daniel, beaten by the shot clock? ppt final table

[Cuatro 0]

I was fortunate enough to get a seat in the audience at the Commerce Casino PPT Invitational where Daniel, Erik Lindgren, Chris Bigler, Asher Derei, Dennis Waterman, and Allen Krell faced off at the final table. The top 3 places paid. Krell went home within minutes of the start of the event and it was clear that Asher and Dennis, the two shortest stacks were just trying to sneak into the money. Both played very tight and went home 5th and 4th. Then the real excitement began. --back to the topic.The biggest hand of the whole event was when daniel and erik faced off while bigler sat back and watched. Below is how Mike Paulle of pokerpages.com wrote about the event---Three handed, Erick made it 45k to go from the button [2,000 ante; 8,000sb; 16,000bb if i remember correctly]. Chris called from the small blind. Daniel asked the crowd if he should call from the big blind, as well. Of course, they said yes. “It’s your fault if I go broke,” Daniel thought he was joking. The flop is J 8 2 rainbow. Daniel and Chris check from the blinds. Erick makes it 80k from the button. Chris folds. Daniel checkraises another 150k. Erick takes very little time to go all-in covering Daniel. Negreanu can’t decide what to do in the two minutes allotted to him. His hand is killed, as are his chances to win this event.--- (http://www.pokerpages.com/blog/index.php?itemid=153).The shot clock he is referring to is a 90second timer and players are allotted one 30second extension of it. Daniel used his on this hand. But when the action was initially passed to him after erik's big re-reraise, I looked up at the clock and it was already down in the low-mid 70s (it should have started at 90). I'm pretty sure he was screwed out of a good 10-15 seconds or more in making this decision. The person running the clock had made a small mistake or two earlier in the tournament that had no effect on the game. The person on the microphone just had to remind them to reset the clock. But this time it went unnoticed.When Daniel was knocked out on the next hand, Erik told him he had bluffed the big pot before. We'll have to wait until it's televised to see if that's true.Would the extra few seconds have been enough for daniel to make his decision? Probably not. But if the PPT/WPT want to use the clock, they need to be VERY sure the person running the timer is awake. As Mike Paulle said, when that time ran out, so did Daniel's chances of winning. Anyone else have an opinion of the shotclock in tournament poker?

[KDawgCometh 2]

I don't like it as Daniel probably had to go through amny times that his friend might've donethat to come to his conclusion. Now I also don't tolerate waht Bill Gazes does when he tries to take like 15 hours to make a decision that he has clearly already come to, but he takes all sorts of time just to frustrate his opponents. Even if I had a big hand and Bill did that to me I'd be pretty annoyed as he has taken up to five minutes before to decide on a hand. Its one thing if someone has their whole tournament at stake(like Daniel) or is just trying to annoy you(Bill Gazes)

[Jtmaroon84 0]

Well, I voted against the shot clock but now that I think about it, 90 seconds should be close to what you need to make a decision. I don't think I have ever been running calculations in my head after about 1 minute. The reason I am against it, is sometimes there is information that can be gathered by taking a longer time making your decision (while this is true, you almost have all of the information available to you before this). Maybe if they gave the players 3 minutes, double the time, to make their decisions I would be for the shot clock. Considerding this was the final table, stalling really doesn't afford you any sort of advantage and in the 3 minutes you should be able to know what you are going to do.

[Greentvdinner 0]

I don't see where it matters in a final table being shown on tv. They can always edit if someone goes into the tank for an extended period of time. I could see it being used if it helps prevent someone from stalling to avoid going out on the bubble.One thing though, a shot clock would probably benefit an internet player playing against a pro who rarely or never played on the net. Internet players are so used to shot clocks already.

[Jtmaroon84 0]

I'm actually suprised to see how close this actually is, I would have thought that the majority of people would have voted against the shotclock.

[Guest XXEddie]

i dont support use of shot clock but i strongly support the 60 sec clock that can be called

[Guest]

hey i was there in the audience too! i think the shotclock is just another way to hype up poker. it sucks, and i think time is what daniel needs to put his amazingly accurate reads on hands. it was painful to watch daniel think about what he should do while the host is counting "10..9..8..7.." how would YOU do with that kind of b.s.? i dont think people should get ...oh 5 minutes or so to think about a hand, but i do think, ESPECIALLY at the final table, that you should get some more adequate time to think about your hands. that said, daniel is the greatest poker player ever.

[Guest XXEddie]

hey i was there in the audience too! i think the shotclock is just another way to hype up poker. it sucks, and i think time is what daniel needs to put his amazingly accurate reads on hands. it was painful to watch daniel think about what he should do while the host is counting "10..9..8..7.." how would YOU do with that kind of b.s.? i dont think people should get ...oh 5 minutes or so to think about a hand, but i do think, ESPECIALLY at the final table, that you should get some more adequate time to think about your hands. that said, daniel is the greatest poker player ever.

no disrespect to you or DN for that matter, but no he is not. Considering his career so far, he could be called ONE of the best players in about 10, 15 maybe 20 years,,,but no he is not the greatest EVER....do the names, Ungar, Caro, Sklansky(sp), Brunson, Preston, Chan, Moss mean ANYTHING to you

[MrH 0]

The announcer was actually counting down the last 10 seconds out loud??? That is horrendous!!! Did the announcer think he was at a broadcast of a seventh game Stanley Cup final, or on new year's eve??? I would have been livid...At least now I know why Daniel couldn't deal me some of that much needed advice earlier tonight, heh...I just hope he doesn't get nightmares about this now--that's just appalling :!:

[ddudley 0]

I support the use of a clock but I voted NO because I've yet to see anyone do it correctly. Sometimes it takes 60 seconds to count up the bet that needs to be called. How are you supposed to make a decision without that important information? Time spent counting the bet shouldn't count against you. I also think that it should be more like the poker stars clock where you can build up more time. Say you get an extra 30 seconds for every 2 blind levels if you don't use it you can accumulate up to 3 minutes extra on top of a 2 minute action clock. 5 minutes should be the absolute limit to make a decision.

[Guest]

obviously those names are well respected. let me rephrase that last sentence. in MY opinion, daniel is the all-around best poker player ever.

[TheIceman05 0]

obviously those names are well respected. let me rephrase that last sentence. in MY opinion, daniel is the all-around best poker player ever.

They mean nothing, or you just don't care? By the way, your list is missing the one name that probably needs to be there more than any.Reese. Mr. Negreanu is well on his way to becoming a pantheon member of the poker hall of fame. But calling him the best ever is like calling Albert Pujols the best baseball player of all time: incorrect.Ice

[LeeDanger 0]

I voted yes to a clock but now that I read the post after I would like to clarify my decision. I support a clock in general where an opponent can call for time and put your opponent on a 60 second clock because I hate when some guy tries to hollywood it when they already have their decision made.

[Guest]

jeez!people go CRAZY when you make statements like " daniel is the best poker player ever!" are you trying to show off your poker knowledge? yes, i'm familiar with chan, reese, sklansky, hellmuth, ferguson, harrington, and so on. daniel is my favorite because not only does he have amazing poker skills, a keen sense of esp, but he's also fun to be around at a poker table, AND he's modest and down to earth. so, not only is he a great player ,but he's a great person ( or at least he makes more of an attempt than others). ooh, Barry greenstein is also a humanitarian, which i respect. why do people get CRAZY?!!!! sheesh, i'm just giving daniel props. i'm not some poker master who knows everything about everyone but i'm pretty sure all you guys who aren't poker gods either.

[Guest]

one more thing, the heading under this post is "Daniel, beaten by the shot clock?"people are just trying to start completely subjective arguments in this space. don't. so lets just talk about the clock, and lets agree that the host counting down seconds is just the hollywoodization(made up word) of poker.

[LeeDanger 0]

I think it should be up to the players to decide whether they want to put players on a clock or not.

[jogsxyz 0]

I'm with the small minority who favors a clock. It would be expensive to implement properly. A special chess clock for the final table. Each player would be allotted their fraction of the time plus x minutes for a session. Any player who uses all his allotted time will have all subsequent hands killed for the rest of the session. He will still be required to post blinds and antes. This rule would favor fast internet players. Bet on David Williams.