morality in poker

[thetank]

Many people play live for a living and its important to them to make money live so that argument doesn't wash with me either tank.

True, and that's why I try not to be too indignant and judgemental.

Lots of things are black and white, but many more can be seen from various perspectives.


Reminds me of one of my favourite quotes....

"Before you criticize a man, you should walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you is dissing him you'll be a mile away and you'll have his sneakers"

[action man]

i wouldn' sleep for days if this happened, in fact i may dream of it tonight

[thetank]

The example you're looking for, is the next door neighbour is playing in his garden.

you can see his holecards through your window all day.

He suddenly joins the same single table tourney as you, it begins before you realise it's him......

But in that scenario you can only see one of you opponents hands not all the others

So more like the live poker scenario in the other thread then?

How much edge are you looking for before you just rob a bank 

[taximan007]

I beleive in the "scenario" Ariston describes, "one off 24 hour no comeback, untracable", very few players can say "hand on heart" they wouldnt sit at a table and cream it for all its worth. "easy money" can be a very tempting thing.

just my opinion

[M3boy]

Nice post Ariston.

Interesting one indeed!

[iceman]

as the question is hypothetical and the parameters changed then what if this table contained 2,3 or 4 peple you are aquainted with is it still ok or is it just ok to take money from people you dont know?

[M3boy]

as the question is hypothetical and the parameters changed then what if this table contained 2,3 or 4 peple you are aquainted with is it still ok or is it just ok to take money from people you dont know?

I do not think this is relavent, as at a poker table, you play the same against someone who know as to someone you dont know.

[iceman]

the relevance is that you arent playing,this ceases to be a game given the scenario,its a license to take peoples money

[Ginger]

as the question is hypothetical and the parameters changed then what if this table contained 2,3 or 4 peple you are aquainted with is it still ok or is it just ok to take money from people you dont know?

I do not think this is relavent, as at a poker table, you play the same against someone who know as to someone you dont know.

Hmmm, I agree that it makes no difference if they are your friend at the table, but it could be argued that you aren't actually playing poker at all in this scenario.

[M3boy]

Ok , point taken..

[AndrewT]

I beleive in the "scenario" Ariston describes, "one off 24 hour no comeback, untracable", very few players can say "hand on heart" they wouldnt sit at a table and cream it for all its worth. "easy money" can be a very tempting thing.

just my opinion

Some of us know that there really isn't any such thing as 'easy money' which has no catch - if it's too good to be true then it probably is.

For anyone who would jump at the chance for such obviously risk-free easy money I've got a great idea for making tons via the first goalscorer market on Betfair...

[thetank]

I'm with Batman.

All cons, from Nigeria to Battersea work on exploiting out natural greed. Supressing that impulse to jump in without thinking and make a "killing" is not a bad thing.

[bolt pp]

Ok tank will change the parameters. There is no comeback from the site as this is a one off for 24hrs and untraceable. Your account isn't going to be frozen and no investigation its up to you wether you take advantage or not. You still not playing?

How do I know all this?

If I can foretell the future like that, I'm cashing out and going to the dog track.

good old cashing out and going to the dog track, it's what it's all about

Like Tank i have trouble getting past the example used in answering the question, i'd be thinking that theres a coup going on and that i was about to be turned over, that coupled with the ramifications of being found out i'd have to decline.

I would've liked to say that i was declining this opportunity as a result of some deep rooted moral reluctance to tuck up my fellow man but that wasn't the first thing that occurred to me

I'm sure that if i was to postulate over the idea long enough i'd finally get to the point where it just felt wrong as a professional poker player to act with almost criminal impropriety at the table, though it hasn't happend yet

Is it a question of morality or a question of morality in poker?

I think the two are very different and following on from the last thread a non poker related test of ones morals may have provided a stronger insight into the veracity of blondites, a platform from which you could have draw comparisons.

Such would be the anger and exclusion faced by a cheat in modern day poker that i think it difficult for people to answer the question with out all the time being cautiously mindfull of what their answer implies.

[boldie]

I'm with Tank on this one..there's no such thing as free money (unless you count that 50k I just found while walking past that bus stop)

I am not saying in this situation it is a morality thing for me (although it clearly would be wrong) but it's a good old fashioned fear thing for me (which some Philosophers have quite elegantly argued is the same thing as fear)

[doubleup]

These scenarios aren't really about poker, they are about theft.  So the question is really whether you you would steal money from other players if there was no chance of detection.  

Sklansky posted a similar question on 2+2 - his scenario was a declining pro whose opponents spent their winnings on hookers and drugs - whereas he spent his winnings supporting his family and educating his children.  (Ignoring the fact that hookers and drug dealers have families to support as well....)

I wouldn't steal from other players and hope that I never get myself in the financial situation where I would be desperate enough to try to justify the theft with excuses like "they can afford to lose the money".