Poker Ethics

[digamma]

Pulling a discussion out of the "Official Poker Listings Thread" because it might warrant a little more discussion.

In that thread, the discussion initially started with a discussion of cheating in on-line games. I think we would all agree that IM'ing or calling someone on the phone to collude on down cards is cheating.

The last post there though is about regulars in a live game refusing to go heads up against one another and whether that is unethical. I've played in a number of games where I'll be seated at a table with a good friend, someone who I play in a number of home games with. If the pot is folded to the two of us, we might also check the pot out to avoid betting against one another in a heads up situation. (One friend in particular has said something like, I'm not at the casino to take my friends' money.) Obviously, by doing this, you run the risk of making others at the table angry with you and invite claims of collusion.

Anyone have any thoughts on the general ethics of situations like this?

[Franklinnoble]

Caveat emptor, baby.

[cartman]

Just don't let them catch Ed Norton dealing off of the bottom to you, and everything will be ok.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by digamma

The last post there though is about regulars in a live game refusing to go heads up against one another and whether that is unethical. I've played in a number of games where I'll be seated at a table with a good friend, someone who I play in a number of home games with. If the pot is folded to the two of us, we might also check the pot out to avoid betting against one another in a heads up situation. (One friend in particular has said something like, I'm not at the casino to take my friends' money.) Obviously, by doing this, you run the risk of making others at the table angry with you and invite claims of collusion.

I have confronted this situation before, and I have seen people get mad about it. I really don't agree. Whether the two players continue to bet at each other, or just decide to check down, it doesn't have any effect on the other players who are no longer in that pot.

Indirectly, if the argument is against two friendly players playing at the same table at all -- then there's something to that, in concept at least. But this specific case - I don't see any harm.

[panerd]

Yeah, it was my post but was more about regulars than friends. I have been playing a lot at the local casino and you get to recognize and know the regulars. I generally fare well against them (and defintely against the guys with the name tags!) but have noticed that they don't ever go after each other. I know it probably happens all over the country and their motto is "Why take each others fish when there are so many for each of us?" But I just think that it creates an unfair advantage at the table. I guess I should play more tournaments where this stuff can't possibly be in their best interest.

[primelord]

If it is a heads up situation and you both want to check the river through I can;t see why anyone would get mad. They weren't involved in the pot anyway. Now if you two start constantly start raising each other with players caught in-between just to jack up the pot I think people are going to get very pissed. Just avoiding getting heads up with each other isn't really a big deal.

I would say if it isn't a heads up situation all people involved should probably play their hands like they normally would. Some buddies of mine and I play at the casino a lot. And while I am not there specifically to take their money if they put it on the table I am going to try and go home with it.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by panerd

But I just think that it creates an unfair advantage at the table.

If you are not in the hand, I don't see how the actions of the remaining players directly affects you. Plus, I don't see how it's a benefit to them, really -- the safety of not continuing to bet is offset by the potential for additional gains from having the winning hand. The only true savings, in the aggregate, is any reduction in the rake (which has to be minimal or nonexistant in any significant game).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If you are not in the hand, I don't see how the actions of the remaining players directly affects you. Plus, I don't see how it's a benefit to them, really -- the safety of not continuing to bet is offset by the potential for additional gains from having the winning hand. The only true savings, in the aggregate, is any reduction in the rake (which has to be minimal or nonexistant in any significant game).

I think the situations I see are more like Primelord described in his post where they will both raise a pot against a new guy and cause him to fold and then not bet each other. I am still pretty fairly new and only play good hands so I welcome the raising, but I sit and watch other people get muscled out of pots in 2 on 1 and 3 on 1 type situations.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think the situations I see are more like Primelord described in his post where they will both raise a pot against a new guy and cause him to fold and then not bet each other.

Then I think that needs to be part of the question, in all candor.

I've seen plenty of situations live where two or more players are clearly friends, and decide not to bet into one another. Without any other actions of note, I don't have any problems with this at all.

Now, with the expanded story where the two players are raising and reraising one another's pots, until nobody else remains - and then checking down-- this is collusion, and it's patently unethical. That's a different situation - but it's the action before they declare their personal truce that makes it harmful.