Turtle racing levels of action on US sites and an itch to play motivated me to sit another high-stakes reg. who prefers to be anonymous and will be known as Z. He's a staple on many sites at the highest limits and we usually share lobbies.

I sat his 240 but he declined and said he was busy. If someone sits the lobby, they'd better be ready to play so I continued to 360 and eventually 1200. A great rush of preflop cards were wasted since be it a dc, crash or too many tables, he was simply blinded out.

Not being a 100% dick, I decide not to sit his other games and opened up his 15/30 HU cash table to tell him his internet or client are having issues and he should unregister. He mentions that the table didn't pop-up and wants the money back. I've asked this guy for his Skype on several occasions but he told me he didn't have Skype. Yet now, he suddenly has a Skype name and offers it to me. I'm skeptical he'd send it back at this point and know next to nothing about the guy.

After hanging out with some friends, I come back to see a message from Ryan. He vouches for the guy and gives me powerful evidence that Z would have been willing to send back the money in the same situation. We debate about the morality of sending it back for probably two hours and Ryan's convinced that it's the right thing to do. I disagree because when we register for a poker game, we, as consenting adults, are aware of the risks due to luck/computer failure/whatnot and choose to, under no coersion or force of nature, play anyway. To sum: **** happens and it's not my fault if you're having computer issues.

I've played more poker games than I can keep track of over the years and have had my share of disconnects. Last month, I lost close to $4000 due to random internet drops from Comcast. After getting a new router and modem as well as looking to Etheric Networks for a high-end backup internet, things are infinitely better. Before, people would see I was dcd in some 120 then sit my other 120, then 240, then 360 etc.

I started in poker with the naive notion that we should all send back to people that have computer issues because we'd want the same treatment. Reality set in. This was clearly not happening. It's the reason I invested in a great computers and redundant internet. My new policy became to send back ONLY if that player previously sent me money back for a disconnect. Unsurprisingly, I think this only happened once in my poker career. In that case, I'd feel obligated to restore the balance and would send back as well. Of course, I made exceptions for friends and others I knew well. Overall, I've still lost way more than I ever gained from disconnects.

Even if Z would send back 100%, I feel no obligation to send back when I haven't benefited from his policy. Having such a policy with most regs. is risky and it takes only a few that don't share it to put you at a disadvantage. I'm cynical when it comes to these things. My policy is selfish but protects me completely from anyone who doesn't cooperate because I ONLY cooperate if they first do. Likewise, if they expect me to send back and I don't, they'll never do so again. Over a large sample, there's no difference between the condition of "everyone cooperates" and "no one cooperates."

Right now, I'm 90-95% that I won't send back anything. It's entirely within my rights and I don't feel it's a moral issue or even unfair. If I don't cooperate, no one has an incentive to cooperate. If they ship it back and I cooperate as a response, there is again no reason for anyone to deviate.

I may be the biggest ******* ever and I'm willing to consider other options. But, you've been warned so if I'm dc, don't feel any guilt over it. Blind me out to your heart's content! My policy expects it and you just got some free money like in an easter egg hunt.

i don't care if you send back or not, but the fact that you feel the need to write a novel to explain your actions looks like you are trying to justify something you are not sure is as right as you wanna make it look like.

Only thing that might look really dirty is if you sat some of his tables already knowing he is not connected.

Firstly everyone sending always sending back is not a Nash Equilibrium unless you are talking about infinite games.

I feel that most hs regs have a different policy to you, and most would send back if they found out that others would. I understand you feel buthurt over the skype thing but is it better for someone to lie to you saying he doesn't have skype, or is it better for him to tell you that doesn't want to add you? Have you ever told someone the same thing?

As I see it the higher stakes you get to the more you should be sending back to regs since you are interacting with them for longer. So the long term EV of having people watching your back when you disconnect is better than winning a few bis if you are a long term reg. With there being fewer regs you would also find yourself in this situation less often. Think about when you play poker at higher stakes- the ratio of time waiting for action vs time playing- then estimate how often you could be sat when you disconnected.

You would seem less of a dick for sure if you declared this beforehand but if this is your disconnect policy I guess it doesn't matter too much. I personally think that it's more +EV if you send back since this avoids some reg wars, and you will have others watching your back but it could be that your internet connection never fails etc and it's more +EV for you.

The moral situation is interesting but you can't be blamed there imo personally.

You may not realise it but you are just reverse freerolling people if you only send back to people who sent back to you. If you think this is the correct view then you should never send back and never accept send backs either. This view is probably only slightly better than accepting send backs but never sending back yourself.

A policy of never sending back more to one person than they have sent you leaves you completely protected but someone who has a two hour talk on the morality of the situation would probably agree that this is not fair either.

Also, from a utilitarian perspective at least, there is a clear difference between everyone cooperating and nobody cooperating. Would you disagree that everyone sending back is a better equilibrium than nobody sending back? I imagine the answer is no.

+1 to stones post as well, it reads like you are trying to justify something you aren't entirely sure of. In a situation where you are the one who benefits when you don't send back then obviously you take this stance when you aren't entirely sure but now have a motive to put yourself on one side of the fence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Daat was deep

You're right that I should just refuse if people send back. I didn't think about it too deeply since it hasn't come up. Poker's a game where you either rise to the top or become prey so I haven't expected nor received such benefits beyond friends. I would actually feel like a chump sending back to someone that is neither a friend nor interested in better relations.

This isn't about justifying. It's about thinking through what happened and trying to be fair by letting everyone know the policy. Now I won't accidentally benefit from people that do send back.

BTW: I suppose I'm not entirely consistent on this. If someone sees I'm dc in a game and THEN decides to sit all my games, I want to know who they are and target them in the future. To me, that's different than having your opponent dc while you had no foreknowledge but perhaps I'm stretching.'

Lastly, I've never told someone I didn't have Skype if I didn't trust them enough to add them. I just told them I don't usually give it out.

Is the amount of money a factor?

It's true that only sending back if the person already sent back to me isn't completely fair and too cynical. I didn't think about it much because that never came up. Refusing send backs is the way to be completely consistent and that's what I plan on doing if it occurs.

What I'm going to do is give the money to a worthwhile cause. I transferred the $1200 to Ryan and we will decide on charities. Everyone has input so list your favorite causes. I favor charities that aim to fix long-term problems.

CHARITY LIST SO FAR:
Wikipedia
- I know it doesn't save people directly but I think it has tremendous social use.

it saves students everywhere

take wikileaks instead of wikipedia and your my hero

I'd like the government to be more transparent but I'd like to avoid being put on a special list for life.

I'm leaning towards the Methuselah Foundation since they aim for crushing the root cause of many diseases but I'm still open to other charities.

The final donation was split into:

$1000 for the Methuselah Foundation http://www.mprize.org/?pn=donors
and $200 to the PPA

I dont See any Bad in taking Money from Anyone if its within The rules.

You probably Played Against Addicts already or People at were High and took their Money.
If The highstakes reg dont watch their Lobby and watch pr0n instead just Take there Money.

Maybe they will Realise it and stop doing that. And if they are Not in The Lobby then you can firstseat.

WinkMe

Great post Katipo and I think this is a very interesting topic because it happens to just about everyone and yet there obv isn't a definite policy that everyone follows so some people benefit while others suffer.

I personally have gone through all of the different perspectives. I have sent money back to somebody without any reason other than it felt "right". I have also not sent back money because at times that felt "right", maybe I was playing a random or just didn't feel like it. Either way, I am constantly torn between what is truly right because I am basing my policy off a feeling and feelings change. In an ideal world I think the best policy would be everybody sends back their opponents chip equity in the game when the dc occured.

As I looked at the issue more subjectively, I started to look at dc as merely a leak in ones game that can only be filled by getting a back up internet source. For example, if I have a major leak in my strategic game, I will lose money and continue to lose money to everyone who plays me until I INVEST my time and possibly MONEY to fill that leak obv. For example, I may realize, "hey, I am losing a lot of chips in 3b pots", so I mitigate the problem by investing time and money to learn and implement the correct strategy in 3bet pots. In the same way, I look at dc as, "hey I am losing a lot of money to dc. Maybe I should fill that leak by investing time and money into a back up internet source. Otherwise I better embrace that fact that I will continue to leak chips from dc and I cant blame anyone but myself for not fixing it."

Once we look at dc as a strategic leak, the moral discord subsides and it seems silly to send back money just as sending back someone money who made a bad play is silly. Exploiting leaks is the nature of this game. Imagine if you played somebody and they said to you, " hey man, I know you just won because of my bad call on river but can you send me that money back. I still need to fix that leak." You would say that's ridiculous. I think the same applies with dc.