Online Poker Etiquette Questions

[SavagePenguin]

1) Is someone is sitting out, they are your chips. It goes both ways. If you have a problem and are sitting out, they get to steal from you. No biggie.

2) When a shorty is all-in, the silent agreement to limp/check to eliminate him is only in effect when eliminating the person is more meaningful than getting chips. If there's 100 players left in a 180 player S&G, and someone puts his last $200 in, I raise with a good hand because I'm miles from the bubble and building a big pot with my big hand is more important than some insignificant knockout.
However, if we're on the bubble in a Double-or-Northing game and a shorty shoves, gets two callers, and I wake up with vowels, I'm checking it down. Chances are those first two callers were only doing it to team up to knock the dude out, and we have a better chance of doing that by teaming up. And at that point, me getting chips doesn't matter.

3) You are not allowed to tell people what you had in a tournament. Lie or don't tell.
Sometimes I'll say something like, "I probably had you beat," whether I did or not.

Or if there's anything else that people normally do in online games (or even live games) that make you angry simply because it's rude, say so.

I hate it when people tap the fish tank in ring games.
Making fun or taunting a bad player only causes them to tighten up or leave. Why scare off the easy money?

 

[GCB]

I've got a question for you, tho. Suppose you're a pro at the $400 NLHE table in Vegas. Your opponent is down to his last bet and, if he loses, you can be sure he's going to walk into the desert and blow his brains out. Do you still try to take his money?

Retouraupasse

If you let him win you are just prolonging the inevitable, because he has bigger problems than losing at poker. Actually, the fact that you know he had these problems puts you in a position to actually help the guy, and that is a blessing.

To me, a better way to help him would be to take his money, then when he leaves the game follow him and ask him if I can buy him a cup of coffee or lunch. Then I'd just talk to the guy and try to let him know that life is worth living and try to get him some help.

The ethics of poker are unique and seem Machiavellian, and they are. But they DO NOT preclude postponing poker for more important things.

 

[clubsta]

If you let him win you are just prolonging the inevitable, because he has bigger problems than losing at poker.

That's pretty much exactly what I thought. If he was going to kill himself in that situation, he'd probably end up off-ing himself in another situation. So I should keep my hard earned money and perhaps use some of it to get him some help that he probably wouldn't have gotten himself. Make sense?

 

[Poker Orifice]

Sometimes I get angry when I get it in with the best of it (by a longshot) and villain makes the call & sucks out on me, lol... even though this should actually in fact make me very happy. Thing is.. I play mostly tournaments (actually... alot of them).
I also sometimes get angry when villain insists the call is 'good'... even though it's blatantly obvious that it's 'bad'.... but I want it to be 'bad'.. so why get upset? I'm not there to teach them how to play (but if they watched... they may learn something.... even if it's learning how they don't want to particularly play similiarly to the way I do, LOL,... I don't want them all getting it with the best of it do I? ).
Emotions are by far my biggest leak though... but usually ('usually'... ie. most of the time) don't let it negatively affect my play... unless of course I've already been KO'd.... .then it's ok to be p o'd... for a couple minutes anyways... LOL.
Is it okay to call them a fish or a donk?.. absolutely not. I don't want them to get to be a better player do I?? (<<<< one of the worst things one could do on a table imo).

As far as your questions here go.... they are all pretty much situational. ie... #2.. this is VERY situational. You'd have to give the table situation to be able to give a decent answer to this.. (ie. sometimes it'd be the correct play to shove over in hopes of picking up a sidepot &/or just getting the other guy out of the hand... & if the one SS is very short who's allin.... if you are the chipleader you might even want that guy still on the table... so you can continue to exploit the situation by pounding on the blinds of the med.-sized stacks). In other spots it could be a TERRIBLE play to make..... my 'guess' is... either villain doesn't realize what is a good play... OR.. he does and the shove over was terrible. Either way.. he shouldn't let you know about it...but am guessing you doubled/tripled up the shortstack which negatively impacted his game.

#3... that's your choice. Most players lie about it anyways.... might be a good oppurtunity to do so. Sometimes I will say.. "Nice fold"... to make villain feel good about their play. People don't seem to mind losing money to you when they like you. In other spots... I will lie and say I had 72o, attempting to tilt villain... especially if I think it'd be to my advantage to do so depending upon who they are, what the situation/table/tourney dynamics are, and how they play.

GL on the tables!!

None of your statements seem like 'bad poker etiquette' to me... .perhaps 'bad play'.. .but not bad etiquette. For someone to complain about not partaking in implicit collusion (ie. checking down to KO shortstack)... this would be poor etiquette (although in many spots it is considered the thing to do... and 'is' the thing to do... but of course it's poker... .so it always 'depends', lol).