why should they be able to play poker? When people are drunk, they make decisions that they normally wouldn't make. Why should having sex with someone whose drunk be technically considered "rape" whereas taking money from a drunk at the poker tables not be considered "cheating"?Now, the OP's topic assumes that people don't know you are cheating. What if the site allows people to use cheating programs, and tells customers in the EULA in fine print that they allow people to cheat? Is it still morally wrong? Is cheating still cheating if everyone has the opportunity to do so, and the casino has no rules against it?

[Rebecca 0]

yes you are still being stupid. its their fault that they lost it anyway, not yours, you had nothing to do with it so just take it. you said it yourself, even they look at you like you are crazy, becuase you are.

The poster is not being stupid here (though you ARE being insulting). They are probably not really returning the $2 item for fear that it will cause the store owner(s) problems. They are returning it because they would not feel honest about keeping something they didn't pay for. It's about them and their internal feelings more than anything -- and thus is not ridiculous, stupid, or any other insulting word you want to attach.You need to seriously look up the word "integrity" in the dictionary. I don't think everyone would feel the same way about the $2 item and I wouldn't think badly of someone who didn't return to the store if they felt such an action was out of proportion to their feelings. But I do think anyone who would ridicule another person for trying to what they felt was right is a person everyone else would be wise to avoid.

no one should feel bad about getting off of paying for a $2 item becuase the store didnt charge them, and they could not control what happened. that is stupid, and a problem with how someone lives their life. something so small shouldnt cause you a second thought, you have problems if it does. thats all there is to it.

Cool. Now I'm being psychoanalyed.See, it's not like I go around every day, and worry out every little thing being exactly fair. This happened like two years ago, and I haven't given it another thought til I posted it in this thread. (And I'm sorry I even mentioned it.) It's just that if something's not right, I like to balance it out. Maybe it's because I'm an accountant or something.If I have a problem, so be it.But there's really no need to be so rude about it.I just think it's a really sad, sad world when it's considered "a problem" to be honest and fair.

[PAYforUSC 0]

how much can i get out of this guy with my nut flush?.. etc....

how much do you get out of RM wit your nut flush Royal? btw i agree