Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why does anybody need 5 minutes to make a decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one ever takes ten minutes to make a decision and a five minute decision is so rare as to be non-existent. I've never really seen anybody take five minutes to make a decision, but at the poker table seconds seem like minutes.

I've had the clock called on me for taking 30 seconds, and this was when I had an important decision to make. But take note that 99% of the time my decision was to call or fold--not raise.

I've seen players take it real personal when they have the clock put on em and then they start putting the clock on people, and back and forth, but so what? It happens. But it doesn't happen every hand, people get over it, and the game usually goes back to normal.

Sometimes, playing no-limit, you actually need a minute or two to let the gravity of the situation sink in. And by a minute or two I actually mean 30-60 seconds, because like I said before 60 seconds can seem like an eternity for the player involved and the other players at the table.

I've put the clock on people lots of times, especially those who take inordinate amounts of time to fold (ex. Devilfish). What they're doing gets to be kind of ridiculous, and everybody knows what they're doing, and some people just get tired of it and "put the clock on em."

I didn't witness this particular event, but I would guess that time gets stretched under the pressure of the situation and things can become exaggerated. Still and all, if someone took two minutes to raise me with the nuts and then slow rolled me when I called I would get damn pissed off about it. But that's just me--I'm human.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

They need clocks on the tables to stop this. Allow the dealer to kill the player's hand. Use the nine ball rule. Every player is allowed to ask for a time extension once every two levels. They should only use the time extension when their tournament life is in danger. Pass out time chips to the players. No time chip; no time extension.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Hahaha it's hilarious when pros get completely outplayed and then come up with something ridiculously stupid to take attention away from how badly they played the hand. Barry's a joke. Maybe he'll have to adjust his "player analysis" on himself now. His "Omaha" rating might have to drop from 10/10 to 9.98/10

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.

[/ QUOTE ]Help me! I can't keep from sliding! Ahhh!

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just do what I do, and be prepared to call clock pretty quickly, both as a jopke and also when it's required.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this word JOPKE mean?

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Jonathan,

i refer you to paulp's blog.

Extempore

donkeys alwasy draw.

respectfully,
temp

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

The problem is that use of this sort of move wrecks the game for everyone because if either people start to do it with any regularlity or start using the obvious counter measure of calling a clock or doing it yourself it wrecks the game. Do you like the prospect of playing only 1/3 of the # hands you otherwise would per level? Poker becomes a idiotic PokerSuperstars II all in fest that way because you're not gettting the opportunity to make headway before the blinds increase. If you call a clock on someone who does this every time, the floor staff is completely wrecked, all they do is run from table to table monitoring clocks and there aren't usually enough to do that and it's stupid anyway.

If I sit at the table with some idiot who does this, I'll call a clock on them every single action they take which is a total drag. I don't really have a choice, their behaviour is disrupting my ability to play the game so in return I owe them no courtesy whatsoever and frankly in a private side game where I have some say as to who is involved, an ass like this isn't welcome, just like a known angle shooter.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]

If I sit at the table with some idiot who does this, I'll call a clock on them every single action they take which is a total drag. I don't really have a choice, their behaviour is disrupting my ability to play the game so in return I owe them no courtesy whatsoever and frankly in a private side game where I have some say as to who is involved, an ass like this isn't welcome, just like a known angle shooter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how they are "disrupting your ability to play the game" any more than if they are taking two minutes to make a decision with the non-nuts there.

People are talking about this like every other hand features somebody with the nuts on the river, and that everybody is going to spend two minutes to draw in a final bet. This is silly.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

How dumb is this? Do you think the only time he takes this long of a time for a decision is when he has the nuts? There are damn good reasons why it isn't considered acceptable to do this with the nuts. The unwritten code is that you only take a long time deciding when you have an actual decision and Barry didn't call out of traditional courtesy, a mistake I doubt anyone who's read about this event will ever extend to Trumper again. If people regularly take advantage of this courtesy chip leaders will stall every decision because that's in their favor to do so because a higher blind stucture will benefit him or in a media covered event, some drip like Helmuth playing for TV time is wasting everyone elses time. As a poker player like anyone else, time is $, the ass doing this is costing other people $. The obvious counter measure to this kind of crap is to call a clock on him every single action but that wrecks the floorperson's ability to do their job and most tournaments don't have that kind of floor presence.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

There is no was Trumper would have got any more chips raising straight away, it was a good play and i dont see what the problem is. How would you suggest Trumper got more money out of this pot on the river then???

If he took more then 3 or 4 minutes then i agree that would be excessive but 2-3 minutes is fine and BG is just bitter that he got outplayed on this hand

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
If he took more then 3 or 4 minutes then i agree that would be excessive but 2-3 minutes is fine and BG is just bitter that he got outplayed on this hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even realize how long 3 minutes is? Try staring at your watch for 3 minutes.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

how long is 3 minutes? errrrrr tough one!! Is it 180 seconds???

As i said tell me how he should play the hand on the river to get more chips???

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

I think it's a huge leap to go from this play to claiming that chip leaders will stall with every decision. If people were going to do that, why aren't they doing it already? A question I posed to Paul P. elsewhere: if you try to steal the blinds with garbage, do you instamuck if you get repopped, or do you take a few seconds? I hope it's not the latter, otherwise the guardians of the unwritten code are going to ride off on your woman and rape your horse. Also, don't you think there's a pretty substantial difference between stalling for stalling's sake and taking time on a particular hand to extract extra chips on that hand?

You also didn't answer my question. Somebody making a tough decision costs you according to your insightful "time is $" formula. How does somebody doing this with the nuts hinder your ability to play more than somebody doing it with a real decision?

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Dipshit, the only reason they aren't doing is common courtesy, the thing that Trumper chucks over the side with this play. There isn't a single rule beyond the option of calling a clock preventing a chip leader from stalling on every action he has to shorten the # of hands per level. Someone who does it excessively with even farily regular decision is costing money as is some prima donna like Helmuth playing for TV time, it's accepted that once in a while someone will face a truly difficult decision and are allowed time as a courtesy among players, most online poker sites work just fine with a fixed time allotment.

By your genius assertion of whatever makes me $ is good regardless of negative impact on other players, collusion is just fine too.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

You're not answering the more substantive questions I posed, just ranting, at this point. I'll pose the two that I'm particularly interested in one last time.

1) When you try to steal preflop with garbage and get raised, are you throwing your cards away instantly, or do you take a moment so that it looks like you're thinking?

2) How is somebody doing this costing you in a way that them actually making a difficult decision isn't?

Here's another one for you.

3) People who plays lots of hands are going to, on average, slow down the game substantially. Thus they are costing everybody money. Should we not allow people to play many hands?

Also:

[ QUOTE ]

By your genius assertion of whatever makes me $ is good regardless of negative impact on other players, collusion is just fine too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not asserting anything like that. Why are your panties in such a bunch? Are you having a hard time making a case like a reasonable person?

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

You are the one who isn't addressing issues. You haven't addressed the chip leader stalling issue at all which is highly, highly relevant. You haven't addressed people playing for media time, which is becoming more common. You haven't addressed the negative impact to the other players at the table. You haven't addressed what the game is like if everyone plays time games like this or the consquences of people calling clock regularly to prevent it. If it's ok for people to try to manipulate the time rules for their own advantage all of the above strategies are just as strategically viable as what Trumper did. The only generally accepted exception to deciding your action in a timely fashion was facing a difficult decision but once you open the door to what Trumper did, you can't say the other ways of getting trying to gain advantage are not any different.

The time of all the other players being wasted is why the cell phone rule was implemented, codification of time management of the table was necessary because some players were wasting other players time, this is more of the same crap.

Anyone who regularly takes up more than is necessary is negatively impacting the other players at the table, not just your opponent. Pretending to have a difficult decision when you don't is doing exactly that. A highly aggressive blind stealer who excessively drags out the drama when he's caught raising with 9-6 offsuit when a Dan Harrington type comes over the top is doing exactly the same thing, 5-15 seconds, the regularly accepted time to make a decision isn't the same as taking 2 minutes but you're trying to compare them when there is nothing in common.

People playing lots of hands has no relevance whatsoever, it's only relevant if they waste time during the hand.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't addressed the chip leader stalling issue at all which is highly, highly relevant. You haven't addressed people playing for media time, which is becoming more common.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think - and what I'm pretty sure I've said - is that certain kinds of stalling are substantially different from other kinds. I don't see a short stack stalling in a tournament where they don't move to hand-for-hand in order to get past the bubble being in the same ballpark as Trumper's move. I think they are wildly different. You don't seem to think so, but I can't understand your reasons why.

[ QUOTE ]

Pretending to have a difficult decision when you don't is doing exactly that. A highly aggressive blind stealer who excessively drags out the drama when he's caught raising with 9-6 offsuit when a Dan Harrington type comes over the top is doing exactly the same thing, 5-15 seconds, the regularly accepted time to make a decision isn't the same as taking 2 minutes but you're trying to compare them when there is nothing in common.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define excessively. This is my whole point. They are EXACTLY the same thing and differ only in degree.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
Define excessively. This is my whole point. They are EXACTLY the same thing and differ only in degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. That's like saying stopping in the road to drop off a passenger is exactly the same thing as parking my car in the middle of a busy highway, they only differ in degree. The degree is the most important part.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. That's like saying stopping in the road to drop off a passenger is exactly the same thing as parking my car in the middle of a busy highway, they only differ in degree. The degree is the most important part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, it is the most important part. What I'm trying to get from people who are talking about how horrible Trumper's move was is a sense of how long they think is acceptable.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

You're right, everyone should take 2 minutes before folding the 9-6 offsuit to convince the rest of the table they really had something. No one will catch on to the fact they do this every 10 hands, it'll make the game so much better. And tournament poker is improved by the short stack stalling, that's such a novel strategy that works so often, it really improves the game when tourneys have to go hand for hand for 45 minutes.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

The examples you cite are clear-cut examples of stalling gone horribly wrong. Where am I advocating that people should do these things? What I am saying is that I'm near certain that you, nor most right-thinking poker players, do not always move instantaneously as soon as you make a decision. I'm not saying you take 2 minutes either, but I bet you take at least a little time pretty frequently. What is a reasonable amount of time to take? Nobody here has given a good answer to that, in my opinion.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

This wasn't a matter of Barry getting outplayed, this was a matter of Barry getting his ass handed to him on a silver platter. I wonder if this behavior is in his book - "if you think someone is slow rolling you with the nuts, make sure to not say anything as you leave, but come back the next day and throw a tantrum."

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
The unwritten code is that you only take a long time deciding when you have an actual decision and Barry didn't call out of traditional courtesy, a mistake I doubt anyone who's read about this event will ever extend to Trumper again.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be *very* interesting to hear (since I doubt we'll actually see) about the next incident like this involving Simon Trumper, and how quickly his opponent calls the clock on him.... 15 seconds? 20? My guess is 25 max.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
The examples you cite are clear-cut examples of stalling gone horribly wrong. Where am I advocating that people should do these things? What I am saying is that I'm near certain that you, nor most right-thinking poker players, do not always move instantaneously as soon as you make a decision. I'm not saying you take 2 minutes either, but I bet you take at least a little time pretty frequently. What is a reasonable amount of time to take? Nobody here has given a good answer to that, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though I disagree with you pretty strongly, I share your frustration in being unable to get a coherent response from your opponents in this discussion.

So, I think that 1 minute is long enough over the table to consider any poker decision, even though I have had many decisions that I've gladly taken longer on.

My frustration is that this million-dollar game can't put together coherent rules and has to rely so heavily on etiquette and tradition for guidance with so much money at stake. It's ludicrous. What the actual rules are is much less important than the fact that there actually are some.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

Anyone have access to written rules concerning time, from Roberts Rules or WPT or WSOP?

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dipshit, the only reason they aren't doing is common courtesy, the thing that Trumper chucks over the side with this play. There isn't a single rule beyond the option of calling a clock preventing a chip leader from stalling on every action he has to shorten the # of hands per level. Someone who does it excessively with even farily regular decision is costing money as is some prima donna like Helmuth playing for TV time, it's accepted that once in a while someone will face a truly difficult decision and are allowed time as a courtesy among players, most online poker sites work just fine with a fixed time allotment.

By your genius assertion of whatever makes me $ is good regardless of negative impact on other players, collusion is just fine too.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is definitely something funny-but-sad about people who start out with "dipshit" in a post where they're pitching for "common courtesy". That's almost (but not quite) as entertaining as people who threaten to "kick a person's teeth in" because they think he was rude to...someone else!

What's wrong with you guys?

There is a point here that can actually be discussed regarding whether an individual player "owes something" to the other players in terms of courtesy, when he stands to pick up more chips with the "rude" play. I think that's a bunch of nonesense, but other good players appear to think that people (or other people, at any rate) should solve that common pool problem through charity, rather than the way the rest of civilization solves it (i.e., with a law). Whatever, mildly interesting point, but not something that calls for heated rhetoric.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're not answering the more substantive questions I posed, just ranting, at this point. I'll pose the two that I'm particularly interested in one last time.

1) When you try to steal preflop with garbage and get raised, are you throwing your cards away instantly, or do you take a moment so that it looks like you're thinking?

2) How is somebody doing this costing you in a way that them actually making a difficult decision isn't?

Here's another one for you.

3) People who plays lots of hands are going to, on average, slow down the game substantially. Thus they are costing everybody money. Should we not allow people to play many hands?

Also:

[ QUOTE ]

By your genius assertion of whatever makes me $ is good regardless of negative impact on other players, collusion is just fine too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not asserting anything like that. Why are your panties in such a bunch? Are you having a hard time making a case like a reasonable person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he is having a hard time. Subtle illustrations of the point won't work with angry clowns (the worse kind of clowns). People who go on angry tirades about common courtesy are not to be reasoned with, they're to be avoided [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one who isn't addressing issues. You haven't addressed the chip leader stalling issue at all which is highly, highly relevant. You haven't addressed people playing for media time, which is becoming more common. You haven't addressed the negative impact to the other players at the table. You haven't addressed what the game is like if everyone plays time games like this or the consquences of people calling clock regularly to prevent it. If it's ok for people to try to manipulate the time rules for their own advantage all of the above strategies are just as strategically viable as what Trumper did. The only generally accepted exception to deciding your action in a timely fashion was facing a difficult decision but once you open the door to what Trumper did, you can't say the other ways of getting trying to gain advantage are not any different.

The time of all the other players being wasted is why the cell phone rule was implemented, codification of time management of the table was necessary because some players were wasting other players time, this is more of the same crap.

Anyone who regularly takes up more than is necessary is negatively impacting the other players at the table, not just your opponent. Pretending to have a difficult decision when you don't is doing exactly that. A highly aggressive blind stealer who excessively drags out the drama when he's caught raising with 9-6 offsuit when a Dan Harrington type comes over the top is doing exactly the same thing, 5-15 seconds, the regularly accepted time to make a decision isn't the same as taking 2 minutes but you're trying to compare them when there is nothing in common.

People playing lots of hands has no relevance whatsoever, it's only relevant if they waste time during the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you only do it when you have a tough decision, that is a huge leak. In other words, that's the equivalent of saying "I have a tough decision" whenever you do it. To put it in even smaller words for you, "that's why simon did it--he was pretending to have a tough decision".

It got him the chips, it's completely allowed (not to mention necessary for every single person who doesn't want to be easily read for a tough decision when he stops to truly think hard), and this thread is pretty silly.

Oh, hang on a minute--following my own analysis, I should just be happy that PP and Barry can convince you clowns to only pause when you're really thinking, since it will help all of us non-charitable types... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The examples you cite are clear-cut examples of stalling gone horribly wrong. Where am I advocating that people should do these things? What I am saying is that I'm near certain that you, nor most right-thinking poker players, do not always move instantaneously as soon as you make a decision. I'm not saying you take 2 minutes either, but I bet you take at least a little time pretty frequently. What is a reasonable amount of time to take? Nobody here has given a good answer to that, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though I disagree with you pretty strongly, I share your frustration in being unable to get a coherent response from your opponents in this discussion.

So, I think that 1 minute is long enough over the table to consider any poker decision, even though I have had many decisions that I've gladly taken longer on.

My frustration is that this million-dollar game can't put together coherent rules and has to rely so heavily on etiquette and tradition for guidance with so much money at stake. It's ludicrous. What the actual rules are is much less important than the fact that there actually are some.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you jopking? All you have to do is say "clock" and there's a rule in play. The fact that some people are trying to argue that, to prevent them from having to invoke the actual existing rule about this common pool problem, then should get all their opps to just self-impose some random "shouldn't take a long time" worry on themselves (which will presumably be a much tougher row to hoe for the newbies than the pros) would be kind of funny, except that some of you guys seem to be on board for it, which is scary.

More power to you, but I am going to start taking three minutes on every decision in each major event I play, just to balance it out...I'll make up for it though by not over-fishing the pond near my house even though there are no license requirements or catch limitations, and by not tossing trash out the window of my car even when I think I can get away with it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The unwritten code is that you only take a long time deciding when you have an actual decision and Barry didn't call out of traditional courtesy, a mistake I doubt anyone who's read about this event will ever extend to Trumper again.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be *very* interesting to hear (since I doubt we'll actually see) about the next incident like this involving Simon Trumper, and how quickly his opponent calls the clock on him.... 15 seconds? 20? My guess is 25 max.

[/ QUOTE ]

I started out feeling a bit sorry for Simon in this dispute with Barry, and then I read his posts and realized he's clearly a bad ass in Europe, and hardly going to be thrown off pace by this kind of nonsense. In fact, although Barry might be "our" local hero, sounds like Simon has him well beat on the actual tourney accomplishments front. Which is actually kind of refreshing in this kind of argument [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In fact, this whole thing probably just makes we Americans look silly to him, and he would be correct in that conclusion. People don't smoke at the Grovsnor because it's against the rules, not because they're all being nice to the non smokers in the (common) pool. Americans are viewed as cowboys throughout the world, so let's act like it and stop whining about courtesy, ok?

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you jopking? All you have to do is say "clock" and there's a rule in play. The fact that some people are trying to argue that, to prevent them from having to invoke the actual existing rule about this common pool problem, then should get all their opps to just self-impose some random "shouldn't take a long time" worry on themselves (which will presumably be a much tougher row to hoe for the newbies than the pros) would be kind of funny, except that some of you guys seem to be on board for it, which is scary.

More power to you, but I am going to start taking three minutes on every decision in each major event I play, just to balance it out...I'll make up for it though by not over-fishing the pond near my house even though there are no license requirements or catch limitations, and by not tossing trash out the window of my car even when I think I can get away with it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

With $5 Million+ for first prize in the main event, I simply don't believe that it should be the players' responsibility to tattle on another player by virtue of the fact that he is unlucky enough to be in the hand with him. While I certainly don't care very much how long players get to make decisions, my complaints is that the game is only kept moving by a rule that must be enforced by a player, and there is social pressure on a player not to enforce that rule (i.e. someone who began calling for a clock on every decision would eventually either stop getting it or be hounded by the others at the table). I don't see why it's hard to have a reasonable rule, like "Everyone gets 27 minutes maximum to make a decision" and have either a floorperson assigned to each table to enforce it (I realize that there are hundreds of tables in the main event, but there are millions of dollars at stake here--imagine if any other event with similar prize money thought it excessive to have enough referees) or to have it enforced by the dealer.

I prefer this rule to the "a player has one minute to act on his hand after the intimidated newbie in seat one (remember, there is also social pressure on people not in a hand to call for the clock, so the short-stacked newbie in seat 5 isn't going to call for it) works up the nerve to call for a clock and a floorperson manages to wander over." After said intimidated newbie in seat one calls for the clock, the staller is going to be permitted to verbally abuse him until his next decision, at which time the pool of jello where the newbie once was is now free to enforce the clock rule again if he can pull himself together.

I don't care how long you get, but it should be automatic. I can't even form the sentence "relying on the goodwill and honesty of a poker player" with a straight face, nor should I have to.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The benefits of potentially getting Greenstein to call out of spite far outweigh the benefits of playing "to speed" and getting Greenstein to lay the hand down more often than not

[/ QUOTE ]

For simon they do, of course. That's the whole point! The benefits of having your sheep graze in the common area are obvious too. Defecting is MORE profitable for the prisoner than cooperating is so long as his fellow prisoners are suckers.

All you are doing is underlining the problem. The more you say "this is a good play" the more you encourage everyone to do it and the more inevitable rules about stalling will become. If I'm looking to sit around a table twiddling my thumbs unable to do anything but wait for someone else to act, I'd rather do it at home where I can turn the TV on.

[ QUOTE ]
you can't apply prisoner's dilemma to this hand in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not understand what I meant but I'm tired of elaborating on this. It's pretty obvious what I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is one thing, public attack, exageration and personal attacks because you're pissed at yourself is way over the line. I used to think Greenstein was one of the more respectable players and was going to pick up his book but I think I'll pass.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you jopking? All you have to do is say "clock" and there's a rule in play. The fact that some people are trying to argue that, to prevent them from having to invoke the actual existing rule about this common pool problem, then should get all their opps to just self-impose some random "shouldn't take a long time" worry on themselves (which will presumably be a much tougher row to hoe for the newbies than the pros) would be kind of funny, except that some of you guys seem to be on board for it, which is scary.

More power to you, but I am going to start taking three minutes on every decision in each major event I play, just to balance it out...I'll make up for it though by not over-fishing the pond near my house even though there are no license requirements or catch limitations, and by not tossing trash out the window of my car even when I think I can get away with it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

With $5 Million+ for first prize in the main event, I simply don't believe that it should be the players' responsibility to tattle on another player by virtue of the fact that he is unlucky enough to be in the hand with him. While I certainly don't care very much how long players get to make decisions, my complaints is that the game is only kept moving by a rule that must be enforced by a player, and there is social pressure on a player not to enforce that rule (i.e. someone who began calling for a clock on every decision would eventually either stop getting it or be hounded by the others at the table). I don't see why it's hard to have a reasonable rule, like "Everyone gets 27 minutes maximum to make a decision" and have either a floorperson assigned to each table to enforce it (I realize that there are hundreds of tables in the main event, but there are millions of dollars at stake here--imagine if any other event with similar prize money thought it excessive to have enough referees) or to have it enforced by the dealer.

I prefer this rule to the "a player has one minute to act on his hand after the intimidated newbie in seat one (remember, there is also social pressure on people not in a hand to call for the clock, so the short-stacked newbie in seat 5 isn't going to call for it) works up the nerve to call for a clock and a floorperson manages to wander over." After said intimidated newbie in seat one calls for the clock, the staller is going to be permitted to verbally abuse him until his next decision, at which time the pool of jello where the newbie once was is now free to enforce the clock rule again if he can pull himself together.

I don't care how long you get, but it should be automatic. I can't even form the sentence "relying on the goodwill and honesty of a poker player" with a straight face, nor should I have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But for Barry's odd over-reaction in this particular instance, the system works extremely well right now in my view. Social pressure prevents people from doing it willy-nilly (just like it does for littering and other similar pool problems), there is more leeway as the stakes increase (that's why you'll hear "clock" in a 10-20 nlh cash game way before you'll hear it from a pro in a major tourney), and at the extremes, the rules work perfectly once someone invokes a clock.

Plus, if somebody seems to be taking advantage of the leeway, the whole table will often become clock-callers on that person, which both takes the pressure off of any particular person to enforce the rule alone, and also puts a ton of unneeded pressure on the person who was taking too long.

Not every one-off weird situation needs a new absolute rule ("sixty seconds each, no exceptions!!") to remedy it. That's where the saying "hard cases make bad law" comes from. Besides, doesn't even sound like this was an extreme case by Simon at all--anyone who considers picking up an extra $11k in chips by taking an extra minute or two of thinking (beyond the normal amount of thinking), and in a major event with a ton of real money at stake to boot, to be a real abuse of custom has overreacted a lot IMO.

But even if it was a real abuse by simon (which it very obviously WAS NOT), the answer would not be to make millions of other people get precisely sixty seconds max from now on in all situations--it would be to say the word "clock" in the particular situation!

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 ]

There - now THAT was a clearly-stated argument for your position, with which I am now persuaded to agree, whereas I (and perhaps others as well) were not particularly convinced by your previous argument of "*grumble* it's a prisoner's dilemma defection and I dont feel like explaining why - if you dont understand it then go let your sheep graze in the commons. I'm Paul Phillips, bitch!"

Paraphrasing, of course.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you jopking? All you have to do is say "clock" and there's a rule in play. The fact that some people are trying to argue that, to prevent them from having to invoke the actual existing rule about this common pool problem, then should get all their opps to just self-impose some random "shouldn't take a long time" worry on themselves (which will presumably be a much tougher row to hoe for the newbies than the pros) would be kind of funny, except that some of you guys seem to be on board for it, which is scary.

More power to you, but I am going to start taking three minutes on every decision in each major event I play, just to balance it out...I'll make up for it though by not over-fishing the pond near my house even though there are no license requirements or catch limitations, and by not tossing trash out the window of my car even when I think I can get away with it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

With $5 Million+ for first prize in the main event, I simply don't believe that it should be the players' responsibility to tattle on another player by virtue of the fact that he is unlucky enough to be in the hand with him. While I certainly don't care very much how long players get to make decisions, my complaints is that the game is only kept moving by a rule that must be enforced by a player, and there is social pressure on a player not to enforce that rule (i.e. someone who began calling for a clock on every decision would eventually either stop getting it or be hounded by the others at the table). I don't see why it's hard to have a reasonable rule, like "Everyone gets 27 minutes maximum to make a decision" and have either a floorperson assigned to each table to enforce it (I realize that there are hundreds of tables in the main event, but there are millions of dollars at stake here--imagine if any other event with similar prize money thought it excessive to have enough referees) or to have it enforced by the dealer.

I prefer this rule to the "a player has one minute to act on his hand after the intimidated newbie in seat one (remember, there is also social pressure on people not in a hand to call for the clock, so the short-stacked newbie in seat 5 isn't going to call for it) works up the nerve to call for a clock and a floorperson manages to wander over." After said intimidated newbie in seat one calls for the clock, the staller is going to be permitted to verbally abuse him until his next decision, at which time the pool of jello where the newbie once was is now free to enforce the clock rule again if he can pull himself together.

I don't care how long you get, but it should be automatic. I can't even form the sentence "relying on the goodwill and honesty of a poker player" with a straight face, nor should I have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But for Barry's odd over-reaction in this particular instance, the system works extremely well right now in my view. Social pressure prevents people from doing it willy-nilly (just like it does for littering and other similar pool problems), there is more leeway as the stakes increase (that's why you'll hear "clock" in a 10-20 nlh cash game way before you'll hear it from a pro in a major tourney), and at the extremes, the rules work perfectly once someone invokes a clock.

Plus, if somebody seems to be taking advantage of the leeway, the whole table will often become clock-callers on that person, which both takes the pressure off of any particular person to enforce the rule alone, and also puts a ton of unneeded pressure on the person who was taking too long.

Not every one-off weird situation needs a new absolute rule ("sixty seconds each, no exceptions!!") to remedy it. That's where the saying "hard cases make bad law" comes from. Besides, doesn't even sound like this was an extreme case by Simon at all--anyone who considers picking up an extra $11k in chips by taking an extra minute or two of thinking (beyond the normal amount of thinking), and in a major event with a ton of real money at stake to boot, to be a real abuse of custom has overreacted a lot IMO.

But even if it was a real abuse by simon (which it very obviously WAS NOT), the answer would not be to make millions of other people get precisely sixty seconds max from now on in all situations--it would be to say the word "clock" in the particular situation!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with any of this enough to, well, disagree. I think this is all pretty reasonable.

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 

ESPN: According to the complaint he filed with the tournament director, Greenstein was nearly mauled by a vicious tiger that had somehow gotten loose in the Rio poker room.

Simon Trumper: First of all, it wasn't a tiger, it was Daniel Negreanu's new pet tabby, Pho Noodle. And it only became vicious after Barry ill-advisedly stuck his finger in its eye.

Paul Phillips: CATS ARE RUINING POKER.