[nq:2]ruy, morality is very simply, [nq:1]there is far greater benefit, [nq:2]I would

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

WinHoldemSupport:

[nq:2]I would suggest that this is merely a psychological effect ... become absolutely abusive online. Not because it's any less moral.[/nq]
[nq:1]Precisely. This whole thread has served to remind me of an incident in the workplace years ago. Seems we had ... situation here with this winholdem thing: the users don't mind being cheats as long as no one knows their cheats.[/nq]
not quite the same thing. shame and guilt are just one form of the apparent risk of going against the group (violating the morality of the majority). for those here who keep attempting to use the 'shame' force (i.e. "its wrong; you're cheating; we hate you; you're a bad person"), i am simply trying to say that it will never have an effect on many people out there; they simply do not care. they are immune to the moral force of the majority.
while card sharers might be immune to the forces of guilt and shame weilded by the moral majority, they are in no way immune to any real physical security in the hands of the opc. being identified right now as a card-sharer would be detrimental and so flying under the radar is the best policy, if they want to continue to win. and so that is what they do.

winholdem support
[nq:2]You go on claiming that there's nothing immoral about colluding ... isn't wrong just to sell your crap. Truth in advertising.[/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]ruy, morality is very simply a stated expected behavior of ... for the morality of the general population to remain unchanged.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm sorry but this is essentially nonsense.[/nq]
oh quite the contrary. it is very accurate regardless of whether or not you admit it.
[nq:1]I'm not going to debate what morality is because we'll run around in circles. We can all agree, mostly, that ... maybe some associated emotions like guilt. It certainly has a cognitive component. It is not merely the external social force.[/nq]
i wasn't discussing necessarily 'what' morality was. most people understand what it is and the concept of right and wrong. i was simply analyzing exactly 'who' benefits from morality. and my position is that the 'moral' force benefits the majority in most cases (especially in the case of online holdem). if you are a member of the majority then you stand to benefit by promoting the morality of that majority because you are lending a hand in the social force the controls the behavior of individuals. and absolutely everyone is interested in modifying and affecting the behavior of the individuals around us.

i am also pointing out that right now given the current conditions of online holdem. an individual can benefit by breaking their ethical agreement with the majority. and any time one party can benefit by breaking an agreement, then the agreement was weak to begin with.

very simply put:

1) online holdem players can benefit from using computer assistance.
2) online holdem players can benefit from using a bot.
3) online holdem players can benefit from card sharing.

we have been discussing the moral issues surrounding item 3 and you are failing to make your case. very simply put, as long as team players can benefit by card sharing, all of your talk about 'right' and 'wrong' will be ineffective.
[nq:1]While the society at large may be primarily responsible for the individuals sense of what is right or wrong, they ... reasoning of a child. Granted, many never progress. Kohlberg: Level 1 preconvential morality. It's not something you should brag about.[/nq]
it is a very bad idea to rest the security of a real money poker game on the ethics of poker players. so many here just fail to understand this.
[nq:1]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.[/nq]
i can only show a subjective difference for myself, based on my own conscience. there are two types of people in the world - those who govern their own conscience independent from the wishes of others and those who construct their conscience according to the wishes of society at large (poker players being just one instance of a society). i am a member of the former group. and i tend to be adhere to an objectivist philosophy. i am a self-interested creature and i view others the same way and i behave accordingly.

let me ask you a question ruy, right now i realize benefit by card sharing online. please help me understand how i can benefit more by not doing that.
dont talk to me about morality ... tell me about how i can benefit. appeal to my self interest. if you cant do that then your words have little value.
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:

tony,
when i say "i", it was in the context of a lowly support grunt in the role of a poker player.
i was referring to my personal use of the winholdem team edition, nothing more.
however, to answer your question on a company level.

we stand to benefit much much more by offering a very legitimate valuable product to online poker players and then supporting that product into the future such that many customers will be happy with their results such that they will renew their licenses next year.
doing this is much easier and far more rewarding than trying to implement the highly stupid strategy you suggest of trying to "cop a feel" or "sneek a dirty panty peek" at users cards.
you are welcome to analyze both scenarios ( our management already did ), there is far greater benefit to finding and keeping loyal customers than there is to find them and then abuse them and make them go away. every business needs to keep their customers ... we are no different.

winholdem support.
http://www.pokerbot.com
[nq:1]So, by that reasoning, one should do whatever is necessary to win money when playing online, regardless of what they ... you stated above, you need to do "whatever is necessary" to win money, "regardless of what they (you) say publically".[/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:

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

Edward Hutchison:

[nq:1]there is far greater benefit to finding and keeping loyal customers than thereis to find them and then abuse them and make them go away<[/nq]
Do you suppose the slaughterhouses worry about customer retention?
Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS
Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands: http://pokerprofessor.homestead.com/links.html

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]let me ask you a question ruy, right now i realize benefit by card sharing online. please help me understand ... can benefit. appeal to my self interest. if you cant do that then your words have little value. winholdem support[/nq]
Enough with this stupid thread. I never said my words had value.

I also never said you can't benefit by cheating online. I just said it's immmoral, which it clearly is. In reality, your philobabble is just keeping this thread alive and keeping your spam active, so I'll just shut up now.
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:

edward,
very poor analogy, not even close to accurate.
beef ranchers need not do a thing to get more cows except breed them. the cattle are their property.
very hardly the same thing with human poker players. you have to offer value at a reasonable price,
then you have to treat customers well.
we do both.
winholdem support.
[nq:2]there is far greater benefit to finding and keeping loyal customers thanthere[/nq]
[nq:1]is to find them and then abuse them and make them go awayPosted 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,
calling card sharing immoral does not accomplish anything whatsoever, other than provide you with a coping mechanism for a reality you are unwilling to accept - classic online holdem is not secure against collusion.
and nothing you can say or do can make it secure.
there are people that know this and have accepted it and have changed the way they play - you can do the same - nothing is stopping you. changing the way you play does not make you a bad person. it is simply the act of a prudent individual.
winholdem support.
[nq:2]let me ask you a question ruy, right now i ... do that then your words have little value. winholdem support[/nq]
[nq:1]Enough with this stupid thread. I never said my words had value. I also never said you can't benefit by ... reality, your philobabble is just keeping this thread alive and keeping your spam active, so I'll just shut up now.[/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.

Matt I.:

[nq:2]Yet more shining examples of the morals behind WinHoldEm. Somehow, ... once you're already sending your card data through his server.[/nq]
[nq:1]you and others keep raising the morality issue; if we wanted to be truly amoral about this, we would never have gone public right?[/nq]
No, if you had morals you would have never written the program, let alone started selling it. Your morality (or lack thereof) is not what I'm arguing about you've proven well beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't care about anybody but yourself or anything but the bottom line.
[nq:1]if i am playing in a game right now and you happen to be able to see my cards, you ... way; on the contrary; you first have to know where i am playing (good luck with that by the way),[/nq]
Your software can trivially read it along with the player's cards.
[nq:1]but lets assume you know where i am playing ...[/nq]
Yes, let's.
[nq:1]you then need the following to occur you need to be dealt the best hand at the table (1 in ... best hand), that means that 1 of 90 hands you are in a position to milk money out of me[/nq]
Not exactly. The opponent has to think they have the best hand when you know you have them beat. Even more critically, in any hand where you are both involved, you have extra information, and obviously know whether or not they have you beat (potentially saving you many bets, or allowing you to bluff when you know they have nothing). You also gain a slight edge on every hand by seeing two more cards preflop if you have pocket kings, and they have aces, it changes the value of your hand a bit.
Also, wouldn't there always be at least two cheaters at a table (thus giving you a much bigger edge)? Unless, of course, you silently install your program as a service, and have it 'sharing' the cards of everyone who has it installed with you all the time...
[nq:1]... 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.[/nq]
You only need to jump a few times to make quite a bit of money. And in NL, you only need to jump once to clean someone out. I'm also assuming you'd use a bot to do this, so time is not an issue.
[nq:1]it is far better to take care of your customers and treat them well so that they will renew their license next year.[/nq]
No doubt. But wouldn't that require morality?
[nq:2]Only a little hypocritical. It's fine online, but you suddenly have pangs of conscience when you can see the people's faces?[/nq]
[nq:1]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]
The only difference between cheating in a casino and cheating online is that it's easier to cheat online (and, you posit, harder to be caught), and you have to look the people you're fleecing in the eye in the casino. Barring difficulty and risk of getting caught, you say that you're fine with one and not with the other.
So, yes, you're a hypocritical cheat (blame genetics or your parents if you like). Thanks for clearing that up.
[nq:2]OTOH, an online site has a much higher chance of ... looking specifically for plays like that, which wouldn't surprise me).[/nq]
[nq:1]please explain how you can scientifically distinguish a pot jack from a failed bluff ... you cant.[/nq]
If you do it once, no, you can't. If you do it ten times with the same partner in a week (or month), the difference is obvious.
[nq:2]Also, if an online site catches you, they could very ... 'risk' is potentially quite a bit more than you're implying.[/nq]
[nq:1]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]
I think most players would need at least 100BB in their account at all times, and potentially 200BB or more. So unless you're cheating at $1/$2, we're talking potentially thousands of dollars here. That's a pretty sizable amount to me.
[nq:2]I have yet to see a poker book that doesn't ... you're CHEATING, but the math behind it is the same.[/nq]
[nq:1]im not sure i agree that it is the same; try doing the math for a 4-way team such that ... decision that will not register on any anti-collusion software radar. winholdem does better than anyone on the planet. winholdem support.[/nq]
The math is the same for computing odds; there are just more cards to consider. Can a computer do it faster? Sure.

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]Precisely. This whole thread has served to remind me of ... being cheats as long as no one knows their cheats.[/nq]
[nq:1]not quite the same thing. shame and guilt are just one form of the apparent risk of going against the ... is the best policy, if they want to continue to win. and so that is what they do. winholdem support[/nq]
No one doubts you can justify your cheating in your own mind; be that as it may, it's exactly the same.

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 6

Related forum topics: