Yeah, the depth you are getting into makes the whole situation a lot more complicated. The level I was trying to describe was only the one that made the tournament play out the fastest. If everyone "cooperates" and doesn't stall, the tournament plays out as fast as possible. If one table short stack defects and another short stack at the other table retaliates, no one individual gains and the entire group "loses" time as the tournament takes longer to play out.

In other words, I am measuring the "EV" in time whereas there are other ways to look at it (as you say) that can measure in $$ and also involve game theory (and which get way more intricate IMO).

I was at the other table. If I stall at my table and we get fewer hands/hr than him then that's -EV for him compared no nobody stalling anywhere.

Chainsaw's name dropping is hilarious.

X poker pro says y

Love when he leads off a reply with that.

I shouldn't quote someone when i use their opionion?

No. Better to quote no one and weight all opinions similarly. Currently you are losing 336-455.

your argument that you are trying to maximize EV by stalling in online tournaments should directly translate to stalling in live events. EV is EV whether you're playing online or live.

and who's to say that stalling is necessarily +ev? cashing would have to have a tremendous impact to your overall bankroll to a point where you almost certainly shouldn't be playing in the tournament to begin with.

Cashing is not more valuable than busting?

You need to distinguish between situations such as having a stack that if doubled would make you competitive, and one that if doubled would still leave you desperately short (in the latter situation, you may have zero fold equity, so that you are looking only at doubling or busting, but of course in the former you might also gain by making the rest of the table fold). Also, the tilt caused by playing a big tourney, which you had hoped to do well in, and busting after five, six hours with absolutely no reward needs to be factored in.

Don't stall or he will come after you!

I understand OP is wanting judgment on a tournament he actually played, but this point could be much better made with a less ambiguous example. How about a hyper-turbo satellite like they run on stars? Not stalling in those has to be suicidally -EV regardless of skill level, they're just set up that way.

I don't think stalling is often +EV in a cash tournament, but on those rare occasions it is I don't have an ethical problem with doing it - where it's a problem for other players it simply reflects a bad structure. I don't defend angle shooting but I really can't see how using a timebank allocated by the site for the purpose of that tournament amounts to a breach of etiquette.

/thread

basically

lol

Oh look, someone else in NVG who doesn't know what "+EV" means.


If you get tilted by coming close but failing to cash, so tilted that you're willing to change your play in part to avoid that effect, then you have bigger issues than stalling.

..............


...Regardless of the 16 pages of debating over weather angle-shooting is cool or not, if I meet any of the 354 people who voted in favor of stalling, I'm going to forcefully take you into a dark alley and rape you annaly. Except if you're a woman because that's considered sexual assault.

Dude, I get tilted by the sun not shining. Probably need my script refilled, hey?






That's like extra incentive IYAM!

I heard about this debate on the pokercast, and I couldn't decide what side I came down on. It seemed like a douche-y thing in a live tournament, but perfectly reasonable online. I spent some time pondering it and think I figured out why I had this reaction.

In an online tournament, you're actually given a finite time bank, whereas in a live tournament you're just allowed to take the time you need as long as you don't abuse it. Psychologically, we perceive the time bank as an asset - something to be used to help us get as far as we can. But without the time bank in a live tourney we're governed by the social pressures to not be a scumbag. Think how different it would be in a live tourney if you were handed a physical marker that was worth 10 minutes of thinking. I think we'd see a LOT more people using up that time on the bubble just to squeak their way into the money. The presence of a real, finite time bank makes it a question of economics and not ethics (or courtesy).

It reminds me of an anecdote in the book Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. A day care center was having trouble with a few parents who were picking up their kids late. The center tried to solve this by instituting a $5 fee if parents picked up their kids late. Instead of solving the problem, it actually MADE IT WORSE! Parents were suddenly absolved of the guilt and societal pressures to pick up their kids on time, and since $5 seemed like a reasonable fee for picking up their kids late, more and more parents started arriving later and later. This is the same thing. In an online tourney, a time bank is an asset that we're all given at the start along with our pile of chips, and it seems economical and reasonable for us to "cash in" that asset when most advantageous. But without the bank, the dynamics at the table are more social, and the pressures from the other players generally keep us from abusing the time we're given, even though it's (theoretically) much longer than a time bank ever could be.

Just my two cents.

Ask yourself this honestly -
1 - have you [HONESTLY] ever had a problem with pro sports such as football and basketball running out the clock when they were winning?
2 - are you very against people stalling near the bubble in poker tournaments?

REALITY CHECK TIME - if you answered "no" to the first and "yes" to the second, then you are a BIG FAT HYPOCRITE. there is no difference between the two scenarios.

i can't remember ever seeing michael jordan dribbling out the clock at the end of a game and charles oakley yelling at him "come on you douche take a shot"

The only time I find stalling useful is when I need to go to the bathroom.

Even if you are a shorter stack, I think it's in your favor to keep the action at the current level going so you can see more hands during that time, giving you a chance to double up so when the blinds do go up, hopefully it will increase the chance that it won't matter later.

But I don't blame supershort stacks for table railing during the bubble, and stalling when another SS is about to be the BB, so that BB has to pay more.

Anonymity is one of the things that is good for online poker...... but also bad in this regard (along with hit n' runs) b/c live you can berate the player(s) at your table who are stalling, making it uncomfortable to do. Online the chat is shut off (either on the client's end or the user's end) and the embarrassment factor isn't there.

My favorite bubble story however live was during the "Great Minds" PAD where Brandon Adams mentions that during the 2006 USPC, his whole table OPENLY discussed folding every hand to each other until they made the money (he was the only to refuse) during a brutal bubble period. A good idea, if only the nits where smart enough to NOT OPENLY discuss it.

Either way, a nit is a nit and you can't change it, just deal with it.

I heard about this case as well, it happened in Israel if I remember right. Terrific analogy, very relevant. Props.

No hand is worth thousands in equity when you can stall and be guaranteed the money a few hands later. It's really a simple concept...

I'm not one to normally talk bad about people but this bumping your own threads is quite pathetic

and then level the grinders and steal their blinds