Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

String Bet Ruling EPT London

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    String Bet Ruling EPT London

    What do you make of this ruling? I don't like it.


    #2
    Should have a definitive answer for you in about 6 hours....

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by sodtheprod View Post
      Should have a definitive answer for you in about 6 hours....
      The tubechop link brings you straight to the hand...

      Comment


        #4
        Why don't you like it?
        "you raise, i kill you" El Tren :{)

        Comment


          #5
          Saw that alright.
          Before the ruling was made I was saying to myself that the ruling that was made would be the one unless anyone actually objected.
          The intent was 100% to push the 3 stacks but he only managed to get 2 across at the same time with all the shaking!!!

          If I'm out of the hand I just stay quiet, none of my business.
          If I am in the hand then I probably argue the string bet but obviously accept the ruling and move on...

          The intent was clear so I just move on with the ruling.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Flushdraw View Post
            The tubechop link brings you straight to the hand...
            Weird doesn't for me...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by tylerdurden94 View Post
              Why don't you like it?
              There's been hundreds of occasions where 'intent' has been ignored and the either the actions or the verbal declaration is used.

              1. There was little of now chance he was going to get 3 stacks over the line with 1 hand considering how shaky it was.
              2. He obviously could have declared raise before he start moving the chips.
              3. If it was to be deemed a raise, a minraise would have been a better ruling than incuded a stack than barely moved and remained firmly behind the line.

              Comment


                #8
                Whether the intent there is irrelevant. The rules are not open to interpretation. A floor person can't know what a player intends to do, maybe he went to push the three stacks like that but only pushed two as an angle shot. So it should be ruled a call.
                Last edited by Michael; 04-06-14, 13:36. Reason: Spelling

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by sodtheprod View Post
                  Weird doesn't for me...
                  Starts at 3hrs 47mins i think. AQ/29/KK hand

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I watched it last night and I thought it was a horrible ruling myself. It would have been really interesting to see if it had have been questioned had the Swedish guy not had KK and had something like 88/99.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I watched it live on the stream last year and all the commentators agreed that it was a string bet and the TD ruling was wrong yet last night they never talked about it once.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Flushdraw View Post
                        There's been hundreds of occasions where 'intent' has been ignored and the either the actions or the verbal declaration is used.

                        1. There was little of now chance he was going to get 3 stacks over the line with 1 hand considering how shaky it was.
                        2. He obviously could have declared raise before he start moving the chips.
                        3. If it was to be deemed a raise, a minraise would have been a better ruling than incuded a stack than barely moved and remained firmly behind the line.
                        On the flipside of that there has been tons of times when intent has been taken into consideration. I don't hate/love the rule here and can see in this instance why it was allowed to stand.

                        Think a few people here also missing the line Neil Johnson brought up that it the full raise which he intended wouldn't of been allowed he still would've been forced to min raise as he put in more than 50% with the stacks he brought forward.
                        "you raise, i kill you" El Tren :{)

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Watched it myself and before the ruling was made it was 100% intent to push in the 3 stacks so cant see why it wouldn't stand.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            It's a difficult one in this hand because Luca, the floor man hasn't seen it happen himself and is ruling based on what he's been told. If he'd seen it himself I'm not sure he'd have ruled the same but it's close. String bets are so rarely called at Ept's but it's defiantly 2 separate movements, that said the lines not an official betting line either.

                            On a separate note, I think people need to be more liberal toward string betting , particularly in Ireland where I find it called up on most often. I'm not sure iv ever seen a string bet used as an angle and all it seems to achieve is make newcomers more uncomfortable in an already unfamiliar environment. A simple explanation from the dealer after the hand is a much better approach.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by TheImprover View Post
                              Watched it myself and before the ruling was made it was 100% intent to push in the 3 stacks so cant see why it wouldn't stand.
                              Originally posted by Michael View Post
                              Whether the intent there is irrelevant. The rules are not open to interpretation. A floor person can't know what a player intends to do, maybe he went to push the three stacks like that but only pushed two as an angle shot. So it should be ruled a call.
                              Intent is a lot less tangible than visual actions. That, and the second opinion didn't even see the hand/raise led to it being a difficult TD decision. Personally I think the intent was certainly to raise all three stacks, but in the forward motion the stack that stayed behind the line slipped early enough to warrant it a sting bet. But as pointed out the 2 stacks where enough to rule a min raise.
                              Poker is like sex, position is everything..

                              Twitter: https://twitter.com/Duecewilder

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by TheImprover View Post
                                Watched it myself and before the ruling was made it was 100% intent to push in the 3 stacks so cant see why it wouldn't stand.
                                Throwing one oversized chip into a pot intending to raise = call
                                Having chips in your hand intending to raise but drop one across the line = call
                                Throw a chip onto your big blind intending to raise = call
                                Don't see a raise before you, and throw in 'raising' chips without saying anything = call

                                It would be nice to have clarification of the rules because 'intent' doesn't seem to have a bearing on the rules lately.

                                Originally posted by LTL View Post
                                On a separate note, I think people need to be more liberal toward string betting , particularly in Ireland where I find it called up on most often. I'm not sure iv ever seen a string bet used as an angle and all it seems to achieve is make newcomers more uncomfortable in an already unfamiliar environment. A simple explanation from the dealer after the hand is a much better approach.
                                I 100% agree. I don't like the ruling above, not because i think it's necessarily wrong but because it's not in line with what i've seen and had ruled against me for a long time now. I'd like to raise by cutting chips across the line, or if there's some ambiguity just to have a dealer check with you. I just thought it was interesting that on the biggest stage of all, it was ruled a raise but it would be deemed a call in the majority of games i've playing over the last 10 years or so.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by LTL View Post
                                  On a separate note, I think people need to be more liberal toward string betting , particularly in Ireland where I find it called up on most often. I'm not sure iv ever seen a string bet used as an angle and all it seems to achieve is make newcomers more uncomfortable in an already unfamiliar environment. A simple explanation from the dealer after the hand is a much better approach.
                                  I agree completely. The string bet rule is consistently used to punish beginners, never in 13 years of playing poker have I ever seen anyone use a string bet as an angle.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Michael View Post
                                    Whether the intent there is irrelevant. The rules are not open to interpretation. A floor person can't know what a player intends to do, maybe he went to push the three stacks like that but only pushed two as an angle shot. So it should be ruled a call.
                                    You are misguided:

                                    The very first TDA rule:

                                    1: Floor Decisions
                                    Floorpeople must consider the best interest of the game and fairness as top priorities 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 floorperson’s decision is final.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      I think it's a fine and practical ruling.

                                      I've noticed with Luca and Stars staff in general, the common sense option is often exercised. Yes, it's open to angle shooting sometimes, but I think on balance they make the right decisions. Give the guy a warning and advise him to be clear in future, and if anything similar occurs again, penalties etc can be used.
                                      Poker Podcast Playlist

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Nothing about the actual ruling but why did the floor man standing there watching exactly what happened not give the ruling? Do they have to confer on big decisions? Very hard to give a ruling without seeing what happened. Shaky hands, the way he went for the three stacks etc.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Just watched the hand, perfect ruling IMO.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by LTL View Post
                                            It's a difficult one in this hand because Luca, the floor man hasn't seen it happen himself and is ruling based on what he's been told. If he'd seen it himself I'm not sure he'd have ruled the same but it's close. String bets are so rarely called at Ept's but it's defiantly 2 separate movements, that said the lines not an official betting line either.

                                            On a separate note, I think people need to be more liberal toward string betting , particularly in Ireland where I find it called up on most often. I'm not sure iv ever seen a string bet used as an angle and all it seems to achieve is make newcomers more uncomfortable in an already unfamiliar environment. A simple explanation from the dealer after the hand is a much better approach.
                                            I think Jupp explained it very well and Luca asked specific questions and they were both spot on after it looked like it might get jumbled for a minute.

                                            Originally posted by Flushdraw View Post
                                            Throwing one oversized chip into a pot intending to raise = call
                                            Having chips in your hand intending to raise but drop one across the line = call
                                            Throw a chip onto your big blind intending to raise = call
                                            Don't see a raise before you, and throw in 'raising' chips without saying anything = call

                                            It would be nice to have clarification of the rules because 'intent' doesn't seem to have a bearing on the rules lately.

                                            I 100% agree. I don't like the ruling above, not because i think it's necessarily wrong but because it's not in line with what i've seen and had ruled against me for a long time now. I'd like to raise by cutting chips across the line, or if there's some ambiguity just to have a dealer check with you. I just thought it was interesting that on the biggest stage of all, it was ruled a raise but it would be deemed a call in the majority of games i've playing over the last 10 years or so.
                                            Something I've seen a number of TD's questioned on Twitter is when a player is in the blinds and puts in a larger domination chip along with a smaller 25 chip intending to raise but it gets called with the oversized chip rule & deemed a call, I'm not a fan of that.

                                            While out playing in the SE on Sunday a number of times I witnessed players going to bet/raise with a stack and one single chip as dropped out and it's then deemed just a call and I do think that's harsh and something that I think LTL is mentioning, also getting to your point about rulings you've had against you for instances the SE has changed a number of it's rule for the bad with the big one being the 50% rule which they no longer enforce, EPT has some great rules.

                                            Originally posted by dobman88 View Post
                                            Nothing about the actual ruling but why did the floor man standing there watching exactly what happened not give the ruling? Do they have to confer on big decisions? Very hard to give a ruling without seeing what happened. Shaky hands, the way he went for the three stacks etc.
                                            Knowing Jupp (floorman/announcer) he is very competent but sometimes it's good to get a second opinion just to be absolutely 100%.
                                            "you raise, i kill you" El Tren :{)

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by dobman88 View Post
                                              Nothing about the actual ruling but why did the floor man standing there watching exactly what happened not give the ruling? Do they have to confer on big decisions? Very hard to give a ruling without seeing what happened. Shaky hands, the way he went for the three stacks etc.
                                              The original guy who saw it happen isn't a floor man but rather a more senior dealer who's card calling for the live stream. In such a big situation like this it's better for him to get some assistance or advice.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by LTL View Post
                                                The original guy who saw it happen isn't a floor man but rather a more senior dealer who's card calling for the live stream. In such a big situation like this it's better for him to get some assistance or advice.
                                                Yeah I suppose a more senior opinion never hurt

                                                Comment

                                                Working...
                                                X