|
|
#61
07-07-2005, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Right. That was my backhanded, semi-snarky way of saying "you're right," with regards to your reply stating you said impression. The context you put it in didn't neccesarily match what you said, but obviously, context can't change that you clearly said impression, which renders my initial pointed reply totally incorrect with respect to what you said. Even for something trivial, if I reply to somebody or paint somebody in a negative light, and then it turns out I was wrong, I will make some reasonable attempt to "retract" what I said. I'm actually trying to have a discussion, not just indulge my bicker reflex (that comment isn't directed at you , just the general 2+2/Internet community). 
|
|
#62
07-07-2005, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
Am I the only one who feels there is nothing wrong with stalling for a minute or two with the nuts to give off the illusion that you aren't sure of your hand? 10 minutes is far, far too long. 1 minute should be the maximum, or certainly near it, for this to take effect. 10 minutes is overkill.
|
|
#64
07-07-2005, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
Barry was in the wrong got outplayed and then wined about it. In poker you do whatever is necassary to get more chips if waiting 2.5 minutes will get you thiose chips than it should be done. Barry should have folded is all.
|
|
#65
07-07-2005, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who feels there is nothing wrong with stalling for a minute or two with the nuts to give off the illusion that you aren't sure of your hand? 10 minutes is far, far too long. 1 minute should be the maximum, or certainly near it, for this to take effect. 10 minutes is overkill. [/ QUOTE ] 10 minutes is an exxageration on Barry's part. and if barry had such a problem he could have called "time"
|
|
#67
07-07-2005, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] As i sip the soda im sure somone spit in i realize the Silky Johnston is completly correct HATE HATE HATE
|
|
#68
07-07-2005, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
I know it was, I was just clarifying that I don't condone 10 minutes personally. I'm also trying to clarify if people think it's unethical to pretend you don't have a decision, or if they have a problem with him taking so long, which wasn't the case in actuality.
|
|
#69
07-07-2005, 03:52 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 ] 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
|
|
#70
07-07-2005, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simon Trumper\'s reply on ESPN
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
