The Ethics of a HUD: Follow-Up
In response to my recent The Poker Ethicist: HUDs post, Piefarmer left an interesting comment that got me thinking about a few more of the ethical dimensions surrounding HUDs and other technology that helps people play better poker:
Technology always pushes the boundaries, especially ethical boundaries. The primary way to think about these boundaries, I think, is the way Andrew presented them: Does everyone have the same understanding of what is allowed, and the same opportunity to use technologies which are allowed? If so, no ethical problem.
I think the conditions that he identifies are spot-on, and I want to delve a bit deeper into them. This time around I’ve got more questions than answers, so I’ll be very curious to hear your opinions on the subject.
The Right To Know
My claim is that use of any technology allowed by the rules of a casino or poker site is ethical, and that using anything disallowed is unethical. This is because, by choosing to play at a particular venue, players agree to both their host and their fellow players that they will follow the posted rules.
As piefarmer points out, this presumes that everyone understands the rules, or at least has the opportunity to do so. Exactly what obligation does this impose on a casino or poker site? Certainly the rules need to be readily available, in writing, for any player or potential player to inspect. Assuming that they are, then I would argue that choosing to play at that venue constitutes agreement to follow those rules, even if the player never actually reads them or fails to understand them correctly.
I think that there must also be a way for players to receive clarification as to the meaning of rules. At live venues, this requires readily available floor staff and properly trained dealers who can explain things clearly and accurately. As many of us know, getting a consistent answer to a question about the rules is not always a trivial matter when playing live poker, and I believe that to be a serious failing of a casino’s obligation to its players.
Is there any obligation on the part of online poker sites to affirmatively warn their players that others may be using HUDs and other technology? I’m sure there are people every day who start playing online and have no idea that such software is available or that their opponents may be using it.
It seems to me as long technology is mentioned somewhere in the Terms & Conditions, the site meets this obligation. I’m interested to hear people’s opinions on this, though. Is there anyone who would argue that sites have an obligation to be more assertive on this point? Perhaps announce to all their players, via e-mail or pop-up, whenever they add a new program to the list of approved software?
Equal Access
This is a thornier question. Is equal access to technology essential to make it ethical? What if there were some piece of poker software that somehow violated the laws of the US but were legal in most other countries. Would it be ethical for a poker site to permit the use of this technology? Would it be ethical for players to use it? What if there were some amazing software whose creator refused to share it with anyone other than a select group of his friends?
Also, is the cost of the software relevant? If there were some amazing software that was readily available for purchase and use by anyone but that cost thousands of dollars, would we still be able to say players had equal access to it?