Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're painting the picture with way too broad of a brush, here. Just because he had "the nuts" doesn't mean he can't go into the tank and think how he can extract the most chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He's not calling here. He has an action to take. I see nothing wrong with using a little time to give the impression that he has a tough decision to make.

If two minutes is WAY too long, then where is the acceptable cutoff? 1:45? 1:00? 30 seconds? Shove all your chips in immediately and jump out of your chair and scream "JAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!"??? Who decides exactly?

In a situation like this, where there is some question as to whether or not etiquette was breached, I trust the opinions of the third parties.

[/ QUOTE ]


Paul Phillips decides how long it takes.

Please, Paul, Poker God.. Enlighten us with how long we are allowed to take to try to induce our opponent into putting more chips into the pot.

Lord Paul?? Are you there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul is the only "known pro" commented here (who wasn't involved in the hand) because he's the only one at the moment who has the inclination to discuss the rules, both written and implied, at length, as well as take his time to visit this internet message board. I obviously don't know if they would have posted on this particular issue, but more than one "known pro" has been driven away, and the board is lesser for it.

I hesitate to say that we should treat "known pros" and other figures of interest with more respect than any poster, since that argument has been shot down in the past and I don't neccesarily believe it. However, if you are going to be disrespectful, at least address his point.

This argument hurts me.

Paul is saying that obviously the act helped Simon, this is self evident. The opposing actor in question has clearly stated it induced a call (and so as not to be results oriented, it seems fairly obviously it would, on average, induce a call more often). That is not the point. Paul is saying that this is unacceptable because once some people start doing it, other will be forced to either do it or put themselves at a disadvantage, meaning eventually some idiot annoying rules will show up and I'll get the river nuts ruled dead cause I spent too much time trying to think about how much time I had taken cause I was worried about my hand being ruled dead. People respond with "BUT IT HELPED HIM!!!!!!"

I would propose that there is some reasonable amonut of time that one can wait, pretending to think, before acting. Obviously an actual decision can take more time. If you disagree, fine. Refute Paul's argument, but the one he made, not the one he didn't.

Most creatively formed insult referring to me as a Phillips defender wins a signed lithograph of my "I Love Paul Phillips" tattoo.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

The problem is, people have been doing this already!

Chan took about 1 minute counting Moneymaker's chips in Poker Superstars 2 and then his own chips, when he had A-A and knew he was going to call.

He was clearly trying to get Ted Forrest 8-8 in the hand, and that's poker!!

If a certain person starts abusing it, then there is a RULE ALREADY IN PLACE FOR THIS SITUATION!

Just put the clock on this person as soon as it is there turn to make a decision!

Paul Phillips comes on these forums acting with an all godly "Listen to me little people" attitude.. If you disagree with him, you are wrong and stupid and don't know anything about professional poker.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Look at the facts - it was a great play, he got the rest of Barrys chips.

Any other play by Simon wouldn't have got the rest of Barrys chips - forget pot odds, he would have folded.

IMHO Barry made a mistake by raising on the river. He says he only called Simons raise with his last chips to see if Simon was 'slow rolling' - a blatant misuse of the word!

To me slow-rolling means playing your cards slowly when you have the best hand and no other choice i.e. to call someone which would put you all-in.

Simon made a great play to put doubt into Barrys mind and get the last of his chips. If Barry had done this it would no doubt have been described as a masterly play by a world class player!

If anyone slow-rolls (the correct definition) then they should be ashamed of themselves. Clocks and warnings can be brought against these players to stop them doing it.

The way Simon outplayed Barry is a fine example of what we all love - real poker - reading your opponents and putting doubts into their minds over your own hand. Surely this should be encouraged? Or does everyone prefer to have imposed time limits where the artistry of poker is diminished to a pure 'best-guess in the time allowed' game...

Well done Simon and best of luck for the main event.

WardyUK

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know what actually happened? Tommy Grimes and Barny Boatman said, 'Fantastic play.' They tapped the table and said, 'Great play.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the respect, but that is not my idea of a great poker play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess you don't know great poker.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're painting the picture with way too broad of a brush, here. Just because he had "the nuts" doesn't mean he can't go into the tank and think how he can extract the most chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He's not calling here. He has an action to take. I see nothing wrong with using a little time to give the impression that he has a tough decision to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could only raise one amount, since Barry bet more than his remaining stack. There is no "decision" aspect

[/ QUOTE ]


im·pres·sion (m-prshn)
n.

1. An effect, feeling, or image retained as a consequence of experience.
2. A vague notion, remembrance, or belief: I have the impression that we have met once before.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
haha a good way to end festering ill will is definitely by publishing a scathing counter-article.

[/ QUOTE ]

i like how he calls barry an idiot a bunch of times. it'll be nice if simon can hang on to a bankroll and come to america more often. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't call Barry an idiot once, except in relating what other people said about him/the play. Hate to say it, but I'm gonna have to side with Trumper on pretty much this whole deal. Barry shoulda known better. Every single Omaha player in the world knows that a river bet with 2nd nuts that has been bet through is a risky proposition at best, and he made a thin value bet and got caught. The rest of Barry's behavior baffles me. From him, just never something I expected.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

One minute is less than two...and Barry having the second nuts and huge pot odds is a little different than having 88 in hold em and two people all in (?? - didn't see this so assuming) in front of you.

Not saying that I agree that two minutes is too long, just saying that your example doesn't really affect the argument, IMHO.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is, people have been doing this already!

Chan took about 1 minute counting Moneymaker's chips in Poker Superstars 2 and then his own chips, when he had A-A and knew he was going to call.

He was clearly trying to get Ted Forrest 8-8 in the hand, and that's poker!!

If a certain person starts abusing it, then there is a RULE ALREADY IN PLACE FOR THIS SITUATION!

Just put the clock on this person as soon as it is there turn to make a decision!

Paul Phillips comes on these forums acting with an all godly "Listen to me little people" attitude.. If you disagree with him, you are wrong and stupid and don't know anything about professional poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was sekrah. On the weekends, sekrah does stunts for Little Richard in gay movies.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
They didn't call me a jerk at all. They thought he was an idiot. Barney couldn't believe the guy called me.
"He said in your article that the reason he called was to prove to the rest of the table that I would think so long with the nut flush. Wow. That's an intelligent reason for calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, Mr. No.1 of Omaha in Europe. Barry G. is an "idiot" now? You should be barred from all U.S. tourneys.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They didn't call me a jerk at all. They thought he was an idiot. Barney couldn't believe the guy called me.
"He said in your article that the reason he called was to prove to the rest of the table that I would think so long with the nut flush. Wow. That's an intelligent reason for calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, Mr. No.1 of Omaha in Europe. Barry G. is an "idiot" now? You should be barred from all U.S. tourneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

they
pron.

1. Used to refer to the ones previously mentioned or implied.
2. Usage Problem. Used to refer to the one previously mentioned or implied, especially as a substitute for generic he: Every person has rights under the law, but they don't always know them. See Usage Note at he1.
3.
1. Used to refer to people in general.
2. Used to refer to people in general as seen in a position of authority.

Reading comprehension is a skill. Sure, someone relates other players thought of a single action after being incessantly flamed and defamed and HE shouldn't be allowed to play poker in the US.

You're a [censored] moran.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

What a [censored] wiseass. Tell me with a straight face that Trumper didn't mean Barry G. was played by him like an idiot when he said "They thought he (Barry G.) was the idiot."

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
These are the "brilliant" plays that have cut out several hands an hour since stalling became a regular tactic. As people seem to view it as "smart, tricky play" rather than the prisoner's dilemma defection that it is, we'll eventually have to lengthen the rulebook yet again. I don't think it's something to be proud of when new rules have to be introduced to deal with your brand of lameness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is a negative sum game. If we were going to do what was truly best for the group we wouldn’t play.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

i usually think you have intelligent things to say, including your characterization of bubble-stalling as prisoner's dilemma, but this is pretty dubious.

i might take 2 minutes to figure out if i wanted to bluff c/r here, so i'm well within my rights to take 2 minutes with the nuts. there's a lot of money on the line. suck it up.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're painting the picture with way too broad of a brush, here. Just because he had "the nuts" doesn't mean he can't go into the tank and think how he can extract the most chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He's not calling here. He has an action to take. I see nothing wrong with using a little time to give the impression that he has a tough decision to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could only raise one amount, since Barry bet more than his remaining stack. There is no "decision" aspect

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize that calling and raising constituted the same action. Of course there's a decision to make.

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
LOL.. PP, you must be the biggest moron on the planet.. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'd state with much more certainty, that

[ QUOTE ]
PP, your probably the only one in any of these threads that plays in these venues regularly and because of that, whose opinion may carry the most weight

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe, with all the celebrities in Poker now, maybe it should become an acting marathon. Best performance wins.

And, as someone in the other thread was clever to point out, it makes for great DRAMA for television.

Same DRAMA as going out to my backyard and watching the grass grow.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
What a [censored] wiseass. Tell me with a straight face that Trumper didn't mean Barry G. was played by him like an idiot when he said "They thought he (Barry G.) was the idiot."

[/ QUOTE ]

Simon was defending himself, and was called an idiot and worse, then we get xenophobic fukcnuts like you saying he shouldn't be allowed to play in America. I can assure you Simon has nothing but the utmost respect for BG's poker ability, and BG has readily admitted he made a big mistake.

Face comepletely straight. Now FOAD.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're painting the picture with way too broad of a brush, here. Just because he had "the nuts" doesn't mean he can't go into the tank and think how he can extract the most chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He's not calling here. He has an action to take. I see nothing wrong with using a little time to give the impression that he has a tough decision to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could only raise one amount, since Barry bet more than his remaining stack. There is no "decision" aspect

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize that calling and raising constituted the same action. Of course there's a decision to make.

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there isn't. My point was that Trumper does not have a decision to make. He has one obviously correct play. However, of course, by waiting a long amount of time, he is giving the impression of making a decision, this is the entire point of the exercise. There is the APPEARANCE of a decision to make. Different.

My previous reply was in reference to two posts, which i quoted. The 2nd quote agreed with the 1st, however they reference 2 different things. One referenced taking make to make a decision, while the 2nd agreed, but then referenced a different point (pretending to take time to make a decision). My comment applied to the 1st one, and I misread the 2nd, not realizing that it did not in fact match.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're painting the picture with way too broad of a brush, here. Just because he had "the nuts" doesn't mean he can't go into the tank and think how he can extract the most chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He's not calling here. He has an action to take. I see nothing wrong with using a little time to give the impression that he has a tough decision to make.

If two minutes is WAY too long, then where is the acceptable cutoff? 1:45? 1:00? 30 seconds? Shove all your chips in immediately and jump out of your chair and scream "JAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!"??? Who decides exactly?

In a situation like this, where there is some question as to whether or not etiquette was breached, I trust the opinions of the third parties.

[/ QUOTE ]


Paul Phillips decides how long it takes.

Please, Paul, Poker God.. Enlighten us with how long we are allowed to take to try to induce our opponent into putting more chips into the pot.

Lord Paul?? Are you there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul is the only "known pro" commented here (who wasn't involved in the hand) because he's the only one at the moment who has the inclination to discuss the rules, both written and implied, at length, as well as take his time to visit this internet message board. I obviously don't know if they would have posted on this particular issue, but more than one "known pro" has been driven away, and the board is lesser for it.

I hesitate to say that we should treat "known pros" and other figures of interest with more respect than any poster, since that argument has been shot down in the past and I don't neccesarily believe it. However, if you are going to be disrespectful, at least address his point.

This argument hurts me.

Paul is saying that obviously the act helped Simon, this is self evident. The opposing actor in question has clearly stated it induced a call (and so as not to be results oriented, it seems fairly obviously it would, on average, induce a call more often). That is not the point. Paul is saying that this is unacceptable because once some people start doing it, other will be forced to either do it or put themselves at a disadvantage, meaning eventually some idiot annoying rules will show up and I'll get the river nuts ruled dead cause I spent too much time trying to think about how much time I had taken cause I was worried about my hand being ruled dead. People respond with "BUT IT HELPED HIM!!!!!!"

I would propose that there is some reasonable amonut of time that one can wait, pretending to think, before acting. Obviously an actual decision can take more time. If you disagree, fine. Refute Paul's argument, but the one he made, not the one he didn't.

Most creatively formed insult referring to me as a Phillips defender wins a signed lithograph of my "I Love Paul Phillips" tattoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line is that no matter how much Paul knows about live tournament poker, he wasn't present when this happened. I'm not taking the word of anybody that wasn't there that either Simon or Barry were in the wrong.

I take in both sides of the story and assume that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, especially after hearing from others who were there. It's the only sensible approach. Maybe Simon took a little too long to act, maybe he didn't. Either way, I don't see the need to crucify him over a small error in judgement. Maybe Barry's uber-competitive nature got to him and he overreacted. It happens to the best of us. I don't think any less of him, either.

Two guys had a little spat. Too many people here are drawing wild conclusions. I hope none of you are journalists.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're painting the picture with way too broad of a brush, here. Just because he had "the nuts" doesn't mean he can't go into the tank and think how he can extract the most chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He's not calling here. He has an action to take. I see nothing wrong with using a little time to give the impression that he has a tough decision to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could only raise one amount, since Barry bet more than his remaining stack. There is no "decision" aspect

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize that calling and raising constituted the same action. Of course there's a decision to make.

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there isn't. My point was that Trumper does not have a decision to make. He has one obviously correct play. However, of course, by waiting a long amount of time, he is giving the impression of making a decision, this is the entire point of the exercise. There is the APPEARANCE of a decision to make. Different.

My previous reply was in reference to two posts, which i quoted. The 2nd quote agreed with the 1st, however they reference 2 different things. One referenced taking make to make a decision, while the 2nd agreed, but then referenced a different point (pretending to take time to make a decision). My comment applied to the 1st one, and I misread the 2nd, not realizing that it did not in fact match.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. As I stated originally, the "impression" of a decision.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL.. PP, you must be the biggest moron on the planet.. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'd state with much more certainty, that

[ QUOTE ]
PP, your probably the only one in any of these threads that plays in these venues regularly and because of that, whose opinion may carry the most weight

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe, with all the celebrities in Poker now, maybe it should become an acting marathon. Best performance wins.

And, as someone in the other thread was clever to point out, it makes for great DRAMA for television.

Same DRAMA as going out to my backyard and watching the grass grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't neccesarily agree with what you said, since of course a certain amount of acting is part of poker. This is really a manner of degree and "ill side effects," and in any matter of degree there will always be disagreements. However, referencing the "LOL.. PP" quote, that was when I stopped listening to what that poster said.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're painting the picture with way too broad of a brush, here. Just because he had "the nuts" doesn't mean he can't go into the tank and think how he can extract the most chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He's not calling here. He has an action to take. I see nothing wrong with using a little time to give the impression that he has a tough decision to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could only raise one amount, since Barry bet more than his remaining stack. There is no "decision" aspect

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize that calling and raising constituted the same action. Of course there's a decision to make.

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there isn't. My point was that Trumper does not have a decision to make. He has one obviously correct play. However, of course, by waiting a long amount of time, he is giving the impression of making a decision, this is the entire point of the exercise. There is the APPEARANCE of a decision to make. Different.

My previous reply was in reference to two posts, which i quoted. The 2nd quote agreed with the 1st, however they reference 2 different things. One referenced taking make to make a decision, while the 2nd agreed, but then referenced a different point (pretending to take time to make a decision). My comment applied to the 1st one, and I misread the 2nd, not realizing that it did not in fact match.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. As I stated originally, the "impression" of a decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. That was my backhanded, semi-snarky way of saying "you're right," with regards to your reply stating you said impression. The context you put it in didn't neccesarily match what you said, but obviously, context can't change that you clearly said impression, which renders my initial pointed reply totally incorrect with respect to what you said.

Even for something trivial, if I reply to somebody or paint somebody in a negative light, and then it turns out I was wrong, I will make some reasonable attempt to "retract" what I said. I'm actually trying to have a discussion, not just indulge my bicker reflex (that comment isn't directed at you , just the general 2+2/Internet community).

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Am I the only one who feels there is nothing wrong with stalling for a minute or two with the nuts to give off the illusion that you aren't sure of your hand? 10 minutes is far, far too long. 1 minute should be the maximum, or certainly near it, for this to take effect. 10 minutes is overkill.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Phillips is right.

For his correct take on the situation, I award him 5 points.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Barry was in the wrong got outplayed and then wined about it. In poker you do whatever is necassary to get more chips if waiting 2.5 minutes will get you thiose chips than it should be done. Barry should have folded is all.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who feels there is nothing wrong with stalling for a minute or two with the nuts to give off the illusion that you aren't sure of your hand? 10 minutes is far, far too long. 1 minute should be the maximum, or certainly near it, for this to take effect. 10 minutes is overkill.

[/ QUOTE ]

10 minutes is an exxageration on Barry's part. and if barry had such a problem he could have called "time"

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Barry's action is a sham to promote his book, duh!

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The problem is, people have been doing this already!

Chan took about 1 minute counting Moneymaker's chips in Poker Superstars 2 and then his own chips, when he had A-A and knew he was going to call.

He was clearly trying to get Ted Forrest 8-8 in the hand, and that's poker!!

If a certain person starts abusing it, then there is a RULE ALREADY IN PLACE FOR THIS SITUATION!

Just put the clock on this person as soon as it is there turn to make a decision!

Paul Phillips comes on these forums acting with an all godly "Listen to me little people" attitude.. If you disagree with him, you are wrong and stupid and don't know anything about professional poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was sekrah. On the weekends, sekrah does stunts for Little Richard in gay movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

As i sip the soda im sure somone spit in i realize the Silky Johnston is completly correct HATE HATE HATE

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

I know it was, I was just clarifying that I don't condone 10 minutes personally. I'm also trying to clarify if people think it's unethical to pretend you don't have a decision, or if they have a problem with him taking so long, which wasn't the case in actuality.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not the central issue. The central issue
is the "tragedy of the commons" that you alluded to
in an earlier thread, but that everyone seems to have
ignored. As you said earlier,
[ QUOTE ]
There are a great many "tragedy of the commons" type behaviors that it is understood you just don't do because (as he clearly spells out) the "defense" against them is for everyone to do them, and everyone loses big if everyone does them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the central issue. How come no one is talking
about this?

OK. I'll start.

I think there is a very delicate tradeoff here between
1) the tragedy of the commons that Paul is refering to, and
2) A players desire to win.

In the article above Simon states,
[ QUOTE ]
So, how do I get a world-class player to give me the other $11,000?

[/ QUOTE ]
He then goes on to describe in great detail exactly what
transpired at the table, including his thought processes.
[ QUOTE ]
If it was possible to trap a world-class player, would you not check into the guy and if he's dumb enough to bet into you, would you immediately say, 'I raise''?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people, I think, would answer Simon's rhetorical
question with a "No, I would not immediately say,
raise". Body language, counting out chips, facial
expressions, and yes...using time......these are all
tactics that are a part of the game.

Paul says 2 minutes is way too long to stall with the nuts.
OK.....What about a minute and a half? How about a minute?
What's the dividing line between acceptable tactics, and
risking the tragedy of the commons?

Another issue is the particular circumstances of this hand,
that is, a final of the WSOP, towards the end, between two chip leaders. In a really important event, and in a
crucial situation such as this, wouldn't it be normal to
give some leeway? I think its just for that reason that
Barry did not call for the clock....because everyone
recognizes that it is a key hand in an important event.

You want to give a player sufficient time to exercise the
full range strategic and tactical options, but without
risking a tragedy of the commons.

What are the boundaries of acceptable behavior in a situation like this?


Suerte,
Jonathan

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not the central issue. The central issue
is the "tragedy of the commons" that you alluded to
in an earlier thread, but that everyone seems to have
ignored. As you said earlier,
[ QUOTE ]
There are a great many "tragedy of the commons" type behaviors that it is understood you just don't do because (as he clearly spells out) the "defense" against them is for everyone to do them, and everyone loses big if everyone does them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the central issue. How come no one is talking
about this?

OK. I'll start.

I think there is a very delicate tradeoff here between
1) the tragedy of the commons that Paul is refering to, and
2) A players desire to win.

In the article above Simon states,
[ QUOTE ]
So, how do I get a world-class player to give me the other $11,000?

[/ QUOTE ]
He then goes on to describe in great detail exactly what
transpired at the table, including his thought processes.
[ QUOTE ]
If it was possible to trap a world-class player, would you not check into the guy and if he's dumb enough to bet into you, would you immediately say, 'I raise''?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people, I think, would answer Simon's rhetorical
question with a "No, I would not immediately say,
raise". Body language, counting out chips, facial
expressions, and yes...using time......these are all
tactics that are a part of the game.

Paul says 2 minutes is way too long to stall with the nuts.
OK.....What about a minute and a half? How about a minute?
What's the dividing line between acceptable tactics, and
risking the tragedy of the commons?

Another issue is the particular circumstances of this hand,
that is, a final of the WSOP, towards the end, between two chip leaders. In a really important event, and in a
crucial situation such as this, wouldn't it be normal to
give some leeway? I think its just for that reason that
Barry did not call for the clock....because everyone
recognizes that it is a key hand in an important event.

You want to give a player sufficient time to exercise the
full range strategic and tactical options, but without
risking a tragedy of the commons.

What are the boundaries of acceptable behavior in a situation like this?


Suerte,
Jonathan

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick Point. The reason players don't immediately call the clock on people is out of courtesy for players trying to make a tough decision. If this kind of thing goes on, what will occur is that players will have the clock called on them as soon as it is their action. Effectively there will be a one-minute time limit on all decisions.

This isn't neccesarily a bad thing, but it's a reasonable projection of what will happen.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
If this kind of thing goes on, what will occur is that players will have the clock called on them as soon as it is their action. Effectively there will be a one-minute time limit on all decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. This is the kind of impact people seem to be blind to when defending this play. Imagine what fun it would be to have to call the clock instantly on everyone all the time, just in case. I'm sure the already beleaguered floor staff would enjoy it as well.

I know we're all trying to take one another's money but is it so impossible to be decent about it?

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

So let's say you try to steal the blinds preflop with 83o and get reraised. Do you turbomuck? Do you take a few seconds to think? Do you take a few seconds so that it isn't as blazingly obvious that you had utter garbage? All of this seems reasonable to me. Yet your take on this suggests to me that you feel that it's inappropriate to ever take more time than is strictly necessary for making information. So you think people should be compelled to leak information based on where they choose to think? Really? If not, then it's a matter of degree. Much earlier in the thread I asked what you think a reasonable length of time for Trumper to spend on this move is. Do you have an amount?

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know we're all trying to take one another's money but is it so impossible to be decent about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The size of the purse and the class of player in these large online-qualifier-laced fields means that being decent is the LAST thing on many of the player's minds.

I can't believe how many people in this thread alone think that taking 10 minutes (even though it was actually in the neighborhood of 2 minutes) to make a play as long as it works is fine.

Mandatory 90 second clock on ALL decisions please.

Seems that most people are unwilling to police themselves or just plainly see nothing wrong with any action as long as it achieves the desired result.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this kind of thing goes on, what will occur is that players will have the clock called on them as soon as it is their action. Effectively there will be a one-minute time limit on all decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. This is the kind of impact people seem to be blind to when defending this play. Imagine what fun it would be to have to call the clock instantly on everyone all the time, just in case. I'm sure the already beleaguered floor staff would enjoy it as well.

I know we're all trying to take one another's money but is it so impossible to be decent about it?

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly.... That was pretty much my point as well.

The time clock is for a reason. It is for someone who constantly take excessive time. I'm furious when I get a clock called on me. I play faster than most. Maybe ONCE a tournament I take 30 secs to 1 minute. I think from time to time it's ok to take that extra time. The some jerk calls time 20 secs into it and I'm thinking they're abusing the rules.

If there was an easy way to do it like the internet I'd be all for it. You have a time bank and once you use that up all you have is the regular amount of time.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mandatory 90 second clock on ALL decisions please.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did this on one of the WPT final tables (a clock on every decision, 60 seconds IIRC). It had an annoying light and buzzer that was very cheesy. I don't recall any of the players specifically commenting about whether or not it was a good idea but I would be surprised if any of them were thrilled with it.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. This is the kind of impact people seem to be blind to when defending this play. Imagine what fun it would be to have to call the clock instantly on everyone all the time, just in case. I'm sure the already beleaguered floor staff would enjoy it as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when that day ever comes, I'll eat my hat. You are overreacting.

[ QUOTE ]
I know we're all trying to take one another's money but is it so impossible to be decent about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when there's the less-decent approach which is more +EV at that moment. Sorry, but that's the nature of greed.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether it was two or five or ten minutes is a stupid distraction from the central issue.

TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not the central issue. The central issue
is the "tragedy of the commons" that you alluded to
in an earlier thread, but that everyone seems to have
ignored. As you said earlier,
[ QUOTE ]
There are a great many "tragedy of the commons" type behaviors that it is understood you just don't do because (as he clearly spells out) the "defense" against them is for everyone to do them, and everyone loses big if everyone does them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the central issue. How come no one is talking
about this?

OK. I'll start.

I think there is a very delicate tradeoff here between
1) the tragedy of the commons that Paul is refering to, and
2) A players desire to win.

In the article above Simon states,
[ QUOTE ]
So, how do I get a world-class player to give me the other $11,000?

[/ QUOTE ]
He then goes on to describe in great detail exactly what
transpired at the table, including his thought processes.
[ QUOTE ]
If it was possible to trap a world-class player, would you not check into the guy and if he's dumb enough to bet into you, would you immediately say, 'I raise''?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people, I think, would answer Simon's rhetorical
question with a "No, I would not immediately say,
raise". Body language, counting out chips, facial
expressions, and yes...using time......these are all
tactics that are a part of the game.

Paul says 2 minutes is way too long to stall with the nuts.
OK.....What about a minute and a half? How about a minute?
What's the dividing line between acceptable tactics, and
risking the tragedy of the commons?

Another issue is the particular circumstances of this hand,
that is, a final of the WSOP, towards the end, between two chip leaders. In a really important event, and in a
crucial situation such as this, wouldn't it be normal to
give some leeway? I think its just for that reason that
Barry did not call for the clock....because everyone
recognizes that it is a key hand in an important event.

You want to give a player sufficient time to exercise the
full range strategic and tactical options, but without
risking a tragedy of the commons.

What are the boundaries of acceptable behavior in a situation like this?


Suerte,
Jonathan

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There is nothing to debate about this. Both sides are "right", and that's why it's a common pool problem.

Perhaps this will cause me to become disqualified as a PP "fan", but I totally disagree with what he and others have written about this.

The reason there is a whole body of thinking about "common pool problems" is that they are real and fundamental. There is absolutely no reason to expect any animal, human or otherwise, to self-impose a disadvantageous "rule" that has no consequences for being violated, if it materially impacts their expectation in a major competition. I wouldn't, and neither, I believe, would PP or any of the rest of you if put in the same situation. That is, if (i) material chips were in play, (ii) you were near the end of a MAJOR competition where lots and lots of money and fame was at stake, and (iii) you thought you needed to do it to get the chips.

Nor should they. We're not engaged in charity here, we're trying to win money. And if there is a common pool problem, regulate it. Oh, wait, it is regulated, both by social custom and also by a clock.

Simon was completely right and Barry was completely wrong. Sorry, but it's pretty clear.

Just do what I do, and be prepared to call clock pretty quickly, both as a jopke and also when it's required. That way, people just play faster. Or don't, and then don't bitch if it takes a while.

IMHO that is [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

p.s. Another related subject here is how there are some pros who, if they bitch about something like this, have a floor man there the next day questioning their opp in front of the table, and other people who get a clock if they mutter a curse (or so I hear, anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )...I think there was a bit of that here, because there's no doubt in my mind I (or most of you) would have got a "yeah, well, call a clock if you think a player is taking too long sir" response from the floor...which may be natural, but it's still kind of annoying. IMO, anyway.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Come on. Nobody is saying they're in favor of other people doing this, they're just in favor of doing it themselves. As they should be. Common pool, collective action and natural monopoly problems have to be regulated, either by protocol or by hard rules with penalties. People used to get out of the left lane too...but flashing your brights doesn't get them to do it, and neither does yelling at them about this. Call a clock sooner if it annoys you, just as a matter of vengence... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Why does anybody need 5 minutes to make a decision? I'm not just talking about this instance (which seems to be a minimum of 2 minutes and up to 5 for Trumper to act) but a bunch of them that are listed on the Cardplayer descriptions for multiple tournaments this year. Are players really changing their minds somewhere after a minute passes? I'm a low level fish so maybe I just don't get it but do people really need more than 1 minute to make a decision on a hand? I certainly don't ever remember using more than 30 seconds or so unless I was trying to feign weakness and even then I didn't go more than a minute. It just seems like there is way too much time wasting at all levels.

Did anything ever come of Barry offering to wager on over 2 1/2 minutes?

I don't know Trumper at all but he comes across as an ass with his comments about "Americans" doing it one way but not good old Simon.

Barry made a terrible play. Simon seems to have taken an excessive amount of time to act. This pushed Barry into acting like a bit of an ass. Oh well, it's certainly entertaining.

Paul Phillips may not be the most polite guy in the world but he takes time to form opinions on the game we all enjoy. We don't have to agree with him (I know I don't agree with him a lot of the time) but showing a little respect wouldn't hurt. Most of the time he seems to be trying to make the "game" better for everybody while most players are much more in the "me first" realm of thinking.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mandatory 90 second clock on ALL decisions please.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did this on one of the WPT final tables (a clock on every decision, 60 seconds IIRC). It had an annoying light and buzzer that was very cheesy. I don't recall any of the players specifically commenting about whether or not it was a good idea but I would be surprised if any of them were thrilled with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They also instituted this on Pokerstars Invititional II. Kathy Leibert was complaining that a chip count on Barry took too much of her decision time, and he got on her case about it...said he wrote the rule too...so he's pretty hot on this issue.