Vogelsang dials the watch after 25 seconds
Last Sunday, I had a little fight at the table with Dutch poker player and charismatic fashion designer Tom Vogelsang who called me “clock” 20 to 25 seconds after I made my decision when we were shoulder to shoulder, just three points away from the money in a €2,200 ($2,380) FPS. Paris High Roller. In doing so, he broke my concentration while I was considering a very difficult point with huge implications for ICM. In my opinion, this was a rude, inappropriate and unsporting thing to do to a player at a key moment in the tournament at the end of a grueling 14-hour day.
I immediately told her that this was “ridiculous.”
Suffice it to say I was angry. The person on the floor was called to our table to judge and I immediately told her this was “ridiculous”. I asked the dealer how much time had passed and he replied: “30 seconds.” “Well, there’s not enough time then,” she responded and walked away. I braced myself and weighed the place.
The tabletop slide leader opened in the hijacking, as it did in almost any unopened orbital vessel. I was in the cut zone with 26 big blinds. I saw in my peripheral vision that there was an eliminated player at an adjacent table. This means that there are 190 players remaining with 188 players paid. From the moment the floor attendant walked away, it took about 30 seconds before I had to push everything.
Vogelsang folded his button and immediately jumped out of his chair, laughing with another player at the table. “He just did that to make a point,” he said. And I was even angrier. A comment like this is completely out of line, and is a stupid comment at best and an angle shot at worst, because it can affect the business. The curtains were folded, as the original crane had done, and the floor was called.
Hot and curious words Parker
When word arrived, I pointed it out to Vogelsang, and as he reported Poker news Blogger David Salitoro said: “Three of the money, tough spot at ICM, and this idiot is beating the clock in 20 seconds.”
The landowner tried to play peacemaker, but there was no de-escalation of the situation. Much argument ensued between Vogelsang and me, and I told him in no uncertain terms that he was wrong. The attendees asked us to stop arguing, and I told him: “You have completely gone out of line, but if you apologize, the matter is over.”
He refused to apologise, at which point Parker Talbot weighed him in from a nearby table. The following conversation took place between me and Talbot:
“It’s never wrong to call the clock!”
“Stay away from Toonka!”
“People don’t call the clock enough. I think it’s perfectly fine to call the clock whenever you want.
“Drop the crystal meth Santa!”
Which brings me to the question I would like to try to answer in this article. Is it perfectly fine to call up the clock whenever you want, or are there circumstances where it’s not okay?
managed by
Context is everything in poker, and unjustified stalling is definitely a thing, so, in the interest of transparency, I want to go over what happened in the last orbit in which we went from 210 players remaining to 190.
Let’s just say there is a noticeable slowdown in the pace of play
Our table had played nine hands in the 23 minutes leading up to this brawl, and it wasn’t particularly fast, but it also wasn’t particularly slow at that point in the tournament. There were a couple of the larger stacks opening their games properly, and pretty much the rest of our table was made up of medium stacks (in the 15-30 big blind range). Quite a few medium stacks of chips, myself included, started taking 10-12 seconds before folding before flipping. It certainly wasn’t anything terrible, but let’s just say there was a noticeable slowdown in the pace of play.
The fourth hand from that orbit (with about 202 players remaining), I was UTG1 and it took about ten seconds before I went limp. Vogelsang lifted one seat and when events came back to me, I held back for a minute before pushing my big initial set of 23. It folded.
Two sets later (with roughly 197 players remaining), I was in the big blind. The pieces opened, the 3-bet hit the button, the small blind folded, and I went into the tank. I had just over 27 big blinds and I’m happy to admit I was light with the Ace of Five of Diamonds. However, the thing is that there was a dynamic between the opener and the three-bettor and this was a great place to get ten big blinds without a showdown.
Huge risk premium
Given the context, my push would look really strong, and it’s the type of hand that has decent capital if I’m facing Kings or Queens. It is also possible that the original breeder folded the pocket queens. When I thought about this (and partly mustered up my courage), Vogelsang called the hour. I had been thinking about the place for about 100 seconds, so I had no objection. Unable to pull the trigger, I turned midway through the Earthman’s countdown.
However, it is very difficult to detect ideal lines under extreme ICM pressure
For the next two hands, I pretty much folded the hand before the flop, and then came the hand in question. There were 191 players remaining and we were 3 places away from the minimum of €3,300 ($3,570) in cash. The decision-making process in poker is very complicated due to the risk premium, which can turn the strategy upside down. I would consider this area to be a particular strength of mine with my background in SNGs and satellites, but even so it is very difficult to detect perfect lines under extreme ICM pressure.
When I looked at my hand, I wasn’t really sure what to do with a hand that is a 3-bet under normal circumstances, but in this case it becomes a push or fold. I would have really appreciated a minute of uninterrupted thinking time, but unfortunately my tablemate had other ideas.
The problem of procrastination
There is a growing concern in poker that smart players are peeing around bubbles, sometimes causing the game to stop, and something needs to be done to stop them. I sympathize with tournament directors who have to police stalling and players who think it spoils the fun and is unsportsmanlike. It is certainly difficult for the rules regarding this situation to be applied arbitrarily, half monitored by the players themselves at the table, half monitored by the staff.
Shooting hours are becoming a bigger part of poker and implementing them during bubble time is becoming more common. Matt Savage introduced the shot clock with time extension system for the WPT World Championship when we were 30 money players last December, and while I thought it was a bit harsh, especially for recreational/qualifier players, it was definitely a quick setup beforehand. Bubble period.
In the $25,000 subscription circuit and higher, shot clocks have been a mandatory inclusion for some time, and this makes perfect sense in an environment where you want to bring a sporting flair to all aspects of the game. However, I would not like to see a similar development in areas with high amateur participation. However, I admit that their absence creates a problem.
It’s not always a good idea to call the clock
I’m going to extrapolate here, but from what he said, I think Talbot’s position is that the way to solve this problem is to remove the stigma and encourage action around the clock. I definitely think players should dial the clock more than they currently do. However, I believe they also have a responsibility to do so wisely. For example, a player facing three big blinds on the river in Level 2 of a tournament should hustle, while a player facing an over-bet on the river for his lifetime in a tournament with 11 players remaining deserves some leeway.
How much time is there? Well, that’s up to the players in conjunction with the staff at the table to decide. Does that mean some appreciation? Yes it is. I would also add that among these players, there is a hierarchy of importance where players with a live hand who have committed chips to the pot have priority over the observer. This does not mean that the spectator can never recall the watch, but only that he should perhaps wait a little longer than if it were in hand.
I think some punishment is appropriate.
Coming back to my hand, was Vogelsang entitled to call the clock on me 20-25 seconds later in the tournament’s virtual bubble? of course not. Since I wasn’t seriously short and had risked my deck six hands before, it was especially annoying. Should sanctions be imposed on players who behave this way? Maybe that’s an exaggeration, but when you add in his comments of “he just did it to make a point” immediately after he walked out, I think some punishment is appropriate.
In short, it’s not always a good idea to call the clock and I think this situation proves that. The moment I paid everything I had, it should have been immediately clear to Vogelsang that he was wrong and the correct response would have been to apologize immediately. Instead, he compounded his mistake with a reckless comment.
I believe that when God was blessed with good morals, Tom Vogelsang was on the waiting list for high cheekbones.
