Should Stars take action against stallers?

[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
I love stallers. They're how my stack magically grows around bubble time. How much more can they telegraph "I will fold 95% of my hands here"?

also, part of the game etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the game: read my earlier post.

I love stallers: yeah, I know. I've always loved stallers before, sort of selfish, but, hey, why tap the tank? It's never crossed my mind to complain before.

With the Stars Million, it really got on my [censored]. Firstly because it started so early. Secondly, if I'm honest, because staller was on the other side of the table and I couldn't capitalise. But mainly because I've really enjoyed the Million on the occasions that I've played, because I bring my 'A' game, because I've announced to wife and child 'do not disturb' and because I've just realised that to FT the thing, I'll be up till breakfast, which kind of sucks.

Also, no system can eradicate stalling, so we still get the tells. But...

full


time


bank


every


single


hand


with



400



to




go



just



sucks.

And I think a small modification could make all the difference while still giving players some opportunity to stall and other players some opportunity to profit from that.

[DonT77]

Great, now people know more ways to slow down the game.

[registrar]

Congrats on your score btw. I watched until two tables. Do I understand that Smurf pushed over your raise? That seems unwise. While I watched you, you seemed to have developed the happy knack of doing very little except calling off your whole stack with the best hand. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Thundercat32]

registrar,

I agree with your points, however in the WSOP $2,000 NL event this year the exact same thing happened in a "Live" game it was down to the final two tables, with each player going out the money was going up a couple thousand dollars, one table was accused of stalling so the other table started stalling, and that's just part of the game, until someone thinks of a better way.

If you think about it, say you're at the WSOP in the $2,000 NL down to 2 tables, you have 16th out of 17th in chips, maybe 4.5 BB, and it's on you to act, you see 9-7o wouldn't you take an extra long time to decide what to do? One more player goes out and you make an extra $2,500 (your buyin and than some) 2 more players go out and you make an extra $6,000, it makes sense to me that these players just want to make the most they can, and they should be afforded that opportunity.

like I said earlier I play for first, so it wouldn't be me doing this, but you can understand why they are doing it

[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
registrar,

I agree with your points, however in the WSOP $2,000 NL event this year the exact same thing happened in a "Live" game it was down to the final two tables, with each player going out the money was going up a couple thousand dollars, one table was accused of stalling so the other table started stalling, and that's just part of the game, until someone thinks of a better way.

If you think about it, say you're at the WSOP in the $2,000 NL down to 2 tables, you have 16th out of 17th in chips, maybe 4.5 BB, and it's on you to act, you see 9-7o wouldn't you take an extra long time to decide what to do? One more player goes out and you make an extra $2,500 (your buyin and than some) 2 more players go out and you make an extra $6,000, it makes sense to me that these players just want to make the most they can, and they should be afforded that opportunity.

like I said earlier I play for first, so it wouldn't be me doing this, but you can understand why they are doing it

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been known to stall and would do it again, on the FT table bubble, as SS, looking at my biggest ever score.

However, the effects can be limited so that it doesn't take up so much time or last so long.

If, for example, each time you used full bank, your bank was dropped by one second, two seconds or whatever, then the stalling would start later and wouldn't be quite so annoying.

[DonT77]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if you are a basketball fan, but this is like saying you can't allow a team who's down by 9 points with 42 seconds left to foul and "slow down" the game.

It's part of the strategy of the game.

Every basketball fan knows the last minute of a close game especially in the playoffs really takes more like 5-10 min, that's just part of it.

Does it suck, yes but it's part of his tools available

[/ QUOTE ]

As we all know - bubble time is usually a time when the big stacks try to bully the middle stacks to accumulate chips by using the extra FE associated with the bubble. This is a very advantageous time for players who have and know how to use a big stack. In this case there are like 850 'teams' all competing against each other at the same time so it handicaps some of the better 'teams' who only get to play 20 hands/hr vs 'teams' on other tables who are playing 60 hands/hour - is that fair? One team, by no fault of their own is struggling to score points against a four-corners offense, and another team gets to play against teams that chuck it up within 5 seconds. If you just let everybody know ahead of time that these are the rules you'll be playing under - then it is equally fair to everybody. I know that players who hate stallers would like to curb stalling, and the stallers themselves wouldn't mind the proposed rule change either - they just don't want to play at a disadvantage to other stallers, which they wouldn't if they all had the same time constraints. You rarely see people stall once 'hand-for-hand' kicks in -because there is no advantage to stalling, the same would be true with my proposed rule change - if you abuse your time bank, the less of it you will be given for future hands. Its that simple, and it is a much fairer system than what any site is currently running.

[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if you are a basketball fan, but this is like saying you can't allow a team who's down by 9 points with 42 seconds left to foul and "slow down" the game.

It's part of the strategy of the game.

Every basketball fan knows the last minute of a close game especially in the playoffs really takes more like 5-10 min, that's just part of it.

Does it suck, yes but it's part of his tools available

[/ QUOTE ]

As we all know - bubble time is usually a time when the big stacks try to bully the middle stacks to accumulate chips by using the extra FE associated with the bubble. This is a very advantageous time for players who have and know how to use a big stack. In this case there are like 850 'teams' all competing against each other at the same time so it handicaps some of the better 'teams' who only get to play 20 hands/hr vs 'teams' on other tables who are playing 60 hands/hour - is that fair? One team, by no fault of their own is struggling to score points against a four-corners offense, and another team gets to play against teams that chuck it up within 5 seconds. If you just let everybody know ahead of time that these are the rules you'll be playing under - then it is equally fair to everybody. I know that players who hate stallers would like to curb stalling, and the stallers themselves wouldn't mind the proposed rule change either - they just don't want to play at a disadvantage to other stallers, which they wouldn't if they all had the same time constraints. You rarely see people stall once 'hand-for-hand' kicks in -because there is no advantage to stalling, the same would be true with my proposed rule change - if you abuse your time bank, the less of it you will be given for future hands. Its that simple, and it is a much fairer system than what any site is currently running.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

Um, like Don said.

[Machinehead]

Stalling is a strategy? That's gold. I compare that to breaking your running back's leg to get an injury timeout in football. While it has a small advantage, it's unethical and severely hinders your chances of winning.

[ciaran]

[ QUOTE ]
Stalling is a strategy? That's gold. I compare that to breaking your running back's leg to get an injury timeout in football. While it has a small advantage, it's unethical and severely hinders your chances of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it in a turbo sat. It's not hard to boost the blinds a couple levels in an orbit and cause multiple shorties to end up all-in, so stalling when you've got good position on the blinds can easily make the difference between winning a seat and not.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO- if a player uses his entire time bank one hand, then he should be given 5 less seconds to act the following hand, and so on... until he only has 5 seconds left in his bank. Then if he acts within 5 seconds, add 5 seconds back to his bank each time he does this until he gets back to his standard time bank. This way you'll still have plenty of time to think if you have 2 or 3 difficult hands in a row, but it will keep people from using their entire time bank every hand solely for the purpose of stalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like this is definitely the correct answer. Banning is insane since we like to keep the fish on the site.