2

WSOP now has shot clock

  • Under the previous rule, participants were permitted to call the clock after a “reasonable amount of time” had passed, and two minutes was defined as the minimum reasonable amount of time.
  • That two-minute guideline has been removed.
  • Participants may now call the clock at any point if they feel a participant at the table is taking longer than is reasonable for the game situation.
  • When a floor person initiates a clock, the participant will be given anywhere from 0 to 30 seconds, plus a 10- second countdown. The exact amount of time will be up to the discretion of the floor person. This is a reduction in the amount of time given for a called clock.
  • If a participant requests a clock, floor persons have the right not to initiate a clock at that time, based on game situation. (This is intended to prevent abuse of calling the clock.) The floor person may then initiate a clock once he/she deems an appropriate amount of time has passed.
  • Floor persons have the authority to issue a clock without prompting from a participant.
  • Participants who appear to be deliberately stalling the progress of the game or who frequently call for a clock unnecessarily will be subject to penalty.
  • This rule is intended to discourage stalling or taking an unreasonable amount of time for straightforward decisions.
  • Participants are encouraged to be respectful of opponents who are involved in a hand.
  • Participants are also encouraged to call the clock if another participant is habitually or repeatedly slowing down the game.

What do you think?
Does it favor amateurs or professionals?

  • It's about time they did something. The amount of players who just stall to ladder in the WSOP is absurd. It's not uncommon to play/deal maybe 3 hands during a 30 minute down on a table, because x player takes 10 minutes for basic decisions. – Grinch91 Aug 8 '17 at 10:32
1

My 2 cents.

I like it but it went from 3 minutes to 30 seconds. I think the flop, turn, and river should be 1 minute.

Some pros think it will favor pros as they get to play more hands. I think it might favor amateurs as less time for reads and second and third level thinking.

Kassouf made a mockery of the game last year. Many hands he did not even look at his cards for 15 seconds.

It will favor online players used to a clock. But most live players also play online.

More bluffs might get though as not as much time to check out their story.

| improve this answer | |
1

The shot clock favors the less studied and tilt-full players. It's also very good for TV.

People stall for two reasons. One, because they're actually thinking and two, to tilt the opponents.

Well studied players, assuming they're studying the newest phenomenons, are counting combos and accessing ranges given the action street-by-street. The more time they're given, the better decisions they come down to.

This will even out the game and make it more enjoyable for non-studied-recreational players as the edge is slightly shortened for the studied players and the tilt-free players. They'll always have an edge but will have to rely more on built-in intuition and need to apply much quicker than before, and the general player is going to be less tilted, which decreases the edge of the already-tilt-free player.

The best learners and quickest thinkers will now have a great advantage over the other studies players who aren't as quick at implementing their knowledge but the gap between them and the non-studied players becomes slightly less than before.

A great weapon is being deducted from the arsenal of players who use stalling as a technique, so they will have to adapt in order to survive by either studying the technical aspect of the game over the personal-exploitative way or find a way to bend the rules.

Then there are the "victims" of the stallers. A player is tilt-free when something that's out of his control does not bother him. For players who do not experience this (are not tilt-less), which truly consists of the majority of players (re-recreational and many pros), they benefit from this change as they don't have to spend as much time on their mental game as they have to when the shot-clock is not present. This means that the mindfulness players' edge is shortened at the same time.

This basically means that if you don't study the game and you have tilt-issues with stalling then this benefits you greatly in the way that your opponents will have less of an edge over you, so it will possibly bring more players to the game and at the same time make it more "enjoyable" or so to speak to watch. Not many people like to watch hands that take 20 minutes. This also means that if you're studied then your edge to the general field becomes slightly less since you need to apply much quicker than before, but if you're studied and you're quick you'll gain en even bigger edge over the set of players who are studied but not as quick at applying as you are.

This change can be a double-edged sword for the best players and definitely good for most recreational players, and keeping the recreational players happy is a very good thing for professionals as they're basically their customers.

| improve this answer | |
-4

I'd like you to qualify "amateur" and "professional" for me.

As far as I'm concerned, if you have raked a pot and/or gotten up from a game ahead of when you sat down, you are a professional. And, if you play, you love poker, qualifying you as an amateur. Who continues to play poker and doesn't love it?

From this perspective the shot clock becomes a matter of personality and experience. Guess what. If I think it will needle an opponent or play on insecurity , either way, I will manipulate the timing as I see fit. I often start a session with a rhythm to establish predictable responses solely to manipulate situations as they arise. Snap calling small pots to appear impatient and unskilled I have caught bluffers without intending, or caring about that pot, I was setting up a larger one down the road by trying to look insecure and threatened and bullied.

I tend not to rank people at the table in such categories as "pro" or "amateur" and base actions or play in stereotypes so obtuse. "Beginners luck" negates such an approach doesn't it?

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.