iron, you are mis-informed. the, iron, you are mis-informed. the, [nq:1]ruy, why

ruylopez:

[nq:1]ruy, why laugh? im being very honest here. for whatever reason, my conscience does not bother me when colluding online. but i believe that it would if i did this in a live game. im just reporting my own subjective response here. winholdem support[/nq]
I would suggest that this is merely a psychological effect of not being able to see your opponents, who are real people. The same thing that emboldens so many civil people to become absolutely abusive online. Not because it's any less moral.
You go on claiming that there's nothing immoral about colluding online when the whole mass of poker players here is telling you you're wrong. We all think it is cheating, because it obviously is.

If you're basing what's right and wrong on whether you're likely to get caught you're exhibiting a very low level of moral reasoning. I know you're going to keep spamming, but at least be up front and stop claiming that colluding isn't wrong just to sell your crap. Truth in advertising.

Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

WinHoldemSupport:

iron,
you are mis-informed.
the only information passed through the channel server is player cards. it has already been shown that card information in and of itself has no value outside the context of the current game to which they apply.

here let me demonstrate:
... he just got dealt 68o ... knock yourself out man. i just told the whole world what my hand was. the point is that it has no value to anybody unless you know the current game to which it applies.
the winholdem channel server was built in such a way that it is impossible for anybody to derive any value from the card info passing through why? because absolutely nobody knows the game to which they apply .
you can read more here:
http://www.winholdem.net/license agreement.html
winholdem support
[nq:1]team other serious the you. the staring public who channel publishing we know that and will half-witted utilize for[/nq]
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

WinHoldemSupport:

iron,
you are mis-informed.
the only information passed through the channel server is player cards. it has already been shown that card information in and of itself has no value outside the context of the current game to which they apply.

here let me demonstrate:
... he just got dealt 68o ... knock yourself out man. i just told the whole world what my hand was. the point is that it has no value to anybody unless you know the current game to which it applies.
the winholdem channel server was built in such a way that it is impossible for anybody to derive any value from the card info passing through why? because absolutely nobody knows the game to which they apply .
you can read more here:
http://www.winholdem.net/license agreement.html
winholdem support
[nq:1]team other serious the you. the staring public who channel publishing we know that and will half-witted utilize for[/nq]
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

WinHoldemSupport:

[nq:2]... very simply put; we do not care how we ... what is necessary - regardless of what they say publically.[/nq]
[nq:1]Yet more shining examples of the morals behind WinHoldEm. Somehow, even if I was inclined to cheat, I would have ... cheating me simultaneously. Believe me, it's not hard to do once you're already sending your card data through his server.[/nq]you and others keep raising the morality issue; if we wanted to be truly amoral about this, we would never have gone public right? also, you are dead wrong about just how stupid it is to try and win money from seeing another players cards without their knowledge; i've already explained this in a previous post a while back (apparently you didn't see it). if i am playing in a game right now and you happen to be able to see my cards, you dont just automatically see large sums of money float your way; on the contrary; you first have to know where i am playing (good luck with that by the way), but lets assume you know where i am playing ...

you now have to get there and wait for a chair (if the table is full), once you get a chair (if i am actually still playing) you then need the following to occur you need to be dealt the best hand at the table (1 in 10 chance) you then need me to get the 2nd best hand at the table (1 in 9 chance each time you get the best hand), that means that 1 of 90 hands you are in a position to milk money out of me ... the rest of the time one of both of us has folded dude.

if you can find a table that deals 90 hands an then you can get the jump on me once an hour at the most. it is a stupid strategy matt.
it is far better to take care of your customers and treat them well so that they will renew their license next year.
[nq:2]as for b&m's, if i could collude risk free (meaning ... not be able to do it without offending my conscience;[/nq]
[nq:1]Only a little hypocritical. It's fine online, but you suddenly have pangs of conscience when you can see the people's faces?[/nq]
your characterization matters little. the question to me was a personal one about what i thought about cardsharing in b&m's. and i answered very accurately. everyone is wired different matt; there are people who would experience guilt in either environment; some neither; some one or the other; you may want everyone in the world to exhibit the same behavior ( you are young and naive if that is your expectation ) ... very simply put, i do not experience guilt when card sharing online; but i believe that i definitely would in a live game. thats just how im wired.
[nq:2]also, i feel that the chances of getting caught in ... and much less riskier than doing so in a b&m.[/nq]
[nq:1]OTOH, an online site has a much higher chance of detecting collusive play from betting patterns than a casino does, ... thumb if someone complained about it (or they had software looking specifically for plays like that, which wouldn't surprise me).[/nq]
please explain how you can scientifically distinguish a pot jack from a failed bluff ... you cant.
[nq:1]Also, if an online site catches you, they could very well confiscate all the money you have in your account there (whereas a casino will just unceremoniously toss you out). So the 'risk' is potentially quite a bit more than you're implying.[/nq]
no, not if you use prudence and you dont stockpile wads of cash in a casino account ( meaning you make regular withdrawals ) to limit your risk if the opc's decide to steal your account balance.
[nq:2]also, if you use winholdem to assist you in cardsharing ... how to do this in any of the holdem books)[/nq]
[nq:1]I have yet to see a poker book that doesn't talk about computing odds at least a good one. I will admit that few books talk specifically about computing odds when you're CHEATING, but the math behind it is the same.[/nq]
im not sure i agree that it is the same;
try doing the math for a 4-way team such that you have an answer in a matter of seconds and a bet decision that will not register on any anti-collusion software radar. winholdem does better than anyone on the planet.
winholdem support.
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

WinHoldemSupport:

[nq:2]... very simply put; we do not care how we ... what is necessary - regardless of what they say publically.[/nq]
[nq:1]Yet more shining examples of the morals behind WinHoldEm. Somehow, even if I was inclined to cheat, I would have ... cheating me simultaneously. Believe me, it's not hard to do once you're already sending your card data through his server.[/nq]you and others keep raising the morality issue; if we wanted to be truly amoral about this, we would never have gone public right? also, you are dead wrong about just how stupid it is to try and win money from seeing another players cards without their knowledge; i've already explained this in a previous post a while back (apparently you didn't see it). if i am playing in a game right now and you happen to be able to see my cards, you dont just automatically see large sums of money float your way; on the contrary; you first have to know where i am playing (good luck with that by the way), but lets assume you know where i am playing ...

you now have to get there and wait for a chair (if the table is full), once you get a chair (if i am actually still playing) you then need the following to occur you need to be dealt the best hand at the table (1 in 10 chance) you then need me to get the 2nd best hand at the table (1 in 9 chance each time you get the best hand), that means that 1 of 90 hands you are in a position to milk money out of me ... the rest of the time one of both of us has folded dude.

if you can find a table that deals 90 hands an then you can get the jump on me once an hour at the most. it is a stupid strategy matt.
it is far better to take care of your customers and treat them well so that they will renew their license next year.
[nq:2]as for b&m's, if i could collude risk free (meaning ... not be able to do it without offending my conscience;[/nq]
[nq:1]Only a little hypocritical. It's fine online, but you suddenly have pangs of conscience when you can see the people's faces?[/nq]
your characterization matters little. the question to me was a personal one about what i thought about cardsharing in b&m's. and i answered very accurately. everyone is wired different matt; there are people who would experience guilt in either environment; some neither; some one or the other; you may want everyone in the world to exhibit the same behavior ( you are young and naive if that is your expectation ) ... very simply put, i do not experience guilt when card sharing online; but i believe that i definitely would in a live game. thats just how im wired.
[nq:2]also, i feel that the chances of getting caught in ... and much less riskier than doing so in a b&m.[/nq]
[nq:1]OTOH, an online site has a much higher chance of detecting collusive play from betting patterns than a casino does, ... thumb if someone complained about it (or they had software looking specifically for plays like that, which wouldn't surprise me).[/nq]
please explain how you can scientifically distinguish a pot jack from a failed bluff ... you cant.
[nq:1]Also, if an online site catches you, they could very well confiscate all the money you have in your account there (whereas a casino will just unceremoniously toss you out). So the 'risk' is potentially quite a bit more than you're implying.[/nq]
no, not if you use prudence and you dont stockpile wads of cash in a casino account ( meaning you make regular withdrawals ) to limit your risk if the opc's decide to steal your account balance.
[nq:2]also, if you use winholdem to assist you in cardsharing ... how to do this in any of the holdem books)[/nq]
[nq:1]I have yet to see a poker book that doesn't talk about computing odds at least a good one. I will admit that few books talk specifically about computing odds when you're CHEATING, but the math behind it is the same.[/nq]
im not sure i agree that it is the same;
try doing the math for a 4-way team such that you have an answer in a matter of seconds and a bet decision that will not register on any anti-collusion software radar. winholdem does better than anyone on the planet.
winholdem support.
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

WinHoldemSupport:

ruy,
morality is very simply a stated expected behavior of some percentage of the population based on certain criteria.
morality is the physical term we use to describe the social force that a group of people apply to individuals within that group in order to modify and maintain their behavior.
if you change the external criteria (i.e. move holdem from b&m to internet), then it is absolutely impossible for the morality of the general population to remain unchanged.
[nq:2]ruy, why laugh? im being very honest here. for whatever ... im just reporting my own subjective response here. winholdem support[/nq]
[nq:1]I would suggest that this is merely a psychological effect of not being able to see your opponents, who are real people. The same thing that emboldens so many civil people to become absolutely abusive online. Not because it's any less moral.[/nq]
you are probably right about the 'real people' aspect of a live game. most humans are socially needy creatures ( they need the respect and approval of those around them - (more social forces) ) unless you are 100% sociopath, it is provably harder to damage another if you have become involved with them in any way. clinical interviews with prostitutes show this to be true; while they provide complete physical contact (the basic hooker product) they withold all emotional contact of any kind. they reduce their psychological risk this way; the internet can have the same depersonalizing effect on people and can create immunity from the social pressure that might be experienced in a live game.
[nq:1]You go on claiming that there's nothing immoral about colluding online when the whole mass of poker players here is telling you you're wrong. We all think it is cheating, because it obviously is.[/nq]i never claimed that it was globally moral; what im claiming is that regardless of what you say, there are many people out there that are not going to act in a poker 'moral' fashion (according to your definition). you are attempting to modify the behavior of the masses by defining right and wrong; and what i keep telling you is that there are people that are immune to your definitions; and therefore their behavior is not modified in the least; isnt that what you really want? you simply want to use 'morality' as a social force to modify the behavior of online poker players? this is correct is it not? and all ive been saying is that given the present state of online holdem, it is impossible for an opc to defend all players from those who decide to card share.

and since they cannot guarantee the safety of the game, i am going to do whatever is necessary to gain every advantage available to me; you can do the same; or not.
[nq:1]If you're basing what's right and wrong on whether you're likely to get caught you're exhibiting a very low level ... at least be up front and stop claiming that colluding isn't wrong just to sell your crap. Truth in advertising.[/nq]here's the thing you need to understand; each individual is limited by their own moral conscience and external forces (physical reality/security). all i am trying to tell you is that there are people out there that simply do not experience any guilt when card sharing online; and therefore, the social moral force has zero effect on their behavior. do you not understand this? you can keep preaching, crying, whining, whatever, i am just trying to say that it is not achieving the goals you want.

and here is the krux of the matter; if you cannot modify their behavior through moral force applied to their conscience then the only thing that remains is the security of the game itself and as everyone knows ... there is none. and this is why we keep saying that the game has been changed as a result of the internet ( past tense - the game has already changed but some just wont admit it ).
winholdem support.
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

WinHoldemSupport:

ruy,
morality is very simply a stated expected behavior of some percentage of the population based on certain criteria.
morality is the physical term we use to describe the social force that a group of people apply to individuals within that group in order to modify and maintain their behavior.
if you change the external criteria (i.e. move holdem from b&m to internet), then it is absolutely impossible for the morality of the general population to remain unchanged.
[nq:2]ruy, why laugh? im being very honest here. for whatever ... im just reporting my own subjective response here. winholdem support[/nq]
[nq:1]I would suggest that this is merely a psychological effect of not being able to see your opponents, who are real people. The same thing that emboldens so many civil people to become absolutely abusive online. Not because it's any less moral.[/nq]
you are probably right about the 'real people' aspect of a live game. most humans are socially needy creatures ( they need the respect and approval of those around them - (more social forces) ) unless you are 100% sociopath, it is provably harder to damage another if you have become involved with them in any way. clinical interviews with prostitutes show this to be true; while they provide complete physical contact (the basic hooker product) they withold all emotional contact of any kind. they reduce their psychological risk this way; the internet can have the same depersonalizing effect on people and can create immunity from the social pressure that might be experienced in a live game.
[nq:1]You go on claiming that there's nothing immoral about colluding online when the whole mass of poker players here is telling you you're wrong. We all think it is cheating, because it obviously is.[/nq]i never claimed that it was globally moral; what im claiming is that regardless of what you say, there are many people out there that are not going to act in a poker 'moral' fashion (according to your definition). you are attempting to modify the behavior of the masses by defining right and wrong; and what i keep telling you is that there are people that are immune to your definitions; and therefore their behavior is not modified in the least; isnt that what you really want? you simply want to use 'morality' as a social force to modify the behavior of online poker players? this is correct is it not? and all ive been saying is that given the present state of online holdem, it is impossible for an opc to defend all players from those who decide to card share.

and since they cannot guarantee the safety of the game, i am going to do whatever is necessary to gain every advantage available to me; you can do the same; or not.
[nq:1]If you're basing what's right and wrong on whether you're likely to get caught you're exhibiting a very low level ... at least be up front and stop claiming that colluding isn't wrong just to sell your crap. Truth in advertising.[/nq]here's the thing you need to understand; each individual is limited by their own moral conscience and external forces (physical reality/security). all i am trying to tell you is that there are people out there that simply do not experience any guilt when card sharing online; and therefore, the social moral force has zero effect on their behavior. do you not understand this? you can keep preaching, crying, whining, whatever, i am just trying to say that it is not achieving the goals you want.

and here is the krux of the matter; if you cannot modify their behavior through moral force applied to their conscience then the only thing that remains is the security of the game itself and as everyone knows ... there is none. and this is why we keep saying that the game has been changed as a result of the internet ( past tense - the game has already changed but some just wont admit it ).
winholdem support.
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

James Monroe:

[nq:2]ruy, why laugh? im being very honest here. for whatever ... im just reporting my own subjective response here. winholdem support[/nq]
[nq:1]I would suggest that this is merely a psychological effect of not being able to see your opponents, who are real people. The same thing that emboldens so many civil people to become absolutely abusive online. Not because it's any less moral.[/nq]
Precisely.
This whole thread has served to remind me of an incident in the workplace years ago.
Seems we had this young chick in the office who was screwing pretty much anyone. Over lunch one day, she mentioned that SoAndSo had invited her over to his apartment for the evening. The problem she had was that he was known to have a big mouth and gossip.

She pointed out that she'd be delighted to go, except that she was afraid everyone would know about it the next day.

I was close enough friends with her to point out "So, you don't mind BEING a ***, you just don't want everyone to KNOW you're a ***".

After a moment of thought, she responded "Yeah..I guess that's right".
Same situation here with this winholdem thing: the users don't mind being cheats as long as no one knows their cheats.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

ruylopez:

[nq:1]ruy, morality is very simply a stated expected behavior of some percentage of the population based on certain criteria. morality ... holdem from b&m to internet), then it is absolutely impossible for the morality of the general population to remain unchanged.[/nq]
I'm sorry but this is essentially nonsense.
I'm not going to debate what morality is because we'll run around in circles. We can all agree, mostly, that it involves distinguishing between right and wrong and acting on it; and maybe some associated emotions like guilt. It certainly has a cognitive component. It is not merely the external social force.
While the society at large may be primarily responsible for the individuals sense of what is right or wrong, they are not primarily responsible for enforcing it; or at least in large part it is done internally. And if you are deciding what is right or wrong based solely on whether you will get caught you have the moral reasoning of a child. Granted, many never progress. Kohlberg: Level 1 preconvential morality. It's not something you should brag about.
Honestly, I think you're going to have a problem showing a difference in morality of cheating at B+M vs cheating online in any logical way. So, nonsense is your best bet.
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Tony H.:

[nq:2]... very simply put; we do not care how we ... what is necessary - regardless of what they say publically.[/nq]
So, by that reasoning, one should do whatever is necessary to win money when playing online, regardless of what they say publically. By this reasoning, wouldn't you cheat and use WinHoldem's customer's hole cards to your advantage?
You say that WinHoldem doesn't send user's hole cards to you so you, but by what you stated above, you need to do "whatever is necessary" to win money, "regardless of what they (you) say publically".

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

RE: Winholdem ban is a good thing page 5

Related forum topics: