It isn't necessarily. I think it's the "necessarily" part that is confusing you.

Intentionally breaking a rule to gain an advantage is cheating, even if that rule is an etiquette rule.

However, not all etiquette violations fit that description. It could be unintentional, for instance. Or, it could be without the purpose of gaining an advantage (benign). Do you see now? Etiquette violations are not necessarily cheating, although they can be.

You can keep saying this but it's simply not true. A lot of vulgar or offensive words are against the rules. People say them all the time in an attempt to rattle opponents knowing full well what the penalty will.

It's no difference than a sports team intentionally commuting a foul or penalty. Breaking a rule when the advantage of doing so is greater than the penalty isn't cheating. It's just playing by the rules

imo the etiquette rule should also be applied to the TD, he had the worst etiquette of any of the humans involved

condescending
self important
contemptuous
disruptive of Kassouf telling his side

and worst of all blatantly partial towards the player with whom he had aligned business interests.

He should have been the one to take a time out for a round or two.

In fact, can anyone answer why he was even called over? There was a floor standing directly behind the dealer, addressing the lady's complaints, witnessing everything with his own eyes. Then Jack comes in and the only information he has is second hand, excepting that he has a business relationship with one of the players.

He's seen nothing himself and doesn't even give Kassouf a chance to tell his side of the story.

The floor that witnessed everything should have continued dealing with the situation. I would bet that the floor dealing w/the situation called Jack over specifically because he knew who that lady with regard to the dealer school and didn't want to have any decision he made come back on him in some way.

Clearly a biased decision from an edgy TD who had no actual first hand knowledge of what occurred.

I'm not really sure that breaking a rule is just playing by the rules. That doesn't make sense. Rules allow for infractions and give penalties -- is that what you're saying?

So, sometimes breaking the rules is winning strategy. Like deflating a football or putting a curve on a hockey stick.

So, in your mind, Kassouf's speech play is worse than angle shooting but not as bad as blatant cheating (like spying hole cards or something). Yes?

Not all rule violations are the same. Tackling a wide open receiver to prevent a touchdown or over inflating a football are both against the rules. Both can be broken to gain an advantage, but only one of those will get you accused of cheating.

Someone like Kassouf would annoy the hell out of me if they were at my table. However it does make for more entertaining TV and a throwback to the Jamie Gold classic table talk era. 2006 really was the pinnacle of poker entertainment. Am interested to see how Kassouf does as the tournament reaches it's conclusion altho I know he doesn't make it to the last 9.

Contrast Kassouf with Per 'pair' whatshisname. He's only watchable cos of the shtick from Norman Chad, otherwise another drone who hardly says a word. If the tournament was filled with Kassoufs it would be far more entertaining. What's also interesting is how much other people have to say when they are at his table, like you need someone to kick off the chat. They really need to sort out this no-tabletalk rule. It is bad for the game.

The excessive chatter rule is both fairly stupid, and subjective. Kassouf was talking a lot yes, but he wasn't yelling at her constantly throughout the minute or anything trying to distract her, yes, he was talking a lot but it was to try and get an edge over his opponent and it wasn't abusive or revealing his hole cards which are the only types of chatter that should be banned in a heads up pot. At the end of the day, that's part of poker.

In one of the hands that didn't get shown the year I was on the coverage I peeled a 3bet against my opponent and told him I was going to checkraise him on the river preflop, checkcalled small bets on flop and turn, ended up backdooring the second nuts, checked the river and as he tanked on what I thought was a clear thin value bet spot with most of his range I told him stuff like 'you can't win if you check' to get him to bet obviously trying to make it look like I had marginal showdown value and wanted a free showdown. He bet, I checkraised, then I went on a spiel about how I even told him I was going to check raise him on the river preflop why would you bet to try and tilt him into calling. It didn't work (and in hindsight probably a mistake to talk in that spot and looks strong) and he folded. I then told him I turned K9 into a bluff (board was Ts7x3xKsQx and I had J9ss) because I knew he would fold his AA/AK (from his line it was fairly likely he had one of those holdings). He told me he didn't believe me and I clearly had the nuts, I told him to turn over a card from my hand (taking the 50/50 risk he'd pick the nine). He picked the nine and looked mentally defeated and didn't 3bet me for the rest of the day. The hand would have been great TV, it didn't get shown for some reason, I assume because the camera didn't get either my or his hole cards. Instead the one hand that they showed of mine was me folding top pair on a river, which no one cares about as there was nothing particularly interesting about the hand.

These Kassouf hands are the most interesting thing from this year's coverage so far and similar antics should be encouraged because it makes poker watchable. Would anybody have cared about Humberto Brenes if he didn't have his 'chark' or Magriel's x22 quack quack, or Jamie Gold's antics? Those sort of antics were a major factor in making poker watchable on TV and along with the invention of hole card cameras and online poker becoming a thing, poker being 'cool and interesting' and watchable on TV which led to the poker boom. High Stakes Poker and similar shows back in the day had interesting characters and banter, you didn't see the TD giving Tony G a penalty for berating Ralph Perry and telling him his career is finished for calling with king jack, these are iconic hands that poker players remember.

If Kassouf had been berating her during the hand as she was tanking, he would deserve a penalty, but trying to throw someone off their game during a heads up pot with non abusive banter is an important part of poker and should be protected and even encouraged during televised events. Effel didn't even let him tell his side of the story and just went full power trip.

Kassouf didn't give me the bad impression, it's the director and that woman. After reading this thread and her replies, it's clear that she is as vain as she appeared on TV.

Bearing in mind it carries a penalty, do you consider over celebrating in football cheating?

LOL at penalizing the guy for being annoying.

Is it intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage?

Haven't seen the video but I can't imagine talk so bad that it would merit a penalty before a warning was issued.

Also doesn't Phil Hellmuth get abuse amateur players every time he's on tv and he's never had a penalty enforced against him to my knowledge.

A warning was given.

Hellmuth spews his BS when action is on himself for the most part, or after the hand is over. The guy we're talking about in this thread uses a constant barrage of babble while his opponent's have the action.

Kassouf fan here. Been out of poker for years, tuned in to the recent WSOP broadcasts and couldn't get enough of the guy. When he tells a player to add more colors of chips to his bet, and when the player doesn't, Kassouf says "well thats not very friendly". Love this guy.

I started playing poker because it was fun. Talking crap at the table is what made it fun. Kassouf exemplifies having fun at the table. I hope he is a staple in televised poker for years to come. He is up there with the hellmuths, devilfishes, and Tony G's of the world. Breath of fresh air imo.

With that said, his stalling tactics are trash and hopefully will be fixed if poker institutes a shot clock, which if becomes the standard, will cause me to get back into poker, no question.

The guy who called the clock, Mitch Garshofsky, is seen in this video from the 2007 WSOP ME.

Any action that could potentially mess with an opponents' composure could gain an edge, so yeah why not.

Bill Belichick would have done it by now.

Impromptu poll.

His "9 high like a boss" line was:

A. Phenomenal
B. Magnificent
C. Pure Brilliance
D. All of the Above
E. You have zero personality and didn't care for his line.

this deserves more love!

his jean shorts are legit

completely agree. talking, banter, taunting, is a part of poker. everyone talks **** about the internet kids sitting doing nothing saying nothing then this guy plays the mind game and gets penalized. i'm certain it wouldn't have played out that way if it was vs. a male.

Cheating is like murder. Premeditated, planned, with perhaps conspiracy thrown in.

Generally, rules violations that do not amount to cheating are like manslaughter...actions taken on the spur of the moment that are not planned with 'malice aforethought'.

Although really even holding or false start can be considered a form of cheating so who the hell knows.

It's a lot like pornography ... we know it when we see it.

F. Marvelous

there isnt one pro football/basketball/baseball team that hasnt intentionally committed a foul to gain an edge. the difference between a foul and cheating is that fouls are expected so they have a set penalty. cheating is breaking rules that are expected to never be broken and you are suspended or kicked out of the league. its the difference between tom brady illegally grounding a pass and him deflating footballs. one gets a set penalty the other is a suspension.

Yes, I watched the video and saw that there was discussion during the hand. Certainly there was sufficient warning to Mr Boss that even his hand signals were considered by tournament staff to be crossing the line and that if they continued he would receive a penalty.

It seemed to me that the penalty was somewhat arbitrary - especially a full round -- and given at least in part because Mr Boss was flauting the rules and Mr Director felt disrespected and in part because Mr Boss's opponent was a woman. I also doubt the same action would have been taken if the opponent had been a male player.

True.

However I think the constant barrage of abuse that Mr Hellmuth is capable of has the potential and the purpose to intimidate amateur players and try to take them off their game.

Given that the abuse has been continuous over the years and the incidents appear on television to last longer than ten or even twenty minutes (can't be sure about that though) the fact that Mr Hellmuth has - to my knowledge -- never had a penalty enforced against him I conclude that Mr Director has shown clear favoritism to Mr Hellmuth and showed extreme dismissiveness in comparision to Mr Boss.