Morals vs Ethics vs Legalities of opportunity

kolonel · Morals vs Ethics vs Legalities of opportunity

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com...oting-stealing-14-000-me-1053586/

Crib notes -

HS reg sitting 3-4 1k+ tables husng
Reg observer sees him disconnect from a game
Reg observer proceeds to join tables he was sitting
Reg observer blinds him down
Wins games from opponent being disconnected (approx 12k)

Now the questions i ask are :

1. Did he do something against T&C ?
2. Is what he did illegal ?
3. Why is there no uproar when this happens at a $5 game ?
4. Why do they sit tables anyways ?
5. Standard 2+2 article ?

Look forward to responses here.

aggsyb

There is nothing in place that makes this against T&C and is certaintly not illegal. There is no uproar about it simply because $5 is not $1,000 and at the higher stakes the regs tend to look out for each other etc. He sat bjoerni's table because he knew he was disconnected although he sold action incase he came back. As for the "Hunting" of him thats standard 2+2 but just know that except Bjoerni and maybe a good friend or 2 of his I highly doubt anybody is chasing him whatsoever.

The Angler

Seems fair enough to me, the guy is trying to make money not win a prize for being "Nice"

U Cook Socks

If you think about the whole concept of Poker, and why it was actually invented in the first place, there are no morals in poker.

Dog eat Dog at the tables.

doodiewiz

Harsh.

I don't think it's in the same ball park as a $5 game as these sums of money can have a real impact on someone's life.

I think the guy can't have any principles and although it's not illegal it is basically stealing. I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't like someone to do it to me. Even if I hated them. Just my opinion but I think there can be a little honour in poker...been reading 2+2 every now and and then and there's another thread where a guy did the same thing just to return the money. That's got to be a more +ev in the long run. If you steal youre surely going to get raped when you disconnect...

aggsyb

doodiewiz

For 12 grand though. I'd have to seriously hate someone to do that! Also these guys know each other as it must be a small playing pool at these levels. Yeah I understand it's different when it's mid game but as someone mentioned in the 2+2 thread I think there should be some safeguard in place to make you unsittable when you're just sitting in the lobby and disconnect...Yeah if i found this to be common practice id rape someone when they were sitting but i imagined different ethics at this level. Sermon/preach over:)

kolonel

My point about the $5 game is just that. Is the issue the monies or the fact that he did it. If it was because he did it, joining or not when disconnected, a guy on this site told me if you blind someone down, put it down to variance. I dont think there are too many people currently playing now that hasnt blinded someone away when disconnected.

I dont understand the whole sitting tables waiting either. True, he joined when he knew he was disconnected, but I see it as "you play with matches you get burnt".

The "great hunt" is just a standard thing with 2+2 forums.

butitwassooted

U Cook Socks

Kim Cardassian

Oh man. I actually watched a HU SNG preview vid where "being a scumbag" was mentioned. The idea was "This is the dumbest thing you can do". And I agree. Especially vs a reg that obviously crushes him. Plauzee can quit HU SNGs now, because I'm sure Bjoernie will start spite sitting him every time (I know I would) and since he's better this is a very bad situation.

And that's not even looking at the ethical side of it. Even if I hate someone, I wouldn't do it unless I know that person does the same to others. In which case I would say "Don't do it if you don't like others doing it to you". There's just no excuse for this, no matter how much of an asshole the person is. Even if it was life changing money, I simply can't see how I could live with myself afterwards. Unless, of course, in the situation I mentioned where that person does it themselves, in which case I would be pretty damn proud and consider myself the vigilante of poker.

This is just so ridiculously wrong I can't even find the words to accurately describe how I feel about it.

Wannawin

If you play high stakes, get better business internet connection. Why would you sit 4 high stakes games, if you had an internet connection that disconnects for the whole length of a game.

Kim Cardassian

What kind of argument is that?

"lol sorry for kicking your ass for nothing but what are you doing outside if you don't have atleast 2 years of muay thai training?"

doodiewiz

yeah it is a bit dumb to not have a decent internet connection, but as above i think the same thing. My example: a drunk man asleep on the street - what a dumbass serves him right ill steal all his money from his pockets!

Anyway i know this is a grey area, but these dudes seem to know each other at this level. I'd rather not do it as after reading more of the above thread it seems like this guy has had to shut his blog down and has a whole forum of people with the likes of mersennery saying theyre going to hound him out of the lobbies:/ Maybe, maybe not, but it does not sound like fun...

hey Blazing didnt mean to suggest you have no morals. Every time i read your posts i think you seem like a cool considerate guy. I wonder if you would really do this for this amount of money? Sounds like there are consequences....

On a side note im suprised it doesnt happen a lot. Imagine you could just watch high stakes players playing all day. When you see them disconnect jump in their lobby and blind them down...

kierkegaard1

Obv awful and disgusting and I wouldn't do it to anybody unless they'd screwed me over before.
$5 is different as there are no regs and everyone would attack everyone. Also, the amount of money is obv relevant as $5 is not meaningful money to anyone in poker (less than an hours wage in the real world) compared to 14k which is a large amount to 99% of people. At HS the group of regs is small and a close community with mutual respect. They all have the same dangers and risks and usually send back in these circumstances under the assumption that their peers would do the same and help them out when needed (even when warring)

kierkegaard1

Blazing, he was regged in 2 5ks and 2 2ks. His usual Internet went down and his USB dongle back up failed to connect for 45mins.

forced

U Cook Socks

Wannawin

whilst I think it is completly wrong to sit someone knowing they are disconnected, in the end someone will sit them anyway oblivious to the fact and blind them down anyway.

Wannawin

but whilst you are ultimatly to blame for losing the money, yes you should go out and shout the name of someone who has been out of order.

doodiewiz

fairly obvious youre a nice bloke blazing. Apart from stealing thousands at poker!!

Smile

U Cook Socks

Poker Stars, $28.78 + $1.22 NL Hold'em Tournament, 20/40 Blinds, 2 Players
[URL="http://www.leggopoker.com"]LeggoPoker.com[/URL] - [URL="http://www.leggopoker.com/converter"]Hand History Converter[/URL]

BTN: 1,740
Hero (BB): 1,260

Pre-Flop: (60) 5

5

dealt to Hero (BB)
BTN raises to 80, Hero raises to 1,260 and is All-In, BTN calls 1,180

Flop: (2,520) T

4

(2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Turn: (2,520) 6

(2 Players - 1 is All-In)

River: (2,520) J

(2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: 2,520 Pot
BTN showed 4

2

and WON 2,520 (+1,280 NET)
Hero showed 5

5

and LOST (-1,220 NET)

I think poker owes me some moneys Very Happy

Off to the pub with the mrs to avoid life tilt !

Goodnight Very Happy

kolonel

Its got nothing to do about if some drunk guy is asleep, and you take his money from his pockets. That is pure theft and illegal. If he cant secure his internet 100%, dont sit so many tables. I imagine they sit the tables hoping fish will sit them, and they can take their money because they have an edge.

If you want to make comparisons, it would be like leaving wads of money scattered around the place, and not expecting someone to pick it up and take it.

I think there is a little bit of relevance on what stake the game is, as i thought they were arguing about the ethics of it all. It doesnt matter whether it is $5 or $5000. If you are happy to do the same thing at a $5 game, how does that make someone any different ? Why should it matter if there are regs or not. In the end, they are vindicating him for what he did.

By no means do i think this is ethical, but when did poker have ethics ? You only have to look at the current state of the online game to see that it has very little, not to mention what has happened in the past.

I ask you, what if some random had sat him, not realising, and blinded him down ? Does he "have to" return the money ? Is that person any better ?

kierkegaard1

Afaik he was regged in 14k worth of sngs at the same time. Not several spurts of 3/4k. Even the best connections can have random downtime. Can't believe that some people think it's justifiable and that the OP was at fault somehow. That's like saying girls who wear short skirts and get raped 'have it coming' or being at fault for
accidentally leaving a laptop on show on a car and having it broke into or w/e.
14k is more harmful than $5 for the reasons I stated. Not that it isn't still theft, just not as severe. Just like it 'isn't right' to feel up a girls boobs but obv isn't in the same league as raping her even though both are sexual assaults. Maybe a poor analogy, but w/e

Kim Cardassian

_red_dog

lol, there is not a single person here who would not do the same thing. It's online poker, just chalk up disconnects as part of variance.

U Cook Socks

kolonel

forced

U Cook Socks

I reckon he would have been properly rolled, as he seems to be a high stakes baller.

Having read through the actual thread a bit more, my actual opinion has changed a little. Seems that what is actually expected is a reg to sit him, and send him send the money back. If they have that kind of code going on up there, fair play, but I think it's a little naive to expect 100% of people to follow something like this. You put a 100 people in a room with 14k on the table, there will be at least a few people who are going to try and have that money away, even if they know you. Life is like that, not everyone is geniune.

I think it's bad news for the guy who did it too, reading along the lines. All the top ballers are ready to spite sit him all the time, and it's doubful he is going to get any help from the community now in anyway shape or form, so I hope he enjoys it. Maybe it was worth it to him (I don't know)

Also, the guys excuses were pretty lame, I think if I were him, I would seriously consider sending it back, but it looks very unlikely that he is going to do this.

kierkegaard1

kolonel

doodiewiz

But do you think its ethically ok Kolonel? And would you like the poker community to take a moral stand or to encourage this? I really do think the poker sites should have safeguards in place when playing for these sums of money.

The law is an ass and sometimes irrelevant. Another example it was illegal to have gay sex until 1967 in the UK. Or in Nazi Germany you were in serious sh1t for harbouring Jews. Obviously these are extreme, but just making a point. Sometimes i think you have to make up your own mind. Anyway this makes interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

kolonel

As i have mentioned, i do not, but that is something that the HS regs seem to have in place in their own little world. My original point being to clarify some areas of this issue, without presenting non factual findings and statements.

Surely this should have been sorted out between the 2 people, as legally, the guy has done nothing wrong. Ethically, well, there is a case. I find it amusing the mob mentality, which seems to have generated into defamation, threats of retribution by the community, and outlandish claims of violence from "keyboard warriors".

To compare what has happened here to some, lets say, extreme comparisons made earlier, border on irrelevant. This happened on an online poker site, which for all accounts, has not had the best representation of late. So to see this happen, although not condoning it, does not surprise me in the least.

The Angler

Seems to me people are more concerned with the fact that this was reg on reg than the actual morality of sitting a guy who you know is disconnected and blinding him down. (At least from reading 2+2) This kind of in-group out-group morality is BS in my opinion.

It's clearly not a nice thing to do, but it's hardly surprising. A really dumb thing to do if the guy wants to be in the 2+2 Clique, I'm guessing he really doesn't though and the repercussions will be minimal (if any) to him.

chesslw

idk it's hard to mix poker or gambling in general with ethics. Is it morally acceptable that you make 2 wagers with 2 strangers separately creating an arbitrage position for yourself? What about 2 people you know? (what about 2 friends?)

It really depends on what people think is fair and unfair advantage. If you are competing/gambling in something for money, then what is acceptable is generally what is accepted by the general population.

If you are a goalkeeper in the world cup final who sees that the ball crossed the line, should you tell the ref and own up? In essense you are "stealing" pretty serious money, reputation, prestige etc. Some people may say disconnection can be equated with mistake by ref, others will say it is a horrible comparisson. But then again, it depends what the wider public/general convention believes for it to be decided as right or wrong.

In this case, since it is fairly clear that some sort of code of conduct exists in high stakes reg games, and both players are known and regard each other as members of that cliche, this action can be regarded as wrong.

What if a 5k reg disconnected but was sat by a 100 reg (assuming they don't know each other)? Is that acceptable? In this case, if the 100 reg sat the 5k lobby, he would be insta sat by the 5k reg, and the 5k reg would treat him as fish, and blind him out. So the 100s reg figures "he would do that to me, so why shouldn't I"? Obviously the 5k reg would sit him regardless, but the 100s reg wouldn't. But the result is exactly the same- so if you say the 100s reg is wrong, then you are basically saying the worse (lower down the ladder) you are at poker, the more moral codes you have to observe (actually if you think about it in a game theory sense- then the higher up you are in stakes, the more incentive you actually have to encourage people to uphold a "moral code").

Imo I have to agree with blazing- morals in poker just can't exist, at least not in the conventional sense.

two2go

_red_dog

kierkegaard1

ChrisB

I'm 100% agreeing with red_dog here.

I always steal if i can.

The Angler

Imagine you are playing a HUSNG online (big stretch I know) your opponent disconnects. What do you do, wait a while to see if he returns before you get bored and blind him down sending his money back/keeping the money or instantly start hitting the raise button as fast as you can? Does your answer change if you're playing 4 tables with him at once or if it's a $2 game, $30, $100,$1000,$5000, how about if the guy is a twat, a total stranger or someone you know is a nice guy? Objectively none of these things make a difference the act is the same however you try to justify it.

I see little difference ethically speaking between being in a game and blinding down a guy that disconnects or sitting a guy you know is disconnected and taking his money, both cases are opportunistic not premeditated and involve the same choice. Maybe things are different at high stakes between regs (I have no idea) but is it only because it's bad for business, you don't shit on your own doorstep right. I'm not convinced that shipping the money back is an unselfish act, it's not +EV either though.

kolonel

Just checked and saw that Plauzee dude playing on Ps now, expecting a barage of chat abuse from all those 2+2 keyboard warriors.

Guess it has simmered down now.

Kim Cardassian

2+2: All talk no action.

It's the opposite of 4chan.

And there's a big difference between a guy DCing in the match (waiting is -EV, he's taking a slot for one of your games). It's not opportunistic as you don't have the choice of not playing him in the first place, since the game has already started. Furthermore, the blinds are escalating, so even if you believe you have an edge and can beat him without blinding him down, waiting decreases your edge every time the blinds go up.

If the guy is nice, or a reg that's not a complete asshole I'm inclined to actually wait for a few mins, but I'm not waiting "until he comes back". Also, at the lower levels I'm more inclined to just start turbo raising because:
A: These guys are fish. They will seize every opportunity to blind steal you aswell. I have thus far (over 1 disconnect where I came back within a few minutes, epic sample size I know) not been proven the opposite.
B: The lower the buyin, the less likely someone is going to come back. It's obvious that if it's a 1k or 5k someone is going to try everything in his power to come back. Even if the guy is a reg that has millions, he has trouble getting action and volume in on the 1ks+ and he will definately want to try and finish the game.

What some people don't seem to get is that it's the motivation behind it that makes an action good or bad. If Plauzee normally plays 1ks and 5ks and plays the guy then if he accidently sat it would've been a completely different story, plus he would have no problems about sending the guy his buyin -rake back because I can understand plauzee wouldn't want to pay rake over this game.

This is not what happened though. Plauzee is scared shitless and never plays him anymore, he notices the guy DCs and immediatly sits as much of his tables as he can for 12k total (it was later cleared up that 2k was sat by someone else). I mean really? People can't see that this is wrong? Compare it to what you like, it's just scummy behaviour. It's different if plauzee normally plays him all the time and sat him now and refuses to pay the buyin back because "He earned it". It's still being a lame asshole, but not in the same magnitude.

_red_dog

BetMagicMoney

im not going to lie im super blown away by how many people think this is ok o.O

What PlauZee is imo super below the belt. Im not going to lie that if someone DCs when im playing them im going to blind them out. The difference here is that OP was reg in 4 match's and then DCs another reg snap sits the games knowing full well that this reg was DC.

This is just super wrong there is a difference and i think people should realize this.

_red_dog

Just a tangent, Plauzee has been known to play these stakes. Last year he played them quite often during june/july when WSOP was on, then reverted back to the 500s when all the good regs came back.

BetMagicMoney

Kim Cardassian

forced

It's poker... your all scummy.

doodiewiz

^ As much as i personally disagree you have a point there!

kolonel

kolonel

Another point that has not been brought up was did Plauzee have any idea that he was going to be DC for the entire game ? I mean we have all DC, and worked feverishly to get back on, maybe within 2-3 mins ? I am sure he had no idea that he was going to be DC for the complete game.

Still comes back to my original point, is why do they sit so many tables in the lobby and take that risk in the first place ?

kolonel

Update :

http://www.husng.com/content/bjoe...onnection-blind-down-issue-update

chesslw

^^ Hmm... Looks like Pauzee should have thought about long term EV when he decided to do what he did.

doodiewiz

He hasn't got much out of this in the end has he? Lol. Although it does seem like all the talk of targeting him at the tables was perhaps a lot of hot air!

kolonel

Standard 2+2 keyboard warriors

The Angler

Pretty nice of pokerstars to send him some money, maybe they'll sort out their software so this doesn't happen again.