Quote:
Originally Posted by DaycareInferno
There's also nothing unethical about being backed and no obligation for anyone to disclose that information to other players.
Guy would have also never had any edge by virtue of other players not being rolled to play against him. He would have still been crushed just the same since he was playing versus extremely strong players, all of which would still have been extremely strong short banked. The only difference is some of them may have had to quit or busto if they ran bad, and then he would have been crushed by whoever was left or others.
If they agreed to cover each other's losses, or some variant thereof, then Guy was playing against the entire table, or at least against a team of players sitting at the table.
I suppose a key question is whether they told him in advance. If it's not unethical, then I'm sure they had no problem explaining the situation to Guy before the cards were dealt. Did they? Or did they keep it a secret? Why?
As to not impacting their play since they are top pros and fully backed, I completely disagree. At those high stakes huge losses hurt. That's why they play them, they need that rush. Losing a couple of all-in pots versus Guy would have had a significant impact on their game. Perhaps they would have quit, perhaps they would have gambled it up more to get it back, etc. Who knows? But knowing they had a huge insurance policy in effect must have been a psychological relief.
I am only speaking in general terms. I have no idea what agreements were made when Guy was playing. But if they agreed to cover each other's losses in some form and didn't bother to tell Guy so he could adjust accordingly (or quit), then that is absolutely a form of collusion. And hence, I believe, unethical.
--PP