[GFunk911]

[ 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.