I couldn't agree more with the bolded but with it being just about impossible to enforce(besides account buying deep in MTTs) all the honest guys are losing a decent amount vs the guys account swapping and/or sweatin HU matches. It doesn't seem like the sites have a problem with different IPs signing on the same account as long as rake is being paid and the "i'm playing from a friends house" card can be played. I'd like to believe that a majority of pros treat their fellow pros with respect by playing within the spirit of the game but it's hard not to become cynical being around the poker scene over the years. Just imagine all the stories that haven't made their way to NVG.

I don't know if I'd even like an online "hamsterdam" where anyone could be anyone but I'd love to spitefully take away the edge I know scumregs have had on me by doing this in the past.

It can't be enforced, that's the problem.

I lolled.

What people name ethics is simply a list of fairly arbitrary self-referential and social contract based premises. For any case you may make about an "ethical" situation, someone else will believe something different and just as nonsensical.

If you're looking for a logical and actionable response to times when someone asks you to sweat them or even cheat with them online, then I cannot say anything that would make sense because to give ethical advice is itself nonsensical, i.e. "I like apples". "I like oranges". "You're wrong".

Now to be clear, I'm not saying that deceiving another poker player outside of manipulating my ranges in certain spots gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside or that I'd ever be part of such deception for various reasons that might be discussed elsewhere. What I'm saying is that any debate on the topic is rendered moot by the nonsensical nature of what people use the word "ethics" to describe.

So what you're saying is it's pretty pointless to discuss because everyone has their own ethics? The honest poker players should continue with the current system and just shrug it off every story you hear about guys multi accounting with nothing being done.

(move to Philosophy forum?)

I'm saying it's not an ethical issue and that there aren't "ethical issues". Ethics are necessarily man made (unless you're a Divine Command Theorist, Scientologist, etc.) and then treated as rules for living.

We might take a number of actions to ensure what we believe to be a fair game play system. We'll confer on the rules and check the 'agree to terms' box before we deposit our money. All seems well. Other people might attempt to exploit that system to gain an advantage. We can attempt to influence law enforcement or whoever to penalize certain people. But ultimately, the assignment of right or wrong to the outcome is arbitrary. Relative to our wants and what most people define a fair game to be, deceivers should be penalized; but, that is not what I'm saying.

I agree and empathize with your sentiment, but cannot logically justify or penalize either side of the issue. As a poker player and one who makes money from the game of poker, it upsets me; it hurts me; and I'd like to see something done if possible. As a logician, I'm indifferent.

Gotcha, that makes sense

Good topic. In a perfect world it would be 1 player per hand, but in the world we live in we all know that isn't the case a lot of times. I don't really see a problem with someone sharing thoughts/ giving you advice, but I have a huge problem would someone ghosting your account and completely taking over. When you start playing online you know that you're possibly playing multiple people or someone who you think is someone else. All you can do is make your decisions in real time and play your best game. Coaches gonna coach, players gonna play, and ghosters gonna ghost.

One player to a hand is the rule I have followed live and online.

Others make a case that unenforceable online rules; well, you know...

Don't unenforceable rules simply reward cheaters and punish those with a moral compass?