Hardcore Table Selection

Lambert180

I was discussing something (hypothetically) with someone recently and we had very differing opinions on whether it's 'right' or not, and I'm pretty confident what most people will think so said I'd put it here and see what people think...

Player A plays cash games, say 20nl - 100nl.

Player A gives a list of names/aliases of very weak opponents to Player B and says "hey I know you're online a lot, can you keep an eye on the tables throughout the day and let me know if anyone on this list sits at a table. If they do, can you drop me a PM on Skype and I'll try to get online to play them?. If I can get online and I win I'll give u a % of the profits."

==============================

What is your opinion of this setup? Harmless? Scummy? Bit dodgy but fine? Awful?

Does it affect your opinion if Player B is helping them but NOT taking any cut from it?

Would you be Player B for free or for payment?

aussie09

a.  you sound as if you have a list, paul

b.  not really right

c.  50:50





 

Lambert180

Lol, I'm not and will never be Player A or B fwiw Rob. I'm firmly on the side that this is ridiculous at best,

mattprawn

a. Think I'm probably on that list for cash games!

b. I'm no too bothered, real world stuff sadly.  Serves me right for being on the list!

Does anyone remember Steve Redgrave being interviewed after his penultimate gold medal, he said something to the effect that if anyone ever saw him again in a boat, they should shoot him.  Same goes for me and cash tables.

aussie09

In Response to Re: Hardcore Table Selection:

a. Think I'm probably on that list for cash games! b. I'm no too bothered, real world stuff sadly.  Serves me right for being on the list! Does anyone remember Steve Redgrave being interviewed after his penultimate gold medal, he said something to the effect that if anyone ever saw him again in a boat, they should shoot him.  Same goes for me and cash tables.
Posted by mattprawn

i've just started a list...

1  mattprawn
2  me



  

mumsie

great hypothetical post.

I can see how thus can quite easily be against the rules.
if its not against the rules.
then
its borderline against the rules.

MattBates

Is it not a natural progression of table selection?

Is this worse than moving seats on a table/asking the target to play HU when on a normal table?

FlashFlush

I'd say it's pretty scummy, but then when money is involved it easily makes decent people do scummy things.

On a side note. I think player A needs to look at their own game if they're that desperate to make some money but have to concentrate on a tiny amount of the player base to do so.

percival09

anyone justifying anything with "real world bro" needs to learn morality and ethics. 

mattprawn

In Response to Re: Hardcore Table Selection:

anyone justifying anything with "real world bro" needs to learn morality and ethics. 
Posted by percival09

Not sure if you're referring to my earlier note, but if so I've not explained myself properly.  I would not countenance that behaviour myself, my point being that to play any game involving cash and not to expect that kind of behaviour would be naïve.  "Real world stuff" in my book is the conditions you need to anticipate, but definitely not the standards you need to behave to.

DOHHHHHHH

"I ask my friends to skype me whenever they see isildur online"

Quote from the popular nosebleed documentry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju_7_595mDE

"We have a guard duty system. If Seb saw his gf I stayed at home and waited for Gus or Isildur, and vice versa"

LmfaoAllin

In Response to Re: Hardcore Table Selection:

"I ask my friends to skype me whenever they see isildur online" Quote from the popular nosebleed documentry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju_7_595mDE "We have a guard duty system. If Seb saw his gf I stayed at home and waited for Gus or Isildur, and vice versa"
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

This is exactly what came to mind when I read post.

shakinaces

In Response to Hardcore Table Selection:

What is your opinion of this setup? Harmless? Scummy? Bit dodgy but fine? Awful? Does it affect your opinion if Player B is helping them but NOT taking any cut from it? Would you be Player B for free or for payment?
Posted by Lambert180

Can't see there is anything wrong with this, so long as Player A and B aren't then sitting the table together and colluding to rinse Player C - F out of their money.

If you are Player A then I presume that you play pro (or at least semi-pro) and therefore are viewing online poker like a job.  Ergo it isn't far removed from, say, working in property. 

In that sense I'd be Player A who wants to acquire units across the breadth of the country (whole poker site, or sites), but can't possibly be monitoring all markets (tables) to find the best options that are out there (weak players), so I engage with one or more property agents (Player who are able to alert me when a good opportunity comes up (a weak player sits) and allow me to switch my focus to conclude a deal and excel at my job (rinse weak player).

Poker as profession is morally dubious (see Dan Coleman rant after he won the One Drop), but so long as people are reliant on the game to pay the bills, they are going to have to take some of these morally dubious methods to ensure that they put food on the table at the expense of other players.

Personally I'd see things like HUDS as being more dubious than just doing your best to sit versus players you are worse than. At least the weaker plays can see if Player A is ALWAYS sitting versus them and taking their money (and then have the choice to insta-stand every time they see Player A join a table), whereas there is no way of knowing what sort of HUDS or other support functions your opposition may be running to help rinse you.

And I would happily just check poker lobbies occasionally in exchange for someone pinging me a few quid commission every time I flag a 'deal' to them!

Lambert180

In Response to Re: Hardcore Table Selection:

"I ask my friends to skype me whenever they see isildur online" Quote from the popular nosebleed documentry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju_7_595mDE "We have a guard duty system. If Seb saw his gf I stayed at home and waited for Gus or Isildur, and vice versa"
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

I saw someone giving abuse in the chatbox the other day too, so should we all do that too?

OR we could ignore what other people get up to and do what we know ourselves is 'right'

Lambert180

In Response to Re: Hardcore Table Selection:

In Response to Hardcore Table Selection : Can't see there is anything wrong with this, so long as Player A and B aren't then sitting the table together and colluding to rinse Player C - F out of their money. If you are Player A then I presume that you play pro (or at least semi-pro) and therefore are viewing online poker like a job.  Ergo it isn't far removed from, say, working in property.  In that sense I'd be Player A who wants to acquire units across the breadth of the country (whole poker site, or sites), but can't possibly be monitoring all markets (tables) to find the best options that are out there (weak players), so I engage with one or more property agents (Player who are able to alert me when a good opportunity comes up (a weak player sits) and allow me to switch my focus to conclude a deal and excel at my job (rinse weak player). Poker as profession is morally dubious (see Dan Coleman rant after he won the One Drop), but so long as people are reliant on the game to pay the bills, they are going to have to take some of these morally dubious methods to ensure that they put food on the table at the expense of other players. Personally I'd see things like HUDS as being more dubious than just doing your best to sit versus players you are worse than. At least the weaker plays can see if Player A is ALWAYS sitting versus them and taking their money (and then have the choice to insta-stand every time they see Player A join a table), whereas there is no way of knowing what sort of HUDS or other support functions your opposition may be running to help rinse you. And I would happily just check poker lobbies occasionally in exchange for someone pinging me a few quid commission every time I flag a 'deal' to them!
Posted by shakinaces

This is where the arguement falls down I'm afraid.

I am reliant on the game to pay bills but have never sunk as low as to do some of these things. I know countless fulltime players who also haven't done anything of the sort. I know someone who tried scripts once because he got a free trial, and within 1 day felt it was morally wrong and chose not to use them again (despite the fact it meant he had to play slightly tougher games).

No-one HAS to be scummy, and tbh, if you aint good enough to make a living from the game without using vv dodgy methods then 1) you won't last in the game very long and 2) you need to go find a different job because you obv aren't good enough at the game.

DOHHHHHHH

In Response to Re: Hardcore Table Selection:

great hypothetical post. I can see how thus can quite easily be against the rules. if its not against the rules. then its borderline against the rules.
Posted by mumsie

I'd be interested to hear what you mean?

Which rule/s is it breaking?

shakinaces

In Response to Re: Hardcore Table Selection:

In Response to Re: Hardcore Table Selection : This is where the arguement falls down I'm afraid. I am reliant on the game to pay bills but have never sunk as low as to do some of these things. I know countless fulltime players who also haven't done anything of the sort. I know someone who tried scripts once because he got a free trial, and within 1 day felt it was morally wrong and chose not to use them again (despite the fact it meant he had to play slightly tougher games). No-one HAS to be scummy,and tbh, if you aint good enough to make a living from the game without using vv dodgy methods then 1) you won't last in the game very long and 2) you need to go find a different job because you obv aren't good enough at the game.
Posted by Lambert180

Fair dos.  Out of interest, if someone did point out to you that a whale had just sat NL100 and there was a spare seat (via Skype, say), would you go and sit in the game or would you refuse to do so out of principles?

I appreciate it makes it a bit easier as a tournament player, you have no control of seat selection then so never face these moral dilemmas. But at cash, surely almost all winning players are actively sitting versus weaker players in order to pay the bills.

I suppose the option (as raised on another thread) is auto-seat or anon tables to remove this possibility. Although can't say I'd personally be a fan of that (even beyond 'bumhunting', it'd be a shame to lose the social aspect of chatting to known players at the table).

On the bit in bold - you do say that, but if a person is breaking no laws and it is the only way to put food on the table in the short term... I'd have no issue with them bumhunting me and trying to rinse my money.  But hopefully they are either improving their game or training for other careers because yeah, they won't be reliant on poker long term before they end up destitute!

GELDY

I think I'm missing the point

In what way is the suggested activity scummy or morally dubious? 

As shaky eloquently put it this is not only consistent with standard business principles but you should expect it to happen.

Surely the only scummy thing would be to use your network to find attractive games and then not reward them for doing so. 

HaveaA1Day

In Response to Re: Hardcore Table Selection:

In Response to Hardcore Table Selection : Can't see there is anything wrong with this, so long as Player A and B aren't then sitting the table together and colluding to rinse Player C - F out of their money. If you are Player A then I presume that you play pro (or at least semi-pro) and therefore are viewing online poker like a job.  Ergo it isn't far removed from, say, working in property.  In that sense I'd be Player A who wants to acquire units across the breadth of the country (whole poker site, or sites), but can't possibly be monitoring all markets (tables) to find the best options that are out there (weak players), so I engage with one or more property agents (Player who are able to alert me when a good opportunity comes up (a weak player sits) and allow me to switch my focus to conclude a deal and excel at my job (rinse weak player). Poker as profession is morally dubious (see Dan Coleman rant after he won the One Drop), but so long as people are reliant on the game to pay the bills, they are going to have to take some of these morally dubious methods to ensure that they put food on the table at the expense of other players. Personally I'd see things like HUDS as being more dubious than just doing your best to sit versus players you are worse than. At least the weaker plays can see if Player A is ALWAYS sitting versus them and taking their money (and then have the choice to insta-stand every time they see Player A join a table), whereas there is no way of knowing what sort of HUDS or other support functions your opposition may be running to help rinse you. And I would happily just check poker lobbies occasionally in exchange for someone pinging me a few quid commission every time I flag a 'deal' to them!
Posted by shakinaces

1+

Lets take a real world example, your pal is playing live, he sends you a text telling you that one of the big fish that plays in your games as just sat down and theres a couple of seats free, are you really telling me your going to send him a text telling him what a scumbag he is for sending you that text?.

Lambert180

I think people are misunderstanding a little. There is a huuuge difference between a passing comment maybe because you're there yourself and what's in the OP.

I.e. If I'm playing 50NL and chatting to a mate and say 'hey this table I'm on is pretty soft', that's totally fine, albeit potentially not a wise move for me inviting another good reg to my table lol.

However, that's not the case here. I should point out that Player B doesn't play the same games as Player A. There's no reason why Player B would ever stumble across a good table for Player A and just mention it to him. They'd have to consciously go and look through the lobbies which they never go to, maybe once an hour or whatever, purely so some other guy can bumhunt even harder than normal.

The second example, he's giving him a list of actual names to look for, asking him to actively go out of his way to look for them, and paying him (or not as the case may be) for the pleasure. That is a much more formal agreement than saying to a mate 'this table's good'.

==========================

@Shakin - If I was playing at the time then yeah I'd probably jump on the table, but tbh I have my times when I play and I'm not so desperate to rinse the weakest of the weak players that I'm gonna let my life revolve around when they choose to sit so if I was off the computer and got the message on my phone, no way I'd log on to play. That aint so much principles I guess, just that I'm not so desperate to play against that type of player that I'm willing to constantly be 'on call' incase someone logs in.

The differences (at least imo) are above though, I never ASKED my friend to mention it, I never gave them a list to look out for, I didn't pay them to do it.

I don't get the obsession with whether it's within the rules or not. If murder was legalised tomorrow, would you do it? Hopefully not lol, cos you know that it's intrinsically wrong. I don't dispute it's within the rules, just like constantly swapping seats within the same table to get position on someone is perfectly within the rules too, but is it a terrible thing to do? absolutely imo

ALLEYKITTY

i don't think there is nothing morally wrong with what u are suggesting after all there is even sofeware programs on other sites to help people game select better. I do have a problem with data mining software as that gives a unfair advantage too people who already have a edge luckily sky does not allow them programs 

let's say u and player b even started to discuss players on your list and the best strategy to use against them even that could be classed as group strategy discussion which i do not like but i am pritty sure it goes on this and every other site between regs

 it's only becomes really immoral when scumbags collude using card removal eg both at same table player b is not in hand there is a 4 card flush on the board and player b tells player a he folded the ace of the suit