People may or may not be aware that I have been a vocal opponent of stalling when approaching the money bubble in MTTs. This behaviour, in my opinion, has been occurring for far too long, and was addressed poorly by both online poker sites and live poker tournaments. Many will argue that given the incentive structure of MTTs, that this is not a surprising behaviour, but it is nonetheless a scourge on the game. Poker players for a long time have dealt with a stereotype of being two-bit hustlers and angle shooters in the eyes of the public. Behaviour such as this only reinforces this viewpoint.
Recently, Jonas Mackoff (@donut604) responded to me on Twitter that this is not something worth being upset about, and that as a pro, he engages in stalling:
This, again, is not an uncommon viewpoint so I am not singling out Jonas here, but rather this point of view.
The Problem With “Structural Changes”: Round-for-round and calling the clock
In one response to my tweet, Justin Bonomo quoted Ike Haxton in saying that the problem with stalling can be remedied only with structural changes, not cultural ones:
I agree that structural changes are necessary at this point, but I disagree strongly with both Justin and Ike that there is no cultural component to this.
The fact is, that a great deal of poker relies on social pressure, and in most cases, social pressure is tremendously effective at making the game better. I can provide many examples.
- Slowrolling. I could make the argument that I would derive ev from putting people on tilt by slowrolling them every so often. By putting them on tilt, I improve my ev. Should I slowroll people to improve my ev? Obviously not; we have considered this socially unacceptable.
- Overly precise raise sizes. I have seen on Twitter a large number of people advocating for betting even amounts instead of overly precise ones, e.g. betting 1000 instead of 975. I have seen people argue that betting the odd number “confuses” people and should be part of a good strategy, but the current climate seems to indicate that there is a movement against this behaviour.
- Excessive tanking. Perhaps 3-4 years ago, we reached the peak of “balanced tanking” preflop, wherein players would immediately look at their cards upon their action, but always wait some specified period of time before acting, even when opening the pot for a standard raise. Similarly, players would almost never auto-check even in very clear situations, such as defending the bb vs an utg raise on a AA2 flop. This has gotten significantly better in the last couple years, I believe, because of social pressure, not rules.
- Tipping dealers. When it comes down to it, most people tip dealers in cash games due almost entirely to social pressure. There are a minority of altruistic players who tip because they want the dealer to be better off, but the fact is, most people simply tip so as not to look like cheapskates in front of other people.
- Berating fish. For some people, berating fish for bad plays “lets off steam” and therefore makes them feel better. Should they be allowed to do this? Clearly, most poker players would say no, this is behaviour that is clearly detrimental to the game at large and should therefore be ostracized. In a similar vein, thoughtful cash game players realize that they should not instantly yell for racks the moment the fish decides to leave the game.
I could literally go on for dozens of examples; these are just a few that quickly came to mind. Returning to the issue of stalling in MTTs, there is the issue of the actual efficacy of structural change. Justin and Ike argue that going hand-for-hand or round-for-round earlier would be an effective solution. But does anyone really want to play in a 2000-player field where we start going round-for-round at 50 players off the money, when there could be 30-50 tables left in the tournament? How terrible of an experience is this? Think about if you were a casual player in this circumstance. Would this be enjoyable? Would you even understand what was going on?
Casual player: What’s going on?
Regular player: We’re going to play X hands, then wait until the slowest table in the room finishes the same number of hands, then we’re going to play X hands, and do it again until we’re in the money.
Casual player: OMG, why on earth are we doing that? That’s going to take hours!
Regular player: Oh, it’s so that people don’t slow down their tables to play fewer hands, therefore reducing their risk of busting.
Casual player: Wow, really?! That never really crossed my mind. Why don’t people simply agree not to do that?
Regular player: …
And yes, people do stall 50 off the money in 2000 player fields. In fact, if we decide to make it socially acceptable to stall 50 off the money, who’s to say that it won’t one day be 100 off the money? Or 200 off the money. For those who argue that stalling is acceptable behaviour, at where do you draw the line and where do you think it’s okay? What makes you think that’s the correct place to draw the line?
The WSOP this year has tried to combat stalling by re-writing rule 80:
Quote:
80. Calling-for-clock: Once a reasonable amount of time has passed and a clock is called, Floor People may, in their sole discretion, give the participant an additional 0 up to 30 seconds to make a decision. If action has not been taken when prompted by the Floor Person, there 11 will be a 10-second countdown followed by a declaration or stopwatch alarm. If a participant has not acted before the declaration or alarm sounds, the hand will be dead. Rio, in its sole and absolute discretion, reserves the right, at any time, to invoke a clock or speed up the amount of time allotted for a clock. Any participant intentionally stalling the progress of the game or unnecessarily calling the clock will incur a penalty in accordance with Rules 40, 113, and 114
Proponents of the “structural change” idea suggest that if a person is clearly stalling near the bubble, one should call the floor and ask them to do something about it. But as anyone who has played the WSOP (or any poker tournament of significant size) knows, it takes time for the floorman to get to the table. Additionally, it puts the floorman in the position of deciding what is a reasonable tank. Maybe “everyone” knows that you shouldn’t shove 15BB with A4o vs an utg open, but the person tank-folding A4o can clearly make the argument that he was legiitmately thinking. Hell, he can have 82o and say he was considering “making a move”. Asking the floormen to make judgment calls like this is not where we want to go.
Besides, the problem is not someone who tanks a minute with 82o. It is the person who tanks for even 10 seconds with 82o, and the fact that there are four of him at every table. It is not realistic to ask the floor to police this out of the game.
The structural solution that would actually work, and that pros will hate
So now I have made the argument that no matter how one changes the rules for an MTT, nothing will change unless there is actual cultural change within the professional poker community. Indeed, the culture of poker pros is very powerful, as I’ve outlined above. But this culture shift will not come easily. It will require poker pros to ostracize people who continue to stall. There will be holdouts (just as there are people who tank, slowroll, berate fish, and don't tip), but eventually, the game will be better off.
If the professional poker community is insistent that only structural changes can solve this problem, then I only see one solution that will actually work: eliminating the bubble.
Right now in the vast majority of MTTs around the world, the bubble is worth anywhere from 0.75-2 buyins. This is obviously significant money. If the culture of acceptable stalling does not change, then the only real way to combat the problem fairly is to pay a huge percentage of the field, and make the mincash very small, like 0.1 buyins. Note that in every large-field MTT, there is a flurry of bustouts immediately after the bubble, because the subsequent payjumps are just fractions of a buy-in. Here are the lower payouts for the Millionaire Maker, as an example:
Note that $2249 for a $1000 buyin is something that many people would consider worth stalling for, but even the jump from 478th to 477th is not even 20% of the stone bubble. And I think most people would consider it unlikely that many people were stalling at 500 players.
Yet I think the majority of poker pros, if pressed, would be opposed to making bubbles as small as even 0.3 buyins. There is a great outcry when even 20% of the field is paid, but to make “soft bubbles”, probably well over 40% of the field would have to be paid. Payouts would have to be very flat until the final table, at which there is *finally* no incentive to stall.
I ask those poker pros who argue that a structural change -- not a cultural change -- is the only way to combat the stalling issue: Is this something you are willing to accept?
Last edited by TChan; 06-12-2017 at 02:59 PM.