Re: [ba-poker] Ethical guidance needed

[William Chen <wchen_8369(deleted the rest)>]

I think the main win in collaborating is having the
*option* to ask someone else what to do.  If you are
unsure, but your confederate has a strong opinion
about what to do, you probably have gained value.  

I mean hands where your confederate confirms your
opinion or when he has no idea and you go with what
you would have originally done are nice, but they
don't really add immediate value.

The second win is when your confederate notices
something on the table that you miss like a player has
been very passive, or overly aggressive or limped UTG
with a weird hand, etc.  

The third win is discussing a hand after it's played,
especially with someone else who has been observing
your table.  

I think there is a lot of room for possible
improvement in colaboration--it's even more true in
poker than in backgammon that almost everyone plays
badly.  That is even for a strong player, the equity
you are giving up vs the best play could be
substatntial.  

In backgammon the "best play" is much easier to
determine.  That is if there is a reasonable question
between two plays, their rollout result on a top
program will probably be very close (with known
weirnesses about backgames aside).  But in either
poker or backgammon if there is outright disagreement
on a move, it seems hard to improve it in a
discussion--the gains do seem to come when the person
playing has "missed something" that the other has
picked up.

Bill