Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomark
Are you trying to have a logical discussion on the merits or just arguing to argue? What a waste of time this comment was. This is the last time im gonna say this: if a guy bets $100 on the river, i might fold my hand.
I dont know if youre trolling me, stupid, or just have a seriously bad case of devils advocate syndrome, but you should be ashamed of this comment.
OP was NOT about someone accidentally dropping too many chips into the pot. Youre moving the goalpoasts.
Lumping in “mishandling chips” with “misreading the board” is referred to as a “motte and Bailey fallacy”. Any time someone challenges your ridiculous position that we hand back someones bluff, you fall back to a much more easy to defend position that you try and conflate with the stupid position you took.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
I'm not trolling you. And I'm pretty sure I'm not stupid. It's possible I have a tendency to play devil's advocate, though I'm not sure if that's the case here, nor do I think I need to be ashamed of anything I've said.
I don't see why someone who didn't realize two bills stuck together should be given their money back, but someone who didn't realize two chips were stuck together shouldn't be, in MORAL terms.
Of course I get that within the boundaries of the poker table, there are rules in place to prevent angling and protect the integrity of the game. But the rules don't prohibit us from voluntarily giving someone back their money when it was clear they made an unintentional mistake.
Misreading our hand or the board may be functionally different than mis-handling chips, but it isn't different in terms of intent or the morality of the situation. So, no, I'm not moving the goalposts. I was only trying to simplify the topic for those who couldn't see the point was about intent.
It wasn't simply the things I've seen at the table which prompted me to ask the question in the OP. It was also the ongoing saga/drama of Tom Dwan's alleged debts to other gamblers, specifically Haralabos Voulgaris.
My understanding of that story is that Voulgaris asked Dwan to place sports bets on his behalf, with a specific bookmaker, because the bookmaker wouldn't take action from Voulgaris. I see people advocating the position that Dwan should rightly pay Voulgaris for the bets that were placed and won. But I don't see anyone suggesting Voulgaris did anything wrong by concocting a scheme to deceive the bookmaker, or that Voulgaris should have known better than to use a degen like Dwan as a front-man.
I just find it interesting that often our sense of ethics is conditional. The guy I bought chips from gave me back my $100, but the OMC who scooped a huge pot thanks to one idiot who mistakenly tosses in $205 when he clearly meant to just call $15 only gave that guy back $100 of the extra $190 he didn't mean to put into the pot.
I know, I know, you don't see the two situations as being functionally equivalent. I think you're wrong, but that seems to be the foundation of the consensus opinion - cash mistakenly changing hands is different than chips mistakenly changing hands, because our ethics stop at the betting line.