WPT Championship at Bellagio - Are there rules for crowd engagement?

[The_Flopologist]

I was very excited to watch the final table of the WPT championship lastnight on the Travel Channel. I subscribe to one of the major poker publications, so I already knew the outcome. But that's not why I watch poker. I watch poker on tv see great players make great plays. I also watch poker to see no-name amateurs live out the dreams I'm sure every amateur plays in his mind at some point... re-raising Ivey or Hellmuth all-in with rags and watching him fold. Or toasting a glass of beer with Sexton as he announces you the latest WPT champ. Ok, back to reality. It's also refreshing to see other guys taking bad beats even, at the highest levels of play. If you're anything like me, it makes you feel better as you recall the bad beats you've taken in the past by some schmuck who has decided to call you to the river. But I'm not here to talk about bad beats, I'm here to pose a question with regard to something I noticed in last night's coverage. There were several times in the course of the 3 hour broadcast where the Englishman Paul Maxfield would walk over to the audience stands and have discussions with noted poker pro Marcel Luske during all-in races. Sometimes you could hear what they were saying, other times you couldn't. My question is this: Is that, and should that kind of interaction with players not at the table be allowed? Now, I'm by no means suggesting Luske, being the respectable pro he is, would offer up any "inside" information to Maxfield during play. But, what if he did? What if he slipped in a little "psssst, watch for a bluff when re-raises you quickly, I've noticed it several times, ok good luck!" This question came to me as I sat there wondering what the two were saying to each other. I'd like to know what other people think about this.

[lonn19]

What kind of inside info could he provide? I don't believe the audience sees the hole cards like we do at home.

[The_Flopologist]

No, he can't see hole cards, but he sees the end result all hands. He can put a read on a player from the rail, and tip someone off on a tell. It would be no different than me watching a live tournament on tv, catching a tell, calling up my buddy who is playing, leaving a message on his cell, "yo dude, he's bluffing when he does x." I know that scenario is a bit far-fetched, but you get the point yeah?

[lonn19]

Yea, I see what you're saying. Though I don't know if I would call it "insider" info, since he would be using information available to all the players. Plus i don't know how easy it is to spot a tell from the rail. Anyway, it is an interesting question. If it does happen, I'm really not sure whether it should be legal or illegal.

[sirtimo]

"one player per hand" applies of course......

But if you notice, Maxfield didn't go over to the crowd and chat with Luske, or his brother, or anyone, until after he had already taken action (pushed or called all in) and was waiting for cards to turn.

[The_Flopologist]

Yeah, maybe "inside" information isn't the right term. Some guys pick up on tells other guys completely miss. You just never know. I actually noticed that whenever Tuan Le bluffs on a re-raise (which he does ALOT), he's indecisive about the amount. It's quick though, and subtle, but I noticed it on tv. He'll go for some chips off of different stacks, change his mind, then finally come up with the amount. When he's got a hand, he knows exactly how much he wants to bet and he slides the stack out there, all in one motion.

[The_Flopologist]

True, but assuming he wins the race, if Luske gives him information on a tell, he's armed for the next hand(s).

[Bulldog]

It's one player to a hand, not one player to a tournament. Think of it like the speaker in a QB's helmet. The coach can give him advice in-between plays, but that speaker gets clicked off when the play clock hits 15 and stays off until the play ends--no advice during the play.

[Nottom]

Varkoni did the same thing with his "poker coach" when they showed him during the 2003 series.

[The_Flopologist]

My question is, is this fair? Can't a coach pick up on a tell that maybe his player hasn't??

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is, is this fair? Can't a coach pick up on a tell that maybe his player hasn't??

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this as much different from taking poker lessons or reading a book. You don't have to come up with your strategy on your own. But because it happens during the tournament I suppose it is a little bit different. It may be in bad taste but should not be illegal. The player still must put the advice into action without assistance and that's what really matters. Discussion while there is still action in the hand is totally different.

[The_Flopologist]

If I'm all in, and while I'm waiting to see if my pocket 6s hold up, my coach tells me "he's bluffed you 6 times when he's bet x amount, or when he's put his chin in his hand," and I survive that race situation, I'm armed with new information that I didn't have before, and that I apparently didn't pick up on before. I don't see how it's fair to talk to a coach during play, whether it's during a hand that I have no control over or not. Let's put it this way. If you and I were playing heads up for over $1 million, how would you feel if I kept running over to Daniel Negreanu for advice between all-in situations? In the case of Paul Maxfield, he's an amateur with very little experience at short-handed final table play compared to Tuan Le and Hasan Habib. To add to that, Luske may have a better database of info on these other pros from past play, information that could be useful to Maxfield. All the more reason why this would bother me ALOT. Hell, I get mad when I'm playing a home game, I put some chump all-in, and the other guys egg him on to call. Whatever Luske is saying to him, he could be influenced to change his strategy or play based on that information. With that kind of money on the line in these big tournaments, I don't see how this is appropriate.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm all in, and while I'm waiting to see if my pocket 6s hold up, my coach tells me "he's bluffed you 6 times when he's bet x amount, or when he's put his chin in his hand," and I survive that race situation, I'm armed with new information that I didn't have before, and that I apparently didn't pick up on before. I don't see how it's fair to talk to a coach during play, whether it's during a hand that I have no control over or not. Let's put it this way. If you and I were playing heads up for over $1 million, how would you feel if I kept running over to Daniel Negreanu for advice between all-in situations? In the case of Paul Maxfield, he's an amateur with very little experience at short-handed final table play compared to Tuan Le and Hasan Habib. To add to that, Luske may have a better database of info on these other pros from past play, information that could be useful to Maxfield. All the more reason why this would bother me ALOT. Hell, I get mad when I'm playing a home game, I put some chump all-in, and the other guys egg him on to call. Whatever Luske is saying to him, he could be influenced to change his strategy or play based on that information. With that kind of money on the line in these big tournaments, I don't see how this is appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't think I would mind much at all. What's he going to do, tell you exactly how to play every possible hand in the next two minutes? If you don't already know, there's not much he can do to help you. You're more likely to mis-apply what he tells you than to actually benefit from his advice. (When I say "you" I mean the hypothetical you in your proposed scenario, nothing personal).

If Maxfield and Luske are buddies, do you really think they hadn't already talked about these very same pros who were going to be at the final table with him the night before? It's not like they sequester the players between days or on dinner breaks. This information is not a secret. The only advantage he's getting is the advice can be more specific once it's heads up, but all the advice in the world isn't going to substitute for the experience he lacks.

I don't think your example of the other players egging someone on to call an all-in is applicable to this discussion at all. That is occurring during a hand while an actual decision is being made.

[The_Flopologist]

I just think that's alot of money for an amateur to be talking to a pro during a final table. It's one thing to have pros talking to pros, but some guy who won a $1000 satellite and is trying to take my hard-earned $25,000 buy-in plus another $1.x million? I dunno man, I have a bit of an issue with it. Tuan Le even said he'd rather play heads-up against Maxfield than anyone else at that table. Why? Because he felt he was the "weak one" out of the 6. Based on Maxfield's play, I totally agree. Anything to make him stronger (advice from a pro on the sidelines) doesn't help Le or the other guys at all.

Pros are also good at mixing up play based on the situation. Sure, Luske could have given him a pre-game scouting report, but if he sees something change, notices something Maxfield didn't, it's information. It's like you have two minds gathering information instead of one. What's next? Team poker? One guy on the table, the other guy in the stands giving him strategy and advice? What's wrong with a simple rule. No conversing with audience members during the final table. If what Maxfield was doing is of very little consequence, as some of you have stated, then it shouldn' bother anyone to implement this rule, right? It's not like it's hurting Maxfield to not be able to talk to Luske between hands, if Luske isn't helping him, right?

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think that's alot of money for an amateur to be talking to a pro during a final table. It's one thing to have pros talking to pros, but some guy who won a $1000 satellite and is trying to take my hard-earned $25,000 buy-in plus another $1.x million? I dunno man, I have a bit of an issue with it. Tuan Le even said he'd rather play heads-up against Maxfield than anyone else at that table. Why? Because he felt he was the "weak one" out of the 6. Based on Maxfield's play, I totally agree. Anything to make him stronger (advice from a pro on the sidelines) doesn't help Le or the other guys at all.

Pros are also good at mixing up play based on the situation. Sure, Luske could have given him a pre-game scouting report, but if he sees something change, notices something Maxfield didn't, it's information. It's like you have two minds gathering information instead of one. What's next? Team poker? One guy on the table, the other guy in the stands giving him strategy and advice? What's wrong with a simple rule. No conversing with audience members during the final table. If what Maxfield was doing is of very little consequence, as some of you have stated, then it shouldn' bother anyone to implement this rule, right? It's not like it's hurting Maxfield to not be able to talk to Luske between hands, if Luske isn't helping him, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well clearly you think there should be a rule. I don't. I don't think your last post has added to the weight of your side. Specifically:

[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to have pros talking to pros

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you would suggest we have rules that differentiate players based upon their professional status or skill level. If you were going to you'd be arguing the wrong side anyway. Handicapping works against the better players, not for them.

[ QUOTE ]
Tuan Le even said he'd rather play heads-up against Maxfield than anyone else at that table. Why? Because he felt he was the "weak one" out of the 6. Based on Maxfield's play, I totally agree. Anything to make him stronger (advice from a pro on the sidelines) doesn't help Le or the other guys at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how this applies either. Tuan is free to talk to people in the audience as well. Just because it might not help him as much doesn't make any difference. In fact you could argue the advice would help him a lot more since he'd actually know how to use it. Rules aren't intended to make everyone equal, just to give everyone the same opportunity. If they were, once again you'd be handicapping Tuan, not the other way around.

[ QUOTE ]
If what Maxfield was doing is of very little consequence, as some of you have stated, then it shouldn' bother anyone to implement this rule, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things:

1) You shouldn't mind government cameras in your bedroom and wearing a GPS transmitter on your ankle. You're fine as long as you aren't doing anything wrong, right?

2) It also wouldn't be a big deal to say no one can wear red shirts. That wouldn't make it a good rule.

[The_Flopologist]

All you've done is counter why I believe there should be a rule. If you disagree, explain to us how having this rule hurts anyone/the game of poker at a final table event? Your counter arguments are good, but carry very little weight if you can't support your own stance.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
All you've done is counter why I believe there should be a rule. If you disagree, explain to us how having this rule hurts anyone/the game of poker at a final table event? Your counter arguments are good, but carry very little weight if you can't support your own stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was exactly my point.

[The_Flopologist]

Ok great, so explain to us why you disagree with a "no talk" rule?

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok great, so explain to us why you disagree with a "no talk" rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already done that in posts above (my first one actually). A rule simply isn't needed in my opinion. I think your opinion is fine, but I don't think you made a strong enough case for adding a rule. Everything since then has just been explaining why you haven't convinced me. Your post I took issue with didn't really add anything to your initial stance. I only replied to it because I felt your new reasons, unlike where you started out, were really bad and largely invalid.

I don't have any further support for my stance either - those are just my principles, but I'm not claiming a bunch of other stuff that really doesn't support me. I think there should be as few rules as possible and in this case both players already have access to the same information so no rule is needed. Hey, I don't *like* it either, but I don't like a lot of things my opponents sometimes do - as I said in my initial post, it may be in bad taste but should not be illegal. That's it.

Please remember from your initial post:

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know what other people think about this.

[/ QUOTE ]


edit: apologies, overly catty