Negreanu goes after online stallers ..... - Page 6 - Poker News

TcMrMike · 04-18-2009, 02:36 PM

[QUOTE=Jofeljoh!;10083660]

let's just say the following situation rises: you've just gone allin on the river with say the 2nd nuts. Your opponent uses his 6 minutes time bank, then 1 second before it's up, he calls and turns over the mortal nuts...

QUOTE]

One is being used to take advantage of the rules that currently exist to improve YOUR situation, the other is gaining you no advantage and only being used to show a players up.

Jofeljoh! · 04-18-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcadianSky

Again, with all due respect... you'd have to be a complete idiot to not realize someone is stalling when they're time banking every single hand, every chance they have, right on the bubble. Gimme a break dude
.

Indeed, this is all within context. Also, it was a HORSE event. Limit poker. nuff said.

**David Sklansky** · 04-18-2009, 02:38 PM

The problem with stalling is that it is totally unrelated to poker skill, every player is equally aware of its effectivesness to get a short stack through the bubble, and it irritates others to the point that the average considerate person hates to do it.

Thus we are talking about a technique that takes no skill but rewards only your willingness to be inconsiderate. If DN had not unwisely used the word "cheating" his point would have been pretty irrefutable.

DKJ · 04-18-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcadianSky

Again, with all due respect... you'd have to be a complete idiot to not realize someone is stalling when they're time banking every single hand, every chance they have, right on the bubble. Gimme a break dude

Would you know live? You don't get a clock with a running countdown on screen at the Rio, you know...

Sure, you can tell obvious stallers online, I'm not denying the obvious. But, what about the guy who's computer or internet just sucks and it looks like he is stalling every hand? It's a very slippery slope.

Also, it's unenforceable. Hypothetically, you are at a table with Gus Hansen, well known for his propensity to play any two. Gus decides to stall as he's fairly short. A player reports him to the online "floor", and Gus can say "I'm taking time on my decisions!" For a player that will play any two, when can you say he's stalling and when can you say he's thinking?

That's the strangest part of this for me, is with Daniel's immense amount of live experience, that he would get semi-tilty off a two minute wait online at a crucial point in the tournament.

Think about the point you are making to me here, sir. "Stalling is HORRIBLE, but you better never call the clock!" I know that's not your words, but its the basic point.

SluggerWV · 04-18-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKJ

That's fine. Consider what I've said though.

Ms. Michelle stated that she felt she was "short" and the blinds were raising. In other words, the time the player was taking to make his decision was affecting the way she would have to play her own game. By the tournament rules, she is allowed to request the clock on the player. So, strictly from a rules standpoint, she's 100% within her rights. Again, she also has incomplete information, so she has absolutely zero idea what her opponent is holding. He could be stalling, or he could be agonizing. Because you got to see the hand on WSOP you feel it was a legitimate decision requiring massive amounts of time.

In actuality, Snead had grievously misplayed his hand, and IMHO and the opinion of many other posters here, he shouldn't have even had to timebank it on the action if it were online simply because he played it so badly he left himself no other play.

So, I guess it comes to this. In a game of incomplete information, you can never prove if someone is stalling or not, unless they play every hand face up.

Also, I prefer not to think of morality in such utilitarian terms. If it's a $1000 tournament with $100k to first, everyone would say her action was not only legal, but probably everyone would cheer because Snead took forever to make a play your kid sister could make. But, put 9 million on the line and the morality changes? Her action is only frowned upon because of the large amount of money in play, and for absolutely zero other reason.

Just to be clear, I didn't like the clock called in the WSOP because its obviously the largest tournament on Earth. I don't like stallers either. Regardless, both plays are currently legal, and by the terminology I've read from Stars in this thread, Tiffany's is far more legal and ethical.

Hell, according to Daniel Negreanu, beatdowns used to be issued to stallers, yet 95% of the community criticized a player who was completely within their rights? With all due respect, that's just wrong.

but she wasn't short she had apprx 50bb at the time she made her decision to call the clock

noteye · 04-18-2009, 02:43 PM

Daniel was wrong for attacking this guy, he was stalling but he wasn't breaking the rules. Daniel was upset because it was messing up with his game, he wanted to take advantage of the bubble by attacking. This was in bad sportsmanship from him and should not be tolerated by PS, he is there sponsored pro so he should have acted professional. The last thing he should have done was saying PS should change the rule to better suit him.

Would it have been wrong if a big stack in the small blind stalled 20 seconds when the time clock is about to run up and the blinds increase so the short stacks to his left would be put all-in?

These are tournaments, there is all types of strategy to be played. Just because someone does something within the rules that makes it harder for you to use your own strategy doesn't mean the rule should be changed.

TcMrMike · 04-18-2009, 02:47 PM

Question: Live tourny - 24 players left, Money top 21, you are one of half dozen short stacks, players at other two tables averaging 10 minutes per hand, your table playing a hand every 2 minutes. Obvious stalling going on at other two tables. Would you not bring this to attention of Tournament Director? Assumption is tournament director would move to correct the descreptancy. If tournament director does nothing (which is the case online, because one does not exist), would you not make every effort to get the number of hands per table equal?

atakdog · 04-18-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigtim

That would completely and fundamentally change the game of basketball for the worse. Making your freethrows at the end of the game with thte pressure of winning the game on that one individual's shoulders is what the game is all about.

If you gave a team the option of possession instead of fts, then the winning team would simply pass and dribble out the clock. How is that any better whatsoever?

Make it harder to score somehow?? Really? The most exciting part of basketball is the last minute comebacks. That would be like making it so you could only win a hand at the final table with Jacks or better. Dumb.

I knew there was a reason basketball seemed so boring, notwithstanding the incredible athletic feats the great players can perform...

Jofeljoh! · 04-18-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TcMrMike

One is being used to take advantage of the rules that currently exist to improve YOUR situation, the other is gaining you no advantage and only being used to show a players up.

And for metagame purposes? Lifetilt your opponent? Can possibly improve you on next hands?

What if the slowroller is still a shorstack on the bubble and not really wants to slowroll, but finds it's a good spot to stall? Oke again?

Somehow I still think the table will go nuts.

But can you still be with me on the fact that stalling isn't very good etiquette, although it's within the rules. Just as slowrolling is? Somehow I still think most people here, even the pro-stallers, will be lifetilted if they're being slowrolled.

TcMrMike · 04-18-2009, 02:54 PM

Agree that we can get into metagame when it comes to slow rolling versus stalling, but I think one (slowrolling) is PRIMARLY to show up another person, where stalling is PRIMARLY to benefit oneself.

Also as I posted a while ago, I also hate stalling, but feel by not doing it when other are I would be putting myself at too much of a disadvantage.

atakdog · 04-18-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

The problem with stalling is that it is totally unrelated to poker skill, every player is equally aware of its effectivesness to get a short stack through the bubble, and it irritates others to the point that the average considerate person hates to do it.

Thus we are talking about a technique that takes no skill but rewards only your willingness to be inconsiderate. If DN had not unwisely used the word "cheating" his point would have been pretty irrefutable.

Well said. It's slightly disingenuous to aver that there is no difference among players' understanding of it, but it's clear that there is so little skill involved in knowing when to stall that a game based on it would be boring.

It's also true that stalling is generally perceived as being inconsiderate, so the primary determinant of who benefits from it is social rather than skill-based. No other aspect of poker is like that.

DKJ · 04-18-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

The problem with stalling is that it is totally unrelated to poker skill, every player is equally aware of its effectivesness to get a short stack through the bubble, and it irritates others to the point that the average considerate person hates to do it.

Thus we are talking about a technique that takes no skill but rewards only your willingness to be inconsiderate. If DN had not unwisely used the word "cheating" his point would have been pretty irrefutable.

Sure, it takes no skill - but they are still using their time in a strategic fashion to improve their expectation. If they are 90% sure that they will not cash if they act immediately upon it becoming their turn, but 90% sure that they will cash if they take every possible second allotted to them before acting, they are improving their expectation - which is what we all seek to do with every decision.

I'm not saying I agree with it or think it is ethical, but what would you suggest, Mr. Sklansky? Players are given a limited amount of time before they are warned they have 15 seconds left to act, and then they have a time bank they can use to make decisions at their leisure. Once the time bank is gone, they obviously only get 30 seconds to act per hand.

I just don't see what the online sites can do to prevent stalling, as with my hypothetical situation with Gus Hansen earlier, how could you ever say with any certainty whether he was contemplating an action, or stalling?

(No disrespect intended for Mr. Hansen, by the way - he's simply a LAG player that I knew everyone would be able to associate with this scenario.)

TcMrMike · 04-18-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

The problem with stalling is that it is totally unrelated to poker skill, every player is equally aware of its effectivesness to get a short stack through the bubble, and it irritates others to the point that the average considerate person hates to do it.

Thus we are talking about a technique that takes no skill but rewards only your willingness to be inconsiderate. If DN had not unwisely used the word "cheating" his point would have been pretty irrefutable.

Is it "poker skill" to take advantage of a structure? Is table selection "poker skill?" There are lots of thing players do, or do not do, that effect their bottom line that is not "poker skill". Again, hate stalling, but not going to watch others do it and put myself at a disadvantage.

DKJ · 04-18-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SluggerWV

but she wasn't short she had apprx 50bb at the time she made her decision to call the clock

She felt short. Shouldn't that be all that matters? She felt that the time this player was taking was excessive and was affecting her expectation in the tournament.

Obviously, a thinking and experienced player doesn't feel short at 50bb, but I've never claimed Ms. Michelle to be a pro, either. She was inexperienced, probably highly nervous, and playing for life-changing money. Again, she felt that the other player was taking excessive time, thus affecting her in the tournament.

It's not a matter of what we know about strategic concepts, it's a matter of the individual. If you feel making a legal action will improve your chances of winning, it is -EV not to take that action.

Unfortunately, it's also the same for the staller. The player thinks he will improve his expectation and cash the tournament if he lets his 30 seconds expire before acting every hand. You can't ever say he's not thinking while he has a hand, as I've already said - people can and will play any two cards. So, whether the action is "moral" or "considerate" isn't at bar here. It's legal, and improves the players expectation.

I hate making this longer, but I do want to clarify once more - I don't agree with players who stall. I didn't agree with Tiffany calling the clock in a 12 million pot either, it's not something I would have done. Regardless what I feel though, both actions are technically in the scope of the rules, and the last time I checked - we were all pretty ruthless in grinding out every ounce of expectation we can from our hands, how can we expect our competition not to be just as ruthless, especially when it's technically legal?

DonJ · 04-18-2009, 03:20 PM

So let me get this straight. Daniel used to administer beatdowns?