Simon Trumper's reply on ESPN

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you jopking? All you have to do is say "clock" and there's a rule in play. The fact that some people are trying to argue that, to prevent them from having to invoke the actual existing rule about this common pool problem, then should get all their opps to just self-impose some random "shouldn't take a long time" worry on themselves (which will presumably be a much tougher row to hoe for the newbies than the pros) would be kind of funny, except that some of you guys seem to be on board for it, which is scary.

More power to you, but I am going to start taking three minutes on every decision in each major event I play, just to balance it out...I'll make up for it though by not over-fishing the pond near my house even though there are no license requirements or catch limitations, and by not tossing trash out the window of my car even when I think I can get away with it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

With $5 Million+ for first prize in the main event, I simply don't believe that it should be the players' responsibility to tattle on another player by virtue of the fact that he is unlucky enough to be in the hand with him. While I certainly don't care very much how long players get to make decisions, my complaints is that the game is only kept moving by a rule that must be enforced by a player, and there is social pressure on a player not to enforce that rule (i.e. someone who began calling for a clock on every decision would eventually either stop getting it or be hounded by the others at the table). I don't see why it's hard to have a reasonable rule, like "Everyone gets 27 minutes maximum to make a decision" and have either a floorperson assigned to each table to enforce it (I realize that there are hundreds of tables in the main event, but there are millions of dollars at stake here--imagine if any other event with similar prize money thought it excessive to have enough referees) or to have it enforced by the dealer.

I prefer this rule to the "a player has one minute to act on his hand after the intimidated newbie in seat one (remember, there is also social pressure on people not in a hand to call for the clock, so the short-stacked newbie in seat 5 isn't going to call for it) works up the nerve to call for a clock and a floorperson manages to wander over." After said intimidated newbie in seat one calls for the clock, the staller is going to be permitted to verbally abuse him until his next decision, at which time the pool of jello where the newbie once was is now free to enforce the clock rule again if he can pull himself together.

I don't care how long you get, but it should be automatic. I can't even form the sentence "relying on the goodwill and honesty of a poker player" with a straight face, nor should I have to.

[rivered]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The benefits of potentially getting Greenstein to call out of spite far outweigh the benefits of playing "to speed" and getting Greenstein to lay the hand down more often than not

[/ QUOTE ]

For simon they do, of course. That's the whole point! The benefits of having your sheep graze in the common area are obvious too. Defecting is MORE profitable for the prisoner than cooperating is so long as his fellow prisoners are suckers.

All you are doing is underlining the problem. The more you say "this is a good play" the more you encourage everyone to do it and the more inevitable rules about stalling will become. If I'm looking to sit around a table twiddling my thumbs unable to do anything but wait for someone else to act, I'd rather do it at home where I can turn the TV on.

[ QUOTE ]
you can't apply prisoner's dilemma to this hand in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not understand what I meant but I'm tired of elaborating on this. It's pretty obvious what I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is one thing, public attack, exageration and personal attacks because you're pissed at yourself is way over the line. I used to think Greenstein was one of the more respectable players and was going to pick up his book but I think I'll pass.

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you jopking? All you have to do is say "clock" and there's a rule in play. The fact that some people are trying to argue that, to prevent them from having to invoke the actual existing rule about this common pool problem, then should get all their opps to just self-impose some random "shouldn't take a long time" worry on themselves (which will presumably be a much tougher row to hoe for the newbies than the pros) would be kind of funny, except that some of you guys seem to be on board for it, which is scary.

More power to you, but I am going to start taking three minutes on every decision in each major event I play, just to balance it out...I'll make up for it though by not over-fishing the pond near my house even though there are no license requirements or catch limitations, and by not tossing trash out the window of my car even when I think I can get away with it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

With $5 Million+ for first prize in the main event, I simply don't believe that it should be the players' responsibility to tattle on another player by virtue of the fact that he is unlucky enough to be in the hand with him. While I certainly don't care very much how long players get to make decisions, my complaints is that the game is only kept moving by a rule that must be enforced by a player, and there is social pressure on a player not to enforce that rule (i.e. someone who began calling for a clock on every decision would eventually either stop getting it or be hounded by the others at the table). I don't see why it's hard to have a reasonable rule, like "Everyone gets 27 minutes maximum to make a decision" and have either a floorperson assigned to each table to enforce it (I realize that there are hundreds of tables in the main event, but there are millions of dollars at stake here--imagine if any other event with similar prize money thought it excessive to have enough referees) or to have it enforced by the dealer.

I prefer this rule to the "a player has one minute to act on his hand after the intimidated newbie in seat one (remember, there is also social pressure on people not in a hand to call for the clock, so the short-stacked newbie in seat 5 isn't going to call for it) works up the nerve to call for a clock and a floorperson manages to wander over." After said intimidated newbie in seat one calls for the clock, the staller is going to be permitted to verbally abuse him until his next decision, at which time the pool of jello where the newbie once was is now free to enforce the clock rule again if he can pull himself together.

I don't care how long you get, but it should be automatic. I can't even form the sentence "relying on the goodwill and honesty of a poker player" with a straight face, nor should I have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But for Barry's odd over-reaction in this particular instance, the system works extremely well right now in my view. Social pressure prevents people from doing it willy-nilly (just like it does for littering and other similar pool problems), there is more leeway as the stakes increase (that's why you'll hear "clock" in a 10-20 nlh cash game way before you'll hear it from a pro in a major tourney), and at the extremes, the rules work perfectly once someone invokes a clock.

Plus, if somebody seems to be taking advantage of the leeway, the whole table will often become clock-callers on that person, which both takes the pressure off of any particular person to enforce the rule alone, and also puts a ton of unneeded pressure on the person who was taking too long.

Not every one-off weird situation needs a new absolute rule ("sixty seconds each, no exceptions!!") to remedy it. That's where the saying "hard cases make bad law" comes from. Besides, doesn't even sound like this was an extreme case by Simon at all--anyone who considers picking up an extra $11k in chips by taking an extra minute or two of thinking (beyond the normal amount of thinking), and in a major event with a ton of real money at stake to boot, to be a real abuse of custom has overreacted a lot IMO.

But even if it was a real abuse by simon (which it very obviously WAS NOT), the answer would not be to make millions of other people get precisely sixty seconds max from now on in all situations--it would be to say the word "clock" in the particular situation!

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ 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 ]

There - now THAT was a clearly-stated argument for your position, with which I am now persuaded to agree, whereas I (and perhaps others as well) were not particularly convinced by your previous argument of "*grumble* it's a prisoner's dilemma defection and I dont feel like explaining why - if you dont understand it then go let your sheep graze in the commons. I'm Paul Phillips, bitch!"

Paraphrasing, of course.

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you jopking? All you have to do is say "clock" and there's a rule in play. The fact that some people are trying to argue that, to prevent them from having to invoke the actual existing rule about this common pool problem, then should get all their opps to just self-impose some random "shouldn't take a long time" worry on themselves (which will presumably be a much tougher row to hoe for the newbies than the pros) would be kind of funny, except that some of you guys seem to be on board for it, which is scary.

More power to you, but I am going to start taking three minutes on every decision in each major event I play, just to balance it out...I'll make up for it though by not over-fishing the pond near my house even though there are no license requirements or catch limitations, and by not tossing trash out the window of my car even when I think I can get away with it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

With $5 Million+ for first prize in the main event, I simply don't believe that it should be the players' responsibility to tattle on another player by virtue of the fact that he is unlucky enough to be in the hand with him. While I certainly don't care very much how long players get to make decisions, my complaints is that the game is only kept moving by a rule that must be enforced by a player, and there is social pressure on a player not to enforce that rule (i.e. someone who began calling for a clock on every decision would eventually either stop getting it or be hounded by the others at the table). I don't see why it's hard to have a reasonable rule, like "Everyone gets 27 minutes maximum to make a decision" and have either a floorperson assigned to each table to enforce it (I realize that there are hundreds of tables in the main event, but there are millions of dollars at stake here--imagine if any other event with similar prize money thought it excessive to have enough referees) or to have it enforced by the dealer.

I prefer this rule to the "a player has one minute to act on his hand after the intimidated newbie in seat one (remember, there is also social pressure on people not in a hand to call for the clock, so the short-stacked newbie in seat 5 isn't going to call for it) works up the nerve to call for a clock and a floorperson manages to wander over." After said intimidated newbie in seat one calls for the clock, the staller is going to be permitted to verbally abuse him until his next decision, at which time the pool of jello where the newbie once was is now free to enforce the clock rule again if he can pull himself together.

I don't care how long you get, but it should be automatic. I can't even form the sentence "relying on the goodwill and honesty of a poker player" with a straight face, nor should I have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But for Barry's odd over-reaction in this particular instance, the system works extremely well right now in my view. Social pressure prevents people from doing it willy-nilly (just like it does for littering and other similar pool problems), there is more leeway as the stakes increase (that's why you'll hear "clock" in a 10-20 nlh cash game way before you'll hear it from a pro in a major tourney), and at the extremes, the rules work perfectly once someone invokes a clock.

Plus, if somebody seems to be taking advantage of the leeway, the whole table will often become clock-callers on that person, which both takes the pressure off of any particular person to enforce the rule alone, and also puts a ton of unneeded pressure on the person who was taking too long.

Not every one-off weird situation needs a new absolute rule ("sixty seconds each, no exceptions!!") to remedy it. That's where the saying "hard cases make bad law" comes from. Besides, doesn't even sound like this was an extreme case by Simon at all--anyone who considers picking up an extra $11k in chips by taking an extra minute or two of thinking (beyond the normal amount of thinking), and in a major event with a ton of real money at stake to boot, to be a real abuse of custom has overreacted a lot IMO.

But even if it was a real abuse by simon (which it very obviously WAS NOT), the answer would not be to make millions of other people get precisely sixty seconds max from now on in all situations--it would be to say the word "clock" in the particular situation!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with any of this enough to, well, disagree. I think this is all pretty reasonable.

[Matt Ruff]

ESPN: According to the complaint he filed with the tournament director, Greenstein was nearly mauled by a vicious tiger that had somehow gotten loose in the Rio poker room.

Simon Trumper: First of all, it wasn't a tiger, it was Daniel Negreanu's new pet tabby, Pho Noodle. And it only became vicious after Barry ill-advisedly stuck his finger in its eye.

Paul Phillips: CATS ARE RUINING POKER.