strange ruling in last nights wsop me

ra64 said:

I was in a ring game once in a casino, I was moving my chips around deciding how much to bet. I moved a stack forward less then 6 inches from the edge of the table, then reached for another stack. Immediately, the dealer told me I could not bet more, I had to bet the stack I already moved forward 6 inches. There WAS an action line, and it was probably 18 inches from the edge of the table. Apperently that didn't matter, the "release" mattered.

Click to expand...

chips snug against the rail...cards in front of ur chips. ANY CHIPS placed in front of ur cards is the bet, no going back or taking back.

unless of course there is a verbal declaration..

left click

i guess it's like if i click all in and don't let the button up i can change my mind. i thought that i saw last year the exact thing and the guy had to leave them out,,,,maybe not ???

take care

yepp exact same thing happened last year only they ruled forward motion is considered a bet. when you put them in then pull them back its called a string bet. AKA cheating in the poker world

That ruling was TERRIBLE!!!!! You can't do that, it's the same as a string raise. He put those chips out there, then went, oh nevermind. Cantu had it dead right, when he said, "I'm gonna bluff you guys out of your shoes now." If that ruling holds up to further scrutiny, that's going to be the new move. Push a giant stack of chips at someone to get a read, then decide what to bet. I hated it all the way.

Also...

Wonka22 said:

Also stated there when Micheal Carroll said that he could take his entire stack push it out..then pull it back and throw out one chip..they said...no, you cannot do that....WTF??

Click to expand...

+100,000,000 - This was the ultimate solidification of the idiocy of the ruling. It was the first time I've ever been yelling at the TV while watching poker. This is why I stick to cash, lol.

I'm not sure on the ruling, but the reason Cantu made such a big deal was because he had almost the nuts, so the more the other guy bet, the more he would probably get. I think most people would've done the same thing in his situation, at least tried to get the ruling changed.

obv if there is a line, then the bet stands. if there isnt, than the bet wont.

to put my opinion out there though, every table should have a line, because i would had been pissed just like that guy...

Yeah, the line would've solved all issues. But going with the string bet argument, there has to be a rule in place if there is no line.

Was this rule in place before this "bet" was made? If so, then I'm okay with it. If not, then I think it's crap.

Mase31683 said:

That ruling was TERRIBLE!!!!! You can't do that, it's the same as a string raise. .

Click to expand...

didn't see it, but reading the description that was my opinion too - pick up a big stack of chips, push them forward, don't like the response, take them back and push forward a smaller stack (or fold).

As an aside, I played in one of the smaller events at the wsop this year, and I (or other players) weren't given any instructions what to do, and what not to do. If there is a bet line (I can't remember whether there was or not) then if chips go over it, it should be a bet regardless of whether you still have them or not. The chess ruling applies to chess, I don't see how it can be relevant here?

I don't think they should have to explain the rules before a tourney starts (f you pay that much money to get into a tourney, then you should know the rules IMO). But they should have them in place to where a person can easily access them.

dg1267 said:

I don't think they should have to explain the rules before a tourney starts (f you pay that much money to get into a tourney, then you should know the rules IMO).

Click to expand...

But there are no rules! It's being made up as they go along (and "rules" are different if you are Phil Helmuth or Scotty Drunk).

robwhufc said:

But there are no rules! It's being made up as they go along (and "rules" are different if you are Phil Helmuth or Scotty Drunk).

Click to expand...

Ahhh, see, that stinks. With that much money on the line there needs to be some kind of rules! They don't even play with the house rules?

Pokertube.com – A Video Community for Pokerplayers

about 6.30 in

CAPT. ZIGZAG said:

If there had been a bet line he wudda been forced to bet the original amount.

---

Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking. I guess the wsop dosen't have a bet line.

There's an episode of HSP on GSN where Todd Brunson is contemplating a call to Sam Farha's bet. His call bet is out and he has 1 finger on it still while talking to Sammy trying to get more info out of him....it's not considered a call until he releases the chips. I agree...the "pump fake" is kind of shady but I agree with the ruling in this case. If no bet line it's not a bet until the chips are released.

I don't see the big deal and you could do it to me all day . it's just pretending till you let them go IMO . someone reacting early seems donkish . never played live except home game but it seems like a line or set rule would clear it up . also think they would have standardized rules in the tourney industry .

dsvw56 said:

The problem with using the "Construed forward motion is a bet" is where do you draw the line? How far forward does someone have to move chips before it is declared a bet? It then becomes a subjective matter, and as such leads to much more controversy.

Say for example, someone moves one of their stacks of chips away from the rest, in order to count them out. If the chips move forward, why would that not be a bet?

All this ridiculousness could easily be avoided if they just used tables with action lines on them

Click to expand...

He wasnt just moving his chips around, he pretty much had his arm almost completely extended when he pulled em' back in. I thing Cantu had a right to be pissed, and I loved his remark about how he's gonna bluff everyone out of their shoes while he pushes all in...holds it for 15 sec. then pulls em' back. By the way, he pushed a 3mil stack in then pulled back for 1.5.

No one can tell me that they have never saw someone waiting for their opponent to bet to Quickly jump and call when they have the nuts. Just like last year when Hevad was jumpin around acting like a fool, this year they implimented a no excessive celebration rule, they will probably make a forward motion rule or some kind of ammendment to the rule for next year.

I agree with the announcers that it was a terrible ruling. He should have had to bet the entire amount. I think all tables ought to have a betting line, if the chips go over, they stay. And yes he did shove the stack out quite a way. It would have gone over the line that ought to have been there.

*WARNING: LONG AND POTENTIALLY BORING POST FOLLOWS*

Cliff notes version:

- "Action lines" don't really prove anything
- The WSOP rules are eight different kinds of vague on this issue
- It's borderline, but Jack Effell probably got this one right in a trade-off between fairness and the technical rules

Now, on with the long and boring:

BETTING LINES

dsvw56 said:

No, that dealer was either retarded, or that casino has stupid rules. The action line is there for that exact reason, chips or cards have to cross that line to define an action, unless a verbal action is given.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I'm 99% sure that the presence of an "action line" doesn't actually mean anything. Common sense still has to prevail.

Robert's Rules says it's when the chips are released, and doesn't seem to care whether there's a betting line or not:

Section 14, No-Limit rule 5:

A wager is not binding until the chips are actually released into the pot, unless the player has made a verbal statement of action.​

Click to expand...

No reference to an action line - a bet is a bet when you release the chips, regardless of which side of the line they're on.

Think about it, common sense has to apply even if you have an action line: someone tosses out a bunch of chips, obviously intended to be a bet, but two of them land behind the line. Do you not include them as part of the bet, even though that's obviously what they were intended to be?

Also, the WPT effectively uses an "action line" by having the outer rim of their tables lit for players to keep their chips on (at least, they did in their first two seasons - haven't seen many later episodes). Players move their chips off this section onto the felt then take them back all the time.

THE CANTU / LOSEV HAND

As to the actual Cantu / Losev hand... when I first saw it last night I thought it was a horrible ruling too. Watching it again today I wasn't so sure, though it definitely leaves the way open for all sorts of angle shooting.

The WSOP's own rule on what his action constituted is kinda vague:

56. In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by a.) placing the full amount in the pot in one or more continuous motion(s) without going back toward the player’s stack or b.) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot or c.) verbally declaring "raise" prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion back to the player’s stack. Less than a full raise in an all-in situation does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.

Click to expand...

For starters, note that it says "raise". "Raise", not "bet". Call me a grammar nit, but Losev didn't make a raise in this hand. He made a bet, and bets don't seem to be covered by this rule. This is pretty much a direct copy of the Poker TDA rule, FWIW.

Also, what he did doesn't really conform to their definition of a string bet (emphasis added):

81. Dealers will be responsible for calling string bets/raises. All players at the table are encouraged to assist in calling a string bet/raise if a dealer fails to identify one. String bets/raises called by a player must be verified by a floor person. A string bet/raise is defined as attempting a bet or raise in multiple movements that include a return to a player’s stack without a prior verbal declaration of intent or include deception intended to induce action our of turn before a player’s action is complete.

Click to expand...

Look at the footage, that's not really what Losev did. Even though he goes forward and back, it's in one motion, and he didn't return to his stack, as such. He definitely didn't return to his stack to add more chips, which is what the rule is really supposed to prevent. This is actually a much clearer definition of the Poker TDA rule, which just stops after the first sentence.

So Norman Chad got that one wrong on the call, IMO. This doesn't conform to the WSOP definition of a string bet.

'FORWARD MOTION' - WHERE'S THAT ACTUALLY WRITTEN ANYWAY?!?

Now for what it's worth, try bringing up the WSOP rules and searching for "forward motion". You won't find anything. You will, however, find a load of statements to the effect of "We're Harrahs and what we say goes and you can like it or lump it".

You won't find any mention of forward motion in the Poker TDA rules either, which the WSOP apparently follows despite several obvious instances since 2006 when they've chosen to ignore them

Robert's Rules only mention forward motion twice - once in reference to dead hands, and the other in reference to betting out of turn in limit games.

SO WAS IT AN ANGLE SHOOT? FAIRNESS VS TECHNICAL RULES

I dunno, it's a pretty close-run thing. The camera angle makes it a bit difficult to tell exactly how far he pushed them out. He had the button that hand, they never made it past the button and he never released them.

I think we need to think about the spirit of the rule here: what it's supposed to prevent is the angle shoot where you move out a bunch of chips, get a reaction from your opponent on the bet size, then adjust it based on that reaction.

Unfortunately, Losev's eyes are out of frame when he makes the bet, so we can't see where he's looking. Shame, because that would kinda settle the in-spirit argument. If he was looking at Cantu when he snapped the chips back, I'd say it was. If he was just staring blankly at the felt, as he had been the rest of the hand, then I'd say he just changed his mind or realised he'd grabbed the wrong denomination chips or something.

Two things make me think it wasn't an in-spirit violation:

1 - It was instantaneous. He didn't hover with the chips out on the felt staring at someone trying to get a reaction. If he did pick up a reaction off Cantu, he picked it up and then made the decision to pull back in a nanosecond.

2 - If he did pull back the bet because he picked up a reaction from Cantu, WTF did he still bet 1.5 million for? It's still a sizeable chunk of his stack. Wouldn't he just throw in a single chip if he'd got a read that Cantu was happy he was betting, like Michael Carroll did when he was trying to explain the situation to Jack Effell later? (FWIW, it's an interesting inconsistency when Effell says that Carroll wouldn't be allowed to do that, which really makes me think they were making this call on fairness grounds and not on the technical rules - discussion to follow).

"Who the hell cares about the spirit of the violation: a violation is a violation!", I hear you say? Not necessarily so, according to the WSOP tournament rules (emphasis added, once again):

44. Floor People: Floor People are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floor person’s decision is final.

Click to expand...

I put it to you that that's what's happened here. They've decided that, for whatever reasons (and I suspect the fact that Losev has very limited command of the English language with which to understand the violation would be among them, as would the reasons I've mentioned above) this is such an "unusual circumstance" and that fairness has to take precedence over the technical rule.

If anyone should be accused of angle shooting here, I think it's actually Cantu. He obviously wants to get three million into the pot. The action's to him though, and he can make a valid raise to three million. What he's effectively doing is trying to construe the rules so he can get the amount he wants in the pot without having to fear a re-raise from Losev.

AFTERTHOUGHT

One other thing to think about too:

If you're going to insist that this is a violation, that making a forward motion with a stack of chips but only using some of them for the bet is a violation of the rules, then you're going to start having to pull up all of the people who pick up a stack of chips in their hand, move their arm forward, count out a bet that's less than the full stack, then put the remainder of the chips back on their stack.

Think about it, you see it all the time. That is, in effect, no different to what you saw in this hand. Bunch of chips go forward, and some of them come back without becoming a bet.

That was the weirdest call I have ever seen. But the thought of people doing the "pump fake" everytime gives me a bit of a chuckle.

Imagine Phil Hellmuth having to deal with this, I'd love to watch his head explode. What a better poker world it would be, just a little messier.

GSpicoli said:

That was the weirdest call I have ever seen. But the thought of people doing the "pump fake" everytime gives me a bit of a chuckle.

Imagine Phil Hellmuth having to deal with this, I'd love to watch his head explode. What a better poker world it would be, just a little messier.

Click to expand...

Oooh, I never thought of that. Okay, I'm all for it now!

MrMuckets said:

A move is not completed until your hand is withdrawn. Same as Chess.

Click to expand...

Note, however, that in chess if you touch a piece without announcing first that you are simply adjusting it ("j'adube", French for "I adjust" is the common utterance), you are obligated to move it. It's commonly called "touch-move" and is an official rule in all games sanctioned by the governing bodies, and observed as a matter of course in all games played by serious players.

This is sort of like claiming that in your home poker game saying "raise" does not obligate the player to do so, so it shouldn't in the wsop either.

The analogy is applicable in the sense that while it's true that you might move the piece to a different spot on the board than you had originally intended if you don't release it, you are still obligated move it. You might claim that the poker player is similarly obligated to raise, but can still decide how much.

Unfortunately, this isn't the case in poker: the "forward motion" rule is designed to prevent angle shooting: faking a move to get a read on your opponent. Typically, as noted, any chips placed in front of your cards are committed.

tpb221 said:

Sorry Oz, but the betting line is there for this exact reason.

Click to expand...

Sorry tpb221, but everything Oz said is EXACTLY correct. Betting lines are not binding and never have been. While local jurisdictions (individual rooms) might make them so, in poker in general they are not. I agree that it doesn't make much sense to have them and then say they don't mean anything, but those are the standardized rules.

I have heard that in some pacific northwest rooms the situation is exactly as described:

OzExorcist said:

If you're going to insist that this is a violation, that making a forward motion with a stack of chips but only using some of them for the bet is a violation of the rules, then you're going to start having to pull up all of the people who pick up a stack of chips in their hand, move their arm forward, count out a bet that's less than the full stack, then put the remainder of the chips back on their stack.

Think about it, you see it all the time. That is, in effect, no different to what you saw in this hand. Bunch of chips go forward, and some of them come back without becoming a bet.

Click to expand...

In these casinos, ANY chips you move forward with are considered to have been bet. In my opinion this is a ridiculous rule in the opposite direction.

well, it seems to me that the russian guy pulled out those chips from his stack fully intending to bet that amount, but changed his mind at the last minute and pulled it back in. i don't think the argument that he was just separating chips from his stack so he could pick out an amount to bet is valid here as he clearly makes a forward then backward movement with the chips, not a sideways movement to get the smaller stack of chips closer to him so he could seperate. in that case, i think the ruling was wrong and it really is the dealer's fault here for not calling him on it. it's very hard for the TD to make a ruling here without actually seeing the event take place. they really need to clarify this rule once and for all because like this 'releasing' rule is way too vague and situations like michael carroll demonstrated could occur (shove whole stack in, not release, bring back and throw just one chip in). fwiw, i don't think the russian guy was trying to get a response he just changed his mind at the last minute. and its the dealer's fault the ruling was made.