Poker Blacklist? (1 Viewer)

The biggest takeaway IMO from all of this is that high stakes online is going to go extinct at some point. While I think there is cheating at the lower stakes, it's inherently not going to be as rampant since the cheaters will move up in stakes and the player pool is much larger. I don't think micro stakes players have a ton to worry about.

What I found very interesting from Berkey's video is the take on ghosting. Having played a lot in the early days of online poker, ghosting was just a thing you did. My college roommate and I just always have each other input while playing. It wasn't much different in our minds than watching someone play an FPS online and making suggestions.

It's wrong in the sense that in live play, you could never do it: one player to a hand. But online, this is basically impossible to enforce. While I get it's wrong in theory especially when viewed from a line poker POV, online is very different. And trying to make illegal and punishable something you can't enforce in almost anyway seems like a tough sell to me.

It's a very gray area, because one person helping out or watching another in a $11 tournanent when both are recs seems pretty harmless, though obviously wrong in a live poker POV. It's sharing an experience. I'm not sure where you start to draw the line though. What Bryn's stable was doing was for more nefarious as it was essentially everyone sharing three play and the profits. It's not like the $11 player was going to share his profits with the watcher.

I hate to say "if everyone is doing it then it's okay to do it to." But ghosting is such a hard thing to accurately define. And since it has basically has no evidence trail, and it's inherently a part of online gaming, I find it hard to come down really hard on the idea of ghosting. I imagine we've all ghosted by Berkey's definition. And while I don't do it anymore, it's not exactly because I wouldn't do it. It's just that I'm not in a spot where the opportunity to do it arises. But my wife and I occasionally play online with each other around playing $5 -$20 tournies. And we ask each other's opinions in some spots. But we also aren't playing for a living. So I have a hard time with treating all ghosting the same.
WRT chino Reem - Not paying debts when you clearly have the money is worse than some forms of “cheating” - it’s just theft, and you should expect they’d be willing to cheat in other ways.

like “ghosting” friends late in tournaments to discuss strategy. Or buying data from data mine sites. They’re not even grey areas - they’re all clearly against the rules but dodging debts is far and away worse IMO.

Didn’t know anything about cates history of cheating. What did he do?
Didn’t know anything about cates history of cheating. What did he do?
Quite surprise you haven heard of jungleman history, he had quite a few questionable history and I remember the most recent one is the Bill Perkins one

I think in summary he arrange an online poker game saying it consist of fishes and whale only while ghosting one of the "fish" account in the game
like “ghosting” friends late in tournaments to discuss strategy.
I get that "one player to a hand" is a hard line. As I said earlier though, as someone that started online early on, there was no real community pressure or thought that occasionally providing help when you are in the same room as the player was wrong.

A lot of coaching though Cardrunners and such back in the day was ghosting. I agree that the official letter of the rules was that's not okay, but from a community standpoint, it most certainly was not viewed that way. And I find it VERY hard to believe anyone that has played online and had anyone around them in person or watching in some way did not ask for it get advice on real time.

I basically to an extent feel that it was an accepted and understood issue and risk with playing online. But having a friend offer advice on a spot here and there and having a person take over for you, or using RTA are very different things.

The bigger issue to me is that there is literally no way to enforce a rule against ghosting in online poker. If the site wants to to have rules about suspending your account over suspicious play for whatever reason, then fine. That can essentially include ghosting, but it can also accidentally capture people that put in a lot of study over a short period and get better. Because they would have to look at the data and just compare your play in different spots. But that's such a huge amount of work.

What it comes down to for me is that yes, ghosting is against the rules. So many people do it in some form or fashion both big and small, and it's so hard to enforce rules against it, that I'm not sure what can be done about it. I think it's a lost cause when it comes to online poker. And inherently, most people are going to view assisting a friend in a spot of two vs two people playing every hand together very differently.
I just got through Doug’s, and I’m heading for Berkey’s, now. But I’ve paused to read some secondary sources too. My bottom line so far - I guess today is the first day since it’s existence that I’ve been glad Americans can’t play on gg poker. Very curious to see what Negreanu, gg’s most visible ambassador, has to say about all this.

Live from Daniel: "Moar Rake is better."
I personally think that ghosting is 100% cheating, but clearly it is near impossible to detect online if it's kept small enough. Obviously, a large group of players that constantly ghost for each other will more likely be noticed. This again brings up how to judge on how much evidence would be required to blacklist and who is making these decisions.
Yeah, that’s a head-scratcher. Hellmuth’s got it coming for sure. But that Persson guy was more out of line than any pro I can ever remember, off the top of my head. Why get involved, Danny?
Hellmuth had it coming and got it. I watched that Stream and Phil deserved every bit of it. Even the double bird. Phil is such a fucking asshole at the table and never gets called out over it, it was time it happened to him. When he started complaining to the floor I was laughing so hard. Then, even after Persson gets the warning, Phil still beaks off and calls him a motherfucker.
I'm glad the guy took him out, even wearing that ridiculous tank top. ;)
Good. I hope we see more of this. The only thing worse than a cheater is a smug millionaire cheater who doesn’t even need to cheat.
But why does the entire poker world all of a sudden say “receipts” when they mean evidence. That’s odd.
But why does the entire poker world all of a sudden say “receipts” when they mean evidence. That’s odd.

It’s a thing people use a lot these days. But it is a little more specific of a term than evidence. Generally it is used when one person makes a claim, another person denies it, and the originator of the claim must show the evidence to back up their claim. It’s like being asked to show your receipt on your way out the door to prove yourself.

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top Bottom