Why all the hostility to Tiffany Williamson?

Good players sometimes get mad at bad players who are extremely lucky. I think we all have felt it before. Well, except for me, since I'm a bad player.

[Guernica4000]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the hostility is directed towards players who take FOREVER to play their awful cards and make awful plays. Race and gender have zero to do with it, Tiffany is just the new face of being a bad player who kills a card game.

She was widely covered in the press as being slow to make decisions. That's fact.



[/ QUOTE ]

I might ALSO ask, if people were sooo upset with her taking sooo long, why NO ONE is blaming the table she was playing at, hmm?

I mean ANYONE at that table, can call a clock on someone at ANY time. If they didn't do so, then it is THEIR fault, and kudo's to Tiffany, for taking advantage of THEM not calling the clock on her! I mean after all, isn't it part of poker to use EVERY advantage your opponent gives to you, and use it AGAINST THEM , hmmm?

Thus if people are ticked off because she took too long to make a decision, then the table she was playing on at the time, SHOULD be held in EQUAL blame for NOT calling a clock on her (sooner).

I think, especially given the fact, that Tiffany played poker for LESS than a year when she played in the WSOP main event, that she did pretty damm good if you ask me.

Plus, to even GET there, she had to win at least TWO OTHER tournements to get her seat in the main event.

How many players do YOU all know, who played for less than a year, against over 5600 players in the Main WSOP Main event, made it as far as Tiffany did, hmm?

If there were any, I don't see ANYONE bitching about THEM or THEIR play in the WSOP Main event!

Tiffany, you did pretty damm good if you ask me, and there are MANY of us, who are proud of you and your accomplishment! I look forward to playing with/against you someday! (insert thumbs up smiley here)

[/ QUOTE ]


CincyLady,

Do you have a problem with your caps key sticking?

Your post is just retarded, yes anyone at the table can call time but some people find it rude to do so if they are not in the hand. The player with Aces was hoping she would convince herself to call and there for wasn't in any rush to make her fold. Even when time was called she still milked ever second of her 15 minutes of fame.

In the 2nd hand they showed Raymer goes all in and tells her what his bet is, but she wants a count, Was she really going to pick up a tell from Raymer or was she again just milking the clock?

Her play actually reminded me a the so called speed tournaments on Party were all players run down their play clocks just to move up in the money.

Bottom line she was shown as an annoying player that got lucky time and time again. Her sex, color, religious back ground, etc. has nothing to do with my opinion.

Oh and your hmmmm at the end of every statement is also annoying. (insert middle finger up smiley here) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[captZEEbo1]

I THINK IT'S ALL RACE AND GENDER....I HATE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN. THE COMBO IS JUST TOO MUCH TO HANDLE!!!1

[ QUOTE ]
CincyLady,

Do you have a problem with your caps key sticking?

Your post is just retarded, yes anyone at the table can call time but some people find it rude to do so if they are not in the hand. The player with Aces was hoping she would convince herself to call and there for wasn't in any rush to make her fold. Even when time was called she still milked ever second of her 15 minutes of fame.

In the 2nd hand they showed Raymer goes all in and tells her what his bet is, but she wants a count, Was she really going to pick up a tell from Raymer or was she again just milking the clock?

Her play actually reminded me a the so called speed tournaments on Party were all players run down their play clocks just to move up in the money.

Bottom line she was shown as an annoying player that got lucky time and time again. Her sex, color, religious back ground, etc. has nothing to do with my opinion.

Oh and your hmmmm at the end of every statement is also annoying. (insert middle finger up smiley here)

[/ QUOTE ]

NOPE [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] I have NO problem with my CAPS key sticking [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img], as for the rest, it's just part of my posting style is all.

My opinion is as invalid or valid as anyone elses I might add. Right or wrong, it's only an opinion.

As for Tiffany being a woman ... I do think it is indeed part of the reason why she's being portrayed as the villian by ESPN.

As for Raymer, I understand why some might be offended by that, but at the same time, she was considering a call for a LOT of chips there. She could of been counciled by others to always ask the DEALER for the chip count (as remember, she's a new player here), and that could be the reason why she asked the dealer for an official chip count. I doubt she meant anything personal against Raymer, and am convinced she simply didn't realize her asking for an official count from the dealer, might be viewed as offensive.

I'm sure she was trying to figure out the rules, and table ediquite as she was playing, but just as Rome wasn't built in a day, no one can learn all the nuances of poker in only 7 months either.

For instance, it wasn't until I had been playing poker for almost two years, that I learned the REAL reason why some become offended if you insist to see your opponents mucked cards after a showdown you or someone else won at the table.

It's offensive because the reason why the rule was created, was due to cheating in the old days of poker. Hence if you ask to see your opponents mucked hand after they went to showdown, it's like you're accusing them of cheating.

For the longest time, I never knew this myself, because it had been used AGAINST me many times at the table in the games I played, and the REAL reasons behind the rule, were never explained to me (I had been told by my fellow players, simply that since I went to showdown they had the right to see my cards, and that was the end of the discussion).

Thus, since it had been used AGAINST me, without being explained the REAL reasons why the rule was there, I copied the actions of the other players, and used the rule against others from time to time to see what hand they stayed with and then folded after showdown.

Once however, I found out WHY the rule was there, it made for better understanding why some would become sooo upset when I (or someone else) forced them to show their mucked hand.

My point being ... it takes time to learn the ins and outs of poker ... especially in a B&M enviroment.

Give her time, and cut her a little slack, she'll learn as time goes on, as to the things that tend to upset seasoned poker players and so on.

[Guernica4000]

Ok my apologies for calling your post retarded but I must say your use of caps is very funny.
Do you talk like that too? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]


I agree that it isn't easy to learn all the nuances of live poker but I still don't agree that ESPN is making a villain out of her just because she is a woman. There are a number of female players that are featured on ESPN and they are not vilified.
Regarding her being black, ESPN has always shown Phil Ivy as the gentleman that he is.

And if there is anyone that is always shown as a bratty cry baby is that white guy by the name of Phil Hellmuth.

One final disagreement, "Give her time, and cut her a little slack, she'll learn as time goes on..."

I don't think we will see much more of her after this WSOP.
She just got lucky.

[toots]

I'm kind of curious, too.

Back when the WSOP was happening in real time, I read first-hand reports making her out to be the most horrible person in the world. Seeing the ESPN coverage, I'm left scratching my head as to what the big deal is.

As far as I could see, she: Spent a long time making some decisions and made some mistakes that showed her to be inexperienced.

So, why all the ire?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard that Fossilman is a poster here, is that true? If he is, when was the last time he posted?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yesterday

Guernica4000, yes in many ways I do talk like this.

I've been posting on boards now, be it the Internet, or before that, FidoNet BBS systems going on 25 years now.

There are certain habits I have that I picked up posting during that time period. One of which, is where you put into caps words you want to emphisise.

I see many others use the bolding feature instead, but if you see someone using selective caps words, that's where it comes from. Back from the days before the Internet was what it is today, back before HTML, when we all used dial up modems (300 baud ones at that) to post on old style BBS (Bulitain board System) systems (of which I was a SysOp (System Operator) for 10 years of one I might add).

So, old habits of posting (like using caps instead of bolding) tend to creap in, because back then, we didn't have things like bolding and other things, like we do today.

In any case, since we don't know what the future will bring, we don't know if she'll do a repeat or not.

That said, with as many people in the WSOP Main Event these days, it's more like a crap shoot or a Lottery in many ways, instead of a REAL tournament.

You have to get VERY d amm lucky to get far up in the tournament, period.

Even a few of the pro's said as much on camera. One of the pro's (I forget exactly which one) said he needed to get lucky and double up at least 10 times to make it to the final table.

It's a shame really, how the WSOP has turned into a money machine.

I think personally, they should have perhaps up to 4 tournaments a year for the WSOP Main Event, with a limit of 2500 people in each segment. You could then enter one, or all 4 segments if you wished, to attempt to win a seat in the final event.

The top 25 of each, would then advance to the finals, which would then be the REAL WSOP event.

Other than that, I think since the price of poker in the WSOP ME hasn't gone up in DECADES, that perhaps they need to raise the entry fee to 25k like most of the other major events out there.

Then perhaps, the WSOP will regain some of it's prestige and true meaning, of the best of the best poker players, battleing out to find out who is indeed, the best poker player in the world.

[AAmaz0n]

There are two types of rules; the official written rules that govern the game, and the "unwritten rules". This is pretty much true for any activity.

The unwritten or "gentlemans's rule" regarding the clock is that you give your opponent ample time to make a decision. It is considered rude to call a clock on your opponent unless they are taking undue time or abusing the privilage.

It is unreasonable to blame the rest of the table for not constantly calling the clock on her; they were just trying to be polite. It wasn't until she was perceived to be milking the time that they started calling it on her.

For instance, when she asks for a count of Raymer's chips you hear an immediate call for the clock. This is really unusual, and was prompted by two things;

the fact that she took such an incredible time to lay down the KJ hand. Not only did she take way too much time, but started wandering around the room. Then she had the audacity to ask if she could at least see the hand! Again, this was considered odd and rude behavior; to make everyone wait and wait and then not call, but want to see the cards anyway.

The other thing is that she asked how much Greg was betting, he looked her in the eye and stated very clearly the amount. Turning to the dealer and asking for a count was tantamount to calling Raymer a liar. He is a very straightforward profesional and knew exactly how much he was putting in and was quite clear in declaring the amount. Again, she is technically within the written rules here, but making a very rude move.

It is in response to this that what would normally be considered a rude immediate call for the clock was taken; I don't know who it was that called it, but it is clear that they were fed up with her behavior enough at that point.

I already know what's coming; she wasn't experienced enough to know better, she had very limited tournament experience.
I think that for the first few days of the WSOP, folks were willing to buy that arguement and cut her some slack.

However, after several days of being in that environment and observing how other folks were using their time to make decisions, it should have been clear to her that she was taking longer to make decisions and using up time more often than other players. This put players at her table at a disadvantage since they were getting fewer hands per hour.

To get back to the OPs question, I think that this is why folks were so steamed at her. It is one thing to come into an unknown environment and not know at once how "things are done." However, by day 5 it is expected that some of the "unwritten rules" of behavior would have seeped in. At that point violating some of them appears to be intentional rudeness rather than rookie inexperience.

From what I saw at the WSOP, blogs and articles I read, and conversations with other players, I have to agree that ESPN actually was showing an accurate representation of her play and behavior, and in fact may have made her look better since it is such a small dose of her.

Shauna

[ QUOTE ]
There are two types of rules; the official written rules that govern the game, and the "unwritten rules". This is pretty much true for any activity.

The unwritten or "gentlemans's rule" regarding the clock is that you give your opponent ample time to make a decision. It is considered rude to call a clock on your opponent unless they are taking undue time or abusing the privilage.

It is unreasonable to blame the rest of the table for not constantly calling the clock on her; they were just trying to be polite. It wasn't until she was perceived to be milking the time that they started calling it on her.

For instance, when she asks for a count of Raymer's chips you hear an immediate call for the clock. This is really unusual, and was prompted by two things;

the fact that she took such an incredible time to lay down the KJ hand. Not only did she take way too much time, but started wandering around the room. Then she had the audacity to ask if she could at least see the hand! Again, this was considered odd and rude behavior; to make everyone wait and wait and then not call, but want to see the cards anyway.

The other thing is that she asked how much Greg was betting, he looked her in the eye and stated very clearly the amount. Turning to the dealer and asking for a count was tantamount to calling Raymer a liar. He is a very straightforward profesional and knew exactly how much he was putting in and was quite clear in declaring the amount. Again, she is technically within the written rules here, but making a very rude move.

It is in response to this that what would normally be considered a rude immediate call for the clock was taken; I don't know who it was that called it, but it is clear that they were fed up with her behavior enough at that point.

I already know what's coming; she wasn't experienced enough to know better, she had very limited tournament experience.
I think that for the first few days of the WSOP, folks were willing to buy that arguement and cut her some slack.

However, after several days of being in that environment and observing how other folks were using their time to make decisions, it should have been clear to her that she was taking longer to make decisions and using up time more often than other players. This put players at her table at a disadvantage since they were getting fewer hands per hour.

To get back to the OPs question, I think that this is why folks were so steamed at her. It is one thing to come into an unknown environment and not know at once how "things are done." However, by day 5 it is expected that some of the "unwritten rules" of behavior would have seeped in. At that point violating some of them appears to be intentional rudeness rather than rookie inexperience.

From what I saw at the WSOP, blogs and articles I read, and conversations with other players, I have to agree that ESPN actually was showing an accurate representation of her play and behavior, and in fact may have made her look better since it is such a small dose of her.

Shauna

[/ QUOTE ]

Guys,

If I could just chime in here. Let me just say that I have responded to some of the criticim of my play in various threads on twoplustwo (please see, e.g. here, here, here and here ). On another messageboard, I have also written a lengthy post responding to accusations from the above poster of being intentionally rude to Greg Raymer (by asking for a chip count) and other players, and of angle shooting by taking time in making decisions.

In sum, I have said that the criticism w/r/t the time I took in making decisions is valid, I've said that I'm sure more experienced players would have made different decisions w/r/t to certain hands and that given what I know today, I would have made a different decision as well, if I could back in time. I have defended the right of every other person to analyze and criticize my play, if that is what they wish to spend their time on.

The only place I draw the line is where posters are attacking me personally, intimating they would physically assault me or accusing me of angleshooting (and this is the only exception I take to what Aamazon has written, specifically (hopefully Aamazon you will have an opportunity to see my response to your posts on the other messageboard you and I frequent) and some of the over-the-top posters in twoplustwo's WPT forum, generally. I don't think anyone should have to put up with such behavior from another person either in the anonymity of a internet forum or in their day-to-day "live" interations with other people.

W/r/t why the hostility, I've already said in another thread that I like to think this all about poker. I don't think there is much in it for anybody to speculate whether race or gender are motivating factors for other people's behavior or thoughts in this regard, because in the end we do not know the minds of people with whom we are not intimately familiar or otherwise know very well. I'll say once again that people are free to analyze or criticize my (or any other players') play if they so choose. But if I could also say, once more:

[ QUOTE ]

Lastly, I've said before that I can take the criticism, and some of the ribbing that's gone on here. (Some of it; a lot of it has been overthetop and unnecessary). But I'm just wondering if everyone hasn't had enough of this discussion? I don't think people are really that interested in discussing me or my play. I've (anonymously) followed these boards for some time and there's a lot more timely and interesting topics to address here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

Best,
Tiffany