Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
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?
0 ·
Comments
a. you sound as if you have a list, paul
b. not really right
c. 50:50
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.
1 mattprawn
2 me
I can see how thus can quite easily be against the rules.
if its not against the rules.
then
its borderline against the rules.
Quote from the popular nosebleed documentry.
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!
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!
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?.
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