The "PUMP FAKE"
Okay, since 13Cards did not see fit to answer in the original thread, I will ask again here. This question pertains to the Losev incident at this year's WSOP Main Event. If I stipulate that you are correct in stating that the TD's decision was the proper one, how then can the subsequent ruling on Carroll's question be sustained. Namely, if it is acceptable for a player to move a single tower of chips towards the pot (middle of the table, whatever) and then pull it back before cutting out a smaller amount of chips to bet with, why then can a player not move his entire stack in the same fashion?
This assumes that the player can control said stacks with his hands and does not release same prior to cutting out the smaller portion. It is, after all, just a physical difference (ie 3 - 5 towers rather than 1) instead of a conceptual one.
I am curious as to your reasoning . . .
This assumes that the player can control said stacks with his hands and does not release same prior to cutting out the smaller portion. It is, after all, just a physical difference (ie 3 - 5 towers rather than 1) instead of a conceptual one.
I am curious as to your reasoning . . .
Comments
(In best shady car-repairman voice)
Yup... there`s your problem right there..... looks like the reasoning system in your old 13cards is shot.... I can get ya a new one, but I`ll have to keep your card in the shop, and I think only the dealer sells these parts so....
Don`t worry though, we`ve got a "loaner" for ya
<Hands Milo a keychain with three buttons>
Yup, here ya go, find y'self needin to use the old 13cards, just the appropriate button...
<pushes 1st button> "Nope, your hand is mucked"
<pushes 2nd button> "Nope your hand is mucked"
<pushes 3rd button> "BWAHAHAHAHA.... I PISS on the spirit of the game!!!.... and your hand is mucked"
Mark
On the video clip, the TD says, to paraphrase, that because Losev did not release the chips, it was not a bet, and therefore only the chips that were cut out (after the pump fake) constituted the bet. Carroll then states that, by this logic, he could do the same thing with his entire stack, and the TD says he cannot.
It is this discrepancy that I am questioning. Why is one action okay, but the other action not, when the only difference is quantitative?
13Cards?? Still waiting . . .
So, if Carroll had replicated Losev's move exactly, with the only difference being that he used his entire stack rather than one tower of chips, you think the TD would have said it was okay?
And in response to your post:
I think Losev's move was very suspect.
I also think that the TD's decision was one that could lead to further suspect actions on the part of players at future events, and therefore was not a very good one.
Thanks again for answering my question.
mark
If his argument, which he clearly stated, was that Losev did not release ANY chips with his "move", then Carroll's "move" should have been given the same blessing. The TD contradicted himself.
As I said, it is not something I am going to go to the mattresses over, but it is quite obviously a mistake by the TD. The only question remaining is this:
Did the TD fuck up with his original decision? Or did he fuck up with subsequent interpretation of that decision?
If he had ruled Losev made a string bet (rightly or wrongly), all other arguments become moot at that point.
He did not, and so everything else has to be seen through the prism of that decision. Namely, that "pump-faking" your chips is within the rules so long as you do not release any chips, and the forward back motion is a smooth one (no pause). With that in mind a player could replicate Losev's move, utilizing his entire stack, and rightly claim to have acted within the rules, so long as that TD was available for an interpretation.
That is the objection I have, because I guarantee you this will happen again, if only to prove a point somewhere down the line. Quite frankly, if I were Carroll, or Cantu, I would have done the exact same thing on the next hand, and dared the TD to penalize me. That would have been a show . . .
Same thing in spirit... push chips forward, pull chips back, put subset of chips out as bet.
My comment was not about Carroll. It was about Losev. Carroll provided another disctinct example which was ruled on separately. What I should have said to be clearer is:
The TD ruled that what LOSEV did is legal. He can push a stack forward, then pull it back, then take some chips out, then put as many as you like back out. As you put it, it was a similar event.
I would agree with this if the similar event were to occur in a different venue, and in a different tournament. But are you honestly telling me that on the next hand dealt, absent any further discussion post-ruling, if Carroll had done the same thing Losev did, only with his entire stack, the TD would have been correct in disallowing it?!? That is not logical at all and would have, in all likelihood, caused a riot.
I rule that the dealer should ask the player to clarify what they mean before they move to the next player.
It is now obvious what the player #1 meant by "Twenty.... five". The bet is 20,500 to Player 2.
The dealer should clarify whether the raise is to 150 or 150 on top before moving to the next player.
Once again, the dealer should clarify the actual size of the raise before moving to the next person.
Dealers are there for a purpose other than to sling cards. If there is any chance of confusion in a bet, the dealer should clarify it before action comes to any other player.
Most of the time this can be done by checking what chips are put into the pot after the statement. The chips have to be verified by the dealer anyways, so if the chips put out match any subset of what the bet could have been by the wording stated, then that should be the bet.
If you could get into the head of the first player and ascertain that this is their actual course of action, then you may have a case for it being really stringy...
BUT.. in the real world, where we cannot read people's minds (if we could, we would be playing, not directing!), we have to try to find out what the verbal saying actually meant.
I still say the best way to do that is to see what action the player does after the saying. There should not be much time between when the player verbalizes the bet and when the dealer makes them put in the chips, so there also should not be a lot of time to pick up a tell on the opponent.
And my response (whether dealer or opponent) would be the following:
Bring it in.
This would complete your action, as well as clarify your verbal bet, thus avoiding any confusion. I would state this EVERY time, at least until you got the hint.
As for all-ins,they are, quite obviously, somewhat different.
So you are combatting a disagreement with a totally different situation?
There is no doubt whatsoever about what a person means by "All In". But, the reason why they introduced that button was so that there was a physical representation on the table of the players bet. OTHERWISE the chips for the bet would be on the table in their place. If I have a stack of 500K and I bet 100K, then I would need to put those chips out there.
In none of your earlier scenarios were the players all in (and if they were, it was not stated in the original questions).
All In bets are a totally different kettle of fish - and your argument otherwise is a red herring.