---

Poker Video: Misc/Other by Joe Tall (Micro/Small Stakes)

Really enjoyed this, looking forward to more.

Also Joe you seemed to not put too much consideration into the "stay in crazy game" scenario towards the situation Tommy created of assuming it's a normal game and someone offered you $50 each hour you stayed would stay? Seems to simplify it to a much easier decision where you won't get caught up in the "but it was a crazy game!" thing.

Time Link to 00:12:30

This general situation of when to speak up when a mistake is being made is really something I've thought about a ton over the years, and had my opinion changed a few different times. I have mostly been of the mindset that it is all players' responsibility to make sure that the mechanics of the game are done correctly (so this means that the blinds are right, that people put in the right # of chips in a limit game, that the dealer awards the pot correctly, etc). But I have had multiple different people that I highly respect that are long time live cash game players that disagree when the situation involves a guy who basically misreads his own hand. Their opinion is twofold - 1) that part of poker is knowing what you have, and just because this guy got lucky that his other cards make him a winning hand, he doesn't even know it, so its basically like a tree falling in the woods when nobody can hear it, 2) you have no actual responsibility to enforce the mechanics unless you want to, and you are creating a reverse freeroll for yourself where people will be upset with you and you have absolutely nothing to gain by speaking up, other than the moral highground, which is kinda selfish.

So now I basically think its a pretty big gray area, and I would still be inclined to speak up if a clearly inexperienced player is making a mistake in a game he isn't too familiar with, because I think its important that new players are treated fairly, and possibly even with 'kid gloves', but that I don't fault anyone for not speaking up.

Really enjoyed this, looking forward to more.

Also Joe you seemed to not put too much consideration into the "stay in crazy game" scenario towards the situation Tommy created of assuming it's a normal game and someone offered you $50 each hour you stayed would stay? Seems to simplify it to a much easier decision where you won't get caught up in the "but it was a crazy game!" thing.

I think Joe's right to stay, his ~$50 hourly is far from constant. His hourly in that crazy game might be $100, $200 or more. While the hourly expectation sitting with the 4 reg/props is possibly going to be less than $50 especially after the rake.*

I'd stay in the crazy game and spend less time playing when the game isn't look good (though I appreciate you have to do your bit to get the game going, and not leave straight after the big fish busts out).

80/20 principle applies big time in poker.



* I don't know much of live split pot games so I may be wrong there. It's def the case at online SSNL and MSNL though.
I'm not saying bumhunt to extremes, but personally Id rather spend 1hr playing good games and 3hrs family time than 4hrs playing reg filled games for the same total profit.

Time Link to 00:14:00

hey guys

i rarely post in threads but this time i felt like i had something to say and its this.

i strongly disagree with what Tommy said about it not being right or wrong to mention the mistake as far as im concerned you should always do what you see as the right thing whether as a result of your decision the game is made better or worse that isn't the point.

if you were in a park and you saw some kids bullying a kid would you intervene?

what if you saw a women being harassed by a man in the street and she was all alone would you say something?

i think in both circumstances and fell free to correct me if im wrong you would do something i know that i would.then why not here someone is going to suffer due to you not saying something weather it is your responcibility or not isnt the question its a question of morals and being a person of integrity

a final point i would like to make is that as a poker player i get shit from what i do for a living all the time from girls at bars, well meaning family members or just people that i met in coffee shops that see me as a degen with no morals that takes money of others with no regard money or a hard days work or sometimes im a gambling addict.

i dont want to make this about me but i fell that all poker players should be aware that every time a black friday, ub ,or girah scandal story comes out its just another reason for the general public to see us all as dishonest and lazy. I for one will do every thing that i reasonably can to insure that the image of poker online and live is improves as much as possible and try and be the change that i want to see in the world.

DeathDonkey

you have absolutely nothing to gain by speaking up, other than the moral highground, which is kinda selfish.

I guess that everyone has to decide for themselves, but I feel that being moral and ethical is pretty important. If the rule is that "cards speak" and the dealer misreads them, I have the obligation to correct him/her.
Also, if I happen to catch a flashed card, I always speak up. There is nothing wrong, in fact it's a good thing, to having the moral high ground.

Hi Barry, your reply and the one before it kind of speak to my point about why I have gone back and forth on the issue many times in my poker life. People I respect such as yourself have called it an 'obligation', but then other people I also respect have called it a 'decision'. In my mind the jury is still out.

Great video, guys, the first part really got me thinking.

I've never ever played live games, so my point of view may be way off on this subject, but I'm gonna share anyway, just for the sake of argument and to see other people's thoughts on the situation.

My first question in these situations are "How would I feel, if I would be the victim in this case?" Of course, there are two victims here, either the player is, who doesn't get half the pot, either the player, who doesn't scoop. Now if I'm the player, who gets half instead of 0, I'm happy of course. If I'm the player that gets half instead of the scoop, I feel bad, but not as bad, since by the rules it's the fair way. So I feel much less badly when I'm the player who looses the money rightfully, then I feel good winning the money that I am rightful too. Some kind of an "eye for an eye" situation for me. I'd be a happier person if everybody would correct the dealer's mistake, then if no one would.

Then the question of a person mistakenly mucking the hand for half pot came up, and I said no way I'm gonna tell him, that he's entitled for half the pot. At first sight that went against my previous thought, since in both cases the player who didn't get the rightful amount made a mistake. But I figured it out.

My main point is, that the dealer, despite being a human creature, should make no mistakes. In a perfect environment dealers don't make mistakes. So if we want to create a perfect environment, we should correct the mistakes that wouldn't be there if it would be perfect, but shouldn't correct those, that would still be there (like a player's mistake of his own).

Now that's maybe just the online poker mentality speaking, since Scenario 1 doesn't ever happen there, but Scenario 2-like situations do. However, I still think that mistakes made by the environment should be corrected (even though the player made a mistake of not realizing his entitlement for half the pot), and those that the environment has nothing to do, should be left alone. Maybe I'm a failure as a human being, but I'd still correct the mistake if I'd be the one scooping not rightfully.

However I can respect the opinion of others, since I have no right to say that my truth is the truth in this situation, so I don't think bad things about guys that state otherwise, I accept it, and live with it.

What do you think? Am I way out of line here?

I'm not doing much with poker these days, but I still check in to the site from time to time just to see what's going on. When I saw this content I immediately downloaded and listened to the MP3, and it was all I hoped it would be.

I don't know what your plans are going forward with this series, but I do have one little request: Never stop making these.

Thanks for giving us a peek at your poker talk, gentlemen.

hey guys

i rarely post in threads but this time i felt like i had something to say and its this.

i strongly disagree with what Tommy said about it not being right or wrong to mention the mistake as far as im concerned you should always do what you see as the right thing whether as a result of your decision the game is made better or worse that isn't the point.

if you were in a park and you saw some kids bullying a kid would you intervene?

what if you saw a women being harassed by a man in the street and she was all alone would you say something?

i think in both circumstances and fell free to correct me if im wrong you would do something i know that i would.

These are situations where a law is being broken and/or there is bodily harm. They are much different than a poker game.

then why not here someone is going to suffer due to you not saying something weather it is your responcibility or not isnt the question its a question of morals and being a person of integrity

a final point i would like to make is that as a poker player i get shit from what i do for a living all the time from girls at bars, well meaning family members or just people that i met in coffee shops that see me as a degen with no morals that takes money of others with no regard money or a hard days work or sometimes im a gambling addict.

i dont want to make this about me but i fell that all poker players should be aware that every time a black friday, ub ,or girah scandal story comes out its just another reason for the general public to see us all as dishonest and lazy. I for one will do every thing that i reasonably can to insure that the image of poker online and live is improves as much as possible and try and be the change that i want to see in the world.

That's great, but really doesnt have too much to do with the showdown of a hand and the split second of when a dealer might be making a mistake.

DeathDonkey



I guess that everyone has to decide for themselves, but I feel that being moral and ethical is pretty important. If the rule is that "cards speak" and the dealer misreads them, I have the obligation to correct him/her.
Also, if I happen to catch a flashed card, I always speak up. There is nothing wrong, in fact it's a good thing, to having the moral high ground.

I'm still on the fence here with Chris. Flash-cards are in the category, yes, and I have always been on the side of speaking up.

Great video.

Especially liked the part about the discipline to not play when you're not in the mood. Rigid discipline is not the be end of all, gotta listen to your intuition.

Could you define the difference between "recreational" and "part time"?
I have a feeling that you kind of talked down the recreational player. I enjoy a good poker game, I don't play as a professional, it gives me recreation, but that sure doesn't mean I play bad.

If Tommy Angelo would offer me 50$ just to "sit there", I would take it, but it's a threshold problem, probably. The enjoyment of the game plays a big factor, especially if it's a wild game and that might be worth an extra 50$, so that Joe would sit in a wild game for free, but would have doubts on taking the sure 50$. I enjoy poker and analyzing poker so much, that I would probably also sit and play if I had some sort of assurance that I would break even or make very little. Tommy characterizing it as "poker junkie" has some negative connotations with it. It isn't a bad thing of staying up all night doing what you love! I even made it into my job -> I became an astronomer.

To question 1, I feel like it is correct to speak up. There are many excuses we all use to rationalize the fact that we may or may not do what is fair, but those excuses are merely just that, excuses. You can hear the rationalization tone in Joe's voice when he is defending the decision to not speak. When you feel the need to defend yourself, that's a tell imo that your gut/conscience is telling you it was wrong to not speak up.

As Tommy pointed out, we all have our personal lines. If it's our mother, then we speak up. If it's our enemy, then maybe we don't. To me, those lines are just rationalizations and blur the difference between what is right/fair and what is wrong.

Some factors mentioned:

1. Our personal feelings toward the person getting screwed. Do we like them? Do we hate them?
2. Our professional feelings toward the person getting screwed. To quote one of Tommy's stories, if the fish wins more by the mistake, does it result in someone saying, "well that didn't hurt the game any."
3. New to the Casino. New to the table. New guy in general.
4. Unsure if what we saw was accurate. Maybe there was no mistake.
5. It's each player's responsibility to know what they have.
6. You are creating a reverse freeroll for yourself where people will be upset with you and you have absolutely nothing to gain by speaking up.

Every single one of those factors is in some way an excuse.

1 - Our personal feelings toward someone CLEARLY should not determine what is right and wrong.
2 - This is clearly a selfish motive and should not determine what is right and wrong.
3 - I totally understand the social implications here, but again, this should not decide it.
4 - This one is one of the stronger excuses because you might just be wrong in what you saw. I feel like it doesn't hurt that much to speak up and verify though as personally I wouldn't mind if someone did that just to ensure fairness.
5- Cards speak.
6 - If people get upset with you for being fair, then that is on them. If they wouldn't do the same for you, then again, that's on them. As for what you gain, you adhere to the golden rule. If everyone treated others how we'd like to be treated, then it's +EV for the world.

With all of that being said, I completely understand our natural instinct to protect ourselves in certain situations. However, if we are getting right down to the point, then to me it is clearly correct to speak up and anything else is just an excuse. Some are better excuses than others, but they are all still excuses.

Note to self, Tecmo will snitch on you "because it's the right thing to do".

Haha I didn't say I followed through all of the time. Just that it was right

Haha I didn't say I followed through all of the time. Just that it was right

So you establish that there's a right thing to do, you write a dissertation what Joe did was wrong, yet you sometimes also do wrong things?
Come on, nobody would speak up if our worst enemy was getting half the pot. It IS relevant information, because it sways our opinion, regardless whether selfish or not. Life is not black and white, we don't deal in absolutes and thank God - I kinda like moral ambiguity

So you establish that there's a right thing to do, you write a dissertation what Joe did was wrong, yet you sometimes also do wrong things?
Come on, nobody would speak up if our worst enemy was getting half the pot. It IS relevant information, because it sways our opinion, regardless whether selfish or not. Life is not black and white, we don't deal in absolutes and thank God - I kinda like moral ambiguity

Doesn't everyone sometimes do wrong things? I never claimed to be perfect. Only that speaking up was right. Just because something sways our opinion doesn't change whether it is right. It only makes us less comfortable doing what is right.

I should also note that the golden rule is obv personal. The way I want to be treated is not the way everyone wants to be treated so that is where the gray areas come in. For me, I would want someone to speak up because I would want someone else to speak up if I was being screwed in some way. That is why speaking up is right for me. If you wouldn't want others to keep things fair for you, then your equation changes.

I'm with Tecmo on this one.
I know where I play I tend to speak up if I see something wrong for a number of reasons:
1. The game I generally play in live is one of the smaller games at the casino, so there are often inexperienced players in the game.
2. The dealers are often new and/or inexperienced (this particularly applies to things like non-holdem tournaments - yes, Australia is pretty much 98% Holdem in casinos).
3. The rule is 'cards speak' ... as long as they have been tabled face up, then they have a 'voice', even if not physical, so when the 'voice' is misheard by the dealer, I correct it. This is very different to the situation where a player mucked their hand when it would have been a split pot. The player (whether they are experienced or not) has made a decision, and chosen NOT to let their cards speak. If they got it wrong, it is their fault. I've seen other players at the table say something (this is one situation where I tend not to say anything), but the dealer will often tell the player (as they tend to do the look at their hand, look at the board, look at their hand first before mucking) that if in doubt they should turn their cards over. Also you get the people who have the 'well that's the price of the lesson' attitude to it - if they muck when it would have been a split, then the half of the pot they would have got is the cost of the lesson to make sure they don't do it again in the future.
4. One thing I see dealers get wrong far more often than they should is the rake (here it is 10% with a cap, unlike California where it is a fixed rake/drop), so I will speak up if the dealer takes too much (and yes, even if it is as little as $1, as the house aren't going to suffer anything by missing out on a few dollars of rake they weren't entitled to, but it might make a difference to the players). This often goes back to the new/inexperienced dealer problem. Conversely, if a dealer takes too little or no rake, I don't say anything as there is no-one that is being harmed by the mistake or oversight.
5. Even if you do make a mistake (in Joe's example, lets say the guy with the AT46 hand didn't have a straight), then it doesn't take too long to figure the proper course of action out ... 'sorry guys, my bad' & most people will overlook the fact that you slowed the game down by 5-10 seconds, because you were trying to do the right thing by the game.

The gray area for me in Joe's example is the fact that he has just sat down. Is he actually part of the game at this point? If he's played a hand, then I think the above applies, but if he's just an observer, then I don't think the lines are so clear.

Does this go against Tommy's general ethos of not saying anything poker-related at the poker table??

Generally, loved the episode & will add some questions to the other thread!

I will speak up if the dealer takes too much (and yes, even if it is as little as $1, as the house aren't going to suffer anything by missing out on a few dollars of rake they weren't entitled to, but it might make a difference to the players). [...] Conversely, if a dealer takes too little or no rake, I don't say anything as there is no-one that is being harmed by the mistake or oversight.

Ah, but here you are making a judgement call, which is basically what you are arguing against.

So if the person being "cheated out of the pot" is a billionaire we don't speak up, because it doesn't harm anybody and the other person might use the money more productively?
Similarly, if the person was very good player, you'd rather have the money go to the fish and wouldn't speak up, hey, no harm done, the good player wins anyways...

Ah, but here you are making a judgement call, which is basically what you are arguing against.

So if the person being "cheated out of the pot" is a billionaire we don't speak up, because it doesn't harm anybody and the other person might use the money more productively?
Similarly, if the person was very good player, you'd rather have the money go to the fish and wouldn't speak up, hey, no harm done, the good player wins anyways...

No, I was talking specifically about dealers taking too much rake. I'll make a point of it if I see them taking more than the 10% that is taken in the live games I play. It is totally separate to the issue of 'being cheated out of the pot'.
When I mentioned harm in that sense, I was referring to the house/casino, who make money from the game anyway & are not involved in playing the game.
Like I said, if a player turns over their cards & the dealer makes an error, I will point it out as long as I notice it, regardless of who the player in the game is.

I agree with bellatrix here. If you are speaking up in all other instances because it is right, then you should speak up when the dealer forgets to take rake as well. I understand the "big casino doesn't need it" mentality, but that is just a different version of "big high stakes player doesn't need it" or "big jerk doesn't need it." Each are just excuses to not speak up, when speaking up is the right thing to do (again, based on the fact that I prefer fairness on all fronts).

@bellatrix, Did you have any response to my previous comments? I think this is a good debate and was hoping to hear more from you Do you still think that your opinion should factor into determining what is right? I'm more than happy to change my mind on this issue if someone can refute my points or help me see the other side of it better.

But then aren't you effectively acting as a pseudo-dealer?
If I wanted to worry about making sure the correct rake was taken every time, etc, then I'd get a job as a dealer.
The issue about the rake is much more noticeable when the dealer takes too much rake anyway - if a player is pushed a small pot & there are multiple red chips ($5) and/or white chips ($1) being dropped, then you notice & you can do a quick mental calculation of pot size to get an idea of whether the rake is right or not. If its a small pot & there's a few white chips being dropped, I'm not going to go to the trouble of trying to figure out if its a $39 or $40 pot if I see $3 being dropped.
Like I said, even if you've got it wrong, it normally only takes a few seconds to sort out anyway & most players will appreciate that you are 'looking out for them'.

I don't think its the same as comparing it to a 'big high stakes player' or 'big jerk' in this instance as the casino stands to lose $0 in the game, unlike the people who are sitting at the table playing, and they all deserve to have the game run fairly & correctly.

Yes, I believe our opinion weighs on all sorts of things. Even in the law, which is supposed to be blind there are leniency provisions based on the circumstances on the situation at hand. I don't deal well in absolutes - weird, because I'm a scientist, that has a lot of her life founded in math and logic. So, mainly I didn't respond, because I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I probably have a strong opinion against strong opinions . I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here, which is fine, not every problem needs an answer formulated as a computer program.
IF condition A holds: THEN DO this
ELSE: DO that

Does.....not......compute...ERROR!

I agree that our opinion factors into many facets of life, including the law. My contention is that it should not when determining right and wrong.

Fair enough though. I do find it weird that the science part of your brain isn't yelling at you for not wanting an absolute I'm going to compose a proof that is undeniable for this situation and then you simply won't have a choice but to agree!

If A, where A is a person losing $ he should not lose, and B, we recognize it, then C, we should speak up. The reason is D, we would want the same done for us and it is in the interest of fairness. If A & B, then C because of D. It's got letters in it! You can't deny it!

But then aren't you effectively acting as a pseudo-dealer?
If I wanted to worry about making sure the correct rake was taken every time, etc, then I'd get a job as a dealer.

I'm not saying you should calculate rake each hand. You said, "if a dealer takes too little or no rake, I don't say anything." That implies that you have calculated it yourself, not out of obligation, just because you happened to notice it. In THAT instance, you have noticed an error and have chosen to not speak up because the casino is not risking any money in the game. However, it is an agreed upon part of the experience that the casino will be paid $X for providing the service of dealing. Just because they likely have more money than any individual at the table doesn't mean they are not entitled to the $ they have earned. A dollar taken from the casino is the same as a dollar taken from you or me.

I don't think its the same as comparing it to a 'big high stakes player' or 'big jerk' in this instance as the casino stands to lose $0 in the game, unlike the people who are sitting at the table playing, and they all deserve to have the game run fairly & correctly.

I kind of addressed this above, but the casino's risk being zero doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid for their services. The players deserve to have a game run fairly & correctly and that's exactly what the casino offers in exchange for rake.

You obviously haven't seen the rake structures they use in Australia Tecmo

You obviously haven't seen the rake structures they use in Australia Tecmo

Haha I wish! That means I'd have visited Australia!

Haha I wish! That means I'd have visited Australia!

Australia will accept you ... at least in the short term ... if you ever venture down to this part of the world. *

To give you some idea, the rake on the $1/2NL game ($40-120 buy-in) is 10% with a $15, yes you heard right, $15 cap, while the $2/3NL game ($50-200 buy-in) has a $5 per hour time charge PLUS a 10% rake with an $8 cap, yes you heard right, time charge AND rake!
Yes, this means that the casino would hardly miss an extra few dollars if the dealer forgets, or under-rakes the pot!
Of course the players are generally so bad that the game is still beatable if you are decent!

* This in no way guarantees that you will get a visa & pass the various customs checks, but simply states that once in the country we will not treat you any differently from other American tourists!

Wow, that's brutal. It's casinos like that that make me happy that I mostly play in a home game with no rake, only tips Oh and free food and drinks, often including homemade snacks from this nice older lady who plays (and always seems to win because people try to bluff her haha).

Time Link to 00:32:39

Is there a subliminal "You Suck" here?

@Tommy/Joe/Chris, would love to hear your thoughts on my thoughts on the speaking up issue.

I agree that our opinion factors into many facets of life, including the law. My contention is that it should not when determining right and wrong.

Um, how do you determine what is right and wrong in the first place? It is defined by a set of cultural norms in the area that you grew up.

In certain asian cultures it is on you, you are the moron, if you don't cut in line and wait for your turn, you aren't doing anything wrong if you can "exploit" the system, even if you are hurting others in the process.

In other cultures it is categorically wrong to sleep with your partner before you're married, or even worse with a partner of the same sex. They would vehemently tell you how wrong you are if you did those things and would not understand how you could even fathom defending the other side.

Bottom line is that every value decision about right and wrong will have inherent judgement decisions in them that are tainted by our cultural values and our life experience. Here is where the different shades of gray come in, the line where something turns from "right" into "wrong" is different for many people.

Tommy's answer was perfect, because he presented two extreme examples where we would definitely stand on different sides of the issue (I'm sorry, but if you're not speaking up if it's your mom at the table - shame on you , and if you are speaking up for your worst enemy, too ). Where the actual crossing lies is different for many people and I have no problem with that.

I think speaking up for your worst enemy shows an incredible amount of integrity and I hope that I would do so. I've spoken up for someone who I didn't particularly like (ok, not my worst enemy, I don't even know who that would be lol) and in doing so it knocked me out of that tournament. I find that to be a mark of integrity, not shame.

As for the extreme example scenario, if we leave everything up to social norms, culture, and whatnot, then what if 1 particular culture, let's call it Culture Y, thinks murder, rape, and child molestation are all "right." Does the fact that it being normal in Culture Y make it right?

I'm not proclaiming to know the answers here. I just hope that we as humans have the ability to use reason and logic to determine right & wrong as opposed to opinions, cultural norms, etc. I feel like accepting something as "right" just because everyone around you is doing it is the same reason slaves exist, Jews were/are persecuted, gays are vilified, etc. At what point do we stop hiding behind gray areas and decide "no, ya know what, murder is not cool."

I will admit my ignorance though when it comes to a lot of other cultures. The fact that certain Asian cultures value someone exploiting a system, even when it means doing harm to others, makes me question their entire belief system. How can one value doing harm to others?

I think the key question in all of this is exactly what you posed. How do we determine right and wrong? The golden rule is a great starting point imo. As for cultures believing in different things, does that mean there simply is no right and wrong? If so, then we must extrapolate that to mean that murder, rape, and child abuse being "wrong" is simply a cultural belief. It just so happens that most cultures share that belief.

I guess my hope is that we somehow figure out a scientific way to help determine these things, but maybe that's impossible. Regardless, I still have yet to see a good reason as to how NOT speaking up is right

Tecmo I don't have a lot of thoughts to add, I think everyone reading recognizes you have an idealist viewpoint. Poker is a predatory game at its very nature, and we all have to sleep ok at night with the choices we make. There are some black and white lines the poker world has agreed upon that are not to be crossed, and there are a lot of gray areas.

The discussion about telling the dealer they didn't take enough rake reminds me of a moral debate I once had with somebody while we were playing Texas holdem Bonus (table game) in vegas, and a lot of the dealers make mistakes reading the board and pay you when you should not be paid. On some level all of the EV in the world that we find ourselves on the right side of is caused by others making errors.

I think speaking up for your worst enemy shows an incredible amount of integrity and I hope that I would do so. I've spoken up for someone who I didn't particularly like (ok, not my worst enemy, I don't even know who that would be lol) and in doing so it knocked me out of that tournament. I find that to be a mark of integrity, not shame.

well, I wouldn't. Sorry if that makes me a "wrong" person in your eyes. And just because something is "right" doesn't mean we should always act on it. Have you never jaywalked in the middle of the night? Told a lie?
My mom is a therapist. Sometimes he needs to test people. One of the first 10 questions is: "If you could get into a concert for free, even though you had to pay and nobody would notice, would you do it?" If you say no, then there are two possibilities, either you are lying and the whole test is nullified or you have a more serious problem, which needs to be investigated further - not saying you're mental or anything, but that the answer is highly atypical if you're telling the truth.

As for the extreme example scenario, if we leave everything up to social norms, culture, and whatnot, then what if 1 particular culture, let's call it Culture Y, thinks murder, rape, and child molestation are all "right." Does the fact that it being normal in Culture Y make it right?

I'm not proclaiming to know the answers here. I just hope that we as humans have the ability to use reason and logic to determine right & wrong as opposed to opinions, cultural norms, etc. I feel like accepting something as "right" just because everyone around you is doing it is the same reason slaves exist, Jews were/are persecuted, gays are vilified, etc. At what point do we stop hiding behind gray areas and decide "no, ya know what, murder is not cool."

bring out the big guns, huh?
Most of the examples are way too extreme for the situation you are talking about, like how could I stand for murder and genocide?!?!?!
I think for the most part humanity shuns people that kill other people, because, you know, they are impeding the species overall. However, we don't shun killing a known killer often (death penalty), even though it is a killing just the same.
Americans think they were on the "right" side of WWII, yet they murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki all in the sake of ending the war?
Would you kill a person to save 100? (e.g. the famous train experiment).
Did you think the murder of Osama bin Laden was: "you know what, not cool"? (?"I'm just glad Obama didn't present the 'There's an unstoppable asteroid heading our way' speech." - huh?)

I mean, I seriously don't want to play devil's advocate for people doing genocide, slavery or child molestation, like way to take what I said out of context. Again, I think the world is shades of grey, but child molestation is just a teint of very very very very very very very very very very dark grey - nah, black.

I will admit my ignorance though when it comes to a lot of other cultures. The fact that certain Asian cultures value someone exploiting a system, even when it means doing harm to others, makes me question their entire belief system. How can one value doing harm to others?

I mean harm as in the other person might not enter the train/movie theater, might not get as much food etc. Not as in you're gonna get hurt!

I think the key question in all of this is exactly what you posed. How do we determine right and wrong? The golden rule is a great starting point imo.

I think this is fair for the most part. I try to live by that, too. Perhaps I fail sometimes or other people fail my expectations, but yeah, its a good starting point.

Since I expect nobody to speak up for me at the poker table, except for relatives and very good friends (like at a homegame), I guess it's ok for me not to speak up, if I feel like it

I did not quote the rest of your stuff, because I am not in the mood of going into child molestation, it sounds too much of "think of the children" type of argument.

Tecmo I don't have a lot of thoughts to add, I think everyone reading recognizes you have an idealist viewpoint.

Guilty! Is that a bad thing?

Poker is a predatory game at its very nature, and we all have to sleep ok at night with the choices we make. There are some black and white lines the poker world has agreed upon that are not to be crossed, and there are a lot of gray areas.

The discussion about telling the dealer they didn't take enough rake reminds me of a moral debate I once had with somebody while we were playing Texas holdem Bonus (table game) in vegas, and a lot of the dealers make mistakes reading the board and pay you when you should not be paid. On some level all of the EV in the world that we find ourselves on the right side of is caused by others making errors.

The difference is that someone willingly accepts the risks of being outplayed by a "predator" in a poker game. What they don't willingly accept is possibly being cheated (and I use that term loosely) by losing money outside the lines of the agreed upon rules. At least, that's how I view it.

Is there a subliminal "You Suck" here?

Yeah that didn't sound like either Tommy or Joe...it sounded like Danzasmack?

"I'm just glad Obama didn't present the 'There's an unstoppable asteroid heading our way' speech." - huh?)

Just had to say that I lol'd at this

Yeah that didn't sound like either Tommy or Joe...it sounded like Danzasmack?

I was thinking Rusty since he produces these videos. Not sure though.

well, I wouldn't. Sorry if that makes me a "wrong" person in your eyes.

Wrong person alert!

Have you never jaywalked in the middle of the night? Told a lie?

You keep acting as if I claim to be perfect for some reason. I only attempt to do the right thing as much as possible. Clearly I don't succeed at all times.

My mom is a therapist. Sometimes he needs to test people. One of the first 10 questions is: "If you could get into a concert for free, even though you had to pay and nobody would notice, would you do it?" If you say no, then there are two possibilities, either you are lying and the whole test is nullified or you have a more serious problem, which needs to be investigated further - not saying you're mental or anything, but that the answer is highly atypical if you're telling the truth.

I like how answering a question atypically implies a serious problem lol. Maybe I'm just a hippie who hates conforming?

I think for the most part humanity shuns people that kill other people, because, you know, they are impeding the species overall. However, we don't shun killing a known killer often (death penalty), even though it is a killing just the same.
Americans think they were on the "right" side of WWII, yet they murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki all in the sake of ending the war?
Would you kill a person to save 100? (e.g. the famous train experiment).
Did you think the murder of Osama bin Laden was: "you know what, not cool"?

At that time, I obv was all like "America! F*ck Yea!" However, when you think about it, if we condemn killing, we should condemn all killing. As Gandhi pointed out, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That means Hitler was only much worse than America because he killed more people, not because he killed people and we didn't. And that's not much of a moral high ground. "I killed less people than you! I win!" lol I'm not familiar with the train experiment, but it sounds like a situation where you should kill 1 to not kill 100, similar to WW2 imo. Doesn't make the killing right, but if those are you only 2 options, then it sort of becomes right by default. Until of course you reveal hidden door #3, save all of them! Then you look bad.

I mean, I seriously don't want to play devil's advocate for people doing genocide, slavery or child molestation, like way to take what I said out of context. Again, I think the world is shades of grey, but child molestation is just a teint of very very very very very very very very very very dark grey - nah, black.

I didn't mean to imply that you said anything of the sort. I brought those out to serve the point that in a world of grays, child molestation is also gray. But like you said, so gray that you need a special tool to realize it's not black

I mean harm as in the other person might not enter the train/movie theater, might not get as much food etc. Not as in you're gonna get hurt!

More shades of gray imo!

Since I expect nobody to speak up for me at the poker table, except for relatives and very good friends (like at a homegame), I guess it's ok for me not to speak up, if I feel like it.

\
Unless of course Tecmo was there!

I think we've probably exhausted this debate by this point, or at least we're both exhausted by it. gg/nh.

My mom is a therapist. Sometimes he needs to test people.

Can we revoke Tecmo's troll status for not catching this?

Can we revoke Tecmo's troll status for not catching this?

Oh don't worry. I caught it. I let it go though in light of the fact that I've been pestering bellatrix enough

The difference is that someone willingly accepts the risks of being outplayed by a "predator" in a poker game. What they don't willingly accept is possibly being cheated (and I use that term loosely) by losing money outside the lines of the agreed upon rules. At least, that's how I view it.

cliff notes: I think its convenient and egotistical of you to claim to know what others willingly accept as 'part of the game'.

I think how you view it is a quaint rationalization that makes you feel ok about taking money from people of less skill and/or intelligence than yourself. Many many many losing poker players do not think their opponents are 'better' players than them, heck some of them don't think there is any skill in poker whatsoever. There are also many losing players who are simply gambling addicts, they don't think about words like "outplayed", all they know is the feeling they get when they go home with empty pockets, it is an addict's high, a rush, a compulsion, they do not care for one second the circumstances surrounding how they lost the money, poker was just a convenient way to fuel their addiction.

I have seen countless examples of both of the above in live cash games, and online as well, although its easier to ignore what is happening online and think that a guy is just there for the "competition" or something while he's going crazy in chat and frantically trying to make another deposit to his account as quickly as possible to continue fueling his addiction.

I am not saying these things to paint the poker world as a terrible place filled with black hearted thieves taking money from helpless and sick people, but more to say that if you (or anyone) don't recognize that many of your opponents fall into these categories, than you are rationalizing at least as much as the people that wouldn't speak up in some of the situations discussed in this thread.

alright techmo what if the player being cheated out of the money was a rapist,
earlier he had told you "If i win money tonight, im going to use it to go rape little boys"
this was the last hand of the night,
and this hand put him in the red. he lost money.
if you say anything, he gets the money and now wins money.
and consequently rapes little boys.

now is it still wrong to not speak up and give him what he is entitled to?

ps. there are no other options, giving him the money, then kicking his ass in the parking lot and sending him to jail is not allowed.

thanks-
#thedevilsadvocate.

Pretty good chance this thread is out of control and we should probably change course, I think my own post was already a step past the line, matt just went flying right by the line

Pretty good chance this thread is out of control and we should probably change course, I think my own post was already a step past the line, matt just went flying right by the line

Would there be a way to bypass the "right or wrong" discussion and continue with a discussion on how speaking up or not speaking up will affect your profitability implications and image at the table?

Will players possibly respect you a little more and fold? Or will they be pissed and "attack" your play? Anyone have examples?

Hey guys, who cares?

One time I was playing "Go Fish" and said I didn't have a 4, but I really did

Pretty good chance this thread is out of control and we should probably change course, I think my own post was already a step past the line, matt just went flying right by the line

haha sorry guys. i have fun.

cliff notes: I think its convenient and egotistical of you to claim to know what others willingly accept as 'part of the game'.

I think how you view it is a quaint rationalization that makes you feel ok about taking money from people of less skill and/or intelligence than yourself.

This seems like an unnecessary personal attack in an effort to get your point across for some reason. Regardless, I'll continue. Do you disagree that most players sit down at a poker table with the assumption that the rules will be followed? All I was trying to say is that I believe most people expect a certain amount of fairness, which includes the basic rules being followed. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with me making any sort of rationalizations to make myself feel better. If you want to bring in the gambling addicts or other rare cases to refute what was clearly a generalization, so be it. I never intended to speak for every single player on the planet. If most people don't expect the rules to be followed, then it's news to me.

It also seems like you don't see a difference between a player losing money because the basic rules of the game were not followed and an opponent using better decision-making to take that same player's money. One is against the agreed upon rules and one is not. Maybe I misunderstood you though and if so, I apologize.

I also don't see what point you are trying to make. I agree with pretty much all of it, yet still am unable to see how it refutes my point that people expect the basic rules to be followed.

alright techmo what if the player being cheated out of the money was a rapist,
earlier he had told you "If i win money tonight, im going to use it to go rape little boys"
this was the last hand of the night,
and this hand put him in the red. he lost money.
if you say anything, he gets the money and now wins money.
and consequently rapes little boys.

now is it still wrong to not speak up and give him what he is entitled to?

I admire your attempt to come up with some crazy scenario that makes it difficult for me, but alas you failed. Speaking up is still correct because that player is being cheated. What he does as a result is irrelevant. You are trying to say that we should take into account and be responsible for possible future actions when determining the right thing to do in the moment. If a guy wins a ton of money at poker and then uses that money to fund X, where X is something horrible, then does that mean he should not have been allowed to play? Of course not.

Time Link to 00:22:54

Joe, you proceed to talk about developing a standard line/role here to go along with the "straight cash homie" mentality. Can you explain your concern with breaking from mum poker mentality and how this will affect your subsequent interactions with the regulars? Is it just a concern that you'll have to talk more often about anything and everything, or more of a concern with possible changes to their playing styles against you?

Joe, you proceed to talk about developing a standard line/role here to go along with the "straight cash homie" mentality. Can you explain your concern with breaking from mum poker mentality and how this will affect your subsequent interactions with the regulars? Is it just a concern that you'll have to talk more often about anything and everything, or more of a concern with possible changes to their playing styles against you?

Many people cross things over from friendly chatter to poker play. If I'm friendly and talking about sports say, suddenly they get pissed off when you c/r-own them on the river. A way to deal with this is not to get all that involved and keep to yourself/mum-poker.

Great use of the word 'dingdong' to describe one of the bad players in the game

Just throwing something out there on the speaking up debate - in the game of Monopoly, if someone lands on your property and you don't notice that they owe you rent and play continues, too bad. Noone else is obliged to say anything. When a family board game puts the onus on the player to be personally aware of what is happening like this, surely its not that much of a stretch to expect the same of players in a poker game???

Time Link to 00:16:25

Since the cards read themselves, when is it ever wrong to mention an error? At Foxwoods they constantly bring 21 dealers into the poker room, and the table basically tells them to go slow enough that we can correct their errors until they can get up to speed (really sucks to be stuck at Foxwoods most the time).

"Since the cards read themselves, when is it ever wrong to mention an error?"

I don't think it's ever wrong to mention an error.

Time Link to 00:34:58

LOL @ the reaction from Joe.

Joe & Tommy this video is absolutely fantastic, its like a radio show for poker. Please make more! I could listen to this all day.