Simon Trumper's reply on ESPN

[gumpzilla]

I view this as a somewhat different beast than stalling just to kill time so players at other tables can bust out, i.e. deliberating for a minute over folding 72o preflop, or spending a minute before calling with the nuts in an all-in situation, or stupid things like that. It sounds like you don't. Do you care to elaborate on why?

Also, wouldn't this kind of stalling (river stalling with the nuts to milk a few more chips) be relatively rare compared to the other kind? I don't have experience with live tournament play, but my experience online would certainly suggest this. It seems like saying that moves like this are responsible for several hands fewer an hour is likely a bit of an exaggeration - or is this more common than I think?

[Scooterdoo]

If you're trying to get the rest of someone's chips there shouldn't be any time limit at all. Clearly if you're just calling his all-in bet you should do it right away and turn over your cards. But in this situation there should not be any rules at all. If someone can take 5 minutes or more to make an important decision without the nuts than they should be able to take the same time to do it with the nuts. Unless of course we want to simply ban all bluffing.

[fyodor]

It wasn't 10 minutes. It wasn't 5 minutes. It has been estimated by at least 3 people who were at the table as aprox. 2 minutes.

Players take 2 minutes to make desicions in these tournaments quite frequently. There is already a clock rule for those that abuse the rule.

What BG and PP seem to be suggesting is that you are only allowed to take your time if you have a tough decision. But everyone knows if you only take your time when you have a tough decision then you obviously don't have the nuts. So if you have half a brain in your head you also have to take your time when you do have the nuts.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
people seem to view it as "smart, tricky play" rather than the prisoner's dilemma defection

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, I would hardly call it prisoner's dillema defection. Trumper was thinking for approximately 2 mintues to gain an extra ~10,000 chips. Remember, at this point, average stack was 30,000 or so. Though the value of each of those chips decreases, that's still a hefty amount.

Prisoner's dilemma states that there is a greater benefit in cooperating (ie not making stalls like this), but instead people make stalls where they can get +EV scenarios but not nearly as much as they could have if they had played to speed.

I agree with the above sentiments, but you can't apply prisoner's dilemma to this hand in particular. We are talking an additional 2 minutes for an extra 10,000 chips. This should not be an argument. 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 (I would hopefully assume).

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHY NOT DO IT? Ethics aside

[/ QUOTE ]

You answered your own question.

These are the "brilliant" plays that have cut out several hands an hour since stalling became a regular tactic. As people seem to view it as "smart, tricky play" rather than the prisoner's dilemma defection that it is, we'll eventually have to lengthen the rulebook yet again. I don't think it's something to be proud of when new rules have to be introduced to deal with your brand of lameness.

[/ QUOTE ]

With regards to the prisoner's dilemma of hurting both parties by eating up time, please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the last hand of the night, and therefore made no difference either way? If it was, obviously your argument is further diminished.

Oops, about 30 minutes left, it appears. Still, a MUCH better chance at 12k more in chips at this stage is worth 2 or even 5 minutes. If you don't think so, you're lacking killer instinct for gentility.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was an American who wants to try to protect myself, I'd say (to those players at the table), 'It couldn't have been more than three minutes; you agree, don't you?' Not me. I said, 'I'm not saying anything.'

[/ QUOTE ]

what a douchebag.

[72off]

[ QUOTE ]
With regards to the prisoner's dilemma of hurting both parties by eating up time, please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the last hand of the night, and therefore made no difference either way? If it was, obviously your argument is further diminished.

[/ QUOTE ]

It apparently was not the last hand of the night:

[ QUOTE ]
...And he went in the tank - this is with less than a half-hour to go in the tournament (for the night)...

[/ QUOTE ]

[Paul Phillips]

[ 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.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With regards to the prisoner's dilemma of hurting both parties by eating up time, please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the last hand of the night, and therefore made no difference either way? If it was, obviously your argument is further diminished.

[/ QUOTE ]

It apparently was not the last hand of the night:

[ QUOTE ]
...And he went in the tank - this is with less than a half-hour to go in the tournament (for the night)...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I already edited my post way before you responded.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like a Chinese finger trap. But what assumptions do you make that I correlate this play with stalling in general? I pointed out in one of my earlier replies that I view stalling as less EV than cooperating with the police, did I not?

For simon they do, of course. That's the whole point!

This argument has holes. First off, Simon was frequenting a table with numerous experienced tournament players who would not have gone and "monkey see, monkey do" like the masses who now potentially could thanks to Greenstein bringing the issue up in an exagerrated manner resulting in Trumper's vindication and a higher regard to his tactics.

In assuming the above is true, ie that Simon's actions would have had little effect on his peers in future actions barring the actions would get released to the masses (and how could Simon even assume that), one would have to interpret their actions in this hand as that and that alone. If Trumper's actions cannot corrupt his peers, then he should strive to do what's best for himself.

The question all boils down to how detrimental (or effective) the play is viewed by the public, and the drop in EV in correlation to more players doing this compared to the EV Simon can potentially gain out of this pot.

All that aside, the whole argument should be moot, because Simon's "2 minute slowplay" probably only got through to 5 less experienced players at his table MAX, maybe a handfull more assuming some railbirding from other tables. The "damage" those handful of players could do to the game is but a drop in the ocean, and how often does one have the opportunity to slowplay with the nuts in a spot like that?