Live feeds and hole cards: Ethics and considerations

[kinboshi]

People who study the game, play thousands of hands, and use online poker forums like you guys make up the top % of poker players in this country. But the vast majority of poker players are part-time and work in a fish shop or drive taxis. 

The majority of players at DTD own fish & chip shops.

[smashedagain]

Fml has Cos said something funny and it's been deleted.

[cambridgealex]

But Simon when there was 5 or 6 left in the comp, a few people were watching the stream on a laptop in the VIP room and I was also in that room you made me leave. Why was that a problem?

[skolsuper]

But Simon when there was 5 or 6 left in the comp, a few people were watching the stream on a laptop in the VIP room and I was also in that room you made me leave. Why was that a problem?

Even at the time it was made pretty clear the main reason was for appearance's sake.

Have to say I've not agreed with a post as much as Simon's for a very long time. Knowing your opponent's cards in a certain spot 30 mins ago is borderline useless (although admittedly interesting) in a live game, that spot will never arise again.

The idea of people bugging the cashier in DTD is just lol. You were pretty sensible itt for a while Mantis, more so than anyone else for the first 10 pages or so. Forget the Spooks stuff and get back to the poker plz

[MANTIS01]

Also the comment a standard raise was a min raise at the table is purely results orientated because that's just how the game panned out. Let's look at a different scenario. Stelios from the chippy has only played 6 hands since the FT started. He raised 3xbb with weak hands and 2xbb with strong hands but didn't showdown a hand. After the break the other players know for a fact he raises 2xbb with strong hands whereas before the break they could only guess what a raise with 2xbb meant. And they would need to pay to get any further info on the subject. Sure, that is the most basic eg I could think of, and Stelios might be a twat for his crude bet-sizing tells, but it could easily get more complex. For instance player A leans back when he's got it. Don't understand why the time delay makes that info less than relevant in the current game.

Simon, you make it to the FT of a WSOP event. You are no longer one of the better players at the table and look around to see world class pros so you know you need to conceal every bit of info from them to have a chance. You are told that the pros can access your hole card info during breaks but you will not have a chance to see theirs. Why are you saying you would be happy to concede that advantage? Would you really be stating that because poker is fluid your are fine to go ahead with that arrangement?

And sigh James, as I've said many times it's information introduced externally into a current game that is my main point. As well as how lesser players will feel disadvantaged by it. I mean people are now trying to say information isn't important in poker. The security issue is like I said a much lesser consideration. But thanks for coming into the debate on the sensible stuff and offering your view at that pont. You and Bobba sure picked the important stuff to comment on, wp.

[skolsuper]

I'm not going to argue that this has zero impact on the game, just that I think that the impact is much smaller than you are making out and I think that it's worth making that tiny change so that we can have something more interesting for railers.

Maybe if Stelios was thinking this hard about what information the other players were getting in the breaks, he wouldn't lean back in his chair whenever he had the nuts, or he would think to also lean back when he's bluffing?

[Longines]

I'm not going to argue that this has zero impact on the game, just that I think that the impact is much smaller than you are making out and I think that it's worth making that tiny change so that we can have something more interesting for railers.

Comes back to Dubai's point though - the railers aren't contributing to the prize fund so why should players pander to their perceived wishes?

[MANTIS01]

Also while I concede the bugging issue is a trifle MI5 I do think security is a negative issue with the live commentary. I'm still waiting for the other side of the debate to rattle of the positives of the live commentary for us players thou. Just saying lol doesn't win the debate unfortunately.

Again James, as a top player you have just followed Simon's lead by saying worse players should buck their ideas up. As a venue DTD should be concerned about how 90% of their players who aren't on the ball are going to feel rather than how you feel. It's very condescending to look down from the top and chastise lesser players for being bad but don't get how that solves the problems I'm raising. But anyway, you agree it impacts the game. So why are you so happy to impact the game? What are the advantages to you again and poker players generally? If you rattle off all the pros you might be able to convince me why it's a good thing for Stelios, the average player.

[KarmaDope]

I'm not going to argue that this has zero impact on the game, just that I think that the impact is much smaller than you are making out and I think that it's worth making that tiny change so that we can have something more interesting for railers.

Comes back to Dubai's point though - the railers aren't contributing to the prize fund so why should players pander to their perceived wishes?

The live streamers COULD theoretically contribute to prize funds at a later date, I assume this is what DTD is aiming for.

[h]

few questions /  points
we do not know do we that op actually played this  ?
we don't know if he did play it if he is an average player or poker wizard who forgot his wand
maybe Stelios, the average player might want to see himself on a live stream tell friends to tune in

"Everyone will be famous for 15 minutes."
Andy Warhol


i consider myself an average player and spent some time on feature table so am interested
in whether or not captured stream  will be published (UN edited ) as would like to review own body language bet sizing etc.....

[smashedagain]

few questions /  points
we dint know do we that op actually played this do we ?
we don't know if he did play it if he is an average player or poker wizard who forgot his wand
maybe Steelies, the average player might want to see himself on a live stream tell friends to tune in

Everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.
Andy Warhol


i consider myself an average player and spent some time on feature table so am interested
in whether or not captured stream  will be published (UN edited ) as would like to review own body language bet sizing etc.....

i liked you style and game. but this day and age thats pretty much a bad thing

[MANTIS01]

This is still troubling me cos I thought about it and still don't understand. First though two things that are important so there's no bad feeling and I get some good answers:

1. DTD is clearly the best poker club in the business. Everyone should play there.

2. Alex is obv a decent young lad and thoroughly deserves his win. Wp Sir.

On with the poker and just poker and I will use myself in this eg so nobody is offended by another example that might be about them. I tuned into the live feed and watched it for about an hour and thought it was great. My motivation to watch was purely entertainment because I had no vested interest in the final. I thought it was a good idea and enjoyed it as a neutral. But let's say I do have a friend in the final. My best mate Gareth has been mentioning he might give some of these comps a bash and offered me a piece recently, so let's put him at that final. Now my motivation to watch the stream would change because hey my mate who I've got a piece of is at that final. I would prob chill on my sofa and watch the whole thing.

My strength in poker from the start was behavioural tells. Behavioural tells is quite a shit best skill to have cos it's useless when playing online. But I wanted to develop those skills and I read all the books and learnt all about it. After a lot of study into behavioural tells my conclusion was they are useless in tournaments. You need a base level behaviour to compare new behaviour to and it takes a lot of time to get that sort of info. If you don't see your oppo's hand you can't attribute behaviour to strength or weakness and in a comp you wont get to see enough hands before the table breaks. So yeah useless. But if you play cash with the same people over and over you'd be stupid not to think about tells. There's people in the casino who we know have tells cos we learn about them over time.

So anyway back to Gareth. Gareth is a good player but refuses to believe he has a single tell (even though he has many) so doesn't pay much attention to that sort of thing at the table. He needn't worry thou because I'm paying attention for him. And I've got a better seat for that purpose. With all the cards on display it would make the process a lot quicker. Our friend Stelios could be a hive of activity. When Gareth calls me at the break to check in I will obv tell him what I've noticed. Now here's the thing. When I impart that info into the game Gareth's equity in the comp rises. Eg Gareth could knock Stelios out with that info. I concede the impact wont be major, but there will deffo be an increase in equity if he gets useful info he can't possibly have got otherwise. Let's say it increases his chances by just 1%.

What I don't understand is what business is it of some guy lounging on his sofa in Birmingham to interfere with the equity distribution of a poker tournament in Nottingham? The poker tournament you paid into. What I really don't understand is why are you guys happy to give my mate Gareth some of your equity when he hasn't done one thing himself to earn it? I know I mess around on here but in all seriousness I play the game fairly and love poker. If I made the FT and looked around at some of the better players on here I would be at a disadvantage for sure. But I'd play you guys as hard as I could and you'd have to fight me all the way for every scrap of equity. But you guys are ok giving my mate Gareth some of your equity for free. I don't get it.

You can apply it to anyone at the FT because everyone will have their own supporters. Hence players like Stelios who don't acquire any info will see the biggest shift of equity away from them towards the organised people who do. It doesn't matter that the % shift is small cos why a % shift at all? I don't understand why people are in favour of this and think it contaminates poker a little bit. This is my first 100% serious post. The only answer so far is that if you were at the FT you would give equity away to my mate Gareth so some railers might play next time.

[cambridgealex]

People gain information all the time during comps that could see their equity in a comp rise. What about if Gareth rings you in the break and tells you who's on his table. You say "I know him, he has x tell". Boom - his equity gies up.

[Boba Fett]

People gain information all the time during comps that could see their equity in a comp rise. What about if Gareth rings you in the break and tells you who's on his table. You say "I know him, he has x tell". Boom - his equity gies up.

This.

Mantis it doesnt matter what long winded story you come up with, its nothing that couldnt also be taken advantage of by other players at the table.  For all we know everyone at the final could have a behavioral expert at home calling them with anything they pick up.

What is the difference between your example and the following scenario.  Same final table but no live stream.  Gareth has been opening pots at the final at Matt Perrins has been shoving on Gareth forcing folds.  The updates have mentioned 2 or 3 hands like this.  On the break, Gareth phones his behavioral expert, who is also a good overall player and has experience playing with Perrins (using him as a random example).  The friend advises changing his opening range in certain positions to "x" and, given his experience of playing against Perrins, thinks his shove range will be "y" so Gareths calling range should be "z".  Gareth now has an opening range and a calling range that will increase his chances at the final that he didnt work out himself but given to him by some guy lounging on his sofa in Birmingham.

What is the difference?  Is this also wrong?  Does this mean there should be a ban on online updates that even describe the action or a ban on players speaking to anyone on breaks?

The point is, players can gain advantages through a variety of situations.  Online streaming may add to the possible situations, but like every other situation it is an equal playing field in that everyone has access to the same information and an advantage is gained by the person who figures out how to use that information best.

[Longines]

Bobs, would you be happy if the delayed stream was shown on the screens in the club? Would you be happy if the delay was 15 minutes? 5?

The whole crux is the hole cards. Stream what you like without them. The argument that Alex's Mum prefers it that way and should therefore be embraced and accepted  is ridiculous.