Yet despite that experience, Player A knew of one that even the dealer knew the meaning of.

That might be legitimate questions if we didn’t know the specific hands. But we do. With that knowledge I feel bad for you if you can’t figure out which of the two is extremely unlikely and which one sounds pretty plausible.

FWIW, add me to the list of players who have seen that hand motion from somebody asking for a clear view of chips. Multiple times.

I play live in casinos maybe 2-3x a year and would think that player a’s motion is super standard asking him to move his hands away from his chips. Bad ruling. Player B is the angler.

Gonna ask a question that will reveal who I was in the hand but I think it's important because if we're using the "official rules of a non-verbal check," what Player A did was not a check, and if we're using "Rule One - Fairness of the Game" then in the interest of fairness which player had the most to gain in this situation?

We don't need to look at the holdings to draw a conclusion, I don't think. I mean, if we do it's even more obvious what probably happened, but even without that luxury...

Let's say Player A was pulling an angle: How would he have known that if he made an "ambiguous" move that Player B would immediately turn over his cards? If Player B simply asks clarification, either the dealer will step in or Player A will explain what his action was (or both) which gains him no advantage. Because if his angle is dependent on Player B immediately tabling his hand, that angle won't have a very high success rate.

If Player A wanted to be confident Player B would immediately table his hand, the non-verbal action would have to be far less "ambiguous" than one that the dealer and most others at the table (to be fair I didn't mention table consensus) thought it was not a check and nobody except Player B seemed confident it was.

Whereas Player B gained far more by tabling his hands and claiming it was a check than had he either asked to clarify the action - he either had to make a call he did not want to make or get to showdown without putting any more money into the pot. And if he wanted to put money in the pot, he had his chance - you don't need to see his exposed hands to know that he didn't avail himself of that for a reason and it was obviously not to check raise shove or snap off a bluff.

Say for instance Player B did not table his hand, but instead asked. And when Player A and the dealer both said it wasn't, Player B complained just as loudly that he thinks it was a check and wanted a ruling. Would the non-exposure of his hand change things? It damn well should because it's easier to tell Player B he was facing an all-in without them exposed. Which is another thing you have to consider if fairness is what you're hoping to achieve.

All in all, I believe if you want fairness, rewarding Player B is the wrong way to go about it.

I welcome steamraise or JayKon, the only two posters here who feel the ruling was correct, to explain how they jibe fairness with their rulings.

One other thing that seems to have not gotten enough attention is that the only impartial observer of the action that took place did not feel it was a check and immediately said as much. When I was flooring and I came across a he-said, she-said situation, it takes a lot for me to overrule the dealer, and I don't think that threshold was met on this hand.

I know steamraise is a dealer, or was. I wonder how he feels when a floor comes over and overrules him in front of the table. I know I hated it - even when I was not correct. But at least if I was wrong, the fair ruling was made in spite of my mistake. But this case you're only saying the dealer is wrong if you're saying your dealer doesn't know when a player checks or you don't trust him when he makes that determination.

Honestly the most common he-said, she-said is whether a non-verbal (or sometimes verbal) action is contested. That's not a cut and dried rules issue. That's what you pay the dealer to know.

"If the dealer said it was a check, it was a check."

"If the dealer said it wasn't a check, it wasn't."

(I never once said "If Player B said it was a check, it was a check," which is what was literally said above and that blows my mind - again, given the fairness to both players.)

I have used those phrases verbatim when I was the one making the ruling. I don't recall even once saying "The dealer was the person who saw and heard the action and s/he clearly and correctly explained what happened, so now let me rule against what they thought."

Also, the shift supervisor was a poker guy, not a table games person forced into an uncomfortable spot. My belief is he made a bad ruling. And I say that as someone who actually worked with and was a Dual Rate Supervisor of that person in another card room. I believe he messed this one up and should have known better.

(And yes, as nobody doesn't know by now, I am Player A.)

I've seen the raising hands motion used as a request to have the other player raise his hands so his chips are visible many, many times. It's fairly common in fact. I have never seen thst motion used as a check. Ever. Take a look at the thread about nonstandard checking motions and I doubt anyone describes a raising the arms motion.

Just because a motion is ambiguous doesnt mean another player can interpret it in any way he pleases and have that interpretation binding. That's a license to angleshoot. So while he may not be clear what raising his arms means, it's clear it's not any version of a checking motion. Only the dealer can clarify an ambiguous motion or action. And the dealer didnt announce check .

This is the same old story of a player acting prematurely in order to try and get to showdown cheaply. He should not be rewarded for it. Player A did nothing wrong. He should be able to take whatever action he wants. At worst, player B was angleshooti g. At best, he made a mistake interpreting he motion as a check and exposed his cards too soon. But fairness doesnt mean you get to be absolved of your mistake at the expense of the other player. Fairness is having player B learn a painful lesson about not showing his cards until the dealer announces showdown. Everybody makes mistakes and learns from them. Thats fair.

I've seen the, raise your hands so I can see your chips move, several times.
It usually has to be explained to the player covering his chips.

https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

If you have an extremely literal interpretation of the rules, I believe any motion can be ruled a check. If I was the floor I would never rule this a check.

Thanks for coming back. Now please answer this part of what I posted last night: By your own citation (emphasis above is mine) that means in that scenario it isn't a check. The fact is that I did "explain... to the player covering his chips" that it was not a check and the dealer confirmed this in real time. It's not my fault (or the dealer's) that explanation came after he tabled his hand.

Ambiguous does not mean it can be interpreted exactly the best way for Player B's decision. It means it is unclear. Even if it was actually "ambiguous" (which most in this thread do not concede and most at the table including the dealer did not concede) the proper reaction to something that is "ambiguous" is to seek clarification, by your own admission. Player B didn't do that. And you want to reward him for that.

Terrible ruling even by your own logic.

I think the key word here is "may".

So, I think it is fair to say that the pantomime of lifting your clasped hands apart and raising them (which is what I think happened here) has never been associated with a check, your argument seems to be that if a gesture does not have an assigned value by rule, then it is legitimate for another player to assign it as a binding action.

Also, I am trying to figure out what you advocate that Player A do. Much of what he would say:

"Can I see your chips?"
"Will you raise your hands?"

Could be misinterpreted, especially in a loud room, as a verbal action declaration.

And finally, yes, sometimes the gesture needs to be explained to newish players. You know who usually explains the gesture....every other player at the table, because the gesture is pretty common.

Player A: "Can I see your chips please?"
Player B: "He said check! I heard it loud and clear!" [tables his hand]
Supervisor: "No idea what he said but it might have been ambiguous. I rule check."

Well, I was referring more to the fact that "I'll see your bet' used to be used as a phrase indicating a call.

I think most will agree that an ambiguous action does allow for a ruling different than the actor intended but it isn’t up to the opponent to decide what is ambiguous and then interpret it and rule what it means.

If action is ambiguous, the opponent needs to seek clarification before taking action. Because what he feels is ambiguous may not be to anyone else.

So yes the dealer, floor or shift all are within the rules to declare the motion was a check. But dealer did not rule as a check, floor made no ruling and shift mad3 a ruling that I do not see any support for. Yes shift can make that ruling and yes it stands but that doesn’t mean independent opinions need support that the ruling was correct.

If I see him trying to see B's chips I will tell B that his chips must be in view.

I dunno. Craning your neck forward and squinting at your opponent is ambiguous. He might consider it a check

Yes, exactly. Any motion can be considered a check based off of most cardroom’s interpretation of what can constitute a check. That’s why they either need to get rid of non-verbal checks or make a check only be one type of motion.

Except that is not the only potential outcome of player A's ambiguous gesture. Player B could also check (without showing his hand) and then player A gets free information that a check raise will not work. As a dealer, I know a player who regularly makes ambiguous gestures when first to act to see what the other player will do in order to gain information and then claim he never checked.

Sure, player B should not have tabled his hand, but if he checked behind is there any difference?

Player B has first action and already checked.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=NYCNative;57387139]Player B has first action and already checked. (/QUOTE]

Shoot.

Right.

Reading comprehension is not overrated.

That is my experience, too.

I don't actually agree that the gesture is ambiguous. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but I think the gesture obviously means "lift your hands so I can see your chips," or else leaves people thinking "what does that mean?" But I do not actually believe it suggests multiple different things. So we could call it "unknown," or "unclear," or "confusing," or even "mysterious," because all of those suggest that some viewers might not know what it means, whereas ambiguous implies that different viewers are likely to think it means different things. (And I think in the story the guy who thought it was a check was either lying or an extreme case that is so rare we can dismiss it for practical purposes). So yeah, hair splitting, hahaha, but I really do disagree with calling it ambiguous.

Rewarding angles is bad but happens sometimes. In real time I may say "are you going to overrule the poker supervisor" or something like that.

I agree with others who say they've never seen "lifting both arms" as a possible checking motion, in fact I'd say every time I've ever seen it the person is asking to see the other person's chips because that person is hiding their chips from clear view.

Pretty awful ruling by the shift manager, to not only a) not side with your dealer, but also b) reward what is a pretty clear angle by player B.

If I was player A, I would escalate the situation to the poker room manager. It's obvious given player A's hand, and that player B was being a turd hiding his chips, that player A is NEVER checking back that river. If I didn't get what I would feel is fair compensation, I would escalate the situation to the state gaming commission. Maybe I'm a Karen, but that's how pissed I would be in this spot.

No offense, but if you haven't seen any gesture meaning "I want to see your chips" in 20 years of poker, I don't think you're paying enough attention.

While usually there is a verbal request with it, at least once a session there is a request to a player to move their hands and provide a clear view of their stack, usually accompanied by a Moses parting the sea type gesture. The lifting of the hands gesture is also very common.

I've definitely been angled by people trying to make any movement of my hands ruled a check because they know the river just ****ed them and they want a free showdown. Sometimes it is just an honest misunderstanding but this is a very common angle. It damn near got me kicked out of hooters in Vegas when a guy argued my chip movements were a check tap, dealer agreed, then he called me an angle shooter. Mother****er I have the nuts where is the angle there? Sorry your shitty 2 pair got rivered by my flush. That room was a dump.

Dealer should know that's not how you check.