Stalling

MoreWineII · #1 07-15-2005, 12:30 PM

In addition to Tiffany Williamson's actions which we all know about, I ran across this in the Cardplayer log.

Date / Time: 2005-07-14 15:49:00
Title: Tate Stalls
Log: Conor Tate disagrees with the penalty against Sheikhan, and is stalling on his decisions to help keep Sheikhan alive. The table is split on this tactic, and Tournament Directors are forced to call time on him each hand.

then:

Kessler raises to $90,000 Bernard Lee reraises all-in for $560,000 more. Tate stalls again, and his hand is called dead after the alotted time. Kessler folds. Lee shows K-K and takes down the pot.

What is your guys' opinion of all this stalling stuff? Legitimate tactic or breach of etiquette?

I see this online a lot, but up til now haven't really heard about it being used in live tournaments. Especially huge televised tournaments.

MrTrik · #2 07-15-2005, 12:42 PM

I'm not sure what the remedy is, but I'd like to see something done to minimize stalling. Some seem to do it to frustrate other players and others do it to protest a ruling. It's unsportsmanlike in my opinion. I'd hate to see the stalling players put on timeclocks (like chess), but I'm not coming up with better solutions just yet.

Maybe warn a player 2-3 times and on the next occurance, as judged by the dealer or the floor they get a time penalty. Say 10 mins or something.

superleeds · #3 07-15-2005, 12:47 PM

Simple, clear, consistant and consistantly enforced rules would take care of all of this.

SheridanCat · #4 07-15-2005, 01:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]

What is your guys' opinion of all this stalling stuff? Legitimate tactic or breach of etiquette?

I see this online a lot, but up til now haven't really heard about it being used in live tournaments. Especially huge televised tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

These stalls were in protest of the stupid f-word rule instituted this year. He was not using it as a tactic, as I recall. It was done earlier in the tournament also, and I agree with stalling in this case.

The rule is assinine and if the other players make the rule moot by stalling through the penalty, then it will be changed or eliminated.

Using stalling as a tactic has its place - say especially in a satellite with multiple first place payouts. I saw this repeatedly in the low-buyin PokerStars WSOP satellites where 30 places moved on. That's just the way it is.

Regards,

T

fnurt · #5 07-15-2005, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What is your guys' opinion of all this stalling stuff? Legitimate tactic or breach of etiquette?

I see this online a lot, but up til now haven't really heard about it being used in live tournaments. Especially huge televised tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

These stalls were in protest of the stupid f-word rule instituted this year. He was not using it as a tactic, as I recall. It was done earlier in the tournament also, and I agree with stalling in this case.

The rule is assinine and if the other players make the rule moot by stalling through the penalty, then it will be changed or eliminated.

Using stalling as a tactic has its place - say especially in a satellite with multiple first place payouts. I saw this repeatedly in the low-buyin PokerStars WSOP satellites where 30 places moved on. That's just the way it is.

Regards,

T

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a tactic, but uh, it's a dumb tactic to allow. What happens in these tournaments is that every table slows to a crawl, and the end result probably isn't any different because all tables are stalling equally, but it just takes an extra hour to finish.

Maybe in online events there's a limited amount of things you can do about it. But in a live tournament, it's ridiculous if all you can do is call the clock on someone, hand after hand after hand. The rules should allow the director to take more severe measures in the case of repeated or systematic stalling, which still allows you to go into the tank on legitimately tough decisions if you need to.

rollingdirty · #6 07-15-2005, 02:36 PM

Daliman · #7 07-15-2005, 03:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Simple, clear, consistant and consistantly enforced rules would take care of all of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, the stalling rule is all of that. If a clock is called on you, you have one minute and ten seconds to act from when the floor starts the clock. It's just that it is an easily exploitable rule.

P.S. I have no problem with it in the case of the guy who was stalling for the guy who didn;t know it wasn't a full break.

SheridanCat · #8 07-15-2005, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

It's a tactic, but uh, it's a dumb tactic to allow.

The rules should allow the director to take more severe measures in the case of repeated or systematic stalling, which still allows you to go into the tank on legitimately tough decisions if you need to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't argue with that, because I think you're right. The director should have the discretion to assess a penalty for excessive stalling. That would take away a questionable tactic.

Regards,

T

SheridanCat · #9 07-15-2005, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There should just be a set amount of time. Whatever it is and if someone wants to use his entire amount then that is his business. The F-word penalty is ridiculous and i would have stalled too. If you do not want to hear any bad words then maybe you should play Bridge or something. It's POKER seriously..

[/ QUOTE ]

No to mention the fact, there is some pretty filthy language that could be used that doesn't use [the word that shall not be said]. Just penalize dealer abuse and let the f-bombs drop like rain when they aren't part of an abuse tyrade.

Regards,

T

fnurt · #10 07-15-2005, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There should just be a set amount of time. Whatever it is and if someone wants to use his entire amount then that is his business. The F-word penalty is ridiculous and i would have stalled too. If you do not want to hear any bad words then maybe you should play Bridge or something. It's POKER seriously..

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are two ways to have a "set amount of time." Under the current rules, you have a set amount of time every time the clock gets called, but that doesn't really help if someone is going to insist the clock get called on them every single decision. It's an abuse of the system.

The other way to have a "set amount of time" is to have a total amount of time to make all your decisions, kind of like how a chess match is, but that's only feasible online (the "time bank" system). And everyone who has played online knows that the time bank is exploitable for the same reason the live rules are exploitable; you can just use up all your "free" time every single decision, the same way the live player can wait for the clock to be called every time, with the end result being a ridiculous delay in the tournament.

Basically, directors should just be authorized to use some common sense and warn or punish players when they are obviously stalling on EVERY decision, just for the sake of delaying the game.