strange ruling in last nights wsop me

i dont care i wasnt playing so dont affect me

jyow said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think he was either, but the question is whether it was too late for him to change his mind. I don't think he was angle-shooting at all, but this ruling sets a dangerous precendent.

I'm still stuck on my original issue...What did Micheal Carroll do differently than the russian? He pushed a stack forward, and then pulled it back and dropped what I assume to be the minimum bet. This is where my issue comes from. I can understand the whole thing about not releasing the chips, but the floor manager said....no, you cannot do that.

I guess everyone still has their own opinion no matter what is said or proved but what I still don't get is the fact that so many think the push all in and take back would get some visible reaction from a good player .
do so many pro's or good players really react prematurely ? can't see it . jmo

Wonka22 said:

I'm still stuck on my original issue...What did Micheal Carroll do differently than the russian? He pushed a stack forward, and then pulled it back and dropped what I assume to be the minimum bet. This is where my issue comes from. I can understand the whole thing about not releasing the chips, but the floor manager said....no, you cannot do that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the bit that I still don't get - technically, what Carroll did is no different to what Losev did.

It just goes to highlight what I said earlier though: this situation wasn't judged on the technical rules - Jack Effell judged it based on what he deemed to be the fairest outcome. In allowing what may be a technical breach of the rules (assuming there actually was one - I still challenge anyone to find a "forward motion" rule written down anywhere, or show what other rule he breached), he's tried to ensure the fairest outcome. Under wsop rule 44 he's actually compelled to take this stance.

One final word on betting lines too - even if you did have them, and even if you did make them binding, my personal view is that they'd create at least as many issues as they'd solve.

What happens if someone wins a big pot and they're still stacking their chips when the next hand is ready to start? They've still got chips over the line, does the game have to stop until they've finished stacking?

What happens if someone has a truly massive stack (very common at the WSOP, particularly in the Main Event). There's only so far sideways you can go at a full table, and tournament directors haven't been very keen on massive-tall stacks in the past. Are the chips that get stacked over the line considered bets?

What if, in a genuine accident, you knock some chips off the top of your stack and over the line? Should they be declared a bet?

If you answered no to any of the above questions, you've proven that betting lines can't possibly be the be-all and end-all for deciding action. Common sense and dealer / tournament director judgement MUST prevail. Note too that the above three situations are all innocent violations - we haven't even looked at deliberate angle shoots.

OzExorcist said:

What if, in a genuine accident, you knock some chips off the top of your stack and over the line? Should they be declared a bet?

Click to expand...

Happened. When they had the all-in button, someone's fell in by mistake and the bet was binding. Different table, different time, different decision, same old WSOP.

(n.b. the All-in button wasn't announced or explained to players, it was just there. And these players have paid $10K to enter!).

And this is an interesting post from the Hendon Mob Forum (I posted about this there, as I thought it was interesting).

Alas it was Mr Losev. I've played with him and his 'crew' numerous times, and this is just a tame example from a sizeable bag of tricks.

Pushing your chips forward and then pulling them back is not a string bet . A string bet is making a verbal declaration of your impending action and then modifying it. An example would be "I call.... and reraise you all in" or "I raise 100... and 500 more". While the 2 are obstensibly the same, the problem with an actual string bet is that the end of the declared action is ambiguous and any pause between two declarations can be used to gather information on your opponents impending reaction. I agree that the intent of pushing your chips forward and then withdrawing them serves exactly the same purpose, however, the conclusion of the action is far less ambiguous, namely, the removal of your hands from the stack.

This no different from chess and makes the decisions of the dealer and the acknowlegement of all other players at the table alot simpler. Poker tournaments would become prohibitally unmanagable if the ruling were based on the chips moving past some imagined line and left up to the descretion of the dealer. All consistency between different tables would evaporate and precious time would be waisted debating the validity of that ruling.

Even with this ACTION LINE, we could imagine the inevitable debate over how far over the line did the chips go, or what portion of the chips crossed the line, or what happens when the top of a stack accidentally spills over the line.

Many of the rules applied at major poker tournaments are designed not so much to be fair, as they are to drive the progress of the tournament itself without need of costly intervention by tournament officials. It would seem to me that the only unambiguous, indeputable and clearly defined conclusion to this sort of bet is the removal of the bettors hands from the chip stack.

It's all good and well that we make rail calls from the comfort of our lazy-boy 3 months after the conclusion of a tournament, but how would you feel if you were actually sitting at the table with a short stack and the blind clock ticking down while officials play detective deliberating over the intent of an event that they did not themselves witness?

the world series this year has some of the the worst rulings ever, and this is by far the worst, especially for brandon cantu, for those of you who have seen it, look at the strength of his hand (he turns up 8's full of aces fwiw). its totally sick for him that a guy can bet like 1.5mil into him instead of closer to 4, i mean come on, its surely pragmatically known that pushing your chips forward, without stating that it isnt a bet before, as if you were gonna count chips out, stands as a bet.

i can't see any way that this can be acceptable

Alas it was Mr Losev. I've played with him and his 'crew' numerous times, and this is just a tame example from a sizeable bag of tricks.
[/quote]

who said this in the hendon mob forum, you or a reply from one of the hendon mob?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH who cares. He ended up donking off all his stack within the next few hands. Guy was embarassed so just kept going all in. Think he lost all in all with 83 suited.What an idiot. But yea.. you have to let them go. Its like that in vegas at every casino.

general rule of thumw is you can cross the line with the chips in handm once you let go of chips(even by mistake) they are in-play

I saw the episode and I was shocked at the ruling as well.
The Russian was definitely trying to make a bet, not trying to judge his chip stack.
He DIDN'T let go of his chips but I think if there was a bet line he would have crossed it.

I also believe he was shocked at Cantu's reaction, maybe this is something he is used to in Russia? Don't know.
I think he imploded after the ruckus because he was out of the game not long after.

stevie_is_god said:

the world series this year has some of the the worst rulings ever, and this is by far the worst

Click to expand...

Wow. So you honestly think this is worse than Hellmuth's penalty being overturned before the start of play on day six?

You think this is worse than discards being shuffled back into the deck in the deuce-seven tournaments?

LOL

Seriously - look at the rules cited above. Based on the information they had, the tournament directors got this one right.

While Rob raises a very interesting point from the Hendon Mob forum, that wasn't information that the tournament directors had and I seriously doubt they'd be allowed to take it into account if they did have it.

And seriously people, stop bringing up the "forward motion" myth. If that's the rule at your local casino, all well and good. But it's not written down in the standardised sets of rules for the game, and it's definitely not written in any of the rules the WSOP uses. Links are provided in my post above if you want to try and prove me wrong on that point.

The WSOP isn't alone on that one either. Todd Brunson something very similar in season 4 episode 1 of High Stakes Poker - he made a definite forward motion faking a call, but it was noted afterwards that most of the Vegas casinos won't hold you to that call (unless you release the chips, obv).

As for the all-in button (I can see why they thought that was a good idea, FWIW, but they made a mess of the implementation) being knocked into the pot and being binding... ouch. I guess 2006 wasn't a year famous for quality judgement either

I think that the Tournament Director made the right ruling based upon the facts he heard during the description of the incident. If the chips were not released, then fine; however, I do find it strange that they did not agree with Carroll's example. If players started doing this alot, they would act to change the rules to be more specific about this.

I did notice that after the ruling and showdown, they took the player aside and talked to him.... So, perhaps they gave him an off-camera straightening out and told him to not do it again, but we didn't see it on camera.

I also think a few hands later he started speaking in Russian as was warned about that as well. He seemed like he was trying to get the table on tilt.

Obv. terrible terrible ruling here. But Cantu went way out of line. I mean win the hand, but stfu afterwards. Don't need to bs the russian guy i mean he didn't do anything wrong the 'refery' made the decision.

As mentioned, this situation is basically just like the Todd Brunson/Phil Laak non-issue from HSP. Here is a link to Phil Laak's blog where he posts about his hand, everything surrounding it and, most interestingly, the calls he made to various casinos to ask about the every illusive "forward motion" whether it exists or not.

The Hand between Todd Brunson and myself on High Stakes Poker Season 4 - Poker Blogs - Online Poker Blogs - Poker Lifestyle

Short story is basically that in Vegas forward motion is NOT binding. But read the whole blog, makes for some interesting information from folks playing the game and living the rulings.

Jack Daniels said:

As mentioned, this situation is basically just like the Todd Brunson/Phil Laak non-issue from HSP. Here is a link to Phil Laak's blog where he posts about his hand, everything surrounding it and, most interestingly, the calls he made to various casinos to ask about the every illusive "forward motion" whether it exists or not.

The Hand between Todd Brunson and myself on High Stakes Poker Season 4 - Poker Blogs - Online Poker Blogs - Poker Lifestyle

Short story is basically that in Vegas forward motion is NOT binding. But read the whole blog, makes for some interesting information from folks playing the game and living the rulings.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link JD - hadn't read that before, and it's most interesting. Seems the producers made a bit of a mess editing that hand for TV too. I didn't actually get the impression Brunson was held to his call, but from what Laak is saying, Brunson actually made the call voluntarily after the fake.

Interesting to note how this influences our WSOP hand too: unless I'm seriously mistaken Michael Carroll, who was vocal about the forward motion point, is an LA player. Explains why he seemed genuinely surprised that Jack Effell wasn't worried about the forward motion aspect of the hand.

Makes it kinda weird for Cantu though - he's supposed to be a Vegas pro, which one assumes means he's supposed to know this stuff

Ruling

I thought the ruling was right Cantu just wanted more chips out of the guy

Flushbuster said:

I thought the ruling was right Cantu just wanted more chips out of the guy

Click to expand...

Uh?

Why did he only call him then, and not raise him?

ythelongface said:

dont know may have seen this last night but this was just another horrible ruling by harrahs at this years wsop. all the cards are out, the young russian player( dont recall his name) takes a stack of about 40(?) 100k chips and shoves them forward, while not releasing them. he thinks for a few seconds, then pulls the full stack back, and puts out roughly half. at this point, the other player in the hand, calls for the floor, and the floor rules that yes he can push forward, and then pull them back as long as he doesnt release, which elicit a comment from a couple players at the table. one even asked, so i can take my whole stack, and shove it in and then pull it back as long as i dont release it? so the other player in the hand calls for the tournament director, who after asking some questions, and thinking it over makes the same ruling! wtf! lets review...scotty can curse, soft play and like an ass, no penalty. helmuth can curse act like an ass, get a penalty and have it overturned on appeal. i have never heard of such a thing as what they ruled last night. forward motion is considered a bet i thought, but apparently not at the wsop. worst part is, the other guy in the hand woulda made another 750k if the ruling had been the other way

Click to expand...

Actually the ruling is in fact correct.

I was reading an article in a magazine about this very sort of thing and a bet is only considered to be fully valid if

1) the player states an amount or declares all in. Once he declares an amount whether hes touched his chips or not, that is considered as a bet.

One thing that did surprise me however is if a player is in a pot and says to an opponent with a smaller stack "I am putting you all in" then that is not a valid bet and he can then only bet the minimum. He may declare that he is putting all his chips in or he can give a specified amount lower than this, but he cannot just say "I am putting you all in".


2) He places chips in front of him without declaring an amount but in doing so makes it clear that is the amount he wishes to bet. If he moves chips as if he intends to bet them but changes his mind he may do so as long as he hasnt released the chips or stated an amount

Anything else is not considered a bet.

So I am afraid the TD was in fact correct in his ruling. No amount was stated and the chips handnt been released so therefore no bet had been made.