Poker Cheating

[JDMcNugent7]

I talk to alot of the higher stakes players now like 10/20 and 25/50, and seriously almost all of them have 2nd and even 3rd accounts.

I feel like it happens way more than the average person knows about, and i feel like it's almost the same way as using something like HGH in baseball, where everyone does it b/c at the time it wasn't technically illegal but they know it's wrong and know they shouldnt do it but do it to get ahead anyway.

At the end of poker I want to be able to say I never did anything shady to earn my $ so I just decided I'm never going to have a 2nd account or use friends or anything.

[Invigilator]

This is one of those things where "tip of the ice-berg" doesn't even begin to cover it. Time to break out the beer and the popcorn

This is just the poker version of the popular mentality in society: If people don't die, or you don't get caught, then how wrong can it be?

[helmuths henchman]

Lets say one of us got caught would be banned by all sites or the one that caught us?

[jillaj]

most likely only the one that caught you.

[Wes]

this is way way way different than what JJprodigy does/did.

[JDMcNugent7]

ya but its still wrong i think

[GTDawg]

HGH and steroid use is not as rampant as most people seem to believe.

I'm not saying that it isn't there...but it's not the OMG EVERYBODY IS USING IT BASEBALL IS FULL OF CHEATERS that some people seem to believe.

[Kurn]

First of all, use of performance enhancing drugs is not in the same class of wrongdoing as multi-accounting and ghosting in online poker. The latter is much worse.

If there existed no rules in online poker against playing more than one account in a tourney, would a rational person think it was ethically OK? On the other hand, athletes utilize medical and pharmaceutical technology to recover more quickly and/or enhance their performance all the time. Cortizone shots, surgery, Laser vision improvement. When the "steroid era" began, they certainly weren't breaking any written rules, and if you've read Jim Bouton's "Ball Four", you're aware that amphetamines were rampant in major league clubhouses in the 50's and 60's. Is Willie Mays any less a "cheater" because the drugs he used to attempt to enhance his performance weren't as effective as those used by Barry Bonds? Philosophical question, I guess.

Poker is a different story. Collusion is an underhanded way to cheat people out of their money. Every player risks his own money under a basic assumption of fairness.

The word "cheating" has been throw around in a few different non-analagous situations recently regarding rule breaking. Maybe its a failure of language.

Is JJProdigy a cheater? Sure looks like it.

Was Barry Bonds a cheater? Assuming he did use steroids, I'm still conflicted on the use of the word, but lean towards "yes." Here's one to go along with this one(though not about drugs). Was Gaylord Perry a cheater?

Clearly I don't think the word applies to the Patriots. I'd like to think I'd still hold that same opinion were I not a fan, but I understand that that makes me not an unbiased source. So lets look an an analagous situation from MLB. Was Bobby Thompson a cheater in 1951(Google it if you don't know what I'm talking about)?

On the other end of the scale, would anybody call O-line players who frequently get called for holding cheaters? (we'll ignore the fact that refs don't call it anywhere near as much as they used to)

At what point does breaking a rule make one a cheater, and at what point does overuse of the word devalue the stigma that label places on someone?

[GTDawg]

"First of all, use of performance enhancing drugs is not in the same class of wrongdoing as multi-accounting and ghosting in online poker. The latter is much worse."

Why is that thought to be much worse? I would say that doing something against the rules to gain an advantage is against the rules and it's cheating. End of story.

Is it because everybody knows people bend the rules in sports? Because people have been cheating at baseball in little ways for a century? Because everybody wants to believe that people are naturally good and fair when playing poker?

I would like to hear your reasons for saying one is worse than the other.

About the amphetamines, I've talked with several coaches from that era and a few of them have told me the same thing, "Yeah, I tried them a few times and I played amazing. If I had kept using them, I would've had a 10 year pro career." From everything I have heard, I would say it was around...but not the rampant usage that allows people to explain away the steroid era as "it's always been done".

The rest of your post:
JJProdigy, yes
Barry Bonds, yes
Gaylord Perry, yes
Patriots, yes. Sorry bud, but there is only one reason the NFL would destroy all the evidence they recovered and that is because a superbowl was tainted. Did they cheat for a perfect season? no. But I can think of a half dozen scenarios that have happened against the Patriots/in Foxboro...that make you shake your head.
Bobby Thompson, yes. The entire team cheated for much of the season. Of course, it didn't solely make them recover from a 7.5 game deficit to get to the playoff, and it is still damn hard to hit a homerun even if you do know what is coming.
The o-line question is different, I think. Sure, they are going against the rules to try and gain an advantage. But, is that the fault of the refs or the players that it is not called? The other situations...it was being hidden because the players know it's bad and they'll get caught. Is holding really being hidden or do the refs just not call it as much as they should?

"At what point does breaking a rule make one a cheater, and at what point does overuse of the word devalue the stigma that label places on someone?"

It will always be a point of personal preference long after the governing body has made their decision and the event is long past.

[Kurn]

This:

The o-line question is different, I think. Sure, they are going against the rules to try and gain an advantage. But, is that the fault of the refs or the players that it is not called?

appears to contradict this:

I would say that doing something against the rules to gain an advantage is against the rules and it's cheating. End of story.


Either that or your saying that linemen who hold are only cheaters if their caught.

How many times have you hear an announcer call a pass interference penalty a "good" penalty because the receiver would've scored had the db not tacked him on the 20 while the ball was in the air.

It seems here (and I agree with this) that there are situations in a game where blantantly doing something against the rules is the tactically correct decision. Is that cheating? No. Its intelligent game play.

Lets use a baseball analogy. 3rd base coaches use complex signals. Why? because they know their signals are visible to the opposition *and* the opposition is going to attempt to break the code. Do you think that by watching the opposing 3rd base coach, a team is "cheating"?

To me, "cheating" means doing something so outside the normal parameters of the game that it alters the fundamental integrity of the game. Better phrased, cheating implies underhanded tactics. I guess by that definition, performance enhancing drugs are cheating (but then cortisone shots are cheating, too).

Clearly, multiaccounting and ghosting *do* compromise the integrity of a poker tournament. Thus those who do it are cheaters.

I am also 100% certain that observing and interpreting visible signals, even through the use of videotape does not compromise game integrity and thus is not cheating. Unless we're all going to be soccer moms and say, "OK kids, they're sending in signals, everybody close your eyes."

Gaylord Perry? Yeah, he cheated.