Promoting poker discussions.
|
|
pokerfied.com Promoting poker discussions. |
on tilt. Williamson's banter was not just friendly table talk. It was strategic in its intent. It was explained that in America, which includes Vegas, this sort of thing is permissible. I am sure Colcough was suffering from cultural clashes also. "Flop Set" <chris_3636@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:700301c1.0407132136.6753437a@posting.google.com... > I loved watching Robert Williamson playing in the Pot Limit Omaha > Final. His gregarious nature brings the game to life. It was almost > as much fun as railbirding the Devilfish playing pot limit Omaha > during the 04' World Series at who knows what hour. > > Colcough's comment about Williamson's not talking during the hand seem > to be much more out of Colcough's own frustation with Williamson's > constant chatter. Colcough certainly could have picked a better time > to bring this up than while the hand was in progress. Robert is just > the talkative type and I don't feel that he was trying to be unethical > in his talk at the table. |
that gives him an edge at the table, so be it. I don't know if you noticed the cut away shot to Robert's sister, who was pretty easy on the eyes I might add. Even she was chatting up a storm and she was'nt even playing. Remember this isnt chess and thank you for that. As far as the official rules, you are supposed to not reveal your hand or make a statement that could influence the course of play, whether or not the offender is involved in the pot. It seemed like Robert was talking as the player was stacking his chips to call. If anyone seems in the wrong, I think Colcough's calling Robert out during the hand as the player was staking his chips was much worse. "The Barnacle" <thepounds1@charter.net > wrote in message news:<10faa3v2jdqrb88@corp.supernews.com>... > I think the issue for Colcough is that Williamson was trying to put someone > on tilt. Williamson's banter was not just friendly table talk. It was > strategic in its intent. > > It was explained that in America, which includes Vegas, this sort of thing > is permissible. I am sure Colcough was suffering from cultural clashes > also. > > "Flop Set" <chris_3636@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:700301c1.0407132136.6753437a@posting.google.com... > > I loved watching Robert Williamson playing in the Pot Limit Omaha > > Final. His gregarious nature brings the game to life. It was almost > > as much fun as railbirding the Devilfish playing pot limit Omaha > > during the 04' World Series at who knows what hour. > > > > Colcough's comment about Williamson's not talking during the hand seem > > to be much more out of Colcough's own frustation with Williamson's > > constant chatter. Colcough certainly could have picked a better time > > to bring this up than while the hand was in progress. Robert is just > > the talkative type and I don't feel that he was trying to be unethical > > in his talk at the table. |
news:700301c1.0407141308.5bb34d8@posting.google.com... > I think Colcough's calling Robert out during the hand as > the player was staking his chips was much worse. Definitely. Even if you think Robert was out of line, you don't bring it up during the play of the hand and before the other player has acted. |
My thing is that Mr. Williamson admitted that his talk was strategic. I believe there is a difference between reading an opponent and trying to write the book. "James L. Hankins" <jh@coylelaw.com[no spam] > wrote in message news:lMhJc.8$SD3.5@okepread06... > "Flop Set" <chris_3636@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:700301c1.0407141308.5bb34d8@posting.google.com... > > > > > I think Colcough's calling Robert out during the hand as > > the player was staking his chips was much worse. > > > Definitely. Even if you think Robert was out of line, you don't bring it up > during the play of the hand and before the other player has acted. > > |
"The Barnacle" <thepounds1@charter.net > wrote in message news:10fbos1o0rc5l29@corp.supernews.com... > I agree with you that there was a time and a place for Colcough's complaint. > My thing is that Mr. Williamson admitted that his talk was strategic. I > believe there is a difference between reading an opponent and trying to > write the book. Yes, and I will "write the book" every chance I can. I suppose it's a philosophical approach to the game, but hey, poker ain't for pussies. If I can bully or bait an opponent I'll do it. It should be done, in fact. |
> as much fun as railbirding the Devilfish playing pot limit Omaha > during the 04' World Series at who knows what hour. Can someone explain what happened here? |