2.35%*

*before dealer error.

Also.

I agree with one of mixedgameaddict's points, there is an unrealistic black and white line in most people's ethical views ITT, you're either a person who would steal = scumbag, or you're a person who would not = stand up guy, trust with your life.

You can only see the world like this from a position of high privilege, iv run several businesses employing people of all types of upbringing, age, financial security etc and one thing is 100% certain - everyone is capable of stealing and the fear and/or risks of being caught is almost always the sole deterrent, not any moral direction.

Of the people who do steal, they do so because they can, either they have higher threshold for risk, circumstances where the rewards outweigh the risks or in most cases just a situation where it is glaringly easy to steal.

Virtually everyone here decrying Ben as a scumbag don't steal themselves as it's not in thier best interests to do so.

So you have to wonder why on earth a man, of seemingly high intelligence like Ben, would deem it wise to steal ~$5,000 and put at risk assets (his long standing rep) worth comfortably 20x that in value...

Either;
1) not as intelligent as assumed (in fact very stupid)
2) absolute mental breakdown
3) he is used to stealing and comfortable doing so, making it "easy "

You guys keep forgetting to ask yourself this: What is the point in making this differentiation? In theory, what you say is obviously true, but in practice and in the context of this situation, it's pretty useless to the conversation given the limited options investors have in reacting or "punishing" Ben.

So I'll put it simply for one last time: No one really cares that he's not one of the worst people in the world, relatively speaking. He's also not facing the worst consequences possible. But by continuing to point out how much better than/relatable to the worst of human nature he is, you are deflecting from the real discussion and handicapping one of the only tools we have (public shame) to rectify this situation in actual practice.

You're right, and I waffled a bit and hid my real point.

Stealing or not stealing is, imo, a situational decision not a ethical one. If the situation is good for stealing close to 100% of people steal.

The comparison I made between someone working a £6.50 p hour wage in a meaningless job, that could easily be replaced by another identical job (where almost everyone steals), and a poker player with a flawless reputation, dealing in 4-5 figures transactions daily (where very very few people ever steal) was to raise the question... WHY?

So it's either ;

He's stupid (impossible)
Mental breakdown (possible)
Stealing is part of his strategy in business (easily the most likely)

Can you cite a study or anything? I'm pretty **** tired of people making this claim when I'm offered essentially the exact same stealing opportunity Ben took on a daily basis and have yet to take it

I realize preserving my reputation is a factor in this as well, but this presumed immorality among all humans should at least be cited rather than just assumed

at first i thought mixgameADDict was being serious, now it just seems he's trolling to get a reaction from those affected

im all for forgiveness and 2nd chances, but it is way too early for that right now

Well this is a mostly very wrong post imo, and I tell why I think so.

Situation/example 1: you/anyone sitting in a dinner with only a friendly old lady on the table next too you, and you see by here clothes she is not a well off lady.
And the old lady goes too the bathroom, and you see her wallet laying on the table, no personal in the room and you see a lot of bills in the wallet [lets say 2-3.000$] how many people take it?

situation 2: the same diner same scenario, but now it is a arrogant Armani and Rolex wearing rich guy.
How many people take the money/wallet now?

Situation 3: same diner but you come walking in and see the wallet with the money visible, but no-one in the diner, you take it and see when you walk away true the window the crying and panicking old lady, almost everybody would feel bad right?.

now same scenario only you see the arrogant looking Armani and Rolex wearing guy, you probably have a little smile while walking away right?
Not a ethical one?

Ethics have nothing to do with it, come on!!! complete bs
Only the rich guy situation would probably reach close too a 100%.
The old lady situation not even close.

And then you got the personal situation of the potential thieves, no this is a totally generalisation that is a leak as a sieve, so try again because this I a useless statement imo.

And totally worthless in this topic because taking money from people like ben did, is totally different from physically taking cash money from somebody, in a physical, and certainly in a emotionally way.

And if you think that Stealing is part of his strategy in business (easily the most likely)[/, and you say that he is smart, why has there never be any whisper of a rumour about him stealing or embezzle money from anyone, and was his reputation so good?, it is a small world where he is walking in, and somebody stealing on a regular basis would get caught and/or talked about pretty soon, don't you think?.
No I think you should try again, because this post has more holes and baseless assumptions in it then a sieves, imo off-course

And hey I hardly knew ben was alive before this topic but seeing all the opinions[posts] and his reputation before this, and the interview, I my assumption/opinion on this case is that this is just a guy that snapped and/or came after loosing his money [and it seemed he hit rock bottom in his finances, and this was the first time that it was this bad] too the conclusion that he is a gambling-addict, and almost always they realise that when they go over some line, like stealing, or are terribly deep in debt with no way out.
And having done some research about ben he seemed to be a well respected and good, nice person, that was making good money, not a sneaky stealing, embezzling piece of sh.t.

But hey just my opinion based of what I know and found out about him.

Ahh I remember now why I don't post on 2+2 get told I'm talking bs for throwing an opinion out there.

The one thing you have missed though is the likelihood of being caught,or moreso the perceived likelihood of being caught. If it was a gtd 0% in both scenarios then I'd say regardless of the victim you'd get a stunningly high rate of stealing, depending ofc on the ppl - most people who turn that situation down do so because they can afford to, a luxury of financial security you get to proudly tell the world "I would never steal "

Also, the rolex guy could be Bill Klein and the old lady could be a pedophile for all you knew, people can rationalize things abt way they want, especially when they are the only ones they need to convince...

I do see the point you are making though and accept that things are not as black /white as I was suggesting.

In answer to bparis il give you my research, from nrly 10 yrs employing ppl in cash businesses on minimum wages, eventually nearly everyone steals.

Some people I see straight away and I just know they will steal (very few ppl surprise me) some take a while but they turn and literally 5-10% never do.

Iv had ppl who iv loaned money too,meet thier parents/partners, given Xmas and birthday cards or presents too, they would swear down I was a really great boss, but me a present at Xmas, we have a legitimate personal relationship (much more so than the person does to that old lady in the restaurant, but they still steal £20 from the till on Friday night for one simple reason...

It's so damn easy, and so hard to get caught.

This is the two main deterrents to stealing, and when you remove them, doesn't matter, people still turn, nearly everyone.

My point is this, why did Ben undertake in such blatant -Ev theft, either he's used to it,he's totally lost his head or he's a moron.

This doesn't add anything to the overall conversation though so no more babbling from me!

Is the answer for all three the same that you obviously take none of them as you are not a thieving scumbag?

this thread gives me a headache every time I open it. who ****ing cares what his motives were. its all speculations anyway. he is obviously guilty and since there is no ""court"" (or similar) for this, the only consequence is to either stop doing any business with this guy or try to find excuses and hope this was a once in a lifetime mistake.

ask people who are owed money by chino rheem for instance how well "giving scammers a 2nd chance" works out for them.

people do make mistakes and surely not all of them are coldblooded thieves, but this really doesnt matter in this case:

he lied/freerolled/stole/and (very likely) lied again. and fwiw it doesnt even matter that most of the people involved were his good friends. the only fact that does matter, is that he betrayed the trust. and that is the one and only valuable thing in this community.

again, since scammers/thiefs/etc arent banned from live/online poker, the only thing we can do, and this is something people have to decide individually, is to either forgive/believe him or just stop doing any kind of business with him (and also put out warnings for others)

cheers.

Just don't do business with people who have any incentive to steal from you. Unless ofc there is still EV after the risk is accounted for.

You have to refuse a lot of good opportunities(due to limited info).

In one months time Ben will likely be the perfect person to do business with, as he has high incentives to be completely honest...

you can check out gary becker's work which was actually posted earlier in this thread. posner as well. the most popularized being levitt (author of freakonomics).

the uchicago guys have done a ton of work in this area

OK I will read some of that research before flapping my beak any further on that particular subject. Perfectly willing to be convinced, just wanted to see some actual evidence

I suppose my follow-up question is that if people would all steal if given the chance, doesn't that make the entire enterprise of the marketplace and backing completely inherently flawed? (Or more likely, I'm overly simplifying the findings of the study)

orly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02...n_1304800.html

please explain to me why all of my poorest/least fortunate friends and acquaintances have all been the most generous and morally sound people that i've known

then tell me how ridiculous sweeping generalizations about man's immorality are helpful here itt. tks

(btw those of us who dont play table games are still laughing at the "it could happen to anybody" assertions)

This, the constant waffling of what ifs is just a huge waste of time.

It's not that anyone would steal given the chance, I'm sure you with your reputation on here could convince a group people to send you $50k+ in the next 10 hours very easily and run away forever.

The point I've made, and been told is BS and wasting everyones time despite years of experience in both the real world and the poker world dealing with every type of person you can come across, is the assumption that someone who has never (knowingly) stolen will not steal and someone who has is more likely too is just naive.

It's not how human nature works, iv not got any 20 page psychological study to back it up though so take everything I say with a pinch of salt.

As a sidenote I know Ben IRL, really like him, would have actually very willingly done business with him. I wasn't shocked by this thread though, nothing like this surprises me.

Well sir you are a negative thinker [quite understandably perhaps, I cant say since I lack the experience as in ever having stealing employees], but you talked a little to much from your own experience and field of business, and it is true that in many sectors of business like restaurants, bars, clubs, and office sectors for instance, the majority of employees steal goods or cash in small amounts [but it makes a bigger amount for owners if 4 or more employees steal off-course].

And do you really believe that ben was doing this for a longer time already, and did it calculated and pre-meditated many? times before ?.
Maybe you are right and he did, but I don't believe that after all I have read about the last week [I like to do my research so I at least know the guy a little bit, and I can make my mind up] it is 98% positive beside some obvious arguments with some players, but that is to be expected, and so far as I could find where all about situations on the tables and/or in tourneys about rules and ethics, you know the usual stuff that many players run in too.

And what is very strange about this and I can't get my head around, is why would a by many considered and known as a fairly smart/intelligent well respected and having a good reputation guy like ben, that has many times before been staked and paid to my knowledge[and finding nothing to show he has not in/on any site/forum that I have seen, and it where quite a few ] everyone back what they where owed.
Why would he do this?????, while you and I and him know that this would come out 9 out of 10 times.
It makes no sense, at least not to me, and that is why I think he just snapped and/or like you said he's totally lost his head and panicked, and like 99% of the gambling addicts do at some point came too the end of his rope and more importantly too the end of his money, and did a stupid desperate attempt to try to make it right, and like he and us know now he did not have a chance of getting away with.
No I for one are willing and believing that this was a first time for him, because as we all know the world of poker and gambling he lived most of his time in, and he was well known in is not that big, so there isn't much bad things that stay hidden, or undetected, or where at least rumors are going around about, and as said before he was a very smart guy, and if he was a thief and/or cheater or conman however you want too call it, I don't think he would have run out of money, and there would have been story's/rumors been going around about his addictive gambling next too the poker he played, because he would have had a lot more money to gamble with, or he must have been very bad in the stealing/cheating/conman part, and smart people usually are not, and when they get caught the **** is going to hit the fan and most if not all their crimes will come out, and I must say I have not seen or heard about any other story's like this about ben do you?.

And I must admit that that bs in my earlier post was not fair and uncalled for, so I apologize for that, it was a to harsh thing to say.

And too make a long post even longer, we as humans [have too] make ethical decisions all day I believe. like for instance, do I ignore the red traffic light?.
do I say that I have a large milkshake and she only charges me a medium?.
do I say that my colleague made a mistake in her report that she is going to give too the boss?.
and I can go on and on, I think it all has to do with ethics, don't you?.

Well I like too think and do think I am the kind of person that would say yes too all those imo ethical dilemma's.
Because like my mother once told me,[and I have found out in my 47 years on this earth, and i found too be absolutely true] Honesty always wins from the lies in the long run, and at the time it may hurt sometimes to be honest, but too be found out to be a liar hurts so much more then honesty ever could.

Well let me give you some advice: don't open this tread anymore, save's you a headache LOL

Every man’s censure is first moduled in his own nature.

I'm sure this has been addressed (at least I hope) but I'll add to it to try and not lose your faith in poker. There are sleazy, disgusting, moronic scumbags in all walks of life. Not just poker.

You have teachers, priests/pastors, police, and doctors - all whom most of us deeply trust that sexually assault people (even kids!). But that does not mean those professions are filled with sexual predators.

You have bankers (ever seen the movie Owning Mahowny) who will steal other peoples money because they have access to it.

Point being, don't let a few bad apples ruin a game that you love. Just be more cognizant of your peers and do your research.

Excellent post imo

Fakelogic,

Do you really think a few people in a forum saying they think Ben seems to be a decent guy despite his scamming really affects the marketplace whatsoever?

I mean, you imagine someone sitting at home thinking, "I wasn't gonna scam the MP but only 98% of 2p2ers want to burn Ben in effigy, so I think I'm gonna do it!!!"?

As much as you don't understand why a few of us are defending him (I do it out of empathy fwiw), I don't understand the point of shaming him to the exclusion of all else.

PS - I don't get the point of your prior post either. I agree Ben has acted unethically. I thought that was presumed when we all agree he attempted to scam. So?

I'm being sincere. I am, however, a natural contrarian which is often confused with being trolly.

I agreed w much of your 1st post but disagreed strongly w your conclusion. Seems pretty clearly Ben "lost his head" after losing much of his bankroll.

This will be my last post here.

My fundamental view is that a person who has scammed is not necessarily a scammer, by which I mean an unethical, untrustworthy person. Of course, many/most are. But there are also decent, fundamentally honest people who make terrible one-off mistakes who can be in the former category and not in the latter.

I believe Ben is likely one of these rare individuals based on the known facts, though I do have some doubts and clearly less confidence now compared to the "early days".

If that is the case, I think it is only fair that Ben's reputation is differentiated from the many true scumbag scammers in the poker community like chino.

thank god that's your last post itt