[pokergripes]

Um, I hate to toss any hard facts into this otherwise-entertaining disagreement, but maybe we should remember that Greenstein actually said the following about the hand:

"So, I said I'll make a big enough bet so that if he raises, he'd almost have to have the nuts. So, I grabbed some chips and bet $17,500."

And:

"At this point [after the act], I'm saying the raise only makes sense if he's got the nuts, because I've represented a strong hand. I thought I was beat, but I looked at what I had left and it wouldn't be much if I fold, and it's going to be a pot of $90,000 or so.''

And:

"I said I would hate to condemn someone to be a (naughty word) for taking 10 minutes of everyone's time at the end of the night and somehow be mistaken,'' Greenstein said. "So, I called. Of course he had the nuts."

In other words, he's saying (i) he made a bad bet on the river, (ii) he had planned to toss the hand if he was raised, since obviously would mean he was beaten in light of the size of his bet relative to his remaining chips (so might as well save them), and (iii) he instead called because he wanted to know if it was really an act or not.

Sounds to me like the act worked as intended, and perhaps took down some extra chips. That's part of the game.

Sure, it would be bad if everyone took as much time as they could on every decision throughout a tourney, but so what--that's called a "common pool problem" in economics lingo, and the solution for it is a rule like a clock. Yes, there is some cost associated with calling a clock, but that's true of any rule. Besides, if a particular player does this all the time, then the cost associated with calling a clock on him drops off a lot, since everyone will be doing it.

Ten minutes is a long time. Two or three is not that bad, especially if done for a purpose. And, like they say about politics, poker ain't beanbag either [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]