David Pham Chops

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing I don't get about the rule is that only the F-word is a penalty, you can use any other profanity you want and get away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the rule is designed to curb abusive behavior. So I assume it's okay to say "c*nt" when the river doesn't fall your way but verboten to say "you c*nt" to your opponent.

And yeah, Vinnie Vinh--pretty scummy huh?

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
No, and that hypothetical has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it not the same? A person is being punished in the same way (chips being blinded off) from the same crappy rule.


[ QUOTE ]
is not a sensible rule and by agreeing with it, you just affirm the right of floormen to make up more stupid and constrictive rules that will ultimately inhibit your ability to play poker. It's not like David said "F*ck you I'm going to kill you and you're whole f*ing family." This was a victimless crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur, but that's neither here nor there, Shane. David, as well as the other players, knew the rules prior to being dealt into the tournament. He understood the ramifications of dropping the F word. He should live with the consequences of doing so. It really is this black and white, buddy.

If you do not agree with the rules, DO NOT PlAY IN THE TOURNAMENT. You WILL be reprimanded for this rule, as frivolous as it is. Deal with it.

[Kevmath]

It would be nice if people didn't use profanity at the tables. However, one's use of the F-word shouldn't cost them almost $50k in Pham's case, or over 200K for Rafi Amit against Vinnie Vinh.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
How is it not the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the example in this thread, the players were headsup. It wasn't the first day of a long and slow event. There were two players left. Unless you are your opponent are mortal enemies for some other reason, you tend to develop a comraderie with someone whom you've made it this deep with. Enough of one, usually, that you're not looking for nitpicky angles to shoot. Pham's opponent was basically saying "the only way I can beat you is to use this penalty as leverage" and sure that's his right--but, to my mind, it's contrary to the spirit of competetion.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not agree with the rules, DO NOT PlAY IN THE TOURNAMENT. You WILL be reprimanded for this rule, as frivolous as it is. Deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but this is oversimplified; it's not that black & white. Saying the f-word usually harms no one and has nothing to do with the poker game at hand--those are the types of rules that I like to ignore, even while obeying them--you'll probably never see me receive an f-word penalty but I'll certainly never call it on someone.

I'm curious--do you play a lot of live tournament poker?

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can assure you that among sane members of the poker-touring population, taking advantage of the f-bomb rule in a headsup situation is still considered an extension of angle-shooting.


[/ QUOTE ]

You will be surprised Shane how "respected" poker players angle-shoot at every f**g opportunity.

If I were playing HU with you, of course I take the penalty with you. But to be honest, 99% is just too much, there are some as*** in the circuit I happily enforce the rule with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sirio,

I was just wondering that if this situation came up in the future would the fact that you have people backing you make a difference? Its nice for you to do the noble thing, but when other peoples money is also on the line, would that influence your choice?


Also, I think the chop was the fairest thing possible. Pham could have been blinded to 0 in a heads up situation during that ten minutes. He made a mistake that could have cost him first place, and his opponent went easy on him.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think the chop was the fairest thing possible. Pham could have been blinded to 0 in a heads up situation during that ten minutes. He made a mistake that could have cost him first place, and his opponent went easy on him.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a way that's correct, but he still used the assinine rule as a way of twisting Pham's arm, forcing him to do something he didn't want to. If I were in that spot, I'd have said "David, I'll be reaosnable and take the penalty with you, whaddya say we chop."

I wasn't there and the specifics of this situation don't matter much beyond their ability to demonstrate the potential absurdity of the rule.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love some examples. Most of the pros I've played with seem to play it straight. Pham, certainly, is a stand-up guy as far as my experiences with him go.


[/ QUOTE ]


Really? You need the examples?, hard to believe hasn't happened anything at all with a pro in all the tables you have played.

And of course most of the pros play it straight; I didn't say any different; and of course D Pham is a very nice guy, even if he cracked my AA with his JT in the WSOP [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
But the number of pros is pretty large; I'm surprised you haven't seen anything at all. Some examples without naming anybody.

- Angle shooter pro go all in for 5k, poor guy covers him, he has 9k and calls the 5k, pro won the hand, dealer makes a mistake and pushes 7k from the poor guy stack to the angle-shooter pro. This pro is well known for pointing out dealer mistakes. But surprisingly here, he's awful quiet.

- Blinds 25-50; angle-shooter calls in EP with 2 25 chips; amateur player in MP calls with 2 chips, but wait, he made a mistake instead of 2 25 chips, he used 1 25 and 1 500 chip, because in this casino, they look similar; but he notices that immediately, almost 1/2 of a second after calling and he proceeds to replace the right chip, but then Mr. angle-shooter super enforcer of the rules calls the floor and the bet has to stand, now back to him, he proceeds to raise with his AA.

- Nice lady bets on the turn, everybody fold but the angle-shooter, she didn't notice, and she proceeds to show her hand to the table, she's proud of her nuts, dealer then tells her, there's still somebody in the hand; angle-shooter wants a rule, call the floor, he wants her hand to be declared dead, they didn't declare the hand dead, but they gave her a 10 min penalty.


Even if I don't agree with the F-rule, I’d happily use it against these scums; I think I’ll even smile while the scum walks out from the table.

Let me know if you need more examples.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if people didn't use profanity at the tables. However, one's use of the F-word shouldn't cost them almost $50k in Pham's case, or over 200K for Rafi Amit against Vinnie Vinh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and the best way to prevent this from happening is to either:

A) Do everything in your power to get the rules changed.

B) Do not play in the event.

or C) Play in the event, but do not use the F word. It's simple.


[ QUOTE ]
Enough of one, usually, that you're not looking for nitpicky angles to shoot. Pham's opponent was basically saying "the only way I can beat you is to use this penalty as leverage" and sure that's his right--but, to my mind, it's contrary to the spirit of competetion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ, you CANNOT be serious. The other guy not going WAY out of his way to be nice and blind off WITH the rulebreaker isn't shooting an angle. It's being normal. I want to win that money. If my opponent is too stupid to keep his mouth shut when he KNOWS he'll be blinded off, I am sorry, but that's his fault. I'm not gonna muck superfast or anything, but unless I'm good friends with him, I'm NOT sitting out.


[ QUOTE ]
Pham's opponent was basically saying "the only way I can beat you is to use this penalty as leverage" and sure that's his right--but, to my mind, it's contrary to the spirit of competetion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to speculate on what he was thinking, I have no idea, but it wasn't HIS choice that David break the rules and get penalized. It's a crummy thing, but rules are rules.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but this is oversimplified; it's not that black & white. Saying the f-word usually harms no one and has nothing to do with the poker game at hand--those are the types of rules that I like to ignore, even while obeying them--you'll probably never see me receive an f-word penalty but I'll certainly never call it on someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is that black and white. We are not talking about the rule itself. Nobody is debating the rule is a piece of crap. Nobody is debating that it's goal isn't being fulfilled. I understand that it's in place to protect dealer abuse and other crap like that, but people are being called on the F word when it's not being used with malice, etc. Yeah, yeah, that's all well and great, but the rules state that you cannot use it WHAT-SO-EVER. I don't agree with it, but it is the rule. Abide by it or be penalized and your chips blinded off. That is plain as day, cut and dry, black and white, whatever.

If a player doesn't agree with the rules, try and get them changed, don't play in the tournament, or just don't curse. If you do, then deal with the consequences.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious--do you play a lot of live tournament poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, and the best way to prevent this from happening is to either:

A) Do everything in your power to get the rules changed.

B) Do not play in the event.

or C) Play in the event, but do not use the F word. It's simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made it clear that I strive to practice C) but I don't see how any of these tactics will effect change. But taking the penalty alongside your headsup opponent with 50K on the line--THAT has a chance of highlighting the ridiculousness of the rule.

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ, you CANNOT be serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley. The behavior I describe is in keeping with the notion of a 'gentleman's game.'

[ QUOTE ]
The other guy not going WAY out of his way to be nice and blind off WITH the rulebreaker isn't shooting an angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, your strict adherence to the sanctity of rules is clouding your judgement. If David had broken a rule that materially affected the game, I'd agree with you--let his stack rot. But he didn't--he muttered a perfectly harmless word, not even directed at anybody and was faced with possibly devastating consequences. By the book, his opponent has no obligation to protect Pham's stake in the tournament, but I don't know anyone who would feel good about winning a tournament this way. Personally, I know I'd feel an obligation to protect my opponent from an insane and irrational rule and I'd hope--and think-- many of my rivals would do the same.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not gonna muck superfast or anything, but unless I'm good friends with him, I'm NOT sitting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't you muck superfast? Once you've decided to take advantage of the situation in accordance with the rule, why not get the most possible? And how would having a good friend in the box with you change the situation? After all you "want to win that money," I really don't see why you'd let friendship get in the way of rules-enforcement. As you say "It's a crummy thing, but rules are rules."

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious--do you play a lot of live tournament poker?



No.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'm further curious how you generate opinions on these matters, but not surprised that your ideas don't reflect accurately the dynamics of these situations.

[shaniac]

You've been around longer than I have, David, but in all the major tournaments I've played, I don't think I've seen this type of behavior (enforcing rules as a method of shooting an angle) even once.

In the first example, was the pot corrected?

It seems that a lot of your indignation comes from the fact that the victims were amateurs and the benficiaries pros. I have been the victim of throwing 525 into the pot when I meant to throw in 50, and the bet stood. Oh well.

These last two might in fact be good examples of angles, but I would expect the rules to be enforced by the floor in both situations anyway (ironic, I know). In fact, both are examples that should involve the dealer and the floorman alone (the dealer can't make a decision about the 525 bet or the exposed hand but has an obligation to bring both to the floor's attention). If I were in the hand, I'd keep mum but expect the floor to be called. I wouldn't go out of my way to screw my opponents, but in these instances I would expect my opponents to get screwed by their lack of experience.