Originally Posted by ottawaplayer

I do recall on some episode of Poker After Dark (I'm pretty sure that it was this show...) that after a raise, the other pro slid the calling amount forward but left a few fingers on the stack while he talked to his HU opponent. Until he released his fingers, it was not considered a call. Now, maybe this is different, since it was a call and not a bet, and also perhaps the pros on Poker After Dark get some variations on the formal rules.

Originally Posted by BlondeFish

There is a lot of uninformed hysteria about this hand, especially Michael Carroll, who probably didn't bother reading the WSOP rules but kept babbling about "forward motion" when there is no such rule.

Here are the WSOP house rules at the Rio regarding string bets:
The dealer is responsible for calling a string bet. All players at the table are encouraged to assist in calling a string bet if a dealer fails to identify one. A string bet called by a player must be verified by a floor person.

In this case, the dealer did not deem it to be a string bet. Brandon Cantu and Carroll thought that forward motion constitutes a string bet and they called for the floor. The initial floor person talked about "cut and drop", i.e., a wager is not binding until the chips are actually released into the pot. The main WSOP TD, Jack Effel, also judged that the bet was not released into the pot. He then had a talk with Nikolay Losev after the hand. It's not an easy judgement call, but this is the same as what I would have done: unless there was evidence from the dealer or previous actions that the player was intentionally trying to angle-shoot and get a read off Cantu's reaction, I would rule that 1.5 million is the bet and warn the player not to do it again (under WSOP Rules #30 and #41).

In other words, I agree with the floor people Effel, K.F., "ColoradoSkiBum" and 13CARDS that it was not a string bet.

Originally Posted by 13CARDS

Not one person yet has thrown out the "screw the technical interpertation of the rules, what about 'in the best interest of the game' ruling" arguement?

Originally Posted by 13CARDS

^^^^^^^^^^^
Tough Guy

Originally Posted by Milo

Okay, 13Cards, I will stipulate that the TD's ruling is technically correct. But, having stipulated that point, how can the TD then rule that Michael Carroll would not be allowed to do the same exact thing, only using his entire stack? If it's legal to do what Losev did with one tower of chips, why is it not legal with all of them? This assumes that you are able to control your entire chipstack with your two hands. You are not cutting out any chips in doing this, and you are not releasing your chips at any time, so how can the TD say that one is good and the other is not?

No sarcasm here (for a change), as I am seriously curious about that part of the issue.