Something I was thinking about earlier.. ethics

[Lukie]

The other day I hit my 4th royal flush. And it got me thinking about a situation that happened last year or the year before in the WSOP main event. I didn't see it, just heard about it. And it was a while ago, so forgive me if I don't set up the scenario properly. It's the principle that is important, not the hand in question.

blahblahblapreflopblahblabhablahflopblahblaahblahb alhturnblahblahblah

Board on the river, in no particular order, reads:



Player 1 holds two cards and moves all-in.

Player 2 tanks. After a long pause, he mucks face up.

Player 1 slides his cards face down towards the dealer, and someone at the table exclaims, "OMG, I FOLDED THE ACE OF SPADES, I WOULD HAVE HAD A FREAKING ROYAL FLUSH!!!!!!!one!!!!!!!!"

Is this appropriate?

How do the stakes influence this (pickup game vs multi-million dollar tournament)?

[Miffed22001]

proves someone cant read hands!

I dont think there is any problem with it
However, i guess at top levels giving out information for free to other players sucks yah?

[Pelion]

Totally forgettting the royal does he push without the A ? ? ?


Given the fact that the A IS the royal I think this makes it an even easier fold.

I go purley based on dunken pot odds here. I think I almost always fold anything less than the nuts seeing as he thought so hard trhen pushed the A.

Can you really imagine the pushing into you? easy fold Imo especially considering how many people see Ax as the nuts preflop;.

[flomo]

someone at the table exclaims, "OMG, I FOLDED THE ACE OF SPADES, I WOULD HAVE HAD A FREAKING ROYAL FLUSH!!!!!!!one!!!!!!!!"

was his hole cards shown?
he could be bluffing to tilt the player

after a hand is finished you can talk as much as you want
it is just stupid to do it[/quote]

[midas06]

I think he showed his 9s when he folded, before the other guy went off.

[Lukie]

Lol let me be more clear...

First guy goes all-in, second guy is stuck with a decision holding , giving him the 1-card ass end of the straight flush.

second guy folds. First guy doesn't show. Another player at the table claims he folded preflop.

I'm not interested in whether or not the guy should have called or whatever. I don't even know any details of the hand.

Now that everyone knows the random player had the ace, and the other guy mucked the 9, everyone at the table knows that the 2nd player was full of shit. Anybody see where I'm going with this? If I were playing in a tournament for millions of dollars, I'd be pissed. Seriously.

[midas06]

He should be stoked that his huge bluff got recognised

[Lukie]

that should be his choice. I don't like my bluffs getting recognized, personally. I like when people think they made a good laydown.

[flyingPenguin]

The bluffer didn't want to give away any info, but if someone else has that info anyway it just sucks for them. There's nothing "unethical" in poker about giving away info you have about a previous hand, even if someone doesn't want you to give that info away.

[Lukie]

The bluffer didn't want to give away any info, but if someone else has that info anyway it just sucks for them. There's nothing "unethical" in poker about giving away info you have about a previous hand, even if someone doesn't want you to give that info away.

So you're playing in a tournament with over $50 million in prize money. Nobody at the table has ever played with you before. They don't have any info on you or your playing style.

You make a huge bluff, putting your $10,000 tournament entry on the line, where you are repping one exact card and everyone knows it. Your bluff is sucessful, and some douchebag at the table has to act like he's never played poker before and says 'omg fdjlajfldjlkfjalkdsfjkdsjlkjkfjlkdasfj I HAD THAT CARD!!!'.

I would have a problem with this. The player with the 9 folded. If the bluffer doesn't want to show, the player with the 9 doesn't have a right to know what he had. It's that simple. It's a case of either he had it or he didn't.

And to those saying, well it's good that his bluff got some recognition! Now he can cash in on it!!!!:

1) Now everyone has information on this player, which puts this player at a DISadvantage.

2) And far more importantly, you guys are missing the point. A player that was not involved in the hand is giving away information (BLATANT, OBVIOUS, USEFUL INFORMATION AT THAT) about another player's hand, in a very important situation. Is anyone going to argue that a good live player isn't going to be able to use that information and correllate physical tells, betting patterns, thought processes, etc. for the 'bluffer'?

[givememyleg]

I would have a problem with this. The player with the 9 folded. If the bluffer doesn't want to show, the player with the 9 doesn't have a right to know what he had. It's that simple. It's a case of either he had it or he didn't.

And to those saying, well it's good that his bluff got some recognition! Now he can cash in on it!!!!:

1) Now everyone has information on this player, which puts this player at a DISadvantage.

2) And far more importantly, you guys are missing the point. A player that was not involved in the hand is giving away information (BLATANT, OBVIOUS, USEFUL INFORMATION AT THAT) about another player's hand, in a very important situation. Is anyone going to argue that a good live player isn't going to be able to use that information and correllate physical tells, betting patterns, thought processes, etc. for the 'bluffer'?

I would have never said I folded A. I agree 100% that I would also be pissed, and that it is unethical... but some people don't have ethics or care.

When I play my home games, this happens a LOT. At least once per night you can count on this.... If I am involved in a pot, and say the flop comes "445" someone will shout "OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE I FOLDED MY 45." It might not always be so obvious, but whenever someone folded and they would hit I always know. Even if they fold their draw on the flop, and it comes on the turn they will say "OH MY GOD." I can sometimes use this to my advantage, but I've told everyone over and over it is just stupid and makes people (mostly just me) very upset.

[Warpe]

An ethical issue only arises if the player gives away that info in the middle of the hand. That is clearly wrong. But after the cards are mucked, it doesn't matter.

[Lukie]

haha, yeah, when it happens DURING the hand, that's even worse.

[Werddown]

Why should the player who made the bluff gain some advantage by the other player keeping quiet? The other player is still in the tournament too and if he wants to talk about his hand preflop after the previous hand is finished in order to let the rest of the table know the guy was bluffing thats his choice. It's not like he was standing behind someone who folded the ace of spades and told the whole table after the hand was over that it got folded preflop.

Why should it only benefit the person who was bluffing? The guy could even be lying about folding the ace of spades preflop, trying to put someone on tilt or get everyone else to think the guy is just a bluffer so they attack him more.

Talking about the hands you were dealt at the table is not only allowed in poker, its a tool. If nobody were able to give information about their hand or make remarks regarding the plays, poker would become increasingly boring.

Unless he physically went back into the deck and pulled out his card that he folded preflop and showed it to everyone then its not unethical. He can say whatever he wants to, he's still in the tournament. If he thinks it gives him an edge, he SHOULD say it... perhaps even if he didnt have that card. He's trying to win the tournament too.

[flyingPenguin]

I'm not saying that it's not bad for the bluffer. It really sucks for him. But the information IS held by someone else, and they are free to share it if they wish (after the hand is over). It may be bad form, but it's still part of the game. You don't have to like it, and it may be an ungentlemanly act, but this isn't cricket and as far as I know it's not breaking any rules.

Sites already don't allow talking about a hand while it's happening. If this sort of thing gains popular disapproval they may end up banning discussing after the hand as well, but I don't see it happening.

People discuss hands all the time. Blah bets, blah folds - "What did you have..." These people might be silly discussing their hands, but you probably don't think too much about it. Any of these discussions could give away info that someone else didn't want given. You may have let out someone's secret before and not even known it. In this case it was a big "important" and obvious secret, but when talking ethics the severity shouldn't matter. It's either bad and should be not allowed in all cases, even if it's just a little bit bad, or it's not bad. I'm talking bad in the greater sense here, not just "I'd hate it if it happened to me." It's poker. Sucky things happen a lot.

So if you want to argue that he shouldn't have done this, you really have to argue for disallowing all discussions of hands.

Myself - I wouldn't at all be bothered if it were disallowed, but I really don't mind hearing people talk about what hands they had. Most of the time they give away info useful to me. If I were the one f*cked over in this case I wouldn't be happy, but I'd live with it.

[Lukie]

Some points I'd like to make:

1) Whether or not you think the bluffer gains an advantage by having his bluff exposed is irrelevant. Stop using this argument. It's not the principle I'm trying to discuss (and I disagree with it being an advantage for him, anyway).

2) I never claimed that it was against the rules for the person to say he had the ace of spades, after the hand is over. That is his right and it is his choice. I'm saying it's poor form, unethical, etc etc etc, and he shouldn't do it.

People discuss hands all the time. Blah bets, blah folds - "What did you have..." These people might be silly discussing their hands, but you probably don't think too much about it. Any of these discussions could give away info that someone else didn't want given. You may have let out someone's secret before and not even known it. In this case it was a big "important" and obvious secret, but when talking ethics the severity shouldn't matter. It's either bad and should be not allowed in all cases, even if it's just a little bit bad, or it's not bad. I'm talking bad in the greater sense here, not just "I'd hate it if it happened to me." It's poker. Sucky things happen a lot.

3) Maybe I'm crazy, but I find this situation far different in a multi-million dollar tourney, then I would in some casual, pickup game in my friend's basement.

So if you want to argue that he shouldn't have done this, you really have to argue for disallowing all discussions of hands.

4) I disagree. I am arguing he shouldn't have done this, but in no way would I ever argue for disallowing all discussion of hands. In this particular case, the hand shouldn't be discussed.

[Warpe]

If don't think anyone could keep their mouth shut if they had folded the Ace to the nut of nuts. Seriously.

[Lukie]

Warpe, if you were talking about a lot of beginnerish, amateurish type players, I'd agree.

[Werddown]

4) I disagree. I am arguing he shouldn't have done this, but in no way would I ever argue for disallowing all discussion of hands. In this particular case, the hand shouldn't be discussed.

Then basically you're saying it's all situational, and it would be too hard to enforce a rule on something that's this situational.

You might believe it's unethical, but you have no proposal for how to solve the problem in the future, so really you're just complaining that the guy had bad table manners. Alot of people have bad table manners, and unless it's breaking a specific rule in the game, or being excessively exploited to give an unfair advantage (in which case possible rule changes could be discussed), I dont think it's worth debating.

The buy-in of the tournament is irrelevant. Whether it was a $10k buyin or a $2 buy-in, it must apply equally in both situations for it to be unethical. What one person values as important might not neccessarily be as valued by another person.

That's the thing about ethics - People often have different opinions of what is or isn't ethical in a given situation. "Ethics in Poker" is kind of an oxymoron, because poker is characteristcally blunt, which is what accounts for a large portion of its appeal to some people. In short, unless it consistently affects the game as a whole,

[Lukie]

Then basically you're saying it's all situational, and it would be too hard to enforce something that's this situational.

Nobody is saying we have to 'enforce' anything. And give me a break, this is at one end of the extreme, of a VERY important hand where it's blatantly obvious that nothing should be said.

People are smart enough to use their own judgement when it's appropriate and not appropriate to talk about their hands.

You might believe it's unethical, but you have no proposal for how to solve the problem in the future, so really you're just complaining that the guy had bad table manners. Alot of people have bad table manners, and unless it's breaking a specific rule in the game, or being excessively exploited to give an unfair advantage (in which case possible rule changes could be disucssed), I dont think it's worth debating.

If by proposal, you mean by adding new rules and other such things, you're right. I don't. My proposal is that people use their heads, and if it's blatantly obvious they shouldn't say anything about their hand, they shouldn't. Again, people aren't robots that have to live by a strict code of rules, they are generally smart enough to use their own best judgement in spots like this.

The buy-in of the tournament is irrelevant. Whether it was a $10k buyin or a $2 buy-in, the must apply equally in both situations for it to be unethical. What one person values as important might not neccessarily be as valued by another person.

Oh give me a break. I'm laughing. Do you really believe this?

[Werddown]

If by proposal, you mean by adding new rules and other such things, you're right. I don't. My proposal is that people use their heads, and if it's blatantly obvious they shouldn't say anything about their hand, they shouldn't.

GOOD LUCK with that. Poker is characteristically blunt, which is what attracts alot of people to the game. Unless it's against the rules of the game, dont expect everyone to be polite to you. It's pointless to argue about what is or isn't ethical if it doesn't break the rules or actually affect the game as a whole.

Oh give me a break. I'm laughing. Do you really believe this?

If someone buys into a $10k tournament they need a huge bankroll. If I buy in to a $50 tournament, I need a large enough bankroll to play that tourney as well.

Who's to say which tournament is more important? I could actually argue that a $50 MTT may be more important to someone in terms of their financial situation, since the person playing the $10k MTT is probably alot better off.

[givememyleg]

I wouldn't say it is pointless to argue about ethics, but when it comes down to it, some people just won't care while others will. There are a lot of thickheaded people.

[Lukie]

GOOD LUCK with that. Poker is characteristically blunt, which is what attracts alot of people to the game. Unless it's against the rules of the game, dont expect everyone to be polite to you. It's pointless to argue about what is or isn't ethical if it doesn't break the rules or actually affect the game as a whole.

If it's so pointless to argue about what is or isn't ethical, why are we both here?

I guess your argument about it not affecting the game as a 'whole' is legit, but it affects the players involved, and by default the game.

Also, I'm a pretty blunt person myself. I think anybody that reads the HH's section can tell you that. And this whole argument isn't about being polite. We're not talking about a Hellmuth blowup here, we're (essentially) talking about revealing somebody else's hole cards after the hand is over. Indirectly, yes.

If someone buys into a $10k tournament they need a huge bankroll. If I buy in to a $50 tournament, I need a large enough bankroll to play that tourney as well.

Who's to say which tournament is more important? I could actually argue that a $50 MTT may be more important to someone in terms of their financial situation, since the person playing the $10k MTT is probably alot better off.

We were talking about a $10,000 tournament as opposed to a $2 tournament. Nonetheless, I feel what I am arguing applies to all stakes so long as the game is being played on a serious level. However, there's still that 'judgement' factor that I talked about earlier, and if you can't see how it's worse to reveal the hole card information in a $10,000 tournament as opposed to the $2 tournament, I'm sorry but I can't help you.

It would basically be me explaining why money is an important part of poker.

[jackvance]

It's all part of the game. If he doesn't break any rules, like disclose hand information during the hand, or show his cards after he folded, it's all allowed imo. Maybe not intentional, but seems like a good way to tilt both parties in the hand. The folder cuz he got shafted big time, and the bluffer cuz his bluff got exposed in such a childish manner (well not tilt, but he is probably annoyed).

I've read about pro's on the FT of the WSOP launching into personal attacks against eachother. All part of the game.

[Lukie]

I wouldn't say it is pointless to argue about ethics, but when it comes down to it, some people just won't care while others will. There are a lot of thickheaded people.

i concur

[UG]

there are ethics in poker?


EDIT:

dude, just say i'm right....or ill kill u

U R RITE

[Lukie]

lol

GeoWal21 (6:30:15 PM): there are ethics in poker?
LuKie StyLe 3 (6:30:26 PM): dude, just say i'm right
LuKie StyLe 3 (6:30:28 PM): or ill kill u

[UG]

I wish you weren't so hardcore sometimes


I just don't want to die over something silly like this

[Gareth]

surely the person who reveals they had the best hand is giving up an advantage over the player who made this bluff?

[badandy519]

How about if YOU (or I) were the one that mucked the As in this hand? Who in their right mind would share that with the entire table? You get to see the guy with the 9s muck the SF so you know he is capable of laying down a hand, and you also know the other guy is capable of making a big bluff. I think the info gained on 2 players at your table is more than enough to keep your mouth shut about folding the nuts.

[Awaji E]

Does the fact that the first player revealed his card effect this situation?
If the player hadn't shown his 9, then the guy speaking up about his own A is definately out-of-line.
But the fact that one player has already willingly and unnecessarily shown his cards makes it a bit more ok for another player to do the same, IMO.

[Halv]

Does the fact that the first player revealed his card effect this situation?

IMHO, not at all.

If the player hadn't shown his 9, then the guy speaking up about his own A is definately out-of-line.

Why?

I thing this is the first time I really disagree with you, Lukie. I don't think I have any more arguments to give, werddown made a pretty good rundown of them. So you're just gonna have to go ahead and kill me as well.

[geoffm33]

we're (essentially) talking about revealing somebody else's hole cards after the hand is over. Indirectly, yes.

I kindof agree with Lukie on this one. Maybe not unethical, but maybe bush league (ie: unprofessional/cheap). The kind of action that the other players in the room would look at and think "Wow, what a dick".

And I also agree that he should keep that info to himself (if he was indeed holding the A) and use it against both players later in the tournament.

[jackvance]

I think the info gained on 2 players at your table is more than enough to keep your mouth shut about folding the nuts.

Someone blurting this out at kiddy games can be understandable, but these guys no doubt know what they are doing. Which is why I think he might have purposefully shared that information, because he figured the tilt factor outweighed the secret information factor.

[Rondavu]

It's fair game. If you had the ace, you can say you had the ace. It was your card.

[Lukie]

It's fair game. If you had the ace, you can say you had the ace. It was your card.

I never argued against this.

I said you shouldn't. And I stand by that.

[Bear Bones]

It's fair game. If you had the ace, you can say you had the ace. It was your card.

I never argued against this.

I said you shouldn't. And I stand by that.

So, to extrapolate this argument out to a more general discussion. Your opinion would be that it is unethical for any two people at the same table to reveal their hole cards to each other in a discussion about how they played a hand because that discussion might reveal information about a third persons hand that he (the third player) didn't want revealed? Should FTR discussion be constrained to hands in which only one FTR member is involved? Saying something during the course of play is a very different matter, but after a hand is over the player with the folded :As: can't be constrained to not talk about the cards he held, especially if it was like it sounds an "I can't believe I folded that" instead of a deliberate out of the bluffer's hand.

[bode]

Again, people aren't robots that have to live by a strict code of rules, they are generally smart enough to use their own best judgement in spots like this.

this is ultimately the problem at hand. While you or I might be smart enough to use good judgement in a situation like this, there are people who don't either because they aren't smart enough or just choose not to.[/b]