Simply to acknowledge that you are applying a very narrow definition to the term “ethics,” and there are others who are at least as capable of defining the word as you, especially as it applies to a game and profession you know little about.
That was lovely. 
Do you do haiku as well?
That’s nice. Not especially a qualifier for deciding what is and is not a “serious” profession, however.
Sorry, I still don’t see it. I get the link and here are some of the relevant portions:
Saying I have a pair when I don’t, when asked, is not the same as calling or declaring my hand.
This is probably the most relevant passage. Hoever, I still don’t think it pertains to lying about you hand when both sides, ambiguous talk, honest or not goes on all the time. IMHO, what this clearly is meant to be about are situations where one player discusses his hand with another who may not be in the hand. “I have a pair 8s, what should I do here, you’re not involved?” or “Hey, let’s all of us agree to check down against the all-in short stack.”
I think there is certainly an amount of discretion involved. If some guy is taking his time and hounding me and hounding me saying over and over “You got a pair? Huh, I think you got a pair? I wonder…” and I just say to him “You want to know if I have a pair? Yes.” That shouldn’t be a penalty in my opinion.
This is the same rule that Stamos mentioned.
It’s a fine line, as we can see, there are examples of all sorts of ambiguous behaviour and it is up to the TD to decide I guess.
As I said, it’s a fine line. Personally, I try not to get involved. Of course you’re going to run up against people who will push the limit no matter what. Ignoring them is part of the game. Doesn’t make it right, just means it still happens and no one taught that asshole table manners. Doubtless someone will eventually, and it probably won’t be pleasant.
It’s discussing the hand. And since they want to leave play as loose as possible and not interrupt the flow of the game, it’s left up to the official’s opinion.
Yup, pretty much. As you mentioned earlier, home games and professional tournaments and table games in casinos are all different animals, and what’s accepted at one may not be at another. If I’m playing with my friends, there’s a comfort zone that isn’t there anywhere else because we’ve been playing together a long time. If I’m at a table, it’s usually with people I don’t know, and I don’t know how they’ll react. Easier to just observe the rules that risk getting my ass bounced because I bent a rule they’re sensitive about. And yes, they certainly could have me ousted from the table. Tournaments: I’ve only ever played two. But I’ve seen some of the most easy going players call rules violations and being blinded off for ten minutes sucks your stack without you having any voice in the hand. Pass.
Yes, I am. Acknowledged earlier, along with the prerogatives of others to view the term more expansively. So what?
Even if true (and not conceded), irrelevant. Poker is not a complicated enough game (and I’m disinclined to call it a “profession”) that it requires a great deal of analysis to determine if it qualifies as an ethics-bound activity.
I don’t recognize that a qualifier is required, but now I’m curious what qualifiers you feel would be necessary to validate my opinion, if such validation was needed.
Whether or not you’re inclined to call it a profession is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is, many people make their living exclusively by playing poker. That is a profession. As for whether or not it qualifies as an ethics bound activity; cites have been provided. Your accepting them or not doesn’t disqualify them. But I find it vastly amusing that you state ethics applies to professional businesses, and are written, and when both the fact that there are written rules regarding ethical poker and the existence of poker as a business and proffession are presented to you, you simply abandon even that pretense. Your prejudices are showing.
A few cites to refute mine would be good.
This is especially rich.
You claim that he bears the burden of proving that poker is a game of ethics. Fair enough. If someone makes a claim, then there is a certain burden on that person to demonstrate that the claim has merit.
Yet you apparently, in your mind, bear no similar burden in justifying your use of the term ethics in a way that is completely divorced from the reality of the term’s everyday use. You concede that you define the term narrowly and arbitrarily, and yet at the same time expect your iconoclastic definition to act as the benchmark by which the OP’s claim is judged.
The OP (and others making similar arguments) has only failed to prove that poker is a game with an ethical dimension if we accept your narrow and parochial view of what constitutes ethics. It seems to me that the burden of proof now rests with you, to show why it is that everyone else must conform to your definition of the term, rather than using the definition accepted in official lexicons and in common usage.
Poker a profession? Not based on this set of criteria. For those who make a living from it, it is employment or a job, but can’t really be described as a profession.
Hm. Wiki states:
check. If you make poker your profession without those things, you’re soon out of work.
check.
check.
Whoops! Aside from licensed poker instructors, to my knowledge there is no certification to play poker. So, based on the fact that you don’t need a peice of paper to say you’re a licensed card player, I will agree that poker does not fall under “profession” as defined by Wiki. I still consider it a profession, however.
Crap. Hit submit too soon.
However. Baseball is considered a profession. So’s basketball, and most professional sports. They don’t require certification. Would you say it’s due to the large sums of money involved? The winner of this year’s WSOP netted something in the neighborhood of $3.5M. I’d call that a fairly respectable neighborhood.
Actually, this is one area where i tend to agree with Brian.
If we are using the term profession in a sociological sense—defined by criteria such as formal mastery of a defined body of specialized knowledge, well-defined qualifications, ability to determine the requirements of entry to the field, and the ability to restrict access—then it seems clear to me that poker doesn’t really qualify.
After all, anyone willing to risk some money can call him or herself a poker player, and can sit down in a poker tournament or at a table. The same cannot be said of, say, a doctor or a university professor or a lawyer.
There is a large literature in sociology on what constitutes a profession, and on the rise of the professions in modern society, and this tends to adopt a rather more specific definition than you do. While we in society often call someone a “professional” at something if they make money doing it (e.g., professional poker player, professional football player, professional cleaner), this does not make these occupations professions in the stroicter sociological sense.
Personally, as i’ve made clear, i think Brian’s problem lies not in a too-broad definition of poker, but in a too-narrow definition of ethics.
Actually, in sociological terms, they are not. As the Wikipedia article correctly notes:
I’ll take a brief stab at this straw man: No one is suggesting you advocate the bad behaviour, only that you refuse to admit the word “ethics” applies where there are issues of bad and good behaviour - especially considering the grey area where they rub against each other.
You’ve agreed that some behaviour can be “bad” without actually being called “cheating” You make a correct case that there are degrees of bad ranging from mildly irritating, through unsportsmanlike, on to evil incarnate. You correctly assert there is no poker organization analogous to “the bar” for lawyers or “The College of Physicians and Surgeons” each of which spell out codifed ethical conduct - which codes supplement the Law. You make an arguable case that the word “ethics” can be considered too fancy talk for something as base as poker.
If a behaviour violates a rule (law, statute, player’s handbook) there is no argument: it’s bad. Where a behaviour is “legal” but still offensive - that’s the stuff of ethics.
One who chooses to act in that grey area risks behaving unethically. While one would not stand up in a poker game and use that word, that does not mean the word does not apply. It is equally out of place to say, “Sir, I wouldst prefer thou conduct thineself elsewise.” Hi-falootin’? Yes. Inaccurate? No.
Now, take a deep breath and say, “Shit, yeah! My stubborness has prevented me from saying it thus far, but no longer. I’ll exhibit fine sportsmanship and agree that “ethics” is indeed the right word to apply, even in the game of poker.”
You know you want to.
If not, there’s the wall. It’s free for your use as I’ll not be banging my head on it further.
Need at least one cite…
Does the CCES use the word “ethics” correctly?
Well… of course. As soon as I acknowledged that my distinction between “sportsmanship” and “ethics” was arbitrary, and that I was choosing to put poker in the first but not the second, it should have been obvious that I was working from a personal opinion, which is affected by personal bias, or prejudice if you prefer.
What I asked was, what qualifications do you think I would need in order to offer a validated opinion. I don’t see how digging up the opinions of others serves this purpose.
I’m all about the overwhelming intensity of the experience, dude.
Fair enough. The game is ethical as he defines the term. It’s not ethical as I define the term. I’ve given my reasons repeatedly. Accept them or don’t accept them; your choice.
But I’m not claiming that everyone else must conform. I’ve acknowledged that as far back as post 35 when I said that I and another poster “simply disagree”. Of course I followed it up with arguments why my side of the disagreement had more merit.
I acknowledge that this looks like a honest good faith attempt to meet on common ground, even if I don’t fully agree with it. Ethics does come into play when there are issues of bad and good within an ethical framework; it’s just not a word I would apply to poker when there are better, more accurate words available.
For a moment, I seriously considered giving in as you describe, as a matter of politeness and etiquette, on the basis that my presence in this thread has derailed it away from people who would prefer simply to tell amusing anecdotes about boneheaded poker plays they have observed. However, such an admission would be dishonest, as it does not reflect my true feelings.
That said, I appreciate your honest attempt to note the validity of at least some of my position, and since further discussion would simply grind away at issues already reduced to powder, I’ll no longer discuss the matter of poker ethics in this thread, considering the matter fought to a draw. If the thread continues and anecdotes are told, I would like to be able to politely ask technical questions regarding anything that might be unclear.
Thank you.
No need to lie…Everybody has “A Pair”! 
Thanks for the re-cap, Otto…I totally concur with you on that one.
Was this the same hand when she went to the railbirds for some advice mid-hand and got called out on it by Sheikhan? I was rooting for her until she pulled that stupid stunt, and I don’t blame Sheikhan for calling the clock on her for that bit of drama. The other time was a little over the top and a poor retaliatory move on Sheikhan’s part though.
Yeah, she got up out of her seat and started to walk toward the crowd. She didn’t ever actually talk to any of them because she got called on it before she could. She was being incredibly annoying, I admit. But so was Sheikhan. That’s why I was glad for both the final two, they seemd to be good natured and enjoying themselves. Then again, I guess when you are going to win a minimum of $4.25 million you wold be smiling a lot too.
No, it was a totally different hand, it was between Sheikhan and Mike Matusow. They apparently have a history. But then, Mike Matusow has a history with just about everyone. He says being sent to jail was a wake up call and he’s changed his ways, but from what I can see he’s still the same old Mouth.
I don’t blame Sheikhan for calling a clock on that woman either (can’t remember her name, I think I’ve blocked it out); it wasn’t that huge a decision and she was slow playing it for all it was worth.
So if we ask one of the girls on Thursday if they’ve got a pair will they mime dropping their pants in response? (Note: I am not advocating this response. They’re all too old for me anyway.) And does this response only work because we have to normally assume testicles as being the only “pair”?
A poker player who earns his living at playing poker is a professional gambler. Professional gambler is recognized by the IRS as a legitimate business.
More Here that indicates that the IRS is active in uncovering recreational gamblers trying to get by as professional gamblers.
If the IRS is willing to make such distinctions between professional and recreational gamblers, I think that professional poker players are a distinct category from
as put forth by mhendo. They may be playing for money, but, by the definition of the IRS, they are not professionals.
Tiffany Williamson was the name of the woman who slow played the hand in the WSOP FWIW.
Well, she got up and walked away from the table, but as noted she didn’t speak to anyone. I don’t know if there’s some rule about approaching the rail while in a hand. If so, then she did wrong. If not, then as long as she didn’t speak to anyone I don’t have a problem with her wandering around. It’s a drama queen move but unless it’s specifically against the rules, I don’t care. I don’t have any problem with a clock being called on her either at that point. She’d been thinking it over for several minutes (and based on her chatter she was basing her decision largely on the fact that she’d doubled up with the same hand the day before, which if true is wicked stupid). Where Sheikhan was an ass was when Raymer went all in a little later and Sheikhan called for the clock almost literally the second that action was on her.
Right, I gave her name. She didn’t slow play the hand. Slow playing means playing a big hand passively to disguise its strength. She was just thinking a long time (AKA “in the tank”).