I was watching the WSOP Europe event this weekend. Negreanu says "I'm going to pound you back" and then calls with one and hand and raises with the other (call chips hit the felt first). Deeb calls it a string raise and dealer and floor rules that was enough to be a binding verbal declaration. Sounds not right to me. Thoughts?

It'd be cool if Deeb came in here and talked about it, seemed like there was more backstory to what was going on, like Negreanu was bothering him or he was trying to needle him or something. Negreanu definitely got nervous, misstated the action etc which seemed to imply that he knew he was wrong.

Deeb's going to talk about it on the Pokercast.

Saw this episode too.

I think it was beyond clear that DN's intent was to raise....however i'm not sure it should have been ruled a valid raise.

He had two handfulls of chips....said "I'm gonna pound you back"....put one hand in...then the other. There was less than a second in between the two hitting the felt.

Obv people should say just say raise. How hard is that? Or say nothing and put one handfull of call or raise chips in. It's such an easy game.

Was intent clear? Yes.

Was action ambiguous? Yes.

Was it clarified before action continued? Yes.

It's a raise.

I'm not a fan of the idea that any hint of ambiguity automatically shoves us to the most strict interpretation possible. Why is that the only direction these things can go? Reminds me of some lines in an old Public Enemy track...

As in "the call chips hit the felt and there was enough time for Negraneau to gauge Deeb's reaction before the raise chips hit the felt," or as in "it's televised poker so I was able to extreme slow-mo the chips falling and determine that the call chips hit the felt approximately 0.013584 seconds before the raise chips"?

I find it inconceivable that a player at Deeb's level would give away any sort of tell before action is clearly finished.

I'm nowhere near as good as those guys, yet I've learned to wait until action is very definitely on me before reacting to any of it. I also play within my means, so I'm not going to feel relieved by "just a call" anyway.

Yeah I think a big part of this is what happens when pros play each other, they start getting more informal about the rules and stuff.

Seemed like both sets of chips hit the felt at just about the same time. At least as far as the spirit of the rule, it's not really a string bet, there's about .25 seconds between the two sets of chips hitting, not really enough time to watch Deeb's reaction.

it wasn't a string raise at all, if thats a string raise you have to consider all the other bet motions that people do that could be considered, but no one ever says anything. Say you grab a pile of chips and cut them in front of you...but you dont bet all the chips...technically you could be gauging a reaction off of your opponent and cut less/more than you planned on.

In all the times i have seen it on TV/live/done it myself, it has never been called. What about when you grab chips to bet...flick SOME of them out first, then move to the left or right and slide the rest out, that can also clearly be called a string raise and an angle as you can gauge your opponents reaction, and then decide to not even throw the second pile out.

Deeb came across as a bitter internet kiddie who wanted to prove he knew something about live poker

Further more, i would feel comfortable betting up to $100 and giving Shaun 5-1, that if he asks the floor of 50 casinos, less then 5 will side with him.

"I'm going to pound you back" isn't the common way to say raise. But the intent was clear.

I'm not sure the action was that ambiguous however. But I have not seen the video.

If the player is using 2 hands to put chips into the pot and both hands are moving at the same time, then it's not going to matter to me if one hand gets there a nano second before the other.

If I'm the dealer I call it a raise. If I'm the floor and the dealer can tell me that the players hands were both moving forward with chips in them at the same time, it's a raise.

This failed twit move lowers my respect for Deeb if I had any. The ruling was good.

I got nailed for a string raise by saying, "let's make it more" at the Bellagio. I hate bellagio floors.

I think Deeb looked like a douche in this situation. Calling angle when he was clearly the "angle shooter".

Nah, too easy.

Not to be a nit but what you're probably talking about is ok because it sounds like you're not moving the chips past the betting line. Definitely in the first example, people do that all the time to try to get a reaction but it's ok because those chips aren't past the betting line so there hasn't been action.

I was talking about when there is foward motion, you see it all the time on TV, betting line or not people will take a few chips back that they had in there hand, and cutout a even stack of 4 chips 4 times, but might not bet the few extra he has in his hand, and the other variation i was talking about (the double slide) is also when a player extends his or her arm as a betting motion

The point i am trying to make is that if we allow other gray area bets to slide because it is widely accepted as the poker culture, you also have to let things like what Daniel did "slide", Im sure Shaun has done this hundreds of times playing live or some variation of it, i view it as somewhat hypocritical.

I saw this too. Intention is all the matters. Daniel implied it out loud and he put the chips forward. I don't get why Deeb made a big fuss out of it, there was no way he was gonna win that argument. Even if he did, IIRC, he had a crappy hand, did he really expect to beat Daniel Negreanu?

you can't start using ambiguous phrases, regardless of your intentions to denote a call, raise, or fold. perhaps next time before folding, someone should say 'I am outta here' . and if the other player folds, he can claim 'I never said FOLD'

'I am going to pound you back' could also mean I am going to call and then take all your chips on the turn/river, etc.... There are specific reasons why string bets aren't allowed, and floor insists on 'acceptable' phrases such as call, raise, fold, etc.

This was a bad ruling, and it was only done to DN's favor because it's DN.

Here's a good policy:

Wait until it's your turn before you react.

There ya go. I don't want to hear anything about forward motion or betting lines or cutting off chips or anything else. If you don't think it's almost always obvious what someone intends to do, then you're not paying enough attention. For that occasional time when it's ambiguous, it's no problem at all to ask for clarification.

Let's play the game with betting patterns, express and implied odds, hand ranges, commitment thresholds, etc.

The rules are to protect us against cheaters, and provide a precedent for unusual situations. They are not a playbook for how to trap people, nor a guide for punishment when someone doesn't do every little thing exactly to the letter.

Let's play Poker, not Gotcha.

Seems like it was the right decision, to let Negreanu raise, but the wrong explanation ("I'm going to pound you back" as a valid verbal declaration for raise). I haven't seen the video either so don't know how quickly he threw out one pile of chips compared to the other. Seems like intent was clear, though.

On their own DN's words were ambiguous. But taken together with his actions there was no ambiguity. His intention was very clear.

Maybe the comment wasn't completely clear but the physical action was. I think the call was good.

But what if they ruled it a string bet, someone would say it was ruled that way because it was Freddie Deeb.

I agree that celebrity players seem to get favorable calls when it seems that they shouldn't but when the hand involved two known players, it usually gets settled more fairly.

IE: Hellmuth blowing up at a player, calling him an idiot many times. I would have gven him an orbit away from the table for each "idiot". He was assessed one orbit, appealed and never got punished.

Other side. Sean Sheikhan and Mike Matusow blowing up at each other late in the main event one year. Both got time away from the table and a warning.

Jeffery Lisandro and Prahlad Friedman and the missing ante.

It was actually Sean Deeb....sick internet player with no live clout.

This, this, and still this. Is it just me or are people getting more and more petty at the tables these days? No more Gotcha games, please!

And what if Daniel's words would have been, "I call. And I raise you a little more," while putting the chips out in two motions, like he did ??? His intent would have been the same.

And putting the chips out in two motions, like he did, would have kept the action as ambiguous as the action that he did make.

I'm merely questioning your statement and thoughts as part of this debate.