Hand From Wsope

[Biff Goods 0]

Look I want to preface this by saying I have no problems with either online or live play. I love them both and don't think one is worse (or better) than the other. I was flipping through channels tonight and saw a hand between Daniel and Shawn Deeb where there was some question on whether Daniel made a string bet. My take on the it was that Deeb was being a bit bitchy on the situation. It was clear that Daniel wanted to raise it up and It seemed like Deeb was more or less causing unnessecary drama. I don't have a problem with him questioning the play and/or calling the floor to get a ruling. I just didn't really think the attitude he gave afterwards was warrented. He also made a comment "I hate live poker" and then followed it up with almost accusing Daniel for possibly angle shooting. First off I know about Shawn Deeb's reputation and have nothing against him. I'm just merely commenting on what I saw. Secondly, if you "hate" live poker.....don't play it. And vice versa. For some reason that comment rubbed me the wrong way. It's the same as when we get the "Interenet poker is rigged" thread that pops up every two months or so. Thirdly, I have watched, read and studied everything about poker and the poker community for the last 6 or 7 years or so. This is basically because I feel like I'm addicted to it. I'm not trying to say I am any type of expert. However, I never knew really what angle shooting was until I read it in an internet post....from a player that plays only on internet sites. Since that moment anytime there has ever been a question of whether an "angle shoot" is going on it seems to me that players that play primarily on the internet always seem to think that they are the absolute authority on whether or not it's valid. Just seems a bit ironic to me. Again not taking sides...just pointing out some observations....What did you guys think about this hand? Was Daniel wrong or did Deeb overreact?

[nutzzcase 0]

can you explain the hand or post a link to the hand?

[BaseJester 1]

Per a post on pocket fives, 20 minutes into this video

[BaseJester 1]

Deeb was frustrated when the hand started. Then Daniel condescendingly says, "Silly kids". If Daniel's not being so cocky, I don't think Deeb makes an issue of it. The floor shouldn't have let Daniel describe the hand. Maybe the dealer isn't a native English speaker? I do agree with the ruling (letting the raise stand); Daniel makes his intent clear and there's no real confusion.

[nutzzcase 0]

Per a post on pocket fives, 20 minutes into this video

tks and good ruling imo.

[Biff Goods 0]

You know I must of missed the "silly kids" comment. Kinda changes the aspect of the whole thing. But I still think the ruling was correct and I also think Daniels point in which if it was an angle shoot and the person never had the intention of raising the raise should stand anyway which kinda punishes the angel shooter.

[sipmoeezy 0]

foreal though daniel can only be nice about it because deeb can smash him in a fight. freddie deeb too for that matter.

[Wandigo 1]

lol i like bellande's limp with AK and 10bbs, and the raise with JQ is even more hof

[Stiles2004 0]

Seemed fine to me, good ruling

[lurbz 2]

the angel shooter.

???

[nutzbuster 7]

Deeb rhymes with dweeb tho

[herly33 1]

lol i like bellande's limp with AK and 10bbs, and the raise with JQ is even more hof

THIS

[Shark527 0]

Daniel should have just showed him one 7, and said "silly kids" againI think Deeb only made a deal about it because the commentator said Deeb has lost half his stack since sitting there at the feature table.

[DCJ001 0]

can you explain the hand or post a link to the hand?

Here's my objective assessment of the hand in question:The WSOP and TDA rules both say:

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.

a. Daniel did not place the full amount of his chips into the pot in one motion. b. Daniel did not declare the full amount of his raise prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot. c. Daniel did not declare “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot. Because the word "raise" is in quotation marks, the word must be stated verbatim. "I'm gonna pound you back a little more," Kick it up, buttercup," "Up scope," etc. do not qualify for a two motion raise.When Daniel made his action, he said, "I'm gonna pound you back a little more" and repeated it multiple times while discussing it with Shaun. But, when the floor person arrived Daniel said multiple times, "I'm gonna pound it up a little more." Shaun Deeb posted:

No one at the table noticed the change except for Annette who commented about it after the floor ruling was made that Daniel added "up" in it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick...4/#post16716612Here's a direct link to the hand:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFw1EW468rk#t=3m20s

[CoolHandKai 0]

Here's my objective assessment of the hand in question:The WSOP and TDA rules both say:

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.

a. Daniel did not place the full amount of his chips into the pot in one motion. b. Daniel did not declare the full amount of his raise prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot. c. Daniel did not declare “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot. Because the word "raise" is in quotation marks, the word must be stated verbatim. "I'm gonna pound you back a little more," Kick it up, buttercup," "Up scope," etc. do not qualify for a two motion raise.When Daniel made his action, he said, "I'm gonna pound you back a little more" and repeated it multiple times while discussing it with Shaun. But, when the floor person arrived Daniel said multiple times, "I'm gonna pound it up a little more." Shaun Deeb posted:http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick...4/#post16716612Here's a direct link to the hand:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFw1EW468rk#t=3m20s

So with proper rules lawyering Deeb would be right that it could be seen as a string raise. However, I find it odd that he's then complaining about angle shooting. DN's intention was clear and with the exclusion of the word "raise" he followed the procedure you outlined in c). Thus essentially saying "Well, you didn't say the exact word 'raise' and therefore I'm trying to get this changed into a call." could be seen as angle shooting, imho.

[XXEddie 0]

So with proper rules lawyering Deeb would be right that it could be seen as a string raise. However, I find it odd that he's then complaining about angle shooting. DN's intention was clear and with the exclusion of the word "raise" he followed the procedure you outlined in c). Thus essentially saying "Well, you didn't say the exact word 'raise' and therefore I'm trying to get this changed into a call." could be seen as angle shooting, imho.

This.If Deeb had a big hand he doesn't call the floor.

[Biff Goods 0]

+1 on this...

This.If Deeb had a big hand he doesn't call the floor.

[lurbz 2]

Deeb rhymes with dweeb tho

my old backer's forum name was dweeeb

[Jam-Fly 8]

lol, that is a string raise without a doubt. I don't think DN was angle shooting, he just got caught in the moment and made a slight error. If I was Deeb, I wouldn't have called the floor, but if I was the floorman, I would've been forced to rule string raise, because it is a text book string raise, no doubt about it. No big deal either way, but it is a text book string raiseBTW, I do think it's clear what DN is intending, and I do think it's clear to Deeb what DN is doing, but I think Deeb is fully entitled to call the floor and get the ruling in his favour.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

I also think Daniels point in which if it was an angle shoot and the person never had the intention of raising the raise should stand anyway which kinda punishes the angel shooter.

I think this part is a reasonable concern on Deeb's behalf, because I highly doubt that Daniel would have been forced to raise if he had tried to just call after saying what he said and Deeb had called the floor insisting that Daniel should have to raise.As things turned out, Daniel clearly meant to raise and there wasn't any angleshooting going on. But, if someone said "I'm gonna pound you back a little more" and then only called and you called the floor to complain that he should have to raise, I think the statement is too vague for the floor to enforce a raise. The player could just argue that they meant they were gonna get you later in the hand, or even in general.

[Lucoo_ 0]

Deeb is being such a little bitch right there.

[BaseJester 1]

As things turned out, Daniel clearly meant to raise and there wasn't any angleshooting going on. But, if someone said "I'm gonna pound you back a little more" and then only called and you called the floor to complain that he should have to raise, I think the statement is too vague for the floor to enforce a raise. The player could just argue that they meant they were gonna get you later in the hand, or even in general.

I think you make a really good point here.

[BaseJester 1]

If anyone uses the phrase "Up periscope" to communicate a raise, I think he should receive a penalty, even if he put all his chips in at once.

[Biff Goods 0]

Yes.....However if they said "I'm gonna pound you back a little more...and put in more chips than what was needed for a call with two different hands I think the floor would insist it's a raise. obviously if Daniel said "willy willy figgly dee da do dad" and only through a call in they wouldn't make him raise...

I think this part is a reasonable concern on Deeb's behalf, because I highly doubt that Daniel would have been forced to raise if he had tried to just call after saying what he said and Deeb had called the floor insisting that Daniel should have to raise.As things turned out, Daniel clearly meant to raise and there wasn't any angleshooting going on. But, if someone said "I'm gonna pound you back a little more" and then only called and you called the floor to complain that he should have to raise, I think the statement is too vague for the floor to enforce a raise. The player could just argue that they meant they were gonna get you later in the hand, or even in general.

[Ninjafoo 0]

Here's my objective assessment of the hand in question:The WSOP and TDA rules both say:

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.

a. Daniel did not place the full amount of his chips into the pot in one motion. b. Daniel did not declare the full amount of his raise prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot. c. Daniel did not declare “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot. Because the word "raise" is in quotation marks, the word must be stated verbatim. "I'm gonna pound you back a little more," Kick it up, buttercup," "Up scope," etc. do not qualify for a two motion raise.When Daniel made his action, he said, "I'm gonna pound you back a little more" and repeated it multiple times while discussing it with Shaun. But, when the floor person arrived Daniel said multiple times, "I'm gonna pound it up a little more." Shaun Deeb posted:http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick...4/#post16716612Here's a direct link to the hand:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFw1EW468rk#t=3m20s

The rule states "one or more continuous motion(s) without going back toward the player's stack." Daniel clearly mesaured out a raise and had it in his other hand, then placed it in two, definitley continuous, motions without touching his stack again. I think it clearly falls under the "one or more" definition in the ruling