I've actually had the argument presented to me that taking advantage of a player accidentally exposing his hole cards unbenknownst to the table is cheating because it gives you an unfair edge over the rest of the table (not just because you know his hand but because you know those cards are dead). This in response to the fact that I will at most warn someone one time that I can see their cards before taking advantage of it in future hands.

Is it cheating to grab someone's cards and look at them while they are turned around ordering a drink?

Yes. Viewing someone's cards is cheating.

I see cards from the other players' hands every single time I play. And many times over, and in many ways. They pull them up to look at them. They pitch them toward the muck 18 to 24 inches off the felt. They roll them toward the muck. The dealers have their moves, perfected in hours of boredom, that show the cards. If I couldn't see cards I'd be lost.

Tells are not even close to being cheating.

I think it's a very fine line to start defining ANYTHING in poker as cheating. Generally, I would say that if you don't like the way the other players are playing, don't sit down (or if you are sitting down, get up). But don't layer any morality on it. Those players are trying to take your money, same as you are trying to take theirs.

See my response on poker above. Same in bridge for me. See em all the time.

Although I don't need to.

Annie Duke and Howard Lederer have made the point that sunglasses (masks, hoods, hats, etc.) should be banned at the table.

What if they're reckless with them, holding them while leaning back rather then leaving them on the table?

Thats essentially what they're doing by wearing sunglasses that reflect light in this manner. Their own ignorance is not an excuse.

FYP. Somehow, though, it now seems broken.

Protecting your cards is an obvious part of the game, this in every cards game, not being able of doing so is not other players' problem.
On the second issue: I see no difference than any other body tells.

No to both. Both are mistakes made by opponents. Taking advantage of mistakes made by your opponent whether intentional or not is not cheating. How you feel about using information gained in these ways is a personal moral issue that you must deal with in your own way. How you feel about using this type of information speaks volumes of your character. Personally I would use the information I obtained in this manner but would tell my opponent that I could see his cards in his glasses after the hand was over. The vein thing is another issue. This type of information is not 100% reliable and might even be used as misinformation by my oponent. It is an indication of what my opponent might have but does not precisely define his hand. I keep the vein thing to myself.

leaponthis

Poker should be a honest game and if someone is flashing his cards or if you can see his cards you should point that out to him. Its allot more fun that way

This is exactly what I was thinking while veiwing this thread. It's up to the player to protect his own hand.

The player with parkinson's, this is another realm entirely different, looking at this players cards would be chicken****, IMO.
These gentlemen usually come into the game for the social aspect, and are generally contributers. They play because it may be one of the things they truly enjoy in life, that they can still do, and keeps them young.
Anybody, that has spent hours upon hours in a cardroom has faced this dilemma before.
How they handled it, says alot about their character and integrity.
This is the Gentlemans aspect of the game one of the other posters mentioned.


Now, if someone of sound mind and body, is sitting next to me and flashes their cards accidently.
The first time I will tell them politely and discretely, after that, they are just flashed cards, that a player who is paying atttention can use as information in the decision making processes.
Would I try to get a seat change next to this player, I doubt it. But, it would depend on many other factors. ( like is he a maniac, a prick, etc. )


-1

Would I actively seek out a BJ dealer who sometimes flashed their holecard, YES.

Does the casino see this as cheating, YES.


-1

In this respect I would like David's opinion on a weird European poker rule:
you can lie as much as you like about your cards but if you disclose them (ie you have got aces and you declare it before somebody's else action) the hand is invalid.

Yes, those are also OK assuming the player's mental capacity is sane enough to be aware of these things. If I were an opponent who saw you move to seat 3, I might tell the guy about the card exposure. Even with Parkinson's he should be able to make some sort of adjustment if he wants to.

The cutoff point for cheating vs. not cheating is deliberately moving your head to a place outside what can be considered your space, or using any sort of device that you yourself bring or put into a certain position for the purpose of seeing someone's cards.

Definitely not cheating if someone allows you to see their cards. IMO, once the player gets the cards, it's his (or her) responsibility to keep other players from seeing them. If they're carelessly exposed through dealing, that's different, and you should probably make the table aware that the cards were exposed as you gained an unfair advantage.

As for the Parkinson's case, it's still not cheating. Covering cards is a part of the game that he's not proficient at, just like making reads based on physical tells might be tough for a blind man. I personally wouldn't try to look at his cards out of empathy for his situation, but if I accidentally glimpsed them, I'd use the information, and if someone was discovered to have won a pot by looking at them intentionally, it would be his to keep since he did not violate the rules.

It would be cheating if one for some reason had the obligation to tell him about it, which as far as I know is not the case.

One could argue about unwritten rules or gentlemen behavior, but something like that doesn't exist in the world of gamblers and hustlers anymore. It's all about money and everything not expressively forbidden is allowed. It is the player's responsibility to protect his hand.

Doesn't intent matter? If I turn them up while they're ordering a drink, I've cheated. If they carelessly expose them to me, how have I cheated?

Can't see how it's cheating (for reasons already stated by andyfox).

A case can be made that it might be unethical or at least against the spirit of the game, neither of which makes it cheating.

Good post.

If you're born with x-ray vision, is it any different than being born with ESP? You have a physical abnormality that is an advantage. It would be like having a photographic memory in the days when they used to deal blackjack from one deck and deal down to the end.

I'm not sure about having an operation that allows you to have x-ray vision. That's why I think your post is a good one, I've got to think some more about where the line is drawn.

What about a player with ESP?

This statement would justify every angle shot there is.

Shandrax, I am not coming at you personally with this. And in no way am I implying that you are an angle shooter.

If you can see the mans cards through his glasses, that's his tough luck. That player is not protecting his hand.

A player who has a physical impairment, well, it seems a little different to me. I have personally tried to look away when this situation has come up. ( he was a sweet old man, falling off his death bed, to come to the card room to play )

There has to be some sort of honour among theives?


-1

Fully agree with this statement.


And as Andy Fox said, "intent" is the key.


-1

It's cheating to look at someone's cards; it's cheating
not to warn them if they're exposing them to you. If
you try it in one of my poker games your name will be
mud, and decent folk the world over will shun you.

Picking up on physical tells isn't cheating, although
in my opinion poker would be a purer and more interesting
game without them. (Which means I think Annie Duke and whoever it was have it backwards: hoods and sunglasses are
the way to go. I'd play from inside a one-way mirrored
box if the poker rooms allowed it.)

Looking at the definition of 'cheating' would help.

For example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheating

'Cheating' is being confused with ethics and causing a communication problem here.

The key to these is what your opponent can reasonably believe.

He can reasonably believe the cards are not marked, there is no hidden camera watching his cards, and that no one has x-ray vision. He is therefore not responsible to protect against those things.

He can't reasonably believe that his chair is flat when it is leaning forward, nor can he reasonably believe no one is watching him from above when there he is right there. He is therefore responsible to protect against those things.

Any more scenarios?

I don't think there are any differences between all of the examples except the amount of effort required and the amount of "cheating intent" involved. Some are more despicable than others, but all of them are still a form of cheating.

If I expose my hand accidently and they take advantage of it I would definitely be much angrier with myself than them., but he still cheated. Though unless he planned it intentionally I don't see a reason for him to be punished. I don't think all forms of cheating are a big deal.