David Pham Chops

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this any different then simply saying nothing about the F-word rule while the dealer/floor make the ruling against your opponent? You completely contradict yourself.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this any different then simply saying nothing about the F-word rule while the dealer/floor make the ruling against your opponent? You completely contradict yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I agree with rules designed to protect the integrity of the poker game, and disagree with rules intented to to regulate free expression. I think it's a partial contradiction at most.

[drewjustdrew]

[ 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 ]

From the same article:

"How costly would a 10-minute penalty have been? Belleh figures Pham would have lost 3/4ths of his chips. Pham was more conservative, estimating no more than $30,000. But even that would have given Belleh a 2-1 lead, so give the auto mechanic credit for making an honorable offer. As for Pham, a consummate gentleman as well as a top player, this was his first-ever penalty."

[savage_here]

In a job interview once, after a long and convoluted question, I was accused of demonstrating situational ethics. At the time I struggled with what exactly that meant. After this discussion, I'm starting to get a clearer picture.

Savage

I'm surprised he did this. I was at a table with Pham for more than 4 hours at this years WSOP and he seemed like a very laid back and good-natured guy.

And although the f-bomb rule is silly, some rule is necessary to curb the verbal and sometimes not so verbal abuse that some players insist on inflicting on dealers and other players. Bright-line rules by their nature tend to be inexact -- both over- and under-inclusive -- but the alternative would be for a floorperson to be making decisions subjectively, which IMHO would be much worse.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Then remind them before the match that they shouldn't cuss. All this talk about being fair, bleh bleh, do you really think them cursing and expecting you to sit out with them is fair to yourself? Giving you BOTH less blinds to play at? Bleh. It's their fault they cussed, I don't care how stupid the rule is, I shouldn't be punished for it.


[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's being a dick, something I don't go out of my way to be.


[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

It really wouldn't, I wrote that when I was super tired. I think the point I was trying to illustrate was there are VERY few circumstances in which I would sit out with them. A strong friendship on the line seems like a good reason.


[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about changing live poker rules. I'm not talking about live poker rules at all. I'm talking about following rules. This is something that nearly EVERYONE can speak about.

Follow the rules. If you don't, you will be punished. It's simple. If you feel that you should sit out to be a nice guy and "play fair", then by all means do so, that is your choice. But claiming somebody else is shooting an angle by doing exactly what is within their rights is beyond ridiculous. It's not like he said, "David, what's a word that rhymes with suck, but has an F instead of an S??" He didn't make David break the rules, that's not angle shooting.

[cwsiggy]

I pray that ESPN got the "F this rule, well then F-you.." Matusow F-bombs that landed him 40 minutes on TV. Would they show it if they had the footage?

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're willing to take advantage of a rule as contrary to poker as the "f-bomb" in order to win, you're essentially being greedy and tacitly admitting you don't have the edge to beat your opponent organically. Most resepctable poker players would consider it a scumbag tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an incredibly stupid thing to say. When you pay your entry fee, you know what the rules. are. If you can't control yourself and follow the rules it is my right to take advantage of that. I see nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean I don't think I can't beat you, it means I'm going to use everything within the rules to beat you.

If you don't like the f-bomb rule, don't play in tournaments that include it. Boycott, whatever, but don't try to penalize players who play by the rules when others break them.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Pham's opponent was basically saying "the only way I can beat you is to use this penalty as leverage"

[/ QUOTE ]
I have already pointed out to you how illogical this statement is, yet you keep repeating it. It is obvious to me that this statement is untrue, and I imagine everyone else as well.

[ QUOTE ]
You must place a low premium on personal freedom while placing a lot of trust in authority figures to create sensible rules. This 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't vote for these guys to have that power, and if there were a vote I might very well vote against it. I don't think that your comparison of this situation to the legislation or law enforcement of a country is fair. This is a game, and the people that run the games made this rule for whatever reason. If all the casinos got together and decided to switch to a new form of holdem where there are two big blinds, every holdem player would be forced to either successfully adapt to the new structure or give up EV to players who have successfully adapted. You could simply refuse to ever play HE again, or whenever someone makes a mistake because of the unfamiliar structure you could toss them a chip or two to make up for the EV they just gave up. But basically, all you are doing is hurting yourself because none of the other players would have tossed him a chip in that situation. By tossing him this chip you aren't going to cause the people who made the decision to reconsider it, and you're not going to show the world what an awful rule it is. Maybe you will feel better about yourself for tossing him the chip, and if handing a top pro player $50,000 (which is exactly what you would be doing by taking the penalty with him, no more no less) makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside enough to make up for that money, then by all means, mail David Pham a check today!


[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
But isn't there a very strong connection between "experience" as you call it and "thinking before acting"? When you threw T525 into the pot rather than T50, you were making a mistake based on a lack of thought on your part. Carelessness is punished in poker, whether it is by someone who doesn't consider their pot odds or someone who doesn't stop to think about what a blue chip is worth before tossing it in. David Pham's mistake falls into exactly that same realm of carelessness--he didn't stop to think about the consequences of saying the word, he just said it as a "reflex reaction" to seeing something he didn't like. When someone immediately says "CALL" without thinking when they should have thought about their decision, do you let them take their call back? This is one area of mistake that separates a winning game player from a losing one, and I believe it is in my best interests to take advantage of every edge that I have against my opponents, including my ability to take my time against opponents who think without acting. But I guess you would say that I simply couldn't beat them if I always acted without thinking. And you would be partially right (because I would have less of an edge against them, but possibly still be the favorite), but that would still have absolutely no bearing on my decision to continue thinking out my actions carefully.

[Angrymoog]

I've read some of the responces and here's my take:


People who are saying that if it is outlined in the rules, then they are perfectly within their rights to take advantage of the situation and win free blinds. You are correct. You are within your rights.

But where you misjudge is in beleiving that because something is a rule, things become black and white. Anyone with a shred of decency and a care for the spirit of the game intuitively understands that although you are playing within the "rules" you are unscrupulous taking advantage of this. You lose all sight of the spirit of the game. That is your perogative, but get used to people considering you a prick.

Again, is it in your rights? Certainly. Will people dislike you for it? Certainly. And they have good reason.