Online Ethics Questions

I recently received the following letter from a reader, who asked my thoughts on an interesting situation that occured in an online tournament:



I am a member of a small, fairly new online poker forum. Members of that forum were discussing the following situation that occurred in a major online tournament recently. This tournament was a one-day event that lasted at least 12 hours.



"At the final table, when heads up, one of the players (we'll call him "Away Guy") suddenly got disconnected. The other player ("The Raiser") then furiously raised his blinds to take more than $1.8 million in chips from him. I believe there was approximately $6.5 million in play. Away Guy returned a short while later from the disconnection, and, of course was fuming. The Raiser then proceeded to apologize and dump a bunch of his chips back to Away Guy, and even offered to chop at that point (note that chops are not permitted on the site).



"So, the question is this: Is a disconnection just part of the game that should be exploited, or should there be a bit of chivalry in poker, thereby giving your online opponent time to come back (let the timer run down, and check until the river and then bet)."



Well, this is a very interesting question, and I could certainly argue both sides. Instead, I will give you some of the opinions expressed by others on the forum regarding this incident.



Opinion No. 1: I've lost connection when heads up and on the bubble, and would expect no less than to have my stack raped. It may not be sporting, but I play poker to win, and if it isn't against the house rules, it should be expected.



Opinion No. 2: No, he wasn't wrong to take the chips after the disconnect. He isn't responsible for maintaining his opponent's Internet connection. Dumping chips and offering to chop winnings was idiotic; it was honorable, perhaps, but not sensible.



Opinion No. 3: Tear their faces off with a melon-baller and then rub salt in with a Brillo pad full of glass.



Opinion No. 4: The classy thing would have been to play slowly, bet after the river, and take each hand as slowly as possible and not destack his opponent in rapid-fire fashion. It's an interesting morality test.



Opinion No. 5: I don't think it has anything to do with morals. When you play poker, you play to win. If someone gets disconnected and you play slowly, I don't view that as honorable; I view it as stupid, and I wouldn't expect anyone to do it for me. What really irritated me was all the griping in the lobby, trying to take away The Raiser's moment of glory by calling him a cheater.



Opinion No. 6: One boy's stupidity is one man's honor. I would point to this year's World Series of Poker main event, when Andy Black tried to get folks to play slowly when it was down to two tables because a player had not returned from break and it was determined that he may not have understood the restarting time. Almost no other player sided with Black, who was distraught over this situation. My guess would be that Black learned a lesson from his parents that I learned from mine: It is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. If the fact that the game is played for money means that you play to win at all costs, I feel sorry for you. The Raiser did not cheat. His behavior was less than honorable, although I believe he saw the error of his ways and tried to make amends.



Opinion No. 7: If I'm heads up and my opponent loses his connection, it's not my problem. You know the risks of playing online before you start. It's not my responsibility to make sure a guy keeps his connection, and I would have been clicking raise as fast as I could while he was disconnected. If that makes me immoral, so be it.



Opinion No. 8: If The Raiser had taken the high road from the get-go by playing slowly, he would have gambled $60,000 doing it – the difference between first and second place. I believe he would have won anyway, although, obviously, there is no way to be certain about this. What you can be certain of is the respect he now would have from the entire online community; self-respect is worth $60,000 to me. Each person must decide these kinds of questions alone.



Opinion No. 9: I was raised that cheating is the equivalent of theft. I was also raised that gambling is immoral. However, The Raiser broke no rules. Poker is a game of lies. Misrepresentation is what the game is all about. I can find no fault in blinding someone out when they go away or disconnect.



Opinion No. 10: After 13 hours of grueling, intense play, I would've blinded out my own mother. I'm still exhausted!

Hmm … lots of interesting food for thought. What would you have done?



Now, let's play poker.

Linda is available to host poker seminars, corporate events, and poker tournaments. She can be contacted through her websites at http://www.cardplayercruises.com/ or http://www.lindapoker.com/.