Since the thread is locked...

by **black_knight6** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:43 pm

I thought that I'd weigh in: what's the difference between slowly figuring out who's a BTPer, and just flat out asking for their SN's on here? I don't see a significant difference...and people haven't yet suggested that they'd be solftplaying BTPers...I think that the whole purpose of compiling the list was to know who the hell to stay AWAY from at the tables!! Personally, I'm not sure that I'd want the list in exchange for giving out my SN: who's to stop somone who finds out from blabbing in the chat giving it away that I'm a good player? I'm not willing to take that risk. I never give out SN's on sites that I actually frequent.

by **k3nt** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:50 pm

by **Derk** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:09 pm

I guess I didn't get in on the other thread, but I see there was some conflict there. I, personally, liked the idea because I think it's neat to play with someone I know directly or indirectly. I ran into one BTPer on Prima and we had a nice chat about each others backgrounds, families, etc. so that was kinda cool. Plus you (hopefully) get stories about how a fellow BTPer donked off their stack to you

by **emmasdad** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:16 pm

I agree with BK. I don't think that it is unethical, but I can see why people would object because there is at least an appearance of potential impropriety. Of course, it is being done openly here and with no suggestion to use the information to conspire or colllude, but an outsider could easily see this as approval of passive collusion by either (1) softplaying fellow BTPers, or (2) avoiding BTPers all together.

FWIW, I think that sharing screen names, sharing hand histories, and exchanging PT databases all occupy the same grey area of internet poker. Clearly, these practices give an advantage over those without the information. None of these practices is available for B&M play, so there is not any type of historical acceptance or rejection of the practices - hence, it occupies that grey area. I chose not to participate in these sots of exercises, but I do not consider it unfair. I reserve the right to change my opinion on this subject.

by **black_knight6** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:20 pm

The analogy to B&M becomes interesting because you KNOW who you're playing against and such issues as these never come up. NOTHING will stop two people from PMing each other, learning their screen names and starting to collude. I don't think this enterprise needs to be stopped for fear of that...nothing will stop that and this sure isn't facillitating it (it only shortens the journey to cheating by half a step if at all). I have no ethical worries about this...and I know a thing or two about ethics (philosopher).

by **Jarren** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:40 pm

I for one don't have an issue with it

if you sit down at a B&M casino against some poker pro from TV then you know who he is and you have an idea he is good.

I see no difference in knowing that someone from BTP is at my table and knowing he is good.

Now if we start softlplaying each other or colluding then it is a problem but just knowing who is good and who isn't does no one harm in my eyes

by **NorthView** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:51 pm

Expecting the internet to match real world situations is to misunderstand the nature of the internet. This is why I became frustrated with the accusation of impropriety, because (as has been said here) that could also be levelled at many other facets of internet poker.

Are taking and reading notes, or rushing around between several tables, or using a latop to consult a huge database of your opponent's games acceptable in a live environment?

I agree with BK. I can see nothing unethical about this suggestion.

by **excession** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:06 pm

by **NorthView** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:15 pm

by **Allstar7** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:16 pm

by **black_knight6** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 pm

by **excession** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:37 pm

you said you don't see any -EV in people knowing your SN. What if you've played 50k hands or so on one site at 1 level? hypothetically, do you know see value in changing your SN so that observant opponents (or even opponents who log alot of hands) don't know who you are?

in fact as I play about 15 sites and only for 7-12 hrs/week this isn't really an issue for me

I'm not sure I follow your point anyway - observant opponents will have me noted as 'good player' or 'lucky lag' or whatever long before 50k hands whether or not I have posted my Tag on this forum - changing a Tag to fly under the radar of existing notes or PT databases is one thing that is clearly likely to be +EV if you are a semi-pro who plays one or two sites - atr least for a week or two whilst they cotton on that your new sig is a good player too- but that isn't what this thread is about..

actually only once has someone commented on my sig - it was about a year ago on a $100 UB table - my sig is Excession on UB - A guy logged in - played about 2 hands and said 'are you 'the Excession?' who writes the guides' - I said 'yes' -'uh-oh' he said and left. For the next 30 minutes I ran over that table - they treated me like I was Phil Ivey - it was really funny and certainly having my cover blown was +EV in that case..

by **black_knight6** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:41 pm

Very true...but to at least adress his point...yes, change your SN every couple months if you can on your home site(s).

by **Allstar7** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:54 pm

I have to agree.

The last straw for me was when a player I barely recognized commented on my play with some crap like 'there he goes betting with nothing again" and then "another allstar bluff". This was in the middle of my first bad streak ever. I changed that son of a bitch and I'm running at over 20ptbb/100 in my last 5k hands.

Made a difference to me.

by **GodlikeRoy** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:05 am

Since the thread is locked...

Since the thread is locked...

Who is online

Who is online