Episode #97 recap: Online ethics

MAIN TOPIC

Is there a different ethical standard for online poker than live poker? And what exactly is that standard? Those were some of the questions we weighed in on during a spirited discussion.

Chris sees no difference between online poker and live poker. What isn't acceptable live shouldn't be allowed online, including joint sessions, tracking software and collusion. Scott agrees in theory, but he says he's a realist, and since there's very little we can do to stop the aforementioned practices, we need to accept that it is a part of online poker even if we decide not to use any of them.

Paul Wasicka, runner-up in last year's World Series of Poker Main Event and one of the hottest players around now, got this all started with a recent article in Bluff Magazine where he outlined the advantages of joint sessions online (two players share a bankroll and decisions, but play only one hand). He called in to give us his views on it. He admits that he never considered the fact that anyone would consider it unethical when he wrote the article, but was forced to consider the notion based on feedback he got. In the end, though, he decided that it's alright because online poker is a different animal, and since everyone else can use joint sessions or tracking software or any number of other aids, you shouldn't deny yourself the same advantages. His final point: If you play online, you need to be aware of these issues.

It's all a fascinating discussion, so please join in here.

And we asked Paul about much more than online ethics. Find out what he has to say about that kwickfish nickname, the famous open-ended straight flush draw at the WSOP and his new deals with Poker Royalty and FullTilt. Oh, and yes, Chris tried again to barter bowling lessons for poker lessons. This time, it seems like he's got a kwickfish on the line.

OTHER TOPICS

A TROUBLED CHILDHOOD: Chris pinpoints the exact moment when he knew he'd grow up to be a poker player. He lost $13 to his neighbors in Acey-Deucey at age 6 when he paired his Ace while holding A-2. (No wonder he hates Omaha 8).

SCOTT'S 10-SECOND MYSTERY: Scott was playing in a $32+$8, 5,000 chip multi tournament at Tampa Bay Downs on Saturday. With 18 players remaining (top 9 cash), he was short-stacked with 13K in chips and blinds of 1500/3000 with a 300 ante. He looked down at 9-9 in middle position, and was ready to push all-in when the UTG chipleader opened for a raise. Scott admits most people, including Chris, wouldn't think any longer than a millisecond before calling all-in, but he wonders if there's room in freezeout tournament strategy for at least the consideration of folding and hoping to open a hand with a push. When you're done laughing, weigh in on your opinion.

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE: Lots of action in Tallahassee regarding poker. Scroll down a few posts and find out what's up.

TO TIVO .. OR NOT TO TIVO: Chris gave us the lowdown on Texas Hold Em Billiard Championships. It turns out it has much less to do with poker than it does with pool. Also, Alex Outhred, an instructor at the WSOP Academy series of instructional poker camps and fourth place finisher at the 2006 WPT Mandalay Bay Championship, became the biggest winner ever on FoxTV's hit prime-time game show Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?  He raked in a cool $500,000 - much more than his poker tournament winnings - using poker strategies.

IT'S ALL ABOUT US: Here's a few reminders - call in for the 100th show roll call ... the AIPS razz is event is Thursday ... next week's show is the Ante Up! Game Show edition, so email Fasso some questions.

HAND OF THE WEEK

In honor of Thursday's Razz AIPS event, we analyzed a hand from Rob "RonTrout" from Charlotte, N.C. Trout started out with 6-3-5, but never raised even after catching a 4 on 4th Street (opponents' boards then were A-6 and 3-3) and making his 6-low on 7th Street (remaining opponents' board was was A-6-9-Q). Our advice: Razz is a drawing game, at least through 5th Street. Push the action when you have good draws.

- SCOTT

Comments

[Shelly]

Chris and Scott, I haven't listened to the show yet, (I'm sure it's great as usual), I came across this post on Pocket 5's. Wondering what you thought of it. If I'm reading this right, apparently Action Jeff bought someone's account thru SUPPORT on Pokerstars DURING the Sunday Million and ended up winning the tourney. Here's the link
http://www.pocketfives.com/490725CD-0F63-4A60-A123-4CE7BE21B7E3.aspx

[Erwin Blonk]

Reading pokerbooks at the table isn't banned, as far as I know. In the foreword to Poker for Dummies, Chris Moneymaker mentions it happening at a final table. Reading PfD at a final table of a big poker tourney, fancy that :D

[JLBSox]

No hesitation...SHOVE with the 9-9. You aren't just a little short stacked, you are WAY shortstacked. You could easily argue that you should not have let yourself get this shortstacked and shoved with a lesser hand a long time ago when you still had fold equity. Scott Fischman looks for the first opportunity to shove when he gets down to 8x the big blind regardless of what he is holding, as long as he is the first one into the pot. I find that there is indeed good fold equity at this level.

[bodie25]

Along the same lines as Texas Hold 'Em Billiards...

http://www.worldseriesofgolf.com/

Another Great Show!

-bodie25

[Joe - Unimpressed]

Warning, long response about different segments. Sorry.
----
JLBsox is right. Push, and you waited too long (unless you lost a big hand and that's why you managed to get so low), you probably shouldn't have allowed yourself to get that low. If ALL you cared about was cashing, then you could fold IF there was maybe one or two more until the bubble, but with 9 people left, you DEFINITELY need to get chips, even to cash.
----
Chris' obsession with killing someone had me rolling!
----
Tivo suggestions- I just turned them off recently. They say they don’t take up space saved for shows you want to record, but they do. We had a number of shows that we had recorded but not set up for DO NOT DELETE (because if you mark it that way tivo thinks you’ll NEVER delete it and won’t let you record things that might be weeks away). Anyway, we had shows that had exclamation points and Tivo had no problem deleting those and recording suggestions.
----
Paul Wasicka- I was a bit disappointed in the interview. I was hoping for some "lively internet debate" on the subject, but it pretty much seemed like you were just 'yesing' him. I don't mean agreeing with him, but letting him say his piece and that was it. As Chris had stated earlier and some of it was lost on Scott, but this isn't about whether other people are doing it or not, it's the ethics of it. Not about, "well everyone else is doing it, might as well do it too." The perfect example is the two friends sitting at the same table texting or instant messaging each other their hands. It's not OK to do the same thing with a friend just because other people are doing it. No one would think this is ethical and people would call for them to be banned and kicked off the site. Just because you can't get caught DOESN'T make it OK to do it.

Two other observations about the interview:
1) Wasicka’s “definition” of an observer in his FTP rules was ridiculous. When he read those, I thought, “Wow, he just admitted he was breaking the rules.” Then he came up with that horrendous excuse that an observer is someone at the table but not seated.

2) “Cheating is effecting the outcome of the cards.” OH MY GOD! That is just him trying to justify what he was doing. Again, see above example of two friends at the same table IM’ing each other their cards. They’re not changing the outcome of the cards, so that’s not cheating?

After hearing the interviewer, my opinion of him has been WAY lowered. I don’t think he’s some kind of cheating scumbag, but it just brought his character into question. It just sounded like he was trying to find anyway to justify his actions.

[Chris]

Is Poker Diagram Collusion?

[John Silva]

I would really have a tuff time call in that spot with 99. I would rather shove the next had with 72 if it ment that i would be the first one in the pot. I hate putting my chips in the middle, HOPING for a coin flip. I know that he is the big chip leader, but there is also half the table yet to act and you have no fold equity. I'm looking for a spot where i'm the first one into the pot, i think that you have already waited to long and are too short. I would fold here.

[Shelly]

I agree with Unimpressed....sad to see a pro talk like it's no big deal. It's huge. Cheating is cheating. In my opinion when you discuss a hand with anyone while playing said hand, it's cheating, collusion.....whatever you want to call it. Just plain wrong. That being said i still like Paul Wasika :)

[Chris Cosenza]

This is a little long, so forgive me.

In the past, Scott and I have been taken to task on occasion for not pressing issues with pros, for letting them get "off the hook." For the most part that's cool to feel that way, and I respect that. Do I agree with it? With Unimpressed? Yep.

I think no one wanted to say "Hey Paul, we're talking ethics, not Two Wrongs Make it Right." And I think there's good reason we didn't lay into him:

This show has evolved into more entertainment than hardcore journalism (not that it was ever hardcore but we have certain responsibilities), and I think we felt it was important to give him a chance to defend himself. Newspapers (and newspaper reps) are nothing if they aren't balanced.

Remember, magazines like Bluff and CardPlayer are industry mags, not journalistic pillars, so they obviously don't have the ethics that we HAVE to have as a legitimate and respected newspaper entity.

In this case, on our blog, I called him out essentially, and even though the blog is a forum where he could have had his chance to address it, he had the gumption to come on our show and state his case, no matter how right or wrong it seemed. Sure, I could have shot right back and said "The Full Tilt explanation basically says you are cheating, and you read it yourself." Or I should have said that comparing Joint Sessions to "Hollywooding" or "deception at the table" is ridiculous. But I didn't, and I regret it because it could have sparked something more.

But we decided ahead of time that we would have a debate about the topic at hand first, say what we wanted to, and then we would just have an interview with a pro who just happened to write a piece that sparked a controversy.

Do I wish I was harder on him? Actually, yes I do, but I also like having pros on the show, and if word gets out that we are going to drill them if they screw up in columns written for unethical magazines, then we may as well close up shop now cuz no one is going to be on. ... well except Fasso.

And should this be a criteria for our show? Absolutely not. But I think we need to pick our battles, and wrecking Paul Wasicka for 60,000 listeners wasn't something I was willing to do. I told him I thought it was cheating, that I thought Poker Tracker was unethical and that what he wrote opened my eyes to underhanded play (thus saying what he does is underhanded) and I left it at that.

[Popeye39]

Hey, I understand not becomming confrontational with Paul. Other than the ethics issue he seemed genuine and like a great guest. I enjoyed the segment quite a bit. You asked Paul the ethics question, and maybe I heard what I wanted to hear, but it seemed like a clumsy tap dance around the question. Just because you CAN cheat doesn't make it OK to do. You guys provided the music, he danced. It confirmed, for me, what I already believe. Nice Job!

[blazman]

Chris, you guys have a great show, you do a great job, don't apologize for the good work that you have done, just be proud of it. If someone doesn't like your show because you didn't call him out then fine the unsubscribe button is only a click away. I thought the discussion was civil, and everyone got to make their points. If you were on Fox news, then you call him a cheater, but I think that you all states your case and left it at that. Your not going to change his mind so no sense yelling at him.

Peace
Blaz

[JLBSox]

Totally agree with Blaz. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[VBDave]

Although I agree with most of your points of view, I disagree when it comes to PokerTracker and similar software. While it does let you analyze your own play and others, what advantage can it give you that you couldn't get in a live game?

When playing live, I can observe and know that Scott raises with crap and will continue betting until he is check-raised. Then he'll just call. There are so many players online, how can you tell one donkey or ATM avatar from another? PokerTracker just allows you do do something online you are able to do live, unlike most things about online play, which is just the opposite.

[Unimpressed]

Wow, blaz, I don't think anyone said they didn't like the show. That's just throwing the baby out with teh bath water. I was just expecting a bit more from the interview, and my main issue was with Wasicka himself, not so much the issue.

Chris did make a very good point, about being careful how they are speaking for the paper, not just themselves.

And no one said to call him a cheater and be rude, but there were things, as Chris said, that could have been said, even politely, that could have sparked debate further. Though I seriously think that Wasicka came on just to defend his article and his actions and not really talk about the ethics of the situation.

At least Jamie Gold admitted he was wrong.

[Boil Dunce son]

I was quite happy with the interview , on the ethics question , both sides just had their say and left it at that - pushing it like a news programme trying for sensational quote which could be spun into something would have been counter productive.

IMHO as regards ethics there are far worse things than joint sessions to worry about

( I actualy do not think sitting with a buddy at the screen at homeand discussing ONE hand is unethical at all e.g I dont think the Poker Diagram show is show ing unethical behaviour in any way - It is when there is more than one hand involved that it becomes cheating IMHO)

, but as long as I am not losing too badly on line then I am happy that I am able to cope with it.

[John J]

Hi guys,

I often listen to your show from the netherlands, and the way you are talking about ethics is surprising me highly, especialy the way you usualy talk about your oponents, (deaf, or blind people with limited mental capacities or older people. You even call them degenerates etc.)

Further I think poker is a sport whereby you only make money by playing against people with lesser skill or mental capacities. So its probably unethicall by default.

A third remark is that you say it's unfair to be coached by a big time pro, because not everyone has someone like a big time pro available, not even 30 minutes later you state that you will trade your bowling expertise for his poker knowledge with Paul Wasicka, (not during a match but afterwards. eventough) That’s also an advantage I (or most of us) don’t have so is this ethicall?

I think you ethical point of view by stating joined sessions is somewhat over the top, and is just to make somekind of discussion going on, I dont think this is realy foul play.

About using pokertracker during a hand, some people have photographical memory, i dont have one,
do you see people with photographical memory as cheaters,
I think all PT can do while playing a hand is producing statistics about some players like he plays 20% of his hands and raises less then he calls or something.
People with good memory do have an advatage too, do you want hem to type they have photgraphicall memory too in de chat before they play.

I think you are on the wrong track by stating using Pokertracker (or pokerspy or whatever statisticall program) or making decisions with two people is cheating.

I think the advantage of joint sessions is very limited. and is very small compared with sitting on the same table with someone else who also has a chair in the same tournament or by datamining. or having two accounts etcetera.
I can think a lot of things i do when i play online i certainly will do not in a live tournament, but they are certainly not all unethicall.

The last i wanna say is that I liked you interview very much with Paul and i liked the way you gave him room for his point of view, im starting to become a fan of Paul and i like his points of view a lot.

Btw all you'r interviews with the pro's were very good.

Also i like to listen to your show eventough i usualy dont agree with your point of view in certain matters.

mind my English

JOhn

[mark]

Hey guys, I'm a big fan of the show. I even went to the LA meet up just to say hi and to thank a few of you in person, for keeping me awake at work with the podcast. I've enjoyed the ethics discussion in the forum and I really liked the Wasika interview. I thought you all did fine with Paul, and I think Paul did a good job as well.

Some people here seem annoyed that he didn't appologize, and that he rationalized his immoral behavior. I find this odd. Paul stated pretty clearly that he hadn't thought of what he was doing as ethically wrong until recently, and once he did think about it, he decided it wasn't. So why should he appologize? Considering his viewpoint, I consider him to have been more than gracious to the people he obviously disagrees with. He agreed to do the show. He was willing to consider other peoples opinions, on a topic that he is more of an expert on than we are (I don't know about you but I'm fairly certain Paul has played more internet poker than I have, and I've been playing for over 3 years now). He even agreed to talk again, if the topic justified another discussion. If only are political leaders were this mature with people they were in conflict with.

Perhaps though, I'm like Popeye39 and I only heard what I wanted to, because personally I have no problem with playing a game with a friend. Here's the thing, to see no difference between live and online poker is absurd. There are numerous disadvantages to playing online that we all take for granted (you can't see your opponent, you don't get the same amount of social interaction, the shuffle is different, you get less time, etc, etc,) why are we suppose to except the disadvantages, and than deny the advantages. I feel kind of bad for Chris, because it sounds like he doesn't get the same amount of enjoyment from internet poker that most of us do. He suffers silently through the bad beats and the disconnects, but he doesn't have the fun of yelling to his wife, "Hey honey, come check this out. I've got aces and this idiot's betting into me." God forbid he should say that and risk his wife saying something to him during the hand that may influence his play. Seriously, this is half the fun of online poker. I would bet 80% of the people that play online watched somebody play first. Do you think they never said anything while they watched? Not once did they utter, "dude you should slow play that." I know people say that stuff to me all the time. I rarely listen to them, I mean what do they know? I'm the one putting my money on the table, willing to play against anyone who sits down next to me, be they pro, bot, or entire frat house. I'm the player and I tune out my drunk friend just like I do the drunk at the next table in Commerce. I don't auto muck my cards in disgust because my friend just committed a possible ethical infraction, and I whether I like it or not, I was influenced by him. Of course I don't do that, I realize when I'm playing that this new form of poker has yet to totally define itself. That internet poker, like the internet itself, is very new and is creating itself as it goes along. So why don't we let it grow a little, before we demand to know it's entire moral code. Or at the very least, let's except that it's code may be as different from live poker, as it is.

P.S. I think it's nice we are all writing novels instead of comments today.

[Chris]

I am not sure that I believe Joint Sessions are cheating or even unethical depending on the nature of the session. If the session is used for teaching or learning, I don't see a problem with it.

Two guys could each buy a 50% of each other and enter the same tournament and share information after the session is complete about the new strategy that they are learning about or on the internet it is easy to just sit down together and try a different approach out.

Is it cheating to have Paul Wasicka in your ear telling you what to do? Maybe, but on the internet you could very easily be playing against Paul Wasicka himself. In the limited amount of time given to make a decision, it probably isn't enough time to discuss the decision so in reality, you are really playing against Paul Wasicka.

For that matter, do you think all pros play solely under their known screennames? I would bet that a Phil Ivey gets tired of people calling him and sucking out with the only justification for their play being to say they beat Phil Ivey.

On the internet, as Scott said on the show, you could be playing against bots, colluding players, people using automated poker tracking tools, etc... You also can be playing against players that are better than you are including the top pros.

If the session isn't directed at decieving a certain individuals out of their money, I can't really see any problem with using internet poker as a learning tool.

You shouldn't have to announce that "I am trying out a new strategy today" just like you shouldn't have to announce that "I am having a buddy who is better than me giving me tips right now." You don't have to announce, "I am drunk! I will call anything!!!" As you play, it is your duty to study the people at your table and make your own judgements about them.

[Chris Cosenza]

This first part is for John J: I won't comment on all of your post, but the one thing I will say is you misunderstood one major point. I have no problem with being coached by a top player, or by anyone for that matter. If you and Paul Wasicka want to get together and talk about the session AFTER you're done playing by all means that's completely ethical and acceptable. Everyone wants a mentor, I mean, look at Barry Greenstein. He teaches Tuan Le, Joe Sebok and Mimi Tran. Of course learning from a pro is fine, but NOT at the tables during play. So, when I told Paul to give me a poker lesson in exchange for a bowling lesson, there's nothing wrong with that because I'm not asking him to sit down at a laptop with me and play on Full Tilt for/with me. I'm saying, let's hook up at a bowling alley, I'll tell him how to bowl and then afterward we'll get a beer (root beer in my case) and talk poker. Nothing hypocritical there, purely on the up and up and not with the cloak of Internet play.

As for the other posts, I think this discussion is great, though some of the comments seem a little misguided. Having someone casually say "Dude, I'd slowplay that" is not the same as having someone sit there all session discussing hands. And don't underestimate the time given to make decisions online, it's longer than you think, and it's not just when the timer starts that you're discussing hands. If you're on the button you could have up to about 3 minutes before you have to act. People tend to use the timer as a crutch for excuses as to why they made a bad decision, but the truth is you have plenty of time to react BEFORE the timer starts, unless you are UTG or UTG+1. So, if Paul is sitting in with you and you're on the button, you have plenty of time to discuss scenarios before it gets to you.

If you wanted to be taught during a joint session, then the hand should be completed, and then Paul could say: Now here's what I would have done differently. Or, Paul sits there and takes notes as you play in a SNG or whatever, and when the session is over, the both of you review your moves, etc. This, as far as I'm concerned, is no problem at all, and it's much more acceptable to me and much of the online community. And it's a perfectly sound way of learning advanced poker theory, as if you were reading a book, except this book pertains to YOU. Not bad.

[Slicksity]

Another great show. You guys are awesome. Always engaging, entertaining and informative. Paul's interview was excellent.

I think what may be missing from this discussion is the difference between what is "right" aside from the practical of "what other folks do". Paul's point about accepting the unwritten contract when you play poker online is a good point, but misses the bigger issue. Regardless of enforcement issues or practical issues, what is right? I would agree with Chris that joint session are unethical, period.

In many communities, the solution of murder cases is below 10%. That means that if you choose to murder someone, you have a 90% chance of getting away with it. However, I do not think that anyone will argue that murder is then somehow acceptable, just because you have a pretty good chance of getting away with it.

I know that this is an extreme example, but the underlying ethics are the same. "One player to a hand" is the rule in poker, whether everyone following the rule or not.

[Slickcity]

Another great show. You guys are awesome. Always engaging, entertaining and informative. Paul's interview was excellent.

I think what may be missing from this discussion is the difference between what is "right" aside from the practical of "what other folks do". Paul's point about accepting the unwritten contract when you play poker online is a good point, but misses the bigger issue. Regardless of enforcement issues or practical issues, what is right? I would agree with Chris that joint session are unethical, period.

In many communities, the solution of murder cases is below 10%. That means that if you choose to murder someone, you have a 90% chance of getting away with it. However, I do not think that anyone will argue that murder is then somehow acceptable, just because you have a pretty good chance of getting away with it.

I know that this is an extreme example, but the underlying ethics are the same. "One player to a hand" is the rule in poker, whether everyone following the rule or not.

[John J]

Hi Chris,

I know you meant to exchange Poker information for Bowling information AFTER and not during the game,
but because of your show you have an advantage that you meet all of the best pro's and can acces more information then people who dont have a great show like you two,

You may however give my emailadress to Paul to discuss poker. Do you think he would be interested.

I think i can type another novelle about the matter but it doesnt seem usefull.
I think you have somewhat of a half point in your whole discussion but not as much as something for a main topic in a show.
I think amateurs in big tournaments have a lot more disadvantage from pro's teaming up together and not playing each other as they should. and having buyins from each other, and pro's being good friends and not competing with each other, things like that
People Exchanging Pokertracker-information after a game is played but playing at the same site at the same limits?

Hope the next show will be great as usual.

regards,
John J

[Clever Moniker]

I'm w/ Joe-Unimpressed big time here. Those weak (at best) definitions he used for observer & cheating demanded further clarification/discussion. Asking somewhat tough questions is very different than just slamming someone & making a spectacle. Done tactfully & professionally it would make for some great listening. Plus, I'd venture to say that your 'journalistic integrity' would mandate it. Wasicka seems like a guy who would take the questions for what they are - a legit inquiry & wanting to get to the root of the matter, not a personal attack.

[Chris Cosenza]

John,

Actualy Paul Wasicka came to us, we didn't seek him out. We have landed nearly all of our guests through means that any one of you could do. We went on their web sites and asked them if they'd like to be on the show, we went to tournaments where they were and asked them if they would like to be on and we had Ante Up! fans ask them for us. If you wanted to contact Paul and ask him for his advice you could email him via his Web site, kwickfish.com. Having a show certainly helps to have them talk to you, but we could have been just two donkeys in a garage when we approached Jennifer Harman and she still said yes. My point here was that you had mentioned I had a problem with having a coach, and I didn't. I had a problem sharing thoughts with a coach during hands for an entire session.

And Clever, yes, that's exactly right, we could have asked more poingant questions to get our side mentioned to him to let him react to that rather than just state what he wanted to defend himself. But again, he didn't have to come on, so we appreciate that all the same.