Simon Trumper's reply on ESPN - Page 5

GFunk911 · #41 07-07-2005, 10:02 AM

[ 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.

sekrah · #42 07-07-2005, 10:12 AM

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.

wardyuk · #43 07-07-2005, 11:52 AM

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

Daliman · #44 07-07-2005, 11:55 AM

[ 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.

Daliman · #45 07-07-2005, 11:58 AM

[ 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.

Daliman · #46 07-07-2005, 12:09 PM

[ 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.

West · #47 07-07-2005, 12:28 PM

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.

Silky Johnston · #48 07-07-2005, 12:31 PM

[ 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.

BigF · #49 07-07-2005, 12:39 PM

[ 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.

Daliman · #50 07-07-2005, 12:42 PM

[ 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.