disconnection ethics

[grocery_mony 8]

Part of what it takes to win tournaments(especially one this long) is mental and physical endurance. If i was heads up and needed a 5 min break to clear my head, or use the facilites and i knew the guy wouldnt steal, i would purposely disconnect and take my break. So i feel if u disconnecti ts your problem not the other guys. open season

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

So..still haven't slept since Spademan and I decided we were touching brothers.I'm not sure if it's caffeine/effedrine/coke cocktail or if I'm just still so honored.Edit; The fact that cocktail is censored on a Poker forum is amazing to me. Not like anybody gets a beer from the cocktail waitress. Or maybe has a cocktail while they're waiting to get in a game.

[bigcoled 1]

Cheat lie and steal...if you're making a living at gambling and playing for that much money the level of ethics fall way down...steal steal steal, take every opportunity you can get....

[timwakefield 68]

I would definitely steal as fast as I could, and hopefully he would not come back at all.If he was a nice guy and had not been rude, maybe I would offer to split when he came back (with me in the lead).

[Abbaddabba 0]

However, when play is down to heads-up there is simply nothing to lose by allowing the other player to return.

Yes there is. The opportunity cost of foregoing the blind steals.

After investing money and three to four hours to reach a final table--not to mention heads-up--the least a player can do is be respectful of his opponent.

No, the least that you can do is steal their blinds - which is incidentally the most you can do for yourself.

Doyle Brunson...[has] pioneered higher virtues as one of the first respected voices in gambling to discuss the importance of honor and trust amongst his peers. Brunson came to personify the notion that gambling could be a respectable profession.

If 'peers' is taken to mean people you see on a regular basis, then i agree. But for the most part, final tables are comprised of people ive never seen before and will never see again. If im playing against friends or people i see on a regular basis it changes because i dont want to create any hostility.I also really have no vested interested in making gambling out to be a respectable profession....Im only half jewish, but i'd wholeheartedly jew them out of all their blinds.Or something like that.I play primarily to win, not to earn the respect of people who i have absolutely no connection to, nor do i play to legitimize gambling in the eyes of the general public.

[Scruff 0]

Man, people are tough.In a little tournament, I'd probably steal, just because I wouldn't want to sit around waiting. And it'd teach the guy a lesson - to get a high speed connection. Of course at a full table you have to steal, because if you don't one of your competitors will.But heads up for 65K? I'd give him time to get back on. I'd feel guilty as hell if I didn't, and I'd want the satisfaction of having beat him fair and square.But the really disturbing thing is the people who say there aren't any ethics in poker. That's ridiculous. Try putting down SuperSystem for a minute and reading Wisdon of a Champion by Doyle Brunson sometime if you don't think there are any ethics in poker.It's a game about exploiting edges, sure, but within the confines of the game. I don't think a disconnect in online poker is 'part of the game'.

[srblan 0]

I think I'd probably steal a couple blinds, in case his disconnect was intentional. After that, I'd sit out and then offer a chop when he came back (assuming that the site allows that).

[srblan 0]

It's a game about exploiting edges, sure, but within the confines of the game. I don't think a disconnect in online poker is 'part of the game'.

I totally agree, I think that people using this to justify stealing blinds should bear in mind that marking cards would be exploiting an edge too, but I don't think many of the people who would steal blinds would also mark cards. The fact is that they are both examples of edges not available to both parties involved, and, as such, are not part of "ethical" poker strategy.

[srblan 0]

Dupe content deleted, I dunno how to delete the post, though

[No_Neck 0]

It's hard work. Gambling. Playing poker. Don't let anyone tell you different. Think about what it's like sitting at a poker table with people whose only goal is to cut your throat, take your money, and leave you out back talking to yourself about what went wrong inside. -- Stu Unger, Three-time WSOP Championthat is all

[Timdog1010 0]

OMG - can't believe I forgot about that. That's one of the funniest things I've ever read on here. I stand corrected.But Cybil Shepard had a really nice rack. Granted, we're talking 20 years ago. But there was nothing gay about what Cybil Shepard's rack did to a pubescent Timdog. I stand by this...

Ya, that line was classic.Yes, Cybil had some nice rackage back then, and even earlier when she flashed them in that black and white flick I can't remember the name of with that Bridges fellow.But, I think that's the point... correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a long time since I've seen 'Moonlighting', but, didn't Bruce and her like, never hook up?If not, pure gay-ity.

they hooked up. And the show was promptly cancelled. It was boderline lame to begin with. Once they hooked up, there was really no point to it...

[srblan 0]

Sorry about the dupe post guys, I'm not sure how to get rid of it.

[Abbaddabba 0]

I totally agree, I think that people using this to justify stealing blinds should bear in mind that marking cards would be exploiting an edge too, but I don't think many of the people who would steal blinds would also mark cards. The fact is that they are both examples of edges not available to both parties involved, and, as such, are not part of "ethical" poker strategy.

Marking cards is against the rules of the game.Raising is not.There's a pretty clear distinction.If you consider the use of 'resources' unavailable to the competition as unethical, then so too should you consider the use of pokertracker to be unethical.

But the really disturbing thing is the people who say there aren't any ethics in poker. That's ridiculous. Try putting down SuperSystem for a minute and reading Wisdon of a Champion by Doyle Brunson sometime if you don't think there are any ethics in poker.

It has nothing to do whether or not there are ethics in poker. I mean, ethics apply in all parts of life. It's a matter of whether someone thinks that doing this is unethical.If you feel ethically compelled to stall and wait for the guy to come back, go ahead.I don't think that it's unethical to steal blinds. I wouldnt say that someone "should" do it. I just dont believe that they shouldn't. And I'm not sure I'd cite doyle brunson as an authority on moral philosophy. He may be an authority on playing poker, but that's about it.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

I'd be curious to see how many people would entirely shift their viewpoint if this post had been written by a recognized poster who was on the short end of the disconnect.."Too bad, man! Poker is about getting the edge in whatever way possible!"You're probably the same players who wouldn't push a pot you'd "won" to a player who tabled his hand and had it misread by the dealer. Poker is about winning no matter what the cost? Give me a break. How many of you think dreamclown should have shown some class against DN and played for his last HU, even if it wasn't a very high-expectation situation? Anyone who exploits this situation is a scumbag, pure and simple.-lupin

[Abbaddabba 0]

I'd be curious to see how many people would entirely shift their viewpoint if this post had been written by a recognized poster who was on the short end of the disconnect.. "Too bad, man! Poker is about getting the edge in whatever way possible!"

I'd have sympathy for him being in the situation, but i wouldnt chastize the guy who did it.Ive had people do it to me. Oh well. Move on.When you start complaining about things like this, you're walking a fine line of nittery before you start bitching that check/raising is unethical.

Poker is about winning no matter what the cost? Give me a break. How many of you think dreamclown should have shown some class against DN and played for his last HU, even if it wasn't a very high-expectation situation? Anyone who exploits this situation is a scumbag, pure and simple.

It's not 'at all costs'. Some people dont think that it's unethical.And i think you already know that i dont much care what you think of me, nor does anyone who would do it.In fact, i would be pretty amused if you were to freak out and start cussing me out in the chat box. So please feel free to.

[srblan 0]

I totally agree, I think that people using this to justify stealing blinds should bear in mind that marking cards would be exploiting an edge too, but I don't think many of the people who would steal blinds would also mark cards. The fact is that they are both examples of edges not available to both parties involved, and, as such, are not part of "ethical" poker strategy.

Marking cards is against the rules of the game.Raising is not.There's a pretty clear distinction.If you consider the use of 'resources' unavailable to the competition as unethical, then so too should you consider the use of pokertracker to be unethical.

But the really disturbing thing is the people who say there aren't any ethics in poker. That's ridiculous. Try putting down SuperSystem for a minute and reading Wisdon of a Champion by Doyle Brunson sometime if you don't think there are any ethics in poker.  

It has nothing to do whether or not there are ethics in poker. I mean, ethics apply in all parts of life. It's a matter of whether someone thinks that doing this is unethical.If you feel ethically compelled to stall and wait for the guy to come back, go ahead.I don't think that it's unethical to steal blinds. I wouldnt say that someone "should" do it. I just dont believe that they shouldn't. And I'm not sure I'd cite doyle brunson as an authority on moral philosophy. He may be an authority on playing poker, but that's about it.

Pokertracker can be purchased by anyone. Not everyone will have the good fortune to have his opponent disconnect at a critical time in the tournament. I looked at the TDA rules, and I don't see anything that says that marking the cards is against tournament rules. In a live tournament, if a player was penalized, you could steal blinds as fast as the dealer could get the cards out, but that is something that the player caused him/herself, not a circumstance beyond his/her control.If you were in a live tournament and a player had a heart attack, would you start pounding away at his blinds, claiming that you were maximizing your edge? I don't see this situation as being any different.

[Scruff 0]

"When you start complaining about things like this, you're walking a fine line of nittery before you start censored that check/raising is unethical. "WHAT? How do you make that leap? That's ridiculous.There are two reasons people don't have 'all-in' protection in NLHE tourneys:1) Keep the game moving so they can keep generating rake.2) To prevent them from gaming the system by disconnecting themselves so they don't have to fold or call in a big pot.Neither is the case here. Ideally the software would just stop when it's heads up, and give someone more than 30 seconds to reconnect.But since it doesn't, you should give the guy some time to come back - probably directly proportional to the amount of money on the line.

[srblan 0]

"When you start complaining about things like this, you're walking a fine line of nittery before you start censored that check/raising is unethical. "WHAT? How do you make that leap? That's ridiculous.There are two reasons people don't have 'all-in' protection in NLHE tourneys:1) Keep the game moving so they can keep generating rake.2) To prevent them from gaming the system by disconnecting themselves so they don't have to fold or call in a big pot.Neither is the case here. Ideally the software would just stop when it's heads up, and give someone more than 30 seconds to reconnect.But since it doesn't, you should give the guy some time to come back - probably directly proportional to the amount of money on the line.

I agree that this is mainly a flaw of the software, and some provision should be made for when opponents in a heads-up situation are disconnected. As far as your point about the reasoning behind not having all-in protection, I assume that you are referring to the rake that they could be generating if the player was no longer in the tourney, since tournaments have a fixed amount of rake already paid (the entry fee).

[Abbaddabba 0]

Pokertracker can be purchased by anyone. Not everyone will have the good fortune to have his opponent disconnect at a critical time in the tournament. I looked at the TDA rules, and I don't see anything that says that marking the cards is against tournament rules. In a live tournament, if a player was penalized, you could steal blinds as fast as the dealer could get the cards out, but that is something that the player caused him/herself, not a circumstance beyond his/her control.  

Of course anyone _can_ purchase pokertracker.But from the perspective of who HAS pokertracker, you're at an unfair advantage. But i dont care. That's why i have pokertracker - so i can have an advantage. The only difference is that who gets disconnected is arbitrarily decided by whoevers ISP is messed. Who purchases pokertracker is decided by who wants to take advantage of other peoples weakness. Chance decides quite a bit in poker. If you get upset every time that merit isnt the sole determining factor of who wins what, you chose the wrong hobby.When i get someone all in preflop with aces and they have kings, i dont act gentlemenly and propose htat they take back their money on account of the fact that he was on the ass-end of the unavoidable luck. Nor do i expect them to do the same to me.

I looked at the TDA rules, and I don't see anything that says that marking the cards is against tournament rules.

Then go for it. But im pretty sure that any floorman who catches you doing it will pull you aside.

WHAT? How do you make that leap? That's ridiculous.

Im not saying that the two are analogous.Im saying that the difference between blind stealing here and check/raising is comparably close to the difference between blind stealing here and marking cards. At least it is in my books.But if you think that it's unethical, dont do it.I dont want your respect; just your money.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

This has far less with the rules of the game than it does with being a decent person. Online poker has made something fun into a rather soulless, empty affair.Most of the replies to the OP seem to support this view.If this were one of a few sites where there actually IS online support, I'd try to get them in as quickly as possible.But I WOULD collect the blinds at the software's pace in the meantime so I was not unfairly punished by the situation. If I have an edge against my opponent, it slowly disappears as the blinds increase along with the luck factor of the tourney. I would take the max time for each hand, but would definitely not sit out.If possible, I would see if the site would allow us to restart the tournament from his disconnection point. If he were DC'ed until the end of the tournament and support e-mailed me asking for a resumption from the original DC point, I would be in a tough spot. I'd honestly just make a deal at that point. I would think that this guy would be able to call up a friend and get on another computer within a fraction of an hour, considering the amount of money involved.I wouldn't attack him like a cripple, though. You shouldn't need three internet connections to ensure the safety of your poker tournament investment. This is a tricky ethical issue and I'm just somewhat shocked to see how many people immediately jump to the most vile, cuthroat, profit-oriented solution. If that's poker to you, remind me to never sit in on one of your games.

[Scruff 0]

"As far as your point about the reasoning behind not having all-in protection, I assume that you are referring to the rake that they could be generating if the player was no longer in the tourney, since tournaments have a fixed amount of rake already paid (the entry fee)."No, I was just referring to the reasons for it in general - not necessarily tourneys.If someone were all in in a cash game, and they waited 5 minutes they wouldn't have any hands going during that time, not to mention the game would likely break up (other than those in the pot).

[Abbaddabba 0]

This has far less with the rules of the game than it does with being a decent person. Online poker has made something fun into a rather soulless, empty affair.

When you make a draw against an opponent, are you so decent a person as to regard it as luck, and offer them back their share of the pot?Why is the element of chance related to the cards being dealt the only one that people ought to embrace?If someone made a very obvious misclick calling an all in with 5 high at showdown, would you offer to send their money back?How far does this supposed decency go?How about in a cash game where you're at showdown, and you're value betting some guy at the river with the nut full house.He gets disconnected and wins the pot, showing down quads.He gets back and is obviously upset - he was going to raise that bet, and have you all in for a substantial amount.Surely you can sympathize.But at the same time, do you offer to send him your whole stack?The only reason he doesnt have your whole stack is because of his disconnection failure. If he was able to play the hand out, there is no doubt that you would have lost everything.

[srblan 0]

The only difference is that who gets disconnected is arbitrarily decided by whoevers ISP is messed.  Who purchases pokertracker is decided by who wants to take advantage of other peoples weakness.  Chance decides quite a bit in poker.  If you get upset every time that merit isnt the sole determining factor of who wins what, you chose the wrong hobby.When i get someone all in preflop with aces and they have kings, i dont act gentlemenly and propose htat they take back their money on account of the fact that he was on the ass-end of the unavoidable luck.  Nor do i expect them to do the same to me.  

I looked at the TDA rules, and I don't see anything that says that marking the cards is against tournament rules.

Then go for it. But im pretty sure that any floorman who catches you doing it will pull you aside.

You didn't answer my question about a player having a heart attack at the table in a live tournament. Would that be any different than the bad luck someone would experience by having their ISP go out at the point when they are closing out the tournament? Your suggestion that you wouldn't offer for someone to take their money back when they got all in with kings against your aces is fine, because the whole point of the game is that you are betting with other people whose hand will be stronger at the end. He only played the cards that were dealt to him. My point about card marking was not to say that just because there are no rules specifically against it in the TDA rules does not make it right, only that it would be taking advantage of every edge available, and that a win-at-all-costs mentality is not, IMO, a healthy one. The point that I'm trying to make is that the only really random chance that you should have to fade is that concerning the cards, not "technical glitches".

[Abbaddabba 0]

Someone potentially dying in front of me and someone's ISP crapping out are on entirely different levels. I wouldnt insist he keeps dealing. But really, it doesnt make a difference. In all reality, if the guy has a heart attack, the tournament is being awarded to me anyways since he wont be able to complete it any time soon.

My point about card marking was not to say that just because there are no rules specifically against it in the TDA rules does not make it right, only that it would be taking advantage of every edge available, and that a win-at-all-costs mentality is not, IMO, a healthy one.

Im not saying to win at all costs.Im saying that blind stealing when someone gets DCed isnt unethical.

[srblan 0]

Someone potentially dying in front of me and someone's ISP crapping out are on entirely different levels.  I wouldnt insist he keeps dealing.  But really, it doesnt make a difference.  In all reality, if the guy has a heart attack, the tournament is being awarded to me anyways since he wont be able to complete it any time soon.

My point about card marking was not to say that just because there are no rules specifically against it in the TDA rules does not make it right, only that it would be taking advantage of every edge available, and that a win-at-all-costs mentality is not, IMO, a healthy one.

Im not saying to win at all costs.Im saying that blind stealing when someone gets DCed isnt unethical.

I don't necessarily mean dying in front of you, maybe he just has to be rushed to the hospital. Would you insist that they keep dealing? Or would you propose some sort of chop?