Hand From Wsope

[no not baxter 0]

DN, just quit thinking you are always right. It is really annoying.

[Vtlaxer09 4]

Wonder what Deeb would have said if he had AA????

Well he could play it a couple different ways. The easier way would be to just not say a word and let teh hand continue. Or if he really thinks the raise will not be overturned he can plead for a string raise and the floor and then super confuse negreanu when he flats or comes back over the top.

Since everybody is ignoring ninjafoo's post, here it is again: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 rulingSo, even by the rules it wasn't a string raise - having all the other players at the table, the dealer, the floorman and the rules against Deeb is pretty strong, why are we still debating this?

no this is wrong its a string raise.

[nutzbuster 7]

[Ninjafoo 0]

Can someone explain to me how he violated their written rules? I'm not trying to be a dick or anything I actually want to know, so far ppl have only said "no thats wrong" to my previous post. I understand how it easily looks like a string raise by the definition we all have in our head but I don't see it violating their rules. David is the only person that gave a reason by saying he paused, but I fail to see him pause at all, let alone make a pause long enough to be viewed as intentional.

[delved 0]

I honestly think unless the guy waits and doesn't announce a raise, then its a string bet. In this case his intent is to raise so let him raise. If the other person can't see that through and play the hand as its said then they need to go play elsewhere. Personally, I think nits like that should stop being nits, but that's just me.

[Naismith 0]

In this case his intent is to raise so let him raise.

I'm fine with the hand and think Deeb was being a little bitchy, but I disagree with the above. The majority of string raises I've ever seen, the person intended to raise but just screwed up. In this case, I think it's a difference between a lifelong live player doing something that's standard amongst live comments (making a comment that indicates he's going to raise without saying "raise") and someone without as much live experience taking a very literal interpretation of the rule.

[JSpencer 0]

The majority of string raises I've ever seen, the person intended to raise but just screwed up.

^this

[KosinTrouble 0]

Who is that rainbow knob gobbler that always says Quack Quack instead of saying raise.... Kosin Trouble

[TheWynn 0]

Who is that rainbow knob gobbler that always says Quack Quack instead of saying raise.... Kosin Trouble

That would be paul magrielKosin Trouble

[no not baxter 0]

stop offering what your personal opinions are on string raises. it doesnt matter at all what you personally think

[JoblessBast 0]

stop offering what your personal opinions are on string raises. it doesnt matter at all what you personally thinkKosin Trouble

[ratwastard 0]

shaun deeb is kind of a punk glad the ruling went against him. go DN!

[no not baxter 0]

shaun deeb is kind of a punk glad the ruling went against him. go DN!

what makes you think shaundeeb is a punk?

[SwolyswoND 1]

what makes you think shaundeeb is a punk?

It wasn't a string raise. DN had both stacks of chips in either hand, and without going back to his stack placed them down consecutively, one hand then the other. That pretty clearly falls under the "one or more continuous motions" language found in part a) of the rule quoted by ninjafoo.

[BaseJester 1]

It wasn't a string raise. DN had both stacks of chips in either hand, and without going back to his stack placed them down consecutively, one hand then the other. That pretty clearly falls under the "one or more continuous motions" language found in part a) of the rule quoted by ninjafoo.

It's interesting; that language is unique to the WSOP rules.

NO-LIMIT RULES6. At non-tournament play, a player who says "raise" is allowed to continue putting chips into the pot with more than one move; the wager is assumed complete when the player's hands come to rest outside the pot area. (This rule is used because no-limit play may require a large number of chips be put into the pot.) In tournament play, the TDA rules require that the player either use a verbal statement giving the amount of the raise or put the chips into the pot in a single motion, to avoid making a string-bet. TOURNAMENTS24. At pot-limit and no-limit play, the player must either use a verbal statement giving the amount of the raise or put the chips into the pot in a single motion. Otherwise, it is a string bet.

30. Methods of Raising In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion. It is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear.

[no not baxter 0]

LOL

[Jam-Fly 8]

it was not consecutive actions. DN put in the call, then put in the raise. If both hands had been extended past the line for example, and he released the call then almost simultaneously released the raise, that maybe would be ok. As he did it, it's a clear string raise. He didn't go back to his stack, but the fact the chips put in the pot initially were just a call, that makes it a string raise.I'd really like to hear if DN genuinely thinks he's right here. I'd also like it if he does just come out and admit he made an error. It's no big deal, but I think the reason DN hasn't posted here is because he knows he wasn't right and doesn't want to bother to fight a lost war.

[Ninjafoo 0]

It's interesting; that language is unique to the WSOP rules.

This is why I think there needs to be clear uniform rules for all major tournaments. By wsop rules there was no string. By the rules quoting RobertsRules, it is an obv string raise. By the rules quoting TDA its open to interpretation, it says you have to declare "raise" then can put the call in and the put the raise in one more motion, but it then immediatley says "It is the player's responibility to make his intentions clear." This makes it sound like you dont have to say the exact word raise as long as its clear what you want to do, which in this case DN did.

[Ninjafoo 0]

it was not consecutive actions. DN put in the call, then put in the raise. If both hands had been extended past the line for example, and he released the call then almost simultaneously released the raise, that maybe would be ok. As he did it, it's a clear string raise. He didn't go back to his stack, but the fact the chips put in the pot initially were just a call, that makes it a string raise.I'd really like to hear if DN genuinely thinks he's right here. I'd also like it if he does just come out and admit he made an error. It's no big deal, but I think the reason DN hasn't posted here is because he knows he wasn't right and doesn't want to bother to fight a lost war.

How was it not consecutive? Consecutive means one after the other with no other actions in between(which he clearly did), not simultaneously.

[Balloon guy 158]

Clearly you internet players need to be taught some manners.Deeb ( I thought he quit poker? Quitter!) thought he could be all cool and tell DN that he was going to raise if DN limped to try to give this older live player a lesson on how the bb ALWAYS raises the sb when he limps. Like: "Silly old man, don't you know that the BB has to raise you because it's +EV and it's the new thing and we used to think it was cool when we invented the cutoff steal, then changed it to the cutoff +1 steal, then made it the cutoff +2 steal etc etc etc"Deeb doesn't make his speech, I probably root for him to get the ruling in his favor since DN paused long enough with his second hand to consider it a string raise.But with that speech... don't act like the cool 'better than you' player then get upset when the 'fish' plays it back on you and you get mad because it wasn't supposed to happen that way.Besides, he had two overs...I mean man up and race once and a while.

[TheWynn 0]

what makes you think shaundeeb is a punk?

It wasn't a string raise. DN had both stacks of chips in either hand, and without going back to his stack placed them down consecutively, one hand then the other. That pretty clearly falls under the "one or more continuous motions" language found in part a) of the rule quoted by ninjafoo.

The fact that he stuck up for what he thought was the right ruling clearly makes him a punk. Come on NNB. LOLAlso, because he argued with DN. Can't do that.

[nutzbuster 7]

lol splittinghairsaments

[looshle 6]

Besides, he had two overs...I mean man up and race once and a while.

[DCJ001 0]