Im glad he wasn't at my table....

Got this from Hard Boiled Poker ......

Monday, April 06, 2009
The Waiting Game

Are you REALLY comparing DN's conduct here to PH's in the UB scandal?

Every time I read your threads, a little piece of me dies inside.

Ahhh...I mis-read. My bad Chainsaw.

Don't be even more tilting than Chainsaw. I'm pretty sure he's referencing Phil's various chat blow-ups vs other players (see HossTBF).

ahh, i mis-read. I fixed my post. thx

We definitely DEFINITELY need one big Negreanu thread to contain all this crap.

used to like negreanu a lot but now im starting to slowly change my mind about him

I've only stalled once...in a freeroll satellite where the chip leader at the table was betting 8x big blinds despite his obvious security.

It is in the rules, and frankly, what Daniel thinks is irrelevant to the discussion. If people need to employ those tactics to be profitable in a given tourney then I'm fine with it. Maybe its not the most honorable tactic but no player owes Daniel a duty of convenience regardless of his influence on a given site.

I may not like the stalling tactic but I think its fine.

I think using the line "well, it's not against the rules" is an invalid and base-less statement when discussing the integrity and morality of a given situation or circumstance. A rulebook should be completely irrelevant when it comes to etiquette (which should be regulated and implemented based on good intentions and elementary social awareness).

Why must rules determine what's morally acceptable? This is an issue, not just in poker, but in every facet of life. In a lot of situations, you shouldn't need rules or laws to tell you how to conduct yourself... you should have the moral awareness to determine on your own. Just because a given action isn't outlawed doesn't make it an acceptable thing to do.

the rules are the rules, i wouldn't mind the break.

you're a piece of **** to stall. thats it.

If we're going to get into a discussion of morality, then I think it is wholely justifiable.

Whether it satisfies etiquette is another question. But rules and laws are supposed to reflect the morals of a given situation, it being society, sports or games....if it were immoral, it would be against the rules.

Also, on a strictly philosophical basis I can't think of any reason why it would be immoral. From a utilitarian perspective it is the right action to stall...because everyone that is eliminated in the stalling period moves all of the people being stalled up in the money. It isn't robbing them of anything other than time that they would have most likely spent at the table anyway.

From a Kantian perspective I suppose you are using the time of others as a means to an end but again, it seems unclear as to why this would be wrong if they would have spent the same amount of time at the table regardless. By sayng you're morally wrong for stalling you're sort of committing yourself to the view that slower live dealers are morally inferior to faster live dealers....because time is passing with fewer hands being dealt which is the only thing you can fault a staller for...

Morals are subjective. In some cultures people think its totally fine for people who commit adultery to be executed; in others they just put them on day-time tv. To suggest that stalling is morally wrong, and thus should not be permitted, is an invalid and base-less argument, because not everyone would agree that it is morally wrong, whilst others would point out that, as poker is a selfish game of small edges, what place is there for morals in the first place? Tbh, DN really doesn't represent Stars well when he attacks, and labels someone as 'a cheater' for doing something they are perfectly justified to do by the only criteria that matters - whats allowed and what's not -. But I expect he's anger is less to do with the player's actions, and more to do with his own life tilt as per usual.

Unless poker sites institute rules against it players are going to continue to stall near the bubble in tourneys. It takes equity away from the whole table, staller included, so they should imo. Daniel really shouldn't have to speak up about it though, in this case the onus is on Stars.

Well, let's discuss it on a more grand scale. The other night I was at a party where someone said "id I don't get pulled over, then who cares", when discussing driving drunk. I think society, as a whole, makes conscious decisions strictly by the letter of the law, or the likelihood of being caught, rather than their own good judgment and qualities. Also, I completely disagree with your line, "if it were immoral, it would be against the rules" - there are more than a handful of unacceptable actions that simply don't translate well in writing. Sometimes, you are forced to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are aware enough not to conduct themselves in certain manners or shoot angles.

In addition, there is some serious disconnect in a lot of the philosophical examples you've given, but I think it's an irrelevant perspective and aside from the original point.

Well, people would argue that cursing at the table isn't morally wrong (but it's against the rules in most regards @ WSOP). Also, in general, morals themselves aren't "subjective"... the severity and punishments are. It's generally understood and accepted that adultery is wrong, the punishment is where the subjective-ness lies.

However, I do agree that Daniel calling this player a "cheater" is absurd, out of line, and off mark. It would need to be against the rules to label someone a cheater.

You're "if I don't get pulled over" example falls short because that IS illegal conduct. The alternative is that he DOES get pulled over in which case he would be punished by the legal system. If someone were to get "caught" stalling, there would be no punishable offense under the current system.

In regards to your point that there are morally unacceptable actions that are not illegal, I would suggest you clarify. There is a difference between being a prick and being a criminal. So if I were to fart at you and say "how bout that?" It would be a prick thing to do but not necessarily immoral...

As for my disconnect...I don't believe there is. Emannuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham are two of the foremost moral philosophers with probably the two biggest moral philosophies in terms of influence and acceptance....everything I said aligns with what they said.

I do think stalling is sort of a prick move...but saying its immoral is inaccurate IMO. It's not any more immoral than being a jerk to your local supermarket clerk is...

Duplicate post, by mistake. Delete this mods, ha.
Sorry.

Fair enough...well, walking up to a random person on the streets and telling them they're "fat and ugly" isn't against the law, but is it proper conduct? Hell no. Do you do this often?

Maybe my choice of words, in calling it "immoral" is off mark, but I think you get my general point. Just because "stalling" isn't written in the rulebook, doesn't make it an acceptable action. The fact that people are justifying it from an etiquette standpoint based on rules and laws is un-parallel in more ways than one (or ten).

I know who Emmanuel Kant and Bentham are. I took a slew of philosophy classes from 2005-2007 (seems like so much more recent than that... ****, haha). But like I said, it's an irrelevant discussion because I feel like a lot of those ideas aren't applicable in artificial or fabricated societies (which is what a 'game' is, in a lot of forms).

I'm going to bed though. Good talk. Have a good night.

You too man...I certainly wasn't trying to be a prick!

Good discussion. At the very least this issue should be one that gets tossed around. Have a good night!

Thread is worthless without a Daniel post.

I think it's annoying, but its not against the rules. I wouldn't call it cheating.

Negreanu is finally right about something. Stallers are ***********.

The goal of playing poker is to make money. As long as you don't break the rules its fine. If someone determines they need to stall into the cash its the same as if they decide to fold into the cash. As long as he used the time that was given to him, and not collude by having someone else stall for him its fine.

Daniel probably wasn't himself and I wouldn't be either after more than 20 hands of limit razz. Why do you think Scotty Nguyen had to drink so much at the horse championship last year? To keep from going completely insane thats why.

Yeah, that'll stop em!

Am I the only one here that finds it ironic that the OP of a thread AGAINST stalling is Chainsaw?

The purpose of a timebank (at least, that's what I assume is a reasonable guess) is that you can take your time with tough decisions. Now with limit poker the decisions are generally probably a little less tough compared with pot or no-limit poker, facing huge reraises and/or allin-in decisions.

That aside, if it's clear that people are stalling instead of using it for its purpose, namely taking your time thinking about tough decisions, you're clearly abusing the rule.

Now atm the rules are so that people CAN bend the rules in their favor without consequences, without being punished. Immoral or not, it's just the way it is. I would have no problem changing it that the stalling won't happen again and the timebank is only used again with tough decisions. Why not an option to call the clock? If you take this long in a live tournament, they would probably call the clock on you too? If it happens multiple times, you would get a warning too... would have no problem to create somthing similar online. Dealing out a level is one thing, shorten the timebank to something ridiculously short would be something else...

Stalling is just poor etiquette and it ruins others fun and chances to continue with the game. I'm with ArcadianSky here: