This is the most challenging one so far IMO, but I would say the opponent can reasonably believe no one has ESP, so it would be cheating to use it. Same goes for X-ray vision, marked cards, or a hidden camera.

I'm surprised the ESP issue hasn't come up more often in the framework of poker. Poker would seem like an ideal medium to prove its existence, if it really does exist that is.

Many casual players playing online have a belief that their opposition doesn't have pokertracker and PAHUD running and has access to all that information instantly. Now while I don't think this is cheating whatsoever, most newer players have a belief that this isn't going on or if it is that sites somehow prohibit this. There is no way their belief is unreasonable. So are they being cheated?

So If I believe ESP is real (lol) and some player is reading my mind at the table I'm not being cheated?

I said it depends on what he can reasonably believe which in this case is that there is no ESP. I didn't say it depends on what he actually does believe. That's another matter altogether.

Good question. This one can probably be argued both ways, but I'd agree that this is not cheating. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that no one uses high-powered analysis software. Unlike x-ray vision or ESP, it's pretty easy to prove that such software exists and is easily accessible.

Yes to all.

I think if it happens the once then it's forgivable.
If on the other hand this guy is doing it regulaly then you should let him know.

I was playing A-5with some friends on Friday. I Jokingly asked the guy to my left to show me his cards and to my amazement he obliged. Now admitedly I only saw one card and I was staying pat with the nuts so it made no diffenece to me anyhow. Would you consider that cheating?

Woah. You're changing your stance here or I didn't understand you correctly. It's foolhardy for them to believe that it isn't possible or never goes on, but they have a VERY reasonable expectation (given their knowledge) that this isn't going on in the game they are playing.

If you are playing with one of these people and you are using PT/PA, AND if he would leave the game if he knew about it. Are you cheating based on your stance? I don't see how you can say "it depends here" it has to be either yes or no.

And I think that it's pretty easy to prove that players (and dealers) are inadvertently exposing cards all the time and that part of good play is to be aware enough to notice that when it happens.

I brought up ESP to compare it with your x-ray vision. When we play, we have an expectation that nobody can see our cards unless we do something sloppy with them. If we knew that x-ray vision or ESP existed, we'd likely not play cards, or the set-up of the game would change so that those with those powers could not take advantage of them.

The issue, though, is when a player is sloppy with his cards, are we cheating by using the information gained to our advantage. I recently saw a no-limit player who would always lift his cards up of the table to the height of his eyes, look at them, then put them down. I could see, on one hand, from my point of view sweating a player on the other side of the table, that one of his cards was paint.

Were I at the table, I'd tell the player he needs to protect his cards better. But if he continues to do this and I happen to see one of his cards, am I cheating?

There's a difference between having information that is supposed to be available to you, very conveniently laid out, and having information that is not supposed to be available to you at all.

But that wasn't what he said. He said only having a reasonable assumption that it isn't going on. I agree that PA/PT is not cheating.

I still don't see why . . . in the context of a game where the whole idea is to exploit opponent's mistakes, anyone has any obligation to do anything other than exploit all available information to the highest degree possible.

Folks, this is poker -- exploitation is at the heart of it.

Actually, I got into this discussion in another forum on the topic of whether it was cheating/wrong to "fix" a sporting event. My position was/is that the sports betting handicapper has an obligation to handicap all possible outcomes, including a possible "fix."

I haven't changed my stance. I still believe it is not reasonable to expect NO ONE to use the software. Maybe the probability of someone using it at a particular game is less than 50%, or even less than 10%, although at the highest limits I'd say it could be over 50% that at least one person uses it against you in a 4-hour session, say.

This contrasts with marked cards, ESP, X-ray vision, hidden cameras etc. where it's reasonable to assume a 0% probability.

I'd say no you are not cheating. What his actual preference is is irrelevant. What matters is what he is entitled to reasonably expect. I believe he is not entitled to reasonably expect no one to use the software, seeing as it is readily available and there is no mention of it being against the rules (as far as I'm aware).

I suppose there could be an online poker room that does forbid such software and asks players to make statements saying they wont use such software on their site. In that case it would be cheating.

There was a player called "Precious", I'm sure you knew him, he used to play at Bellagio everyday, don't know where he is now. Anyway he couldn't see real well. Used to always sit in the 4 or 5 seat. He picked his cards up and held them in front of his face to see what they were. Anyone sitting in to his immediate left or right could clearly see his cards. Whenever I was sitting next to him I would tell him, "Precious I can see your cards". He would say thank you and keep on doing what he was doing.

There is a 15-30 pro playing right now at Bellagio that continuously shuffles his cards with one hand when they are dealt to him. Because he uses only one hand he raises the right edges of both cards on each shuffle. By watching his shuffle you can see his cards. There are other mid limit pros at Bellagio that are also sloppy with their card handling.

leaponthis

I believe that using both x-ray vision and esp that you did not announce to your opponents would indeed be cheating. These two hypothetical traits are things that your opponents could not possibly suspect, have themselves nor know about unless you told them. They are not information gleaned from an opponent because of some mistake like wearing reflective glasses or a facial tell that they are responsible for and for which they can make allowances. Putting backs on the cards is expected by all because of human chacteristics to create a game of imperfect information. Using x-ray vision is akin to marking cards in terms of cheating.

leaponthis

Yes, Wearing reflective glasses is a mistake. It maybe a mistake if you don't put a lead plate on your holecards to protect yourself against x-ray vision.
Maybe all victims of cheating made a mistake.

You are cheating if you intentionally use a secret mechanism against your opponent.
It doesn't matter if you use x-ray vision or if the mechanism is as trivial as reflecting glasses.

The principle is the same.

How broadly is mechanism defined? Would it include processes?

Such as working out your opponents' probably holdings from his bets? From her facial reaction? From the reactions of someone sweating her?

The reflective glasses are not worn by the player that gains the information. They are worn by the player looking at his cards and someone else gaining information about his cards. That is a correctable mistake by the person wearing the glasses. It may be personally and morally wrong not to inform the glasses wearer or to use this information but it is not cheating. In the case of x-ray vision the only one that knows abbout the x-ray vision or even the possibility of x-ray vision is the user. He is cheating if he uses his ability without making others aware of this trait. Opponents, who should not be expected to consider x-ray vision, can then demand that the game be played with lead backed cards thus keeping everything even.

leaponthis

Shouldn't this guy be not allowed to post this stuff here? Should we put him on ignore him from now unless he agrees to never do something like this again? I will probably ignore him but this is not my forum so I'm just making a point.

leaponthis

One should be aware of it if it would be possible.
The case with the glasses is a bit more likely.
But it makes no difference what degree of carelessness provides the cheating opportunity.
Intentionally using it is the point, no matter where it comes from.

Who, (whom) may I ask is Ryan Beal? Can he ban me from this forum? If so, I want to let him know that I am already banned from all other 2 + 2 forums but Sklansky doesn't care. I do not post anywhere else on 2 + 2. Their loss not mine. Well, Sklansky almost never replies to me anyway. I think he has me on ignore, like Mason Malmuth does. But that won't stop me. Give me liberty or ban me! By the way I have a nephew named Ryan....

leaponthis

David I think I was banned oh well bye!

leaponthis

this is not cheating at all. just as with rules about protecting your cards when the dealer accidentally scoops them into the muck in the middle of a hand, there are also rules with protecting your cards as far as other people seeing them, which is why no one playing hold em picks up their cards off the table (in theory)