Hand From Wsope

[Vtlaxer09 4]

I would have 100% called the floor cuz that is absolutely a string raise. Daniel said "Im gonna pound you back a little more." I GUARANTEE YOU that if he doesnt have an intent to raise in this hand noone would be like OH he verbally said raise. LOLI mean yes it was obviously his intent to raise but you cant just blatantly string raise that badly. I wish Deeb would have pleaded his case a little more to the floor because there's 0 chance I would have let that raise stay intact.100% string raise..... and I would have been wayyy more bitchy than Shaun Deeb was there lol. He was pretty passive about it actually.

[Avii 0]

THIS

hahaha I never liked this bellande character.he's pretty much a dirty player, and will do anything to get "reads", watch him vs. sam grizzle in the NBC HU for a sample of his antics.and now, not only is he a dirty dirty player, but also an incredibad player. I don't usually hate on anybody, but if I did, this guy would be a deserving one imo.

[CoolHandKai 0]

100% string raise..... and I would have been wayyy more bitchy than Shaun Deeb was there lol. He was pretty passive about it actually.

I would advise against that: If the players at the table tell you that you are wrong, the dealer tells you that you are wrong and the the floor man rules that you are wrong, then that's pretty much the end of it. Even if you were right, you've exhausted all of your options at that time and any extra amount of bitching won't be helping your case (quite the contrary).

[nutzbuster 7]

Leggo my Eggo

[Syntonic 0]

I would have 100% called the floor cuz that is absolutely a string raise. Daniel said "Im gonna pound you back a little more." I GUARANTEE YOU that if he doesnt have an intent to raise in this hand noone would be like OH he verbally said raise. LOLI mean yes it was obviously his intent to raise but you cant just blatantly string raise that badly. I wish Deeb would have pleaded his case a little more to the floor because there's 0 chance I would have let that raise stay intact.100% string raise..... and I would have been wayyy more bitchy than Shaun Deeb was there lol. He was pretty passive about it actually.

Are you whining because you want to see a flop or because you think he was angle shooting? I'm not attacking you, I just don't understand why you would be bitching. I think it's obvious that Daniel wasn't angle shooting because he didn't even look at Deeb while he was doing his raising - in fact, Deeb or anyone for that matter, didn't say anything while it was going on. If there was a wall between the players, and Daniel cut out five piles of chips and put them into the pot 5 seconds apart, would there be any problem? Yeah, okay, it's 'string betting' but who gives a crap. His intentions were always to raise and he didn't gain any information for doing so in a weird way.

[Vtlaxer09 4]

Are you whining because you want to see a flop or because you think he was angle shooting? I'm not attacking you, I just don't understand why you would be bitching. I think it's obvious that Daniel wasn't angle shooting because he didn't even look at Deeb while he was doing his raising - in fact, Deeb or anyone for that matter, didn't say anything while it was going on. If there was a wall between the players, and Daniel cut out five piles of chips and put them into the pot 5 seconds apart, would there be any problem? Yeah, okay, it's 'string betting' but who gives a crap. His intentions were always to raise and he didn't gain any information for doing so in a weird way.

Im a rules nit Live. There's no reason not to be able to correctly put out a raise especially for someone like Daniel who has played live poker his whole life. I understand what his intention was but that doesnt excuse the fact that this was 100% a string raise and shouldnt be allowed to stand as a raise. Its ludicrous.

[looshle 6]

Im a rules nit Live. There's no reason not to be able to correctly put out a raise especially for someone like Daniel who has played live poker his whole life. I understand what his intention was but that doesnt excuse the fact that this was 100% a string raise and shouldnt be allowed to stand as a raise. Its ludicrous.

I think the idea is that you can't trust everyone to be fair minded. You are freerolling people your whole life if you let people call string on you and dont call it on other people. It was 100% a string raise, but it was 100% his intent to raise. If DN just said "I'm gonna pound you back" and then just puts out the call, there's no way it would ever be a raise.

[JoblessBast 0]

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."

I think Daniel made the change in language on purpose to make sure he got the ruling in his favor.That being said his intent was crystal clear from the beginning.

[Vtlaxer09 4]

I think the idea is that you can't trust everyone to be fair minded. You are freerolling people your whole life if you let people call string on you and dont call it on other people. It was 100% a string raise, but it was 100% his intent to raise. If DN just said "I'm gonna pound you back" and then just puts out the call, there's no way it would ever be a raise.

yeh I made this point in my earlier post.

[JoblessBast 0]

You are freerolling people your whole life if you let people call string on you and dont call it on other people.

What if you never string bet and also never call string bet on people when their intention is 100% clear? How many times has someone called a string bet on you in, say, the past year?

[Vtlaxer09 4]

What if you never string bet and also never call string bet on people when their intention is 100% clear? How many times has someone called a string bet on you in, say, the past year?

i've never had string bet called against me because I do it correctly. I understand the rules of the game and really never even come close. I've called a string raise probably 2-3x in the last 1.5 years over the course of probably 50-70 live tournaments i've played in that time. The one thing I have called several times is when people put too many chips in the pot that amts to >1.5x the bet I had made (when it was their intent to call but got the floor to rule it a raise).People should know the rules and if they dont I am going to fully take advantage of the rules if they are in my benefit.

[no not baxter 0]

cant wait to hear DN's side!

[JSpencer 0]

Personally, if in Deebs position, I wouldn't have said anything. It was fairly obvious what Daniels intent was.That being said, it still was technically a string raise. "I'm gonna pound you back a little more" could be taken a lot of ways. I think Danielchanged it to "pound it up" because he realized the mistake he mad and wanted a ruling in his favor. OR maybe he just forgot, hell if I know.But I really don't think Deeb was out of line at all.

[no not baxter 0]

hey daniel, how are the austrian alps? really insane skiing? you boarding or skiing?

[Syntonic 0]

Pound it up, pound you back, pound your mom. It's all the same - he didn't say raise, that's the important thing. I don't think Daniel intentionally changed his language. I think he was caught off guard that Deeb called him out on it and he started talking pretty quickly and fumbled with what he was saying (wrong limp amount, etc.)So yes, it's pretty obvious it's a string raise because he didn't say "raise", but I think the ruling is a good one because Daniel (a) wasn't doing it intentionally and (B) wasn't angle shooting.

[JSpencer 0]

Pound it up, pound you back, pound your mom. It's all the same - he didn't say raise, that's the important thing. I don't think Daniel intentionally changed his language. I think he was caught off guard that Deeb called him out on it and he started talking pretty quickly and fumbled with what he was saying (wrong limp amount, etc.)So yes, it's pretty obvious it's a string raise because he didn't say "raise", but I think the ruling is a good one because Daniel (a) wasn't doing it intentionally and (B) wasn't angle shooting.

While you might be right with your first statement, the second one is kind of flawed.How can you say "Yes it was a string raise, but he didn't intend to do it so it was a good ruling"? If it was a string raise and someone calls you out on it, it shouldn't be allowed. Regardless of your intention.

[Syntonic 0]

While you might be right with your first statement, the second one is kind of flawed.How can you say "Yes it was a string raise, but he didn't intend to do it so it was a good ruling"? If it was a string raise and someone calls you out on it, it shouldn't be allowed. Regardless of your intention.

You're removing the action from the situation. I guess I should have made it more clear: I don't think a "string raise" is always wrong. Daniel was having a good time slamming those chips in. Obviously rule nits will disagree with me.

[gatortom64 1]

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

[JSpencer 0]

You're removing the action from the situation. I guess I should have made it more clear: I don't think a "string raise" is always wrong. Daniel was having a good time slamming those chips in. Obviously rule nits will disagree with me.

Perhaps. Like I said before, I don't think Daniel had any negative intent when he did it and he always is having fun at the table so it's notvery surprising that these type of topics come up. I personally never would have called the floor because of this, but I don't see any issue with someone else doing so. The rules are therefor a reason, even if you don't intend to break them, you should be held accountable if you do.

[BaseJester 1]

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

Raise.I don't think that's really an ethical failing, though.

[CoolHandKai 0]

Since everybody is ignoring ninjafoo's post, here it is again:

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

So, 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?

[David_Nicoson 1]

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 ruling

I think the motions each being independently continuous is not sufficient. There can be multiple motions as long as there is no pause in between. DN paused, so it's not a legal raise under clause A, but I believe the floor ruled that he made a verbal declaration.

[DCJ001 0]

I think the motions each being independently continuous is not sufficient. There can be multiple motions as long as there is no pause in between. DN paused, so it's not a legal raise under clause A, but I believe the floor ruled that he made a verbal declaration...

... because Daniel changed his quote to "I'm gonna pound it up a little more," multiple times, when the floor person arrived, instead of saying what he actually said, multiple times, when Daniel made his action which was, "I'm gonna pound you back a little more."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFw1EW468rk#t=3m20s

[Jam-Fly 8]

1. what DN did was not a continuous motion2. what he did was 100% a string raise3. his intentions were clear, he wanted to raise, but he just made an error4. saying 'pound you back some more' does not have the same verbal meaning as 'raise'5. DN was not angleshooting6. Shaun Deeb was well within his rights (both ethical and legal) to call the floor7. the floor made a bad ruling. it's not really a big deal either way, and if I was in Deebs shoes, I prob would've left it. However, DN is an experienced live player and knows he made a mistake in that hand. As I said, no big deal either way, but I'd def like to take him up on the 10-1 bet that the floor would've ruled that way for any other player. Also, despite DN's intentions being clear, it doesn't really matter when he makes a clear cut mistake like that. When a begginer makes a string raise when it is clear he wanted to raise, what does the floor rule? I can understand making a ruling using common sense and fairness when the situation is grey, but this situation was completely black and white, and it should have been ruled string raise regardless of DN's intentions being clear

[gary21212121 0]

Lets pretend Deeb does have a big hand and for that reasons doesnt call for a floor. Isnt it possible for DN to pick up some infomation based the fact that a majority of people would ask for a floor ruling after an obv. string raise