Ethics Question
 

Is it wrong to play cash games under different accounts in order to get action from players who usually wouldn't play you and to have opponents have less of a read on you?

Yes it is JJProdigy....or w/e ur name is

I think that's called being smart.

Agreed it is being smart.
No ethics problem, unless you played both accounts on the same table/tourney at the same time.

i havent done it but i have the opportunity to play on friends accounts and im tempted cuz i dont get action at the lower limits from as many ppl as i used to HU anymore.

It is probably ethically wrong, but I would do it if I played high enough stakes for it to matter. It is not illegal to do it on stars anyway.

It is "ethically" wrong, but fuck it.

So is making out with your girlfriends best friend....but it didn't stop you then and it shoudln't now :D

Is this true? I BELIEVE it is, but how do you KNOW this? Is it written anywhere?

I wonder about this every time I watch a new CardRunners video and Taylor is on some other friend's account...

Oh, as for the ethics of it - I don't think it is any more ethically wrong than changing your screen name, which some of the sites allow people to do. They certainly don't encourage it, but it happens.

WHAT? How is this even a fuckin discussion?

Is it ethical to Check Raise someone.... tricking them that your you're weak and then really being strong? This is a game of deception, if you see an edge then take it. Is it ethically wrong to follow around bad players and try to sit at their tables so you can take their money? Come on

I'd like to hear some of the descriptions of ethically wrong. If you thought this is ethically wrong...you guys must feel terrible when you bluff or when you tell someone you were strong when they ask what you had after the hand.

If it doesn't violate the terms and conditions set up by the site, then I don't see a problem.

hell no it aint. Make 15 accounts and take turns. All part of the facade

I think these are very different things. While I don't think playing different screen names is necessarily ethically wrong, I don't get your comparison.

Everyone knows you are trying to be deceptive and tricky in poker, it's the point of the game, how could that ever be ethically wrong? You go into poker knowing that will and should happen. You don't go into a poker game thinking you may play the same person 5 different times in the same week under different screen names and never know it's the same guy.

You also dont go into poker thinking that players will put you on their buddy lists and follow you around because you are a bad player... so that should be ethically wrong as well... and what if you go into poker thinking that its just a game of luck and cards your dealt... is it then ethically wrong to check raise a person like that? You're not cheating, so you take every edge you can get,

Again I dont even see how this is a discussion

Don't forget about using PT/PAHud/Sixth Sense/various ahk scripts/datamining, etc. I suppose there are people who this using all those tools - even though they are legal and allowed by the poker sites - is unethical too.

Zybomb and GTDawg,

Your comparisons are wayyyy off base.

So lying (telling someone you had a bomb when you had a pretty little 2:s: 2:h: but you knew the ace on board scared your opponent's pocket Jacks) is more ethical than playing under a different screen name :confused:

I dunno maybe I don't have morals, but my head is still :confused: :confused: that this discussion is taking place

How so? I'd like an explanation if you have it.

Poker, and especially online poker, is based on getting every edge you can.

There's sixth sense, there's PAHud, there's PokerTracker, there's a dozen programs that can be used to find the very best poker table to sit at.

Is it ethically or morally wrong to get on a waiting list...but not sit at the table if the table fish leaves or the chip leader/strong player is right next to you?

Is it ethically wrong to play someone heads up if they challenge you during a ring game, when you know you are better than them, and then proceed to take them for all their money?

It's a game built on gaining an edge on the competition in order to make money. You aren't gaining an unfair advantage over the competition (as compared to playing two accounts at the same time or something). And, to my knowledge, it's not illegal to change your screenname.

=========================
For example, poker pros...[although it doesn't work that well because people love to play them no matter the losses they suffer]...

Is it ethically wrong for someone like Phil Ivey to play on an unknown screenname because people won't play against Phil Ivey? Why?

You are playing HU with a person that you know how he adjusts to certain things like if you 3bet a lot preflop. You already have some knowledge of how this person adjusts to this, and if he 4bets a lot preflop, or if he plays conservatively to this. Villain would have some idea of how you adjust to these things, but you are using a different screen name. That is an advantage to you, and it is more ethically wrong than say check/raising someone on the flop.

Sites do not advocate using other people's accounts for deceptive purposes.

They allow you to use all of the add-on programs you mentioned. They don't care if you bullshit about your hand in the chat box. Check/raising (perhaps the most absurd comparison of them all) is well within the rules of poker. Game/seat selection is practiced even in live casinos by regular players and is perfectly fine. The "heads-up" challenge question doesn't even warrant a response.

All of the things you mention are "strategic" in nature. I agree, playing under someone else's account is too, but sites do not advocate it. Stars will not allow you to change your screenname just because you want to. Email them and try it. Party Poker allows it once every 6th months. Not sure about the other sites but I'm going to be shooting some emails off here in a second.

Advocating the changing of your name is different from making it illegal or forbidden.

To change your screenname is to take advantage of the next logical point in the anonymity of the internet. And that, my friend, is what is so great about the internet.

Is it really any more ethically wrong than the act of gambling or taking the person's money to begin with? Does Phil Ivey owe it to everybody to play as Phil_Ivey?

Where would you start the giant scale of ethics?


Situation 1:
If you don't like the headsup question...What if I told you there was this guy that has a gambling problem...dude gives out money like an ATM. But damnit, he sure does love poker. His screenname is blahblahblah. Is it ethically wrong to take his money if you see him sitting all alone at a table?

What if you take your winnings and provide for your family or donate it to charity? Or you buy new equipment for the kids on your bball team?

Situation 2:
What if the guy doesn't have a gambling problem and is actually just incredibly wealthy and playing with no stresses whatsoever...but, you take your winnings to invest in drug smuggling or gun running?

=============
Which is ethically worse? Situation 1 or situation 2?

Poker in and of itself can be considered ethically and morally wrong. I don't think this situation is any different than the use of extra programs to find stats on players that you may or may not have ever played against.

<Sigh>

Conversation over.

I agree with GTDawg the entire way here

I don't understand why that question would signal the end of a conversation. Logically, it is fair to wonder how you view ethical and moral wrongs.

Surely, you do not see the act of taking someone else's money as an ethical wrong. They are doing so at their own free will. And, they are doing it with the knowledge that they may lose it.

However, you are taking someone else's money for your own. Your gain is dependent on someone else's loss.

That is a basic assessment of the ethical and moral implications of such an act.

==============
To add...I figured the whole taking an addicts' money and donating to charity would be the point you ended the conversation. I didn't think the throw away question at the top of the post would do it.

Meh. No more unethical than wearing a disguise to the poker room if you feel the regulars aren't giving you enough action.:cool:

What about sunglasses? Are those unethical? What about pretending to be drunk when you're not (I know someone who does this very effectively in live play)?

I think the point here is that poker is a game full of deception. Many forms of deceptions are generally accepted (check raising, playing with players that you know are bad, wearing sunglasses, etc) by virtually everyone. At the other extreme would be the ZeeJustin multiple accounts thing and playing more than one of them in the same tourney. I think it is ridiculous that anyone could argue this to not be unethical (Poker Stars agreed with me), but Justin and many other people actually did. I find that stunning.

I guess it comes down to each individual's personal opinion. For me, I draw the line with the rules. I'm going to use every edge that I can that that is within the rules (PT/PaHUD/etc), but I'm not going to break the rules (multiple accounts/collusion/marked cards).

So, as for the question at hand, I guess I'd like to know Star's (and other sites) official stance on the issue. I remember listening to a WCOOP broadcast way back when and Barry Greenstein talking about his "crazyplayer" account and how it's usually not him playing on it. I know of lots of other high profile accounts that are used my multiple players too. Because of this, I have to think the sites are ok with this going on, but I just don't know for sure.

It seems you agree with me for the posed question.... but Im a little confused here about this above -- so u r letting the individual poker sites determine whether or not something is ethical? If PT/PaHUD was to be deemed illegal by the poker sites tomorrow, it would suddenly go from being ethical to unethical? What if PokerStars allowed it but Full Tilt didn't?

I certaintly understand using the programs if they are legal and then not using them if they are illegal (you are following the rules) but I don't think that should have anything to do with whether or not it is ethical to use them... either you believe they are right or wrong

You guys ever read the book "Bringing Down the House," by Ben Mezrich? It's about the MIT blackjack guys who learned to count cards and took Vegas for a couple mil. Over time, the casinos began to recognize those guys and kicked them out of the casinos. Their faces, names and aliases were eventually put in the Griffin book, which was, at the time, the guide all the casinos used to recognize cheats.

So what did these guys do? They went to smaller, off-the-beaten-path casinos and continued to play. And when they were caught there, they continued on down the track. And in essence, JD, I think this is what you're asking, in relation to online poker. In other words, when your online ID is discovered and you're revealed to be a good player, is it ethical to stop, change gears (and your screen name) to try and convince others that you're not really who you are?

Is it ethical? I don't know. I'm not sure I ever actually learned what the true meaning of "ethics" is. We had a lot of discussions in my journalism classes about what was ethical and what was not, and I never really understood the class because the answers seemed to blow in whatever direction the wind was heading (or whatever mood the prof was in that day). I also learned that what was "ethical" in my opinion wasn't always what the talking heads believed.

I think poker players of the old school consider a lot of things the young bucks do these days to be unethical (i.e. all the trash-talking, insulting, grandstanding and other B.S.), and a lot of that behavior is born online. But hell, the young guys are winning. Remember that Molina kid? I wonder if the fact that he won $330,000 at the WSOP gave him the right to embarrass his family's name on TV (which is pretty much what he did with his antics). His folks didn't seem to care, however.

I guess my definition of ethical is this: "Is it something I'd be willing to do, and more importantly, is it something I'd want to have done to me?"

If I were playing someone online and he took me for a couple grand, and later on I found out I had really played a pro, I'd be a little mad, sure. But then I'd realize that the whole idea in this game is to make money, and in the end, that's all he was -- some guy just trying to make a buck, using every legal advantage he can -- just like those MIT guys.

Isn't that what this game's all about, anyway?

Good post Double....

Is it also unethical to count cards because i takes away the house advantage and gives you won? Please

Well, I generally consider myself to be a fairly moral person (I say "fairly," because I knowingly do my share of thing that are wrong by the letter of the law), so I guess I feel that using them - when they are allowed - is ethical, yes. If they were not allowed on a given site, I would stop using them on that site. Would I suddenly feel that they are unethical just because they are no longer allowed? Well, no, because I'd still use them on the other sites that allow them - but yes, I think using them on a site that forbids them is unethical, yes.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

So back to the original question: Yeah, I guess I think it's unethical to play under someone else's account, and I have never done that myself (other than the time I sat in a tourney for JD for like 45 minutes). But would I fault anyone for doing it if it's not against the rules? Absolutely not.

And don't think I'm Mr. Super Straight Laced By the Book Guy either.... I mean, is downloading copyrighted episodes of High Stakes Poker from the internet because your stupid cable company doesn't get GSN unethical? I suppose so, yes. But do I do every week anyway?

This is an interesting discussion. What I have learned most is that you all suck at making analogies. :p

Seriously though, while live poker and internet poker are different beast entirely, there is a direct comparison that no one has mentioned yet. Back in the WSOP a couple of years ago there was a famous hand between Howard Lederer and somebody else. The hand had lots of action and the nameless one shoves (on the river I think) and then pulls his shirt over his head. Everyone laughs, but the guy stays that way until Lederer folds. As I remember fuckface’s hiding was not considered unethical, and I would think that hiding during a major hand in a live game a farther deviation from the spirit of the game than using a different account on the internet.

Ha! Surely, you jest.

ETHICS:ONLINE POKER::

A.) WHITE:RICE
B.) STINK:SHIT
C.) POPE:CATHOLIC
D.) DODOUBLED:GETTING LAID TONIGHT

STOP!
PLEASE PUT YOUR NO. 2 PENCIL DOWN, CLOSE YOUR TEST BOOKS AND WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTION FROM YOUR PROCTOR.

I remember this vividly. The funny thing is, that NAMELESS guy, (and I think he was basically a nameless guy at the time), has now turned into Cowboy Kenna James. A pretty decent player, and he has even been a commentator on several poker shows.
As for the subject at hand, its tough to say. Like with this Kenna James thing, (pulling jacket over head), or Phil Laak doing the same thing. There are no RULES against it, but many feel its just not right. I know that Negreanu hates this BS. He can often get on his soapbox, but he has a good point. Where do you draw the line? He asks the question that if all this is LEGAL, what would stop someone from literally bringing a box, and sitting in it while playing (maybe with little holes for his arms to push chips etc. lol danger Will Robinson)? Is that cool?
Also, I dont use them, but what about all these programs, like PT, HUDace, etc. TP and others have said they draw the line if the sites allow them (and I basically agree with that premise). But correct me if I'm wrong, but dont some sites TECHNICALLY not allow datamining? I am pretty sure this is the case. That is why some of these other programs/add-ons have popped up, to allow players to datamine when its not SUPPOSED to be happening. Another example is using information from sites like SharkScope. Again, I am pretty sure that Stars (and other sites) say that datamining in this fasion is not allowed. But the info is out there. So is it unethical for someone to buyin to a sng or mtt, and look up someones stats on sharkscope or the pokerdb? Well I think techinically it is not allowed by the site so it should be considered unethical. BUT, if everyone else is doing it, wtf right. You are putting yourself at a disadvantage by not using all the info.

I would love to play in an online world where we all had one ID. I think that is the most ethical way to do it. I think that to switch your ID is a BIT unethical. But again, if everyone else is doing it..............

With all of this babbling I think the answer is clear..There is no right answer either way.

agreed. very few of these make good sense. does everyone understand the definition of ethical?

pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

Here's a on this exact topic.

That's exactly what makes this such an entertaining thread. Our friend Noah Webster has used a black-and-white definition to describe something that's anything but. Everyone's sense of morality (or in plainer terms, right and wrong), differs in some way.

Don't forget, there are plenty of extremists out there who think poker -- and gambling in general -- is unethical, thereby making this discussion moot (at least in their eyes).

Which ones don't make sense?

knows the answer

I guessed the right one. Do I get a cookie?

you win DoD. I see now I should have gone with an Airplane! quote about calling me Shirley. :cheers:

Roger, Roger

At a glance (and only a glance), I think we are having a much better conversation here. 2+2 is great when you need info on something fast, but my God - I don't know how people can wade through all the crap for any of the more popular topics.

Catchy tune. I'll be singing that all day fo sho...

Still deceit either way :cheers:

true, thats why i deleted my post, before i saw u quote it.
there's no right or wrong answers to this and i guess everyone's points are valid, some just make alot more sense to me than others.

I am with TP, I draw the line with the rules, and I guess the only reason I had a question about this, was because I really don't know the specifics of the rules in this case.

But that still doesnt make sense (to me at least). What one site believes shouldnt influence whether or not something is ETHICAL... just if it is LEGAL. For example if Pokerstars allowed the use of PT but Full Tilt did not, it would be illegal to use on Full Tilt and legal to use on Pokerstars... however you could not say that it is ETHICAL to use on Pokerstars, yet NOT ETHICAL on Full Tilt.... it's one or the other.... UNLESS what you are saying is that you believe "following the rules" to be ethical, so you will follow them, (if they dont allow it for example) despite the fact that you don't think that using PT would be unethical (kind of hard to follow im sure lol)

Ok we're about to open the restaurant, time for me to go upstairs