Two Plus Two Older Archives

Two Plus Two Older Archives (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Televised Poker (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   Simon Trumper's reply on ESPN (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=287693)

Mathilde 07-06-2005 09:02 PM

Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker...0457&num=1

Now it's Simon "Aces' Trumper's turn to tell his side of the story.
In a hand I detailed in a blog a couple days ago, Trumper busted Barry Greenstein in the $10,000 buy-in Pot Limit Omaha tournament, prompting Greenstein to claim Trumper took as much as 10 minutes to raise with the nuts and then slow-rolled the best hand, and ultimately said people who act like that should not be allowed in tournaments.
My using only Greenstein's side of the story was unfair. I should've had Trumper respond in the same piece, especially after it stirred up a ruckus on poker forums, websites and generated talk among players. So now, pretty much unplugged, here's what Simon says.
"People were writing to me on my site, 'How dare you do that to Greenstein?' 'If you I see you at the table, I'm going to kick your teeth in.'
"Let me tell you what happened. But forget the hand for a minute. This is what happened since the hand. Bruno Fituossi, a tournament director who watched the hand, said to me (Tuesday), 'How come he never said anything when he got up?' He never said a word. I turned the hand over - and I'll explain what happened there - he got up from the table, he looked down at the hand, never showed his hand - so don't get too confident that he had what he said he had; no one ever saw his hand - and off he walked.
"The next thing I know is the next day, and (tournament director) Johnny Grooms comes up to me. He said, 'Are you Mr. Trumper?' I said yeah. He said, 'I have a complaint that you took 10 minutes to reraise with the nuts yesterday.' I said, 'I'll tell you what, Johnny, I don't even need to answer it. Sitting around this table are the players who were here yesterday evening; there's Huck Seed, there's Barny Boatman, there's Tommy Grimes and there's Peter Costa. Ask them. I won't say a word.'
"Now think about it. If I was an American who wants to try to protect myself, I'd say (to those players at the table), 'It couldn't have been more than three minutes; you agree, don't you?' Not me. I said, 'I'm not saying anything.' Huck Seed said, 'Two, three minutes at the most.' Barny Boatman: 'Couldn't have been that long.' Tommy Grimes, 'Well, I didn't think it was longer than two minutes.' Peter Costa: 'Yeah, I would say 2-21/2 tops.' There's four people who could verify it at the table. That was that.
"Twenty minutes later, in comes Barry. He comes straight over to the table, points at me in front of everyone and says, 'Players like you who take 10 minutes to re-raise with the nuts should be banned from poker.' Those were his exact words. And he walked off. Huck Seed and I were like, 'What the hell was that?' The players at the table were gobsmacked. So, off he goes. As far as I was concerned, that was finished. I went up and saw Johnny. I said, 'Listen, you've already verified from the table that that wasn't what happened. He's now come and said this, you need to say something to this guy.' He said, 'OK, I will.' He came up to me 15-20 minutes later and said, 'I saw him at the break and look, you can't do that, Barry. Blah, blah, blah.' As far as I was concerned, that was it. Sour grapes. No problem.
"Then I get home last night about 11:30, 12 o'clock, and I read on the Hendon Mob site somebody said, 'Has anyone see this (ESPN Poker Club) article?' So, I read your article, and I said, 'What the hell is that?' People are on the site saying, 'He's this, he's that.' Whatever. Then someone said, 'Have a look at this forum,' and if you go to the 2+2 forum, there's a whole massive thread on it. And Barry has replied, and in one of the replies, he admitted that he came in to try to upset me. He said 'I tried to rile him.'
"None of this bothered me until I read the whole article. Someone on the Hendon Mob (site) said, 'If you read the whole thing, it sounds to me like Simon did nothing wrong. If you forget the 10-minutes thing that could be wrong, I can't believe he slow-rolled him and it sounds like Barry played like an idiot and is very unhappy with himself, so he's taking it out on Simon.'
"So I read your whole article. Let me put you right on a few things. This is exactly what happened.
"Now, let's put things in perspective. I'm chip leader in the tournament. I've been moved to the worst possible table; they're all good players. I'm not going to be able to dominate with my stack. I've got the second-chip leader on my left, Peter Costa. I've got third- or fourth-chip leader, Barry Greenstein. I'd say he had about $48,000 when the average was probably about $25,000. I had a lot more, probably $70,000. We're in the last level.
"Now, I do know what I'm doing in tournament poker. I am No. 1 in Europe in Omaha. So, I know what I'm doing. So, in the last level, I've got absolutely no need to get involved. I'm just passing, passing, passing. Barry is pretty much in control of the table. He's not interested in just cashing. Barry's making lots of small raises preflop and picking up pots. He's positionally raising and stealing a lot of pots.
"So, this pot comes up. I've limped in for the first time in about half an hour with A-A-8-8-10, double suited -- 8-10 of diamonds, A-8 of spades. Barry raises on the button. I think Tommy Grimes called and I called. The flop comes rag-J-Q, two spades. So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm drawing to a 9 for a straight - obviously the wrong end of the straight, but a straight - a king for the straight or the nut flush. That's my hand.
"Tommy checks. I check. Barry leads out. I think he bet about $4,000. Tommy passes. I'm calling, and the reason I'm calling - two reasons: One is the outs I've got, but the second reason is I'm playing a guy with a lot of chips, therefore if I hit my hand, I might get paid and further increase my chip lead.
"So I call. The turn comes ace of clubs. I check. Now he bets $12,000. Although I'm No. 1 in Omaha, I'm actually better known for No Limit. I've got 29 major No Limit finals. The reason I'm good at No Limit is I have a gut feeling for putting people on hands. Now he says, according to your article, he has K-K-J-10, which means that on the turn he had the nut straight. Maybe he's telling the truth, but that's not what I put him on. I put him on something like A-K-K-something or K-K-spade.
"I'll tell you why: If he had the nuts on the turn with the king flush draw, why is he betting the pot? He wants to keep me in. He's sitting there with the nuts with the backup of the second-nut flush draw. If I had flopped two pair or whatever, why would he want to bet me out of the pot? So, when he bet the $12,000, I thought about it, and in the end, I put him on kings with a king flush draw, and I would've made exactly the same play if I had the blockers with his king flush draw. I could represent the straight and I've got the king flush for backup. That's the hand I put him on.
"If I'm right, then I'm winning with aces. If I'm also right, the 9 is going to be good for me; the king, if I'm wrong, would give me the same straight; and if a spade comes, I'm certain he has the king of spades and I could win a big pot. So, on implied odds, I call.
"The river is a deuce of spades. I check. I did not hesitate. I just checked. He sits there for 30 seconds to a minute. He starts counting his chips down. I'm not looking at him. I'm looking at the pot. He finally bets $17,500. The pot was about $36,000. He had about $11,000-$12,000 left. I'm sitting there thinking to myself, 'I can't believe he bet this.' I'm certain he's got the king flush and I'm certain what's happened here is he did have the straight on the turn and he did make the king flush, he thinks that I also had the straight on the turn and I called because I'm scared of the flush, and on the end I've checked into him and now he can bet into me and I might be stupid enough to call with the straight, hoping he's on a bluff with the bare king. This is why I think he bet. Why would you bet if you think I've called on the turn with the nut flush draw and the worst card comes? Why would you bet when at that stage of the tournament, you've got average chips for the following day? Why would you risk another $17,500 of your chips?
"So, how do I get a world-class player to give me the other $11,000? First, I've checked into him. Secondly, I have to make him think that I think that he's got it and I have only got the straight. So, I separated $17,500 from my stack. I've still got like $60,000. I'm making him think I'm going to call. At this point, he's thinking, 'Great, he's going to call; I'm going to get paid off here with the king flush.' I then count the rest of my chips as if to say, 'If I'm wrong, if he has the flush, at least I've still got $50,000.' This was my process. And then I did what you don't know about in your article: I raised double.
"Now, any professional player should know that when someone re-raises you double, you are in big trouble, especially if you've only got $11,000 or $12,000 left. He now starts thinking and thinking and thinking. His first comment to me was, 'Were you thinking that long with the nuts?' It was about two or three minutes I was thinking. It might've seemed like 10 minutes to him because he was the one sitting there with the second nuts.
"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''? He falls straight into the trap and the guy's got an enormous ego. He feels like an idiot. Don't forget, he hasn't just given me all his chips when he could've checked the hand and come out the next day with an average chip count. How many people would've been thrilled not to have put their last $30,000 in in the last level and done it in front of his peers?
"Now, he thinks and thinks and thinks, and he finally says, 'Nuts is good.' Those were his words. 'Nuts is good.' I said yeah, and turned over my cards. So, obviously he's saying, "I have the king flush.' He pushed his last $12,000 in. Before I've actually re-raised, because we can all make mistakes, I've double-checked my hand. At the bottom I have the 10-8 of diamonds, at the top I have the A-8 of spades, but I couldn't remember which order they were in. I knew they were the top two cards - at which time, by the way, we've got people five-deep around the table - I'm not showboating or anything. I turn the top two cards over. It just so happens, the 8 was the first card. It goes 8-A. I didn't go 'nah-nah-nah-nah' or slow-rolled it or any of that rubbish. I went 8-A. And he just got up and shrugged and didn't say a word.
"So, this morning. Bruno Fituossi says to me, 'If he had a problem, surely he would've said, "I can't believe you did that. How dare you do that?''' He never said a word. Bruno said, 'You didn't slow-roll him.'
"Now, in your article, he says, 'I have the nuts on the turn. I wanted the deuce of hearts to come, but the deuce of spades comes. When he checked to me, I was worried that he might have the nut flush, and really I should've checked it down because I had the king flush and it was a big pot anyway. But I decided to bet $17,500 of my remaining chips, and if he raises me, I know he's got the nuts.'
"Yeah, that's intelligent. Like somebody said, I trapped him beautifully, and obviously, he doesn't like it. Then he said in your article, 'I didn't know who this guy was' and someone said, 'Didn't you know he was some naughty word?' Subsequently, he said, 'People like him shouldn't be allowed to play' and 'Did you know he's got a website?'
"What the hell is he talking about my website for? He's done me a huge favor. The hits have gone through the roof. I normally get 100 a day; I'm getting 500 a day. Unfortunately, I'm also getting people threatening to kick my head in. So, now it's been blown out of all proportion. Two things have been picked up: the slow-roll and the 10 minutes. Neither happened. As a result, I'm getting all these threats. It's disgusting.''
"One other thing: He said in your article, 'When I left the table, all the other players looked at Trumper as if he was a jerk.' You know what actually happened? Tommy Grimes and Barny Boatman said, 'Fantastic play.' They tapped the table and said, 'Great play.' 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.
Trumper's version of the events was backed up by Seed and Grooms. As for the time that Trumper took to raise at the end, Seed said it was 2-5 minutes, as did all the other players whom Trumper asked the tournament director to survey.
"It was verified by players that it wasn't 10 minutes,'' Grooms said.
Overall, Seed said, "I didn't think he did anything wrong. It might've been kind of a slow-roll, but I've done it by accident before going through my cards.''
And here's proof enough: On the 2+2 forum, Greenstein himself posted this Tuesday afternoon: "I talked to Huck Seed (who was at the table) and he said it was between two and five minutes.''
And this: "I didn't think Simon should have been barred, but I didn't like what he did and I decided to rile him up.''
Later Tuesday, Trumper approached Greenstein at the table, and Greenstein said they had to talk, Trumper said. Trumper said Greenstein reconsidered how long he believed Trumper waited to re-raise -- five minutes now -- and they eventually agreed to end any kind of festering ill will and carry on playing poker.

bigalt 07-06-2005 09:14 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
haha a good way to end festering ill will is definitely by publishing a scathing counter-article.

Paul Phillips 07-06-2005 09:21 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
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.

Sponger15SB 07-06-2005 09:30 PM

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 ]

Ok everyone, it looks like god has spoken. We can all stop giving our opinion because it is invalid.

NYCNative 07-06-2005 09:35 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
Come on, Paul. It's exactly 50 seconds longer than it would have been had Barry called the clock on him the second he put his bet in. However your use of both bolding and all caps almost had me swayed the other way.

Dynasty 07-06-2005 09:43 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
TWO MINUTES IS WAY, WAY TOO LONG TO STALL WITH THE NUTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two minutes is where I start thinking "this might be too long". Five minutes where I definitley know "this is too long".

Thrahl 07-06-2005 09:54 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
Come on, Paul. It's exactly 50 seconds longer than it would have been had Barry called the clock on him the second he put his bet in. However your use of both bolding and all caps almost had me swayed the other way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can deny the power of the Caps or the Bold text individually. But when both are used in unison. All one can do is bow to their awesome force and swear fealty to he who wields them.

gumpzilla 07-06-2005 09:55 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a reasonable amount of time for him to take to give the impression of careful thought? As others have pointed out, it doesn't seem likely that he was going to get Barry's chips if he came back over the top quickly. If he never takes more than 30-45 seconds to decide anything then 2 minutes is obviously extreme, but if there are situations where he's going to do this with the non-nuts on the river and take that much time then I guess I don't see the problem. Why is he obligated to leak information?

Dynasty 07-06-2005 10:00 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on, Paul. It's exactly 50 seconds longer than it would have been had Barry called the clock on him the second he put his bet in. However your use of both bolding and all caps almost had me swayed the other way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can deny the power of the Caps or the Bold text individually. But when both are used in unison. All one can do is bow to their awesome force and swear fealty to he who wields them.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="green"> DON'T REVEAL TRADE SECRETS </font>

Kevmath 07-06-2005 10:17 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
Why would you put the clock on someone right after you bet? 2 minutes is pushing it if you're calling with the nuts. However, if you're going to raise, why not take your time to give your opponent some doubt as to what you have?

Kevin...

Daliman 07-06-2005 10:18 PM

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 ]

Not if it gets you chips you wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

You know better.

gumpzilla 07-06-2005 10:27 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
2 minutes is pushing it if you're calling with the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're just calling with the nuts, 2 minutes is obviously horrible form. 2 seconds is probably already starting to get a little long.

fyodor 07-06-2005 10:32 PM

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 ]

The argument over whether it was 2 or 10 along with whether it was a slow roll or not is relevant to Simon's honour. And that argument is over. All reliable witnesses side with Simon. If Barry had just complained to some random friend, no big deal. But he complained and exagerrated to an ESPN reporter.

The 2 or 10 is definitely relevant.

And if you think 2 is too long, too bad. Barry made a bad play and everyone knows it including him. He's a great player but even the greats make mistakes. Barry made 3 mistakes. Betting. Calling. Yapping.

Easy E 07-06-2005 10:37 PM

When there are still chips to be had?
 
Bullshit, Paul.

I'm going to have to read your ranting post in the other thread, but if I remember correctly, you have a retraction to post.

I'll be back...

Kevmath 07-06-2005 10:38 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
That's what happens when I post without thinking through it completely.

Kevin...

Easy E 07-06-2005 10:44 PM

\"Every word he wrote is dead-on.\"
 
Maybe not so "dead-on" as all of that.

Exactly how much time is the proper amount of time, Paul, to get a knowledgeable and feared foe to put in the rest of his chips when you have the nuts? Just so I know what the maximum is, if I'm ever lucky enough to be in that situation?

Barry talked as if he planned on folding to a raise, then called off the rest of his chips. If it was only 2 minutes, as last estimated, then I'm not sure I can side with you on the egregious error.

ClaytonN 07-06-2005 10:48 PM

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 ]

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.

The way Simon seems to put it, Barry called off all his chips to prove Simon was stalling with the nuts. Hindsight being twenty-twenty, of course, any poker player would do the EXACT SAME THING if they could get Barry to call off all his chips in that scenario.

Do you think Barry is calling off all his chips of Simon raises all in after thinking for, say, 10 seconds? I highly doubt it. He can come on here and provide a methodical reason for calling off all his chips here, but I fail to see one. Villain checks, hero bets over half his stack, and villain checkraises all-in. To give rough math, that is 99% "Barry is screwed", and 1% "Bluff of the century".

This can be a scenario where we agree to disagree, but the fact Simon had "the nuts" did not have a significant impact on Simon's decision. The idea, at this point, was to get the remaining chips Barry had. If Simon felt that by tactfully waiting out and thinking for 2 minutes would get him those extra chips more often than thinking 20 seconds, the WHY NOT DO IT? Ethics aside, that's another 10,000 chips or so, which is another third of an average stack. That's enormous. And well worth thinking over, in my opinion.

HoldingFolding 07-06-2005 11:13 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
Barney Boatman is apparently saying between 30 &amp; 60 seconds. Whatever. I think the real point here is that Mr. Greenstein realised he'd played the hand incorrectly (raising after the check committed him to the hand). I don't know about you, but when playing poker even the most savage bad beat does not compare to *me* making an avoidable mistake and being punished for it. In front of the computer screen the obvious reaction is to drop kick the cat, drink a quart of drain cleaner and shove red hot wire under your fingernails. In live tournaments these props are not (yet) available, hence Mr. Greenstein attempting to shift the blame and drop kick Simon 'the cat' Trumper. And the psychological reason why the time felt so long and he saw a slowroll.

Voltron87 07-06-2005 11:34 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
So is Simon the #1 Omaha player in Europe, or the #2 Omaha player in Europe? Wasn't quite clear.


Honestly, when you get the the point where you're saying "no, it wasnt 10 minutes, it was 5 minutes maybe", and the pot is offering your opponent ludicrously good odds, youre off the deep end.

Barry can kind of get territorial, but I think he's right here.

Paul Phillips 07-06-2005 11:43 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
WHY NOT DO IT? Ethics aside

[/ QUOTE ]

You answered your own question.

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.

gumpzilla 07-06-2005 11:48 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
I view this as a somewhat different beast than stalling just to kill time so players at other tables can bust out, i.e. deliberating for a minute over folding 72o preflop, or spending a minute before calling with the nuts in an all-in situation, or stupid things like that. It sounds like you don't. Do you care to elaborate on why?

Also, wouldn't this kind of stalling (river stalling with the nuts to milk a few more chips) be relatively rare compared to the other kind? I don't have experience with live tournament play, but my experience online would certainly suggest this. It seems like saying that moves like this are responsible for several hands fewer an hour is likely a bit of an exaggeration - or is this more common than I think?

Scooterdoo 07-06-2005 11:48 PM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
If you're trying to get the rest of someone's chips there shouldn't be any time limit at all. Clearly if you're just calling his all-in bet you should do it right away and turn over your cards. But in this situation there should not be any rules at all. If someone can take 5 minutes or more to make an important decision without the nuts than they should be able to take the same time to do it with the nuts. Unless of course we want to simply ban all bluffing.

fyodor 07-07-2005 12:15 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
It wasn't 10 minutes. It wasn't 5 minutes. It has been estimated by at least 3 people who were at the table as aprox. 2 minutes.

Players take 2 minutes to make desicions in these tournaments quite frequently. There is already a clock rule for those that abuse the rule.

What BG and PP seem to be suggesting is that you are only allowed to take your time if you have a tough decision. But everyone knows if you only take your time when you have a tough decision then you obviously don't have the nuts. So if you have half a brain in your head you also have to take your time when you do have the nuts.

ClaytonN 07-07-2005 12:19 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
people seem to view it as "smart, tricky play" rather than the prisoner's dilemma defection

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, I would hardly call it prisoner's dillema defection. Trumper was thinking for approximately 2 mintues to gain an extra ~10,000 chips. Remember, at this point, average stack was 30,000 or so. Though the value of each of those chips decreases, that's still a hefty amount.

Prisoner's dilemma states that there is a greater benefit in cooperating (ie not making stalls like this), but instead people make stalls where they can get +EV scenarios but not nearly as much as they could have if they had played to speed.

I agree with the above sentiments, but you can't apply prisoner's dilemma to this hand in particular. We are talking an additional 2 minutes for an extra 10,000 chips. This should not be an argument. 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 (I would hopefully assume).

Daliman 07-07-2005 12:27 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHY NOT DO IT? Ethics aside

[/ QUOTE ]

You answered your own question.

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 ]

With regards to the prisoner's dilemma of hurting both parties by eating up time, please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the last hand of the night, and therefore made no difference either way? If it was, obviously your argument is further diminished.

Oops, about 30 minutes left, it appears. Still, a MUCH better chance at 12k more in chips at this stage is worth 2 or even 5 minutes. If you don't think so, you're lacking killer instinct for gentility.

Boris 07-07-2005 12:35 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
If I was an American who wants to try to protect myself, I'd say (to those players at the table), 'It couldn't have been more than three minutes; you agree, don't you?' Not me. I said, 'I'm not saying anything.'

[/ QUOTE ]

what a douchebag.

72off 07-07-2005 12:35 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
With regards to the prisoner's dilemma of hurting both parties by eating up time, please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the last hand of the night, and therefore made no difference either way? If it was, obviously your argument is further diminished.

[/ QUOTE ]

It apparently was not the last hand of the night:

[ QUOTE ]
...And he went in the tank - this is with less than a half-hour to go in the tournament (for the night)...

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul Phillips 07-07-2005 12:41 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ 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.

Daliman 07-07-2005 12:48 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With regards to the prisoner's dilemma of hurting both parties by eating up time, please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the last hand of the night, and therefore made no difference either way? If it was, obviously your argument is further diminished.

[/ QUOTE ]

It apparently was not the last hand of the night:

[ QUOTE ]
...And he went in the tank - this is with less than a half-hour to go in the tournament (for the night)...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I already edited my post way before you responded.

ClaytonN 07-07-2005 01:01 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like a Chinese finger trap. But what assumptions do you make that I correlate this play with stalling in general? I pointed out in one of my earlier replies that I view stalling as less EV than cooperating with the police, did I not?

For simon they do, of course. That's the whole point!

This argument has holes. First off, Simon was frequenting a table with numerous experienced tournament players who would not have gone and "monkey see, monkey do" like the masses who now potentially could thanks to Greenstein bringing the issue up in an exagerrated manner resulting in Trumper's vindication and a higher regard to his tactics.

In assuming the above is true, ie that Simon's actions would have had little effect on his peers in future actions barring the actions would get released to the masses (and how could Simon even assume that), one would have to interpret their actions in this hand as that and that alone. If Trumper's actions cannot corrupt his peers, then he should strive to do what's best for himself.

The question all boils down to how detrimental (or effective) the play is viewed by the public, and the drop in EV in correlation to more players doing this compared to the EV Simon can potentially gain out of this pot.

All that aside, the whole argument should be moot, because Simon's "2 minute slowplay" probably only got through to 5 less experienced players at his table MAX, maybe a handfull more assuming some railbirding from other tables. The "damage" those handful of players could do to the game is but a drop in the ocean, and how often does one have the opportunity to slowplay with the nuts in a spot like that?

ed8383 07-07-2005 01:04 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
there should be a 2 minute time limit for all streets.

sirio11 07-07-2005 04:32 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ 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.

MeanGreenTT 07-07-2005 04:59 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ QUOTE ]
......of course, any poker player would do the EXACT SAME THING if they could get Barry to call off all his chips in that scenario.

.
Do you think Barry is calling off all his chips of Simon raises all in after thinking for, say, 10 seconds? I highly doubt it. .

[/ QUOTE ]

Case closed [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

mmbt0ne 07-07-2005 05:13 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
If I was an American who wants to try to protect myself, I'd say (to those players at the table), 'It couldn't have been more than three minutes; you agree, don't you?' Not me. I said, 'I'm not saying anything.'

[/ QUOTE ]

what a douchebag.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thank you for being the only other person to pick up on that.

grass 07-07-2005 05:22 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ 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]

sekrah 07-07-2005 05:56 AM

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 ]

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

Ond 07-07-2005 05:56 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
This thread has that sexy Real Life Drama thing going. Its like Poker Survivor. Its not even interesting who is right and who is wrong, its all about the drama now.

Barry and Simon, I think this is a good time for both of you to fold.

clutch 07-07-2005 06:15 AM

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 ]

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.

sekrah 07-07-2005 06:18 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ 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?

GFunk911 07-07-2005 09:50 AM

Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
 
[ 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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.