Simon Trumper's reply on ESPN

[GFunk911]

[ 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.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. This is the kind of impact people seem to be blind to when defending this play. Imagine what fun it would be to have to call the clock instantly on everyone all the time, just in case. I'm sure the already beleaguered floor staff would enjoy it as well.

I know we're all trying to take one another's money but is it so impossible to be decent about it?

[gumpzilla]

So let's say you try to steal the blinds preflop with 83o and get reraised. Do you turbomuck? Do you take a few seconds to think? Do you take a few seconds so that it isn't as blazingly obvious that you had utter garbage? All of this seems reasonable to me. Yet your take on this suggests to me that you feel that it's inappropriate to ever take more time than is strictly necessary for making information. So you think people should be compelled to leak information based on where they choose to think? Really? If not, then it's a matter of degree. Much earlier in the thread I asked what you think a reasonable length of time for Trumper to spend on this move is. Do you have an amount?

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
I know we're all trying to take one another's money but is it so impossible to be decent about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The size of the purse and the class of player in these large online-qualifier-laced fields means that being decent is the LAST thing on many of the player's minds.

I can't believe how many people in this thread alone think that taking 10 minutes (even though it was actually in the neighborhood of 2 minutes) to make a play as long as it works is fine.

Mandatory 90 second clock on ALL decisions please.

Seems that most people are unwilling to police themselves or just plainly see nothing wrong with any action as long as it achieves the desired result.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
Mandatory 90 second clock on ALL decisions please.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did this on one of the WPT final tables (a clock on every decision, 60 seconds IIRC). It had an annoying light and buzzer that was very cheesy. I don't recall any of the players specifically commenting about whether or not it was a good idea but I would be surprised if any of them were thrilled with it.

[Rob Hope]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mandatory 90 second clock on ALL decisions please.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did this on one of the WPT final tables (a clock on every decision, 60 seconds IIRC). It had an annoying light and buzzer that was very cheesy. I don't recall any of the players specifically commenting about whether or not it was a good idea but I would be surprised if any of them were thrilled with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They also instituted this on Pokerstars Invititional II. Kathy Leibert was complaining that a chip count on Barry took too much of her decision time, and he got on her case about it...said he wrote the rule too...so he's pretty hot on this issue.

[wray]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. This is the kind of impact people seem to be blind to when defending this play. Imagine what fun it would be to have to call the clock instantly on everyone all the time, just in case. I'm sure the already beleaguered floor staff would enjoy it as well.

I know we're all trying to take one another's money but is it so impossible to be decent about it?

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly.... That was pretty much my point as well.

The time clock is for a reason. It is for someone who constantly take excessive time. I'm furious when I get a clock called on me. I play faster than most. Maybe ONCE a tournament I take 30 secs to 1 minute. I think from time to time it's ok to take that extra time. The some jerk calls time 20 secs into it and I'm thinking they're abusing the rules.

If there was an easy way to do it like the internet I'd be all for it. You have a time bank and once you use that up all you have is the regular amount of time.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. This is the kind of impact people seem to be blind to when defending this play. Imagine what fun it would be to have to call the clock instantly on everyone all the time, just in case. I'm sure the already beleaguered floor staff would enjoy it as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when that day ever comes, I'll eat my hat. You are overreacting.

[ QUOTE ]
I know we're all trying to take one another's money but is it so impossible to be decent about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when there's the less-decent approach which is more +EV at that moment. Sorry, but that's the nature of greed.

[Drac]

Why does anybody need 5 minutes to make a decision? I'm not just talking about this instance (which seems to be a minimum of 2 minutes and up to 5 for Trumper to act) but a bunch of them that are listed on the Cardplayer descriptions for multiple tournaments this year. Are players really changing their minds somewhere after a minute passes? I'm a low level fish so maybe I just don't get it but do people really need more than 1 minute to make a decision on a hand? I certainly don't ever remember using more than 30 seconds or so unless I was trying to feign weakness and even then I didn't go more than a minute. It just seems like there is way too much time wasting at all levels.

Did anything ever come of Barry offering to wager on over 2 1/2 minutes?

I don't know Trumper at all but he comes across as an ass with his comments about "Americans" doing it one way but not good old Simon.

Barry made a terrible play. Simon seems to have taken an excessive amount of time to act. This pushed Barry into acting like a bit of an ass. Oh well, it's certainly entertaining.

Paul Phillips may not be the most polite guy in the world but he takes time to form opinions on the game we all enjoy. We don't have to agree with him (I know I don't agree with him a lot of the time) but showing a little respect wouldn't hurt. Most of the time he seems to be trying to make the "game" better for everybody while most players are much more in the "me first" realm of thinking.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does anybody need 5 minutes to make a decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one ever takes ten minutes to make a decision and a five minute decision is so rare as to be non-existent. I've never really seen anybody take five minutes to make a decision, but at the poker table seconds seem like minutes.

I've had the clock called on me for taking 30 seconds, and this was when I had an important decision to make. But take note that 99% of the time my decision was to call or fold--not raise.

I've seen players take it real personal when they have the clock put on em and then they start putting the clock on people, and back and forth, but so what? It happens. But it doesn't happen every hand, people get over it, and the game usually goes back to normal.

Sometimes, playing no-limit, you actually need a minute or two to let the gravity of the situation sink in. And by a minute or two I actually mean 30-60 seconds, because like I said before 60 seconds can seem like an eternity for the player involved and the other players at the table.

I've put the clock on people lots of times, especially those who take inordinate amounts of time to fold (ex. Devilfish). What they're doing gets to be kind of ridiculous, and everybody knows what they're doing, and some people just get tired of it and "put the clock on em."

I didn't witness this particular event, but I would guess that time gets stretched under the pressure of the situation and things can become exaggerated. Still and all, if someone took two minutes to raise me with the nuts and then slow rolled me when I called I would get damn pissed off about it. But that's just me--I'm human.