I understand what your saying Tank, and i respect the way in which you've said it
Ive got to say a couple of things in response to your post so here goes.
I'll get the pedantic out of the way first
In reference to my contention that this level of behaviour was acceptable in the pre-t.v era you reply by using his opponents from the final table at the aviation club, coupled with the example of indignant blondes that have played against him live as a rebuttel.
Now the nucleus of my assertion is that the inherent traditions of the game pre internet and T.V were conducive to a barroom/casino type of atmosphere, (a lot of players from back in the day used to thrive on the verbal) but you've used contemporary examples of disgruntled opponents to refute this point who may or may not have been influenced by the "new era" of modern day poker.
So i feel that for this reason these examples dont accurately address the aforementioned point(though i understand more applicable examples could be found through the magic of google, or word of mouth even) told you the first one was pedantic!!!
Secondly, for me the responsibility of the players involved in playing at this level is a subject of significant ambiguity that by far transcends the world of Texas holdem when being discussed in this context.
I think it comes down to the individual and what his/her perceptions of the game are, irrespective of the T.V involvement.
Now i know that saying "irrespective of the T.V involvement" belies the issue of morality tempered with responsibility here but ultimately this is a game of cards!!!
If you let too many independent factors affect your game when will it stop?
I personally think that the stick Tony G gave to the guy afterward was a liitle much and differed from the magnanimity he displayed at the aviation club AFTER he'd knocked an opponent out.
On the the T.V point, I'm glad you made the point you did!
You make a very well thought out point about the way in which Tony Gs behaviour could affect your children and address the problems you'd face as a parent in dealing with that.
This seems to encapsulate the feelings of others and proficiently articulates the concerns one derives from seeing such "irresponsible" behaviour, but then incredibly you go on to say" Thats all from a non poker perspective".
In that sentence you've conveyed everything i was trying to say in a more concise and articulate way than i ever could.
Your example is the perfect paradigm of T.V's influence over poker and the way it is single handedly predefining and shaping the course of generational ethics and morality
You would've been outraged that your children were subjected to such behaviour on ANY program on ANY channel, and it just cements my feelings that this is NOT a poker issue, but a matter of expedient T.V companies distorting the fundamentals of poker to facilitate financial gain.
On the matter of that particular hand he is indeed looking for a laydown from his opponent but i feel that there must've been a little bit of needle between the two that precipitated it.
Author