Exactly. Same as with the arm movement described in this thread.

Steamraises concerns are valid, but he is looking atr it the wrong way. The problem of dealers struggling to interpret random movements as a check isn't on the dealer, but on the player. Keep players to a few, very common, signals, and ignore all else.

Binding declarations should be defined inclusively (here is the list of words\gestures associated with a binding action), not exclusively (here are the non-ambiguous gestures that are NOT binding action, everything else can be interpreted as a binding action).

Most players\dealers\floors get that intuitively, and the occasional beef gets squelched with a 'Protect your action by being more explicit, and use common gestures\phrases' admonition. But occasionally a floor or supervisor will inadvertently make the game worse by enabling angle shooters by protecting non-standard gestures, or by holding undefined gestures as binding declarations.

If you look at it from a fairness standpoint and best interest of the game standpoint, holding a person who made a non-checking gesture to a check (especially when, in retrospect, he had a monster and is never checking there) is bad.

Steamraise's concern that dealers are at the pointy end of the stick because players check in so many varied ways and expect dealers to know what they are doing is valid. The solution, though, isn't 'Empower dealer's to make wider interpretations of gestures' but to adopt a 'cut that crap out and act' approach

Over the last two days, I've asked a variety of floor, dealers and wining regulars if they knew what raising both hands up meant and got a small variety of answers. One thing everyone was agreed on: it has no meaning whatsoever. Not a single person thought it meant they wanted to see someone's chips.

It's probably not the ideal hand motion for "I want to see your chips." But I'd argue demanding that its a check is an angle.

Same exact thing happened to my uncle, who is the president of Nintendo of America and gets all the games early.

Maybe, maybe not.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

So the guy who immediately tabled his hand was in the wrong.

Thanks for coming around on this one.

The devil is in the details. If you ask 'What does it mean if I raise my hands in the air', floors will scratch their head.

If you say, what does this mean, and sit at a table, stare at your opponent, and with your hands clasped in front of you, separate them and raise them up, 10 out of 10 will say 'It means raise your hand'

However, now that you have support for the fact that while no one knows what it means, it unambiguously does NOT mean 'I check', do you go back on your position that it was a good ruling? Or are you sticking to the idea that any gesture or movement with an unassigned meaning can be held to a binding check?

So it's clearly not a check and ruling it that way was a mistake.

I'm glad you changed your stance on that.

When it is comes to someone trying to make/save themselves money (greed), I think malice is more likely than usual.

I think at this point, you are dug in and just don't want to back off. Your position is basically

'A guy who turbo rolled a set on a 3 flushed board and claimed his opponent checked in response to a gesture that many people say has a clear meaning (none of which is 'check'), and that no one says means 'check'(based on your straw poll of various floors where you play), was not angling'

Ummmmm....yeah, no.

First we do not know the exact details of the hand movement. Second it doesn’t sound like you provided any context, so I am not surprised no one could give you a specific definition for the movement. But since I don’t know the rules define a specific movement to request a clear view. One thing I think we can now agree to is that the movement was not a normal move for a check.

Why mr. fast roll chose to claim it was a check does not matter. We should be able to agree his claim it was a check doesn’t make sense. Based on your queries, no one has said it was a check. Only a very few here have sided it was a check. Most important, the primary party to making this call, the dealer, did not declare it was a check contemporaneously.

I don’t really care if the fast roll was an angle or just an ignorant error. That act doesn’t mean we should call the non check a check. Mr. Quickroll just needs to finish to hand knowing he has exposed his hand. It certainly isn’t enough to justify the floor abdicating his duty nor the shift mgr to overrule the dealer. For both of those to happen I have to assume quickroll is a major whale there.

When I asked, it was described as two players in the hand and when the action was on the second player, specifically to give context and described the movement the way the OP did. The answer, as previously stated was universal on the point that no one knew it as a way of asking to see the other players stack.

What previously wasn't said, because of an attempt to reduce the controversy, was that over half the people said: "if anything, it would be a motion, in turn, and therefore a check". Unfortunately, though trying to avoid that aspect, it seems to have dominated the responses. Partly my fault, I suppose, as it is clearly an unpopular position.

On the single point of the motion being a request to see a stack, it seems to be a regional thing and, though in conflict with "motion in turn", is, therefore, not universal. I can respect that, but given the tone of your post, I doubt you can.

I didn't ask about it to prove anything to you, or the forum. But to try and learn something new and share the responses back.

Context is everything. Did you tell the pollees that villain has his hands obscuring his stack?
This seems to be an action that has an obvious meaning in the specific context it was used in and not otherwise. So a poll without that very specific context is fairly meaningless, imo.

So you're telling me there's a region where over half the people say "any unclear motion in turn should be a check?"

Sounds like there's alot angling going on in that region

"if anything, it would be a motion, in turn, and therefore a check"

Read the damn sentence, or did you misquote me deliberately?

It's called thinking through the possibilities before coming to a decision.

Yes, but in the discussion part after I asked the question. I told each person that 2+2 posters were saying it's a universal symbol for "show me your stack". Not a single person ever heard of it.

This isn't a challenge, but WTF? It reads like in your area any motion when the action is on you could be ruled a check. Is that right?

So we are back to the idea that any motion not otherwise defined while action is on you runs the risk that the dealer or floor (I don’t care what other players define it as) as a check. So in your games, pulling my ear, scratching my nose, leaning forward, etc can reasonably be ruled a check. If any motion in turn can be called a check, you can’t even breath while tanking. At least ultimately the games will speed up since people will instacheck or pass out from lack of breathing.

Please tell us all where this obvious Angleville is so we can either go join the anglers or at least be forewarned should we play there.

I think we're at the not uncommon point where one poster keeps insisting that "A" is correct even though everybody else disagrees.

Usually it's the OP of the thread who acts as the contrarian though.

My God, you're being obtuse. With "If anything" preceding the statement, it means that it's an attempt to make sense of something. When that is the case, the only reasonable thing to do is clarify it. Instead, you're deliberately reading it as an absolute statement.

It's as if you were never taught to think, which seems unreasonable coming from a 2+2'er.

I hope you're having fun.

JayKon

Dude... It's time.

Dude, it is your words. Take the sentence to a high school or middle school English teacher.

Literally what you are saying is ‘any in turn motion that is not defined as something else WOULD be a check.’ Not should. Not could. WOULD. Now if would is not the word you intended to use, fine. Make a correction. But you literally did say in turn, undefined motion would be a check.

Also no one that I recall has defined this motion as the “universal” motion to ask a player for a clear view of his chips. I even stated I normally push my hands apart side to side. The only one making a absolute claim is you saying what would be the ruling.

I still also expect if I ask a random floor, dealer or experienced player. IN CONTEXT, I would get a very high response the intent was to see the other stack.

Specifically if I say ‘On the river, X checks and is sitting hunched over his chips with his hands folded in front of them. Then Y looks at X, extends his hand(s) toward X palms up and raises/pushes his hand(s) up. What is Y’s intention?’ I bet at least 80% if not 100% of the replies would be Y wants to see X’s chips. I am certain, 0% would say Y was checking.

As I see no additional value I can add, I am now done with replies on this.

I'd have guessed he was trying to start the wave

Using that interpretation I would envision a ripple not a wave.