+1

this is correct sir - all poker thought should be welcomed for discussion.

I also despise ratholers, but i don't think they are being any less ethical, based on the "you can't do it in a casino" argument than people using HUD...

***
I still think the tilt factor needs to be addressed, ppl hate when a shorty doubles through them. Often someone i stack through gets insta stacked shortly after by me or another player at the table, cause there on tilt that kq didn't hold up vs ak.
hella-cool.

it's almost like tourney style, tight at the start double up, open up the range, double up, open up your range...

I'm not sure if you're responding to Grunch's post, but if you are I think you need to read it again because that wasn't the point he was making at all.

Grunch and others, I like to play shortstacked and shorthanded and just got back into playing poker online so I am playing 2NL. I play 6-max tables and buy-in with the min (50BB). I usually go to tables with 2 people at them since ideally I would like to play 4-max but there is no such thing on PS at lower levels anyway. Anyway, if I build my dollar buy-in up to 2.50 or 3 and the table fills up to 6 people I will often leave for another 2 person table and buy-in for the min again. That is, unless I have a good read on the people at the table and want to keep taking their money. I don't ever dump out and go back to the same table with the minimum. Am I rat-holing? If so can you explain to me what is unethical about it? I don't go to a table and push all-in, I play pretty straight up poker and I just don't like to risk more than a short stack on a single hand. So I am trying to minimize variance, minimize tilting, and also take advantage of some pot odd advantages with a short stack. Is that unethical? If I sit at a table for an hour I rarely am there with any of the original people by the end of the hour so if my method is unethical does it matter that everyone else seems to be doing similar things? Am I semi-rat-holing? If I am doing something unethical by most standards and you can explain to me a good reason why it is unethical I would like to stop even though it is working out well for me. I don't think a casino would disallow what I am doing would they? Also, a casino not allowing something doesn't necessarily mean it is unethical or wrong, after all they are CASINOS (not the pillars of ethics) and alot of their rules are meant to protect regulars and whales rather than prevent something illegal or unethical.

Grunch, isn't your argument based on players taking money away from the table, and that's "unethical"? Doesn't that make every winning player who wins money fairly consistently to pay for non-poker things "unethical"? It's not like a ratholing/short stacking player won't sit at a thousand other tables also where you can take the money back, or that they won't reload. Every single hand is an individual event (barring reads, etc), so you're +EV or -EV with your play, what happens after he wins or loses the hand doesn't change anything. How is it unethical, especially when it's clear to everyone what's going to happen.

He will gamble with you, leave next blind if he doubles, reload if he loses. Depending on who's better and luckier, one of you will win. What's unethical about this?

Online is different from live games and you can't compare it; you don't multi table in live games, do you?

Shortstack first should be defined.....there is huge diff between 20 BB and 75 BB

That wasn't the argument. Again, law does not define morality.

It is not unethical to rathole because it's not permitted in casinos. Other way round. Its not permitted in casinos because it is unethical. More specifically, it makes the games unfair.

So long as you remain at the table as long as it remains 4-handed, even when you get deep, this is not unethical.


No, that's not my argument.

My argument is that ratholers tilt the playing field in their direction by picking up as soon as they win money. They are like a roach motel. Money goes in but never comes out.

Picking up after a winning session, or even taking money out of the game isn't the same at all. While you are playing you leave your money on the table. Even if you play deep other's have an opportunity to win your money from you.

You may have missed this part of my post.

Online and live are only different in venue. The game is still the same. Its still poker, and its still a zero-sum game. Some of the rules are different, but this is because one is online and the other live, not because one is poker and the other is something else.

Ratholers make it a non zero-sum game. True accross both venues. The only difference is that live it is possible to force players to behave ethically via the rules, whereas online it is not. One of the reasons is, as you point out, multitabling.

Regarding the idea that HUD users and ratholers are comparable in terms of ethics: no, they are not.

Ratholers change the fairness of the game by making it impossible for people to win money back from them.

HUD users simply display publicly available information on their screen. This information is available to everyone. HUD users simply consume and render the information more efficiently than non-HUD users.

This of course doesn't apply to HUDs that display the stats from shared databases or other data not publicly available.

The idea of the game is to win someone else's money. There is nothing written that says that once i win money i have to keep playing.

If you don't like the ratholer beat on his blinds - if he pushes light you should be able to get it in good and make money in the long run. If he's tite then his blinds are up for grabs.

Ratholers should be easy to beat - i think people just get upset when they get it in good and the ratholer sucks out and leaves.

There is nothing unethical about it, they are playing within the rules of the game, playing by the same rules as we all are. Just because they don't pay you the courtesy of sitting and not playing for 5 more minutes before they leave does not mean they are being unethical. There is nothing immoral about sitting down at a table, pushing your stack in when you think you have equity and leaving shortly thereafter if you double up.

What you don't like is that you feel you are a superior player to the rat holer, and would like to extract money from a player you perceive is weaker than you are, but they have devised a strategy that levels the playing field, and won't stick around to let you outplay him over time.

Do you think it is unethical that better smarter players knowingly and repeatedly take money from the lesser weaker players. I certainly don't - this is poker and how it is played. Now that some weaker players have figured out a way to minimize your advantage you accuse him of a breach of ethics?

I have no other choice but to disagree.

Count - You could at least try understanding my argument before disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with something I didn't say.

This is the whole problem. The rathholer's strategy doesn't level the playing field at all. It slants the playing field in their favor.

This would be a valid argument if ratholers never lost hands, but in my experience they do. And often. If a 20BB stack wants to leave immediately after doubling up that's fine with me since that doesn't necessarily mean that they have "won." I'm sure you have seen plenty of ratholing 20BB SS'ers spew off 20, 40, 60 or more BB's in an attempt to "double up and leave," or just leave after losing their 3rd or 4th all-in confrontation. You don't think this evens out against the number of times a SS doubles up and leaves on his first try?

If you feel you do not have an advantage over a ratholer, i think you might need to address your strategy when playing against one. Do you think most ratholers are winning payers? I don't, in the long run they are leaving more money on the table than they are taking.

"Ratholing is unethical. It is really just as simple as that. All the arguments and e-peen waving about how shortstack poker isn't poker aside, true as they may be, ratholing is simply unethical."

In my previous and lengthy post i should have quoted the above passage.

My point is that ratholing is in no way unethical, in hold'em you can sit with any amount above the min and leave when you want. Nowhere in the rules of hold'em does it say you can use software to track the histories and tendencies of your opponents, but because many winning players engage in this practice it is considered acceptable and in your eyes more ethical than playing a narrow scope of hands and leaving when you win.

bingo.

Imo the all talking about ethical/unethical is useless. In fact who cares if ratholing and short stacking are unethical? The short stackers aren't going to stop ratholing just because is unethical.

I never played short stacked but if I would have played it I wouldn't care it it's unethical or not, and just because it's unethical doesn't mean I will stop ratholing.

Imo ratholing is unethical, and so is playing poker. A lot of religious people will tell you playing poker is a sin. I am agree with this. Playing poker is a sin. But I don't care if it's a sin or if it's unethical because I will not stop playing poker.

No, it's not. You must pay an amount to buy a hud. It's not free. Doesn't matter how small this amount is.
Pokertableratings is free, but it's not allowed. Imo pokertableratings is more ethical to use than huds because it's free and the huds aren't free.
However just because I think HUDs are not ethical doesn't mean I will stop using HUDs.

In conclusion I don't short stack and don't rathole because I want to win more, not because it's unethical. If ratholing would have mean more money then I would rathole for sure.

I don't agree with that at all. No one multi-tabling could keep those stats without the aid of software so they are most definitely tilting the odds in their favor using something that 1. not everyone has and 2. wouldn't be available at a live game. Back to rat-holing, I don't quite understand your reasoning for calling it unethical. The true rat-holer comes to the table, makes his play and either leaves with a double stack or leaves empty handed. I realize this throws off deeper stack play but what is unethical about it? Why is it ethical if I keep playing once my stack grows but unethical if I leave as you stated? Alot of people are arguing that you should play with a deeper stack then I do so essentially I am being told that 1. I am playing with an immediate disadvantage because of my stack size and yet 2. I am unfairly tilting the odds in my favor. How can both of those be true? And if 2 isn't really true then how does it become unethical if I leave post winning? Please keep in mind that I am only trying to get your reasoning for calling it unethical out and hence presenting the other side. At the same time I am not sure what I do is rat-holing since I have no want to get all-in more than I would with a big stack. I actually play quite conservatively. I do at times leave after winning though because I like playing short stacked. I don't think I am winning because of some advantage I have from my stack size other than psychologically I feel more comfortable with less money at the table. So when I up and leave to go to another table with less money and fewer players I don't consider that "doing something wrong" or stealing a big stacks money. Is your opinion that rat-holing is unethical a common opinion and how much of do you think stems from the casino rules that I believe are more ushering to the big stacked regular players that want more time to take the fish down.

Well, I for one, although still unsure if what I do is rat-holing, do not want to do it anymore if it really is unethical. Comparing it to religious people thinking poker is a sin is just stupid IMO. So you might find this discussion worthless but I for one would like to get to the root of why some on here think it is unethical and if their reasons are valid and I truely have an unethical advantage in what I am doing then I will stop doing it. I'll pose one more question for now, if leaving after winning to go to another table is unethical, is leaving right after winning a big pot, even though you had intended to play for another 20 minutes also unethical? What if you were planning on playing for another 5 minutes? Where is the cutoff? What if I double up over the course of 50 hands (not a single all-in) and at the end of that 50 hands most of the people I doubled up from are no longer at the table. Is it unethical for me to then leave? You see even if you make a good argument that true rat-holing (get in, push, get out) is unethical (and I don't agree with this at this point) then where does it go from unethical to gray territory and then to ethical? I quite honestly think people using software to increase their odds at winning is alot more unethical then jumping from table to table. You can't make any sort of argument that the person with a HUD is missing out on more money or losing out anything by doing what they are doing like you can for a rat-holer.

Ratholing is not unethical. It is a strategy. How can a legal poker strategy be unethical? One rediculous reason above was "because it causes an unfair advantage" in other words because it is a winning strategy. LMAO. It is only a winning strategy if you let it be. When a short stacker comes to the table, remember that he can only lose his stack. Also remember that you can only lose HIS stack too. Now you are playing a short stack game too, but you don't know how. And that is where the shortstackers get their advantage. So not adjusting to the short stack strategy is your fault. And if you think it is unethical you will never try that strategy then you will never get good at it then you will never be able to beat it then you will call it unethical. LMAO

HUDs are unethical because they are unknown to most players. Also unknown is who is using them. Not described in the general rules of poker and provide a distinct advantage that cannot be countered without purchasing one. They are the main reason poker is in a downswing. Who would want to pay $100 to learn a game played for pennies? I would have no problem with them if there was an Icon on the avatar that showed who was using them. Then they could play a fair game against each other and people could choose not to donate to them.

At least with shortstackers, you can choose not to play at their table. But then you would be ratholing.

According to bible playing poker is a sin and you will go to hell if you play poker or go to the casino.
The discussion about ethical/unethical is a subjective one. What is ethical for me can be unethical for you. If 95% of people think poker is unethical, this doesn't mean poker it's unethical. Since ethical/unethical isn't an accurate science I consider this a useless discussion.
If people's opinions matter so much for you stop ratholing because the majority of poker players think is unethical and stop playing poker because the majority of people think poker is unethical.

Why do we have the word "ethical" if we only need "legal"?

A strange thing happens at the lower limits...

Most 100BB players suddenly play like total fish against a 50BB stack, whereas a lot of their plays would be +EV against another big stack, against a 50BB stack they are simply losing plays. I suspect the reason that a lot of 2+2ers are annoyed with medium stacks is two fold...

1) They want the fish and new players to buy in full so they can stack them. So simple greed here. But sorry, let those players buy in for what they like. It's better they feel comfortable losing their money then feel uncomfortable and eventually quit poker.

2) They have no idea how to properly play against a good short stacker that knows how to adjust and read opponents well and not just play their cards. Therefore, they tend to either stack off way light to them or play way too tight... or play like some sort of maniac fish against them.

The purpose of poker is... to make money, is it not? To make money you need every edge you can get.. And playing in your comfort zone while other people are playing either out of their comfort zone or in a state of complacency against you is hugely +ev... So if you're comfortable playing a smaller stack than you should do it. If you're uncomfortable buying in full.... then.... NEVER buy in full. If your opponents complain about you short stacking, then, be encouraged, because you're in the right game.

And if they're comfortable stacking off to you because you can't hurt them as much as a full stack could, well, that's even better, because they will proceed to stack off fairly light against you, which is exactly what you want when playing a short stack.

Lol at calling, rat-holing, shortstacking, hud-using 'unethical' or 'immoral'.

well if I have what stands to most likely be the winning hand and weaker hands are likely to call given stack sizes I want to get all the money in... maybe thats just me.

That would be the case if they played one game of poker, won and never ever returned to poker again. Obviously this is not so.

Thats just your opinion, simple as that. Some people think it is some people think it isn't. Noone really cares that you are others think it's unethical. I certainly don't
If you feel better about yourself because you are more ethical than the ratholers than good for you I guess.
i don't shortstack or rathole, but I definitely wouldn't give a crap whether I was thought of as unethical if I did. Why would I, this is poker and we are on a poker forum, it isn't MySpace or facebook, I'm not looking to accumulate a 10,000 friends list, doesn't bother me one bit if people disagree with me. I created this thread because I thought there were people who could benefit from it...

What I think is more unethical is pressuring a newbie to poker who is uncomfortable playing with a full stack and losing money to continue playing a style he is uncomfortable with when there is an alternative that is frowned upon just because random players on this forum think it is unethical and they get flamed for thinking of buying in short or if they make threads for it. I'm not even advocating shortstacking, but buying in shorter. That is not the same as shortstacking.

Shortstackers and ratholers are playing within the rules. If you don't like that, then try and pressure the poker companies to change the rules, if you still don't get the results you want then live with it or find a new game with rules that you like... simple.

I don't believe ethics is optional or subjective, actually.

The whole point of ethics is that it's a social code that we all agree to abide by for mutual benefit. If your ethics are not my ethics, and he has no ethics, then ethics disappear altogether and we have to legislate everything.

If we go around spelling out every eventuality in the laws, and contest and combat over every detail of our interactions, we all become lawyers. Usually bad ones. Do you want to live in a society of nothing but bad lawyers?

When I say to a group of people "let's play poker", I'm saying I want us to play a game where everyone's hole cards are hidden, there's some wagering about who will have the best hand at showdown, and the best cards at showdown will win the pot. There are procedures that should work towards making that happen consistently.

Ethics comes up frequently because of players testing the limits of those procedures. Going out of your way to peek at cards, or short the pot, or gain more information than the spirit of the game entitles you to (mostly just the betting actions of the players), is douchbaggy lawyer bullcrap that will get you uninvited from my game. I want to play poker, not test wills over technicalities with you. I define poker as betting and showdown and flush beats a straight, not by subtle card movements and rhetorical loopholes.

The larger good being served by this ethical code is a smooth, fair game where we concentrate on the poker decisions, rather than a gotcha match, and newcomers feel welcome and safe. Sure, doing something legal but unethical might win you some money in the short term, but you do damage to the poker game itself, making people less willing to play at all. Taking a personal advantage at the expense of the people around you, despite their defensive efforts, puts you in a special class of creatures.

Well I didn't see any agreement when I sat down and fired up my poker client.
I abide by the rules, and I have my own 'ethics' or things I think are wrong or right, I don't impose them on others nor do i expect others to follow them or agree with them.

By playing poker you are taking advantage of fish despite their defensive efforts, I see no difference.

Attacking a player for their choice of poker stack size and their strategy which are all allowed by the rules is pretty low.

Who decides whether ratholing/short stacking is unethical. Hit and running HU is extremely rude (even though it's essentially the same thing), but when a short stacker doubles and leaves, and considering that everyone knows that this is going to happen, and considering you can EASILY keep playing this player by opening another table he's on, nobody is being deceived, and you are not being denied the opportunity to win the money back. There is no deception, nothing illegal, and no unfair advantage given to any player, as you can just as easily rathole vs a short stacker, so tell me who decided that this was "unethical"?

Some people think check-raising and trapping is rude and unethical, too, but obviously those are simply strategy decisions meant to win the user more money, but who decided that trapping is okay, but playing with a short stack isn't?

There is no such social code. I see loads of short stackers and hit and runners everywhere. There is the social code of not trash talking either, yet I see people trash talking all the time, isn't that the same thing?

How does short stacking go against the spirit of the game? Are you just saying that tournament poker, stealing, shoving unexploiting, squeeze shoving, etc, isn't really poker? How is short stacking and ratholing not "betting and showdown and flush beats a straight"?