Archive for the ‘Poker Ethicist’ Category

I was glued to the recent Girah/Jungleman/DogisHead scandal(there are a few threads on the subject but this is the most recent). I read every interview and every statement from the “suspects” within minutes of its release. I’ll admit that I do enjoy a good scandal, but what was really fascinating about this one was what it revealed about this very strange world of sometimes socially stunted young people who have grown suddenly wealthy by excelling at a few very specific skills. There is no denying their intelligence, and yet they can be naive and downright dumb in so many ways.

'Getting into trouble' by Flickr user AloneAlbatross

It reminds me of some of the teenagers I’ve met through my work in urban public education. Many of these kids come from circumstances that force them to grow up early. For a variety of reasons, they may be responsible for not only themselves but younger siblings from a very young age. Many have seen violent crime and drug addiction up close, in a friend or family member if not personally.

Consequently, they can seem deceptively mature. One minute, you can be having a deep, serious conversation about religion or education and you feel like you are talking to an adult. Then suddenly your 15-year-old interlocutor will ask you a question like, “Is Bush a Democrat or a Republican?” or just interrupt himself mid-sentence to go run after a girl he’s interested in, and you remember that you are still dealing with a child.  Read the complete post...

As “The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy in the poker community. Today, I consider the WSOP Ladies’ Event, which began yesterday and is scheduled to conclude tomorrow. Older editions of The Poker Ethicist are available in the archives.

Once again this year, a handful of men have entered the WSOP Ladies’ Event, citing a belief that a women-only event is discriminatory and a Nevada Gaming Commission policy that prevents the WSOP from actually excluding, rather than just discouraging, male players. Critics of these men say that they are only playing because they expect the field to be softer (no pun intended) than open events of comparable buy-in.

Do these men have a case for discrimination? Is it ethical for the WSOP to offer an event that excludes (or at least attempts to exclude) players based on their gender?

Shaun Deeb in the 2010 WSOP Ladies' Event

It is. This event serves not to exclude but to include.  Read the complete post...

As “The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy in the poker community. Today, I consider a lawsuit brought on behalf of Ponzi scheme victims against players who allegedly won the fraudulently obtained money from the thief in a high-stakes poker game. Older editions of The Poker Ethicist are available in the archives.

CNN reports that,

“Celebrities who won big money in secret high-stakes poker games at Beverly Hills luxury hotels were paid with funds stolen from investors who had been lured into an illegal Ponzi scheme, a series of federal lawsuits contends.

Actors Tobey Maguire, Nick Cassavetes and Gabe Kaplan, along with professional poker player Dan Bilzerian, two nightclub owners and a Los Angeles lawyer are among at least 11 people being sued by a bankruptcy trustee.”

The lawsuit alleges that Bradley Ruderman fraudulently solicited millions of dollars in investments from at least 22 individuals and lost some of that money in an underground poker game played with the afore-mentioned celebrities as well as Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, and others. It seeks to recoup funds lost to these players so that they can be returned to Ruderman’s victims. Are the investor-victims ethically entitled to the return of these funds?  Read the complete post...

As “The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy in the poker community. Today, in honor of the US’ April 15th deadline for filing, I address the underreporting of income, which many poker players are tempted to do when they win money on sites based overseas. Older editions of The Poker Ethicist are available in the archives.

It surprises me how openly otherwise honest poker players discuss their tax evasion. It is not at all uncommon to see thinly veiled references to money laundering or wink-and-nod jokes about unreported income on poker forums. Whereas the poker community is (rightfully) quick to heap its scorn upon multiaccounters, scammers, and even people who still play on UB, there seems to be no community norm against tax evasion.

In the United States as in many other countries, gambling winnings are subject to income tax. This is true even if earned overseas, even if the sites are not regulated in the US, and even if the income is not reported to the government by the sites.

Income tax is a crucial source of revenue for governments and provides funding for vital public goods as diverse as professional fire fighters and law enforcement, military and national defense, food safety and public health inspection, and roads and infrastructure. These are goods from which virtually all citizens benefit and to whose costs all citizens are expected to contribute.  Read the complete post...

In response to my recent The Poker Ethicist: HUDs post, Piefarmer left an interesting comment that got me thinking about a few more of the ethical dimensions surrounding HUDs and other technology that helps people play better poker:

Technology always pushes the boundaries, especially ethical boundaries. The primary way to think about these boundaries, I think, is the way Andrew presented them: Does everyone have the same understanding of what is allowed, and the same opportunity to use technologies which are allowed? If so, no ethical problem.

I think the conditions that he identifies are spot-on, and I want to delve a bit deeper into them. This time around I’ve got more questions than answers, so I’ll be very curious to hear your opinions on the subject.

The Right To Know

My claim is that use of any technology allowed by the rules of a casino or poker site is ethical, and that using anything disallowed is unethical. This is because, by choosing to play at a particular venue, players agree to both their host and their fellow players that they will follow the posted rules.  Read the complete post...

As “The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy in the poker community. In this edition, I address a long-standing controversy in the online poker world, in response to a question about Heads-Up Displays (HUD’s) posed in a recent comment. Older editions of The Poker Ethicist are available in the archives.

In response to a recent post I made about using a HUD, commenter “Elmer Fudd” asked,

“I would like you to comment on the ethics of using a HUD in the first place. It most certainly gives you an edge over players that don’t use such software and provides you with stats that you couldn’t readily obtain during a live game. I guess I’m an old-fashioned poker purist, but anything that gives you a slight edge over other players is cheating. “

I would say anything that gives you an unfair edge is cheating. Sleeping and eating better than my opponents gives me an edge. Reading more books than they do gives me an edge. Using a second monitor gives me an edge over opponents attempting to multi-table on a single monitor. Yet none of these is unfair, because my opponents have equal opportunity to take advantage of them.  Read the complete post...

As “The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy in the poker community. In September, I discussed Joe Sebok’s decision to join Team Ultimate Bet. In November, I examined a $50,000 $W swap gone wrong (or right, depending on which party you ask). This month, I consider the multiple accounts of Nick “Stoxtrader” Grudzien. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll state up front that I work for Poker Savvy Plus, a video training site that competes with Grudzien’s Stoxpoker. I also believe that I have played against several of Grudzien’s accounts without knowing that they were the same person. While I don’t believe either of these facts colors my view of the situation, I’ll leave the reader to be the final authority on that.

The latest scandal to rock the online poker world is Nick “Stoxtrader” Grudzien’s admission that he has played under multiple screennames on both Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker. According to his post in the 2+2 thread on the subject:

In the last few days various allegations have been made that I have played on multiple accounts on FTP and Stars and that by doing so I have violated the terms and conditions of the sites and also cheated in ways including colluding. The relevant facts are:  Read the complete post...

When starting a session last night, I noticed that there were two 40/80 games going with several players whose names I did recognize. That’s usually a good sign, so I snatched up the last open seat at each and played a few hands while googling the unfamiliar screen names.

It turns out I didn’t recognize these guys because they are regulars in games so big I don’t even keep an eye on them to see if they’re ever worth playing. One guy was described as a “regular” at 300/600, which doesn’t even run regularly, so I’m not sure whether one can really be called a regular in them. In any event, I decided these weren’t actually games I wanted to play in.

In the meantime, though, I picked up some cards and won some big pots, including this one:

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold’em, $80.00 BB (5 handed) – Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

SB ($13765.10)
Hero (BB) ($8080)
UTG ($14597)
MP ($19746.50)
Button ($17475)

Preflop: Hero is BB with A, A
UTG bets $240, 3 folds, Hero raises to $820, UTG calls $580

Flop: ($1680) 10, 10, 2 (2 players)
Hero bets $1212, UTG calls $1212

Turn: ($4104) A (2 players)
Hero bets $2468, UTG calls $2468

River: ($9040) 9 (2 players)
Hero bets $3580 (All-In), 1 fold  Read the complete post...