Luxor Ruling

[tourney guy]

Pretty interent interesting scenario here. We were discussing this very subject at work the other day.

1) From a very technical standpoint, it IS a string raise. I am pretty sure that the rule regarding a line is that, void of any verbal declaration, a player is allowed one motion across the line. Having said that, the opponent is allowed to, and was likely correct to, call a string bet. The problem is that the line can be handles differently from shift-to-shift, or worse, dealer to dealer. In its purest form, it was two moves and thus, a string bet.

2) The problem in LV no-limit is that most places won't allow C_Notes to play, so a player could have as much as 1500 in red chips on the felt at one time. It is usually not feasible to get all the chips across the line in one motion, so I usually allow for some leeway in having a player make more that one motion.

3) The key is whether or not you stalled in the middle of the moves in order to gauge you position of your opponent. If you did not, then I personally would allow the bet.

4) The dealer may be a [censored], but if another player calls a string, is not the dealer obligated, at the least, to get a ruling??

5) My experience is that the problem is the line itself, and whether or not anyone, including the players, know what the rule is regarding the betting.

Have to admit, doesn't sound like you got screwed that badly, but the lack of professionalisam is obvious, and expected, by the Luxor.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
2) The problem in LV no-limit is that most places won't allow C_Notes to play, so a player could have as much as 1500 in red chips on the felt at one time. It is usually not feasible to get all the chips across the line in one motion, so I usually allow for some leeway in having a player make more that one motion.

3) The key is whether or not you stalled in the middle of the moves in order to gauge you position of your opponent. If you did not, then I personally would allow the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the two important points. This is why traditionally the rule for NL was you must make your bet in a continuous motion and the bet for limit was you must make your bet in a single motion.

A lot of places are going to a single motion for NL because they are unfamiliar with how NL differs from limit. I don't know of anyone (that doesn't mean they aren't out there) that has looked at this and decided "a single motion makes for better poker." I do know of some poeple that have decided "a single motion makes it easier than trying to explain continuos motion."

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]



4) The dealer may be a [censored], but if another player calls a string, is not the dealer obligated, at the least, to get a ruling??



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But he is also obligated to tell the truth to the floor, so the floor can make a fair and informed decision. What good are lines, rules, regulations, etc if the staff are going to lie to "punish" players they don't like?

[KenProspero]

Once the dealer's told this story, there is literally nothing YOU can say to change the floor's mind. The best you can hope for is that several others around the table will say that (i) it was a continuous movement and (ii) the dealer had called your bet. But I'm not sure that this helps.

Let's say, that as the dealer said, you put chips out with your right hand, paused and pushed with your left. This IS a string bet, and the dealer's saying that you're all in, can't change it.

It seems your only defense is that both hands were moving chips, it was a continuous movement and no string bet. However, this is a dealer judgment call. I can't recall the floor overrulling the dealer when he says an action was a string bet. But others with more B&M experience than I may differ.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't recall the floor overrulling the dealer when he says an action was a string bet. But others with more B&M experience than I may differ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have done it a lot, but they basically all revolved around the dealer not understanding the difference between limit and NL.

[KenProspero]

I humbly bow down both to your superior experience, and your wisdom in making effort to get the call right.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of places are going to a single motion for NL because they are unfamiliar with how NL differs from limit. I don't know of anyone (that doesn't mean they aren't out there) that has looked at this and decided "a single motion makes for better poker." I do know of some poeple that have decided "a single motion makes it easier than trying to explain continuos motion."

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy,

We have a floor staff at places such as Hollywood Park who haven't had a raise in ten years (in fact they make less). We have new, inexperienced floor just about everywhere.

The main problem with allowing "continuous motion" is that such motion cannot be clearly agreed to as continuous in the modern setting when there is a dispute. So floor are all too often put in a difficult spot trying to determine the facts, e.g., how long was the pause as multiple stacks were put out and so on.

Of course in Howard's case the ruling was ridiculous, and clubs with rules that say all chips must be put over a betting line with one hand seem more that a bit extreme and ill-conceived.

But I know at least the Bike and Commerce are getting together requiring either clear verbal declaration or a bet all in one motion, especially when moving several stacks. I did participate in a demonstration from a shift manager explaining to his floor what is continuous and what is not (in the case of cutting off stacks from one's palm). Both clubs will continue to allow that this sort of thing is OK when it is done without pause. But they don't want to put there floor in the position of trying to decide if the movement of several stacks was continuous or not in the hostile environment of a large cardroom floor.

Personally I would like to see the standard ruling a little more advanced for raising or betting large amounts of chips. Perhaps requiring that the chips be cut off clearly to the side behind ones cards then pushed forward (even if it takes several motions) might be OK. But such a procedure would have to be made clear to everyone.

~ Rick

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
The main problem with allowing "continuous motion" is that such motion cannot be clearly agreed to as continuous in the modern setting when there is a dispute. So floor are all too often put in a difficult spot trying to determine the facts, e.g., how long was the pause as multiple stacks were put out and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, I just don't know a good solution. I think the old way is better poker, but it might be too hard to implement with there being so many NL games these days. In fairness to the less experienced floorstaff in the old days NL games were rare and played by the most expereinced players who generally trusted each other more than some people working in a casino. In the old days NL was generally played by gentlemen who wouldn't think of not allowing someone to put a bet in when it is clear that is what he wanted to do.