|
|
#52
07-07-2005, 12:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] Poker is a negative sum game. If we were going to do what was truly best for the group we wouldn’t play. 
|
|
#53
07-07-2005, 12:55 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 ] i usually think you have intelligent things to say, including your characterization of bubble-stalling as prisoner's dilemma, but this is pretty dubious. i might take 2 minutes to figure out if i wanted to bluff c/r here, so i'm well within my rights to take 2 minutes with the nuts. there's a lot of money on the line. suck it up.
|
|
#54
07-07-2005, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ 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 ] I didn't realize that calling and raising constituted the same action. Of course there's a decision to make. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]
|
|
#55
07-07-2005, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
LOL.. PP, you must be the biggest moron on the planet.. LOL [/ QUOTE ] Well, I'd state with much more certainty, that [ QUOTE ] PP, your probably the only one in any of these threads that plays in these venues regularly and because of that, whose opinion may carry the most weight [/ QUOTE ] Or maybe, with all the celebrities in Poker now, maybe it should become an acting marathon. Best performance wins. And, as someone in the other thread was clever to point out, it makes for great DRAMA for television. Same DRAMA as going out to my backyard and watching the grass grow.
|
|
#56
07-07-2005, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
What a [censored] wiseass. Tell me with a straight face that Trumper didn't mean Barry G. was played by him like an idiot when he said "They thought he (Barry G.) was the idiot." [/ QUOTE ] Simon was defending himself, and was called an idiot and worse, then we get xenophobic fukcnuts like you saying he shouldn't be allowed to play in America. I can assure you Simon has nothing but the utmost respect for BG's poker ability, and BG has readily admitted he made a big mistake. Face comepletely straight. Now FOAD.
|
|
#57
07-07-2005, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] I didn't realize that calling and raising constituted the same action. Of course there's a decision to make. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] No, there isn't. My point was that Trumper does not have a decision to make. He has one obviously correct play. However, of course, by waiting a long amount of time, he is giving the impression of making a decision, this is the entire point of the exercise. There is the APPEARANCE of a decision to make. Different. My previous reply was in reference to two posts, which i quoted. The 2nd quote agreed with the 1st, however they reference 2 different things. One referenced taking make to make a decision, while the 2nd agreed, but then referenced a different point (pretending to take time to make a decision). My comment applied to the 1st one, and I misread the 2nd, not realizing that it did not in fact match.
|
|
#58
07-07-2005, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] The bottom line is that no matter how much Paul knows about live tournament poker, he wasn't present when this happened. I'm not taking the word of anybody that wasn't there that either Simon or Barry were in the wrong. I take in both sides of the story and assume that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, especially after hearing from others who were there. It's the only sensible approach. Maybe Simon took a little too long to act, maybe he didn't. Either way, I don't see the need to crucify him over a small error in judgement. Maybe Barry's uber-competitive nature got to him and he overreacted. It happens to the best of us. I don't think any less of him, either. Two guys had a little spat. Too many people here are drawing wild conclusions. I hope none of you are journalists.
|
|
#59
07-07-2005, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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 ] I didn't realize that calling and raising constituted the same action. Of course there's a decision to make. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] No, there isn't. My point was that Trumper does not have a decision to make. He has one obviously correct play. However, of course, by waiting a long amount of time, he is giving the impression of making a decision, this is the entire point of the exercise. There is the APPEARANCE of a decision to make. Different. My previous reply was in reference to two posts, which i quoted. The 2nd quote agreed with the 1st, however they reference 2 different things. One referenced taking make to make a decision, while the 2nd agreed, but then referenced a different point (pretending to take time to make a decision). My comment applied to the 1st one, and I misread the 2nd, not realizing that it did not in fact match. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. As I stated originally, the "impression" of a decision.
|
|
#60
07-07-2005, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] LOL.. PP, you must be the biggest moron on the planet.. LOL [/ QUOTE ] Well, I'd state with much more certainty, that [ QUOTE ] PP, your probably the only one in any of these threads that plays in these venues regularly and because of that, whose opinion may carry the most weight [/ QUOTE ] Or maybe, with all the celebrities in Poker now, maybe it should become an acting marathon. Best performance wins. And, as someone in the other thread was clever to point out, it makes for great DRAMA for television. Same DRAMA as going out to my backyard and watching the grass grow. [/ QUOTE ] I don't neccesarily agree with what you said, since of course a certain amount of acting is part of poker. This is really a manner of degree and "ill side effects," and in any matter of degree there will always be disagreements. However, referencing the "LOL.. PP" quote, that was when I stopped listening to what that poster said.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
