the real simon trumper - Page 4

Rolen · #31 07-05-2005, 07:59 AM

For the sake of this post, I will take what Barry has stated as fact..

Does he take your remaining chips if he puts you allin immediately?

Does he take your remaining chips if he messes about for 5 mins?

Since I get the impression you (Barry) called partly to expose him for displaying poor ettiqute, it is people who take actions such as the one you decided to take that encourage his behavior. If there was nothing to be gained, he wouldn't have bothered. Since his play effectively influenced your decision to his advantage, can you blame him for doing it again and again?

sekrah · #32 07-05-2005, 08:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So if it's not okay to take a lot of time to raise with the nuts, is it okay to take a lot of time to raise with a bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point, and it gets right to the heart of the issue

If Barry calls and the guy was on a stone cold bluff, would Barry be complaining about how long it took him to bluff?? Absolutely not!

Why don't we just outlaw check-raising or smooth-calling while we're at it.

sekrah · #33 07-05-2005, 08:10 AM

That's what the clock is for and why the clock is there.

hotdog da 2rd · #34 07-05-2005, 08:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if it's not okay to take a lot of time to raise with the nuts, is it okay to take a lot of time to raise with a bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point, and it gets right to the heart of the issue

If Barry calls and the guy was on a stone cold bluff, would Barry be complaining about how long it took him to bluff?? Absolutely not!

Why don't we just outlaw check-raising or smooth-calling while we're at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe i should check everyone's pulse that bets into me, i mean it is within the rules.

slow rolling the nuts is the same as exposing your hand during action. it's not against the rules, it's just not polite.

mackthefork · #35 07-05-2005, 08:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's what the clock is for and why the clock is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? So that people can act like complete c&*^s and force me into a situation where I have to look like a nit. Sounds like a recipe for chaos to me.

Mack

sekrah · #36 07-05-2005, 09:18 AM

What would you like them to do them?

Have a mandatory 90 second clock for every decision?

drewjustdrew · #37 07-05-2005, 09:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Burning clock to fake a tough decision is lame, lame, lame.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bigger issue with me is the recent trend of "deciding" on an obvious lay-down. I blame Devilfish from the first season WPT. Tunica I think. He layed down a 5-2 bluff, but took a long time. Ever since then, I have noticed a general slow down in tourneys.

sekrah · #38 07-05-2005, 09:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

A bigger issue with me is the recent trend of "deciding" on an obvious lay-down. I blame Devilfish from the first season WPT. Tunica I think. He layed down a 5-2 bluff, but took a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

HUH? You don't think "pondering" that decision served a purpose?

BTW, Where did Devil Fish finish in that tournament?

DesD · #39 07-05-2005, 09:46 AM

This whole topic (and indeed this thread) saddens me. Barry G can take no positive value from it, and it also threatens Simon Trumper's reputation.

I posted a thread on Simon Trumper a week or so ago, which I found on his website and which outlined in the player's words the rollercoaster ride of being a pro poker player.

It was a warts 'n' all tale with few grabs for glory but more than a helping of humility and honesty.

This is a guy who ran a drainage business in the South of England and who gave it up to play the circuit. Simon Trumper does not show up at WPT final tables. He does not have WSOP bracelets. He doesn't play in the big game.

I suspect, he plays for the roof over his head - and while that might not compare favourably with all of the excellent work that Barry does for others, to Simon Trumper and to many moderately successful players like him it has to be all that matters.

Do you play for the roof over your head Paul P? (please don't respond because of course I cannot qualify my statement that ST plays for his day to day living expenses). That said, the Hendon Mob database suggests he won £29k in 2003, £136k in 2004 and £31k to date in 2005.

I understand Simon qualified through a number of sats to get into this event and was still selling percentages of himself right up to kick off, to get the $10k together. I guess this event meant a lot to him and I suspect he was after your chips Barry - every one of them. If he had to go in the tank for a few minutes to induce you to call, then he did and it worked.

The difference between a possible 2 mins and the alleged 10 mins in this situation is huge. Barry, you seemed unsure how long he actually took, requiring guidance from other players. How can you be sure that they were right? How can you be sure that Simon didn't just lose track of time under the pressure of maximising the value of his hand? How can you be sure he did? How will you feel if he loses a sponsor over unfavourable coverage of this incident within the industry?

In my humble opinion Barry, you owe Simon Trumper an apology, as does the original poster who titled this thread "the real Simon Trumper".

DesD.

drewjustdrew · #40 07-05-2005, 09:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A bigger issue with me is the recent trend of "deciding" on an obvious lay-down. I blame Devilfish from the first season WPT. Tunica I think. He layed down a 5-2 bluff, but took a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

HUH? You don't think "pondering" that decision served a purpose?

BTW, Where did Devil Fish finish in that tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he won the tournament. Both situations (Devilfish and Simon) serve a purpose. That isn't the point. The point is there is an etiquette to the game that is being violated en masse. If everyone decided the table was a stage, there would be 15 hands per hour played. Talk about an all-in fest at the end of a tournament!!!