the real simon trumper

[MoreWineII]

Simon Trumper sounds extremely childish. I don't think this incident is worth getting pissed about though.

I'd just laugh at the guy, what a [censored] idiot lol.

btw, according to Simon's blog (whch apparently he doesn't write himself [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]) he only took two minutes to call HU with the nuts. He's supposedly going to write an article about the incident which will be posted tomorrow.

That website sucks, btw. Poker players that I've never heard of shouldn't have websites.

[Martin Aigner]

[ QUOTE ]
slow rolling the nuts is the same as exposing your hand during action. it's not against the rules

better look up those rules again. Those two aren't the same.


[/ QUOTE ]

a) That´s true

b) In the ESPN article Barry stated, that Simon slowrolled, but there were witnesses who stated the opposite, so I think it´s simply unfair to say that Simon slowrolled.

Martin Aigner

Martin Aigner

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]

On Poker Superstars 2... Is Johnny Chan low-class for asking Chris Moneymaker for a chip-count when CM moved all in on Chan's A-A??

He spent about 30-45 seconds counting out CM's chips, and then his own chips, before deciding to call.


He clearly was trying to get Ted Forrest in the pot too. If Chan knew 100% that another 45 seconds would have gotten Forrest's pocket 8-8 in the pot, would he have done it?

Absolutely! Would he have been Low-Class for it? Nope! That's great poker IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the inclusion of a third player changes the situation dramatically. Plus, I don't think Chan would have taken 10 minutes to make a decision (and whether or not Trumper actually took that long is a big factor in how I feel about this).

[hotdog da 2rd]

[ QUOTE ]
slow rolling the nuts is the same as exposing your hand during action. it's not against the rules

better look up those rules again. Those two aren't the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

oops, i meant the players who aren't in the action. example is a guy yelling out he folded pockets 3s when there's a 3 on the flop and there's still action amoung other players.

there are rules amoung poker that aren't heavily enforced because they are too childish and petty. IMO barry shoulda let this go, he's got better things to do.

[Trainwreck]

It's completely unnecessary and major dickhead moves.

It's certainly not within the realm of 'good for the game'.

I think he'll get a series of paybacks though, once the word spreads on this.

It's KARMA baby! (said in S.N. style accent)

>TW<

[mybrainssore]

"At this point. Greenstein says he's pretty sure he beaten, but he has a specific reason for not wanting to fold: He wanted to confirm that Trumper would sit there for that long - look, three minutes of indecision at a poker table seems like forever --and waste everyone's time when he was holding the nuts all along and not trying to run a bluff with, say, a lower flush than Greenstein held.

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
Have a mandatory 90 second clock for every decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would resolve SO MANY issues in resolving the "hollywood" aspect of poker.

Players do this to

- Confuse their opponents (as Simon did here to Barry) to entice a call

- Confuse their opponent to entice a fold

- Annoy their opponents to get them off their game

- Send a message to their opponents that if they are going to put you to a tough decision, you will be made to sit there for a few minutes to make you extremely uncomfortable

- Fake a tough decision to disguise a complete bluff

- Recall every hand they've seen you play and compile the results of those instances

- Make it more difficult for other to get a read on you

- Do the math

- Reduce the amount of actual play, making it more of a crapshoot in the face of escalating blinds/antes

Aside from the last 3, every other reason for running the clock is "Hollywood" or "angling" or whatever you ant to call it. These are the things that can only be combatted by everyone doing it, and if everyone does it, then yes, you will see 5 hands/hr.

If it takes you more than 90 seconds to do the math, then your an idiot.

Taking more than 90 seconds to get a read on someone (recalling previous hands) is too much.

Reducing the amount of play at each level, turning the tournament into more of a crapshoot is obviously not desirable for a championship (or any other event).

The PGA tour puts players on the clock in ALL events if they lag behind the group in front of them. They actually put the entire group (twosome or threesome) on the clock even if the cause of the slow play is a specific individual. This is not fair to the other player(s) in the group, but is fair for the entire field.

Championship 9-ball has a 30 second clock (?) with one extension (every game or something like that).

Competitors in these venues are forced to make their play sometimes when they have not had time to make a complete assessment of the situation.

Another factor, although simplistic, is very true. Your first instinct is usually correct.

I like the idea of a 90 second clock with a limited number of extensions.

[pokergripes]

Um, I hate to toss any hard facts into this otherwise-entertaining disagreement, but maybe we should remember that Greenstein actually said the following about the hand:

"So, I said I'll make a big enough bet so that if he raises, he'd almost have to have the nuts. So, I grabbed some chips and bet $17,500."

And:

"At this point [after the act], I'm saying the raise only makes sense if he's got the nuts, because I've represented a strong hand. I thought I was beat, but I looked at what I had left and it wouldn't be much if I fold, and it's going to be a pot of $90,000 or so.''

And:

"I said I would hate to condemn someone to be a (naughty word) for taking 10 minutes of everyone's time at the end of the night and somehow be mistaken,'' Greenstein said. "So, I called. Of course he had the nuts."

In other words, he's saying (i) he made a bad bet on the river, (ii) he had planned to toss the hand if he was raised, since obviously would mean he was beaten in light of the size of his bet relative to his remaining chips (so might as well save them), and (iii) he instead called because he wanted to know if it was really an act or not.

Sounds to me like the act worked as intended, and perhaps took down some extra chips. That's part of the game.

Sure, it would be bad if everyone took as much time as they could on every decision throughout a tourney, but so what--that's called a "common pool problem" in economics lingo, and the solution for it is a rule like a clock. Yes, there is some cost associated with calling a clock, but that's true of any rule. Besides, if a particular player does this all the time, then the cost associated with calling a clock on him drops off a lot, since everyone will be doing it.

Ten minutes is a long time. Two or three is not that bad, especially if done for a purpose. And, like they say about politics, poker ain't beanbag either [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pokergripes]

I just don't see how you can write that long list of mostly good reasons to sometimes take a long time on a decision, and then conclude that it should all be eliminated by an automatic clock.

Should we all just play on line from now on to speed things up? That would mean more hands, less travel time, etc...

And even on line, can we get rid of the chat window, tighten up the automatic clock, and perhaps get computers to play for us instead?

A lot of the stuff on your list also is what makes the game entertaining and interesting to those watching, which matters a lot for sponsorships, add-ons to prize pools, etc...Be careful what you wish for! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[NYCNative]

If I may add some perspective...

If the time was the two minute figure, Barry could have put him on the clock the second he bet and he would have spent only 50 seconds more deliberating.

Was back when I was in HS, I interviewed for a job in the front of the house waiting on tables. I was in the office and then the manager said "Excuse me" and left e alone.

When he got back, he asked me how long he was gone. I thought about it and guessed about five minutes. "I was only gone for one minute; I timed it," he said.

This was an example to me, the prospective employee, how the time spent by an impatient person seems a lot longer than it is, and how the time I make a customer wait two minutes will make it seem to them to be a lot longer.

I'd bet that this is what happened here...