String bets - what's the big deal? (1 Viewer)

[BGinGA]

By the way, what would the ruling be on this? (I'm not sure if this is exactly how it went, but it was something like this)

Player A raises to bets 30
Player B throws 80 in the pot, as he announces 50.
Player C correctly points out that:
1) the verbal action is binding and
2) the amount announced does not constitute a legal re-raise.
He thinks it should be ruled a call. I wonder if announcing an amount more than the call constitutes a binding raise, and thus it should be ruled a min raise to 60?

If the 80 in chips were 'wagered' (however that is defined in your game), then the verbal declaration afterwards is irrelevant. You state he 'throws 80 in the pot', which to me, means they were already wagered when he made his announcement.

In most cases, if the chip(s) hit the felt prior to any verbalization, the physical action stands. For example, you can't toss in two $100 chips and then say $150. Once the chips hit the felt, it's a $200 bet. Same as tossing in a $100 chip, then saying "sixty". It's a hundred dollar bet, unless verbally stated otherwise first (similar to the single-oversize-chip=call).

In some games, crossing the betting line is sufficient. In others, the chips must be physically released.

In the above case, if the verbal action was made prior to the physical action, then a min-raise of $60 is the correct ruling.

 

[Poker Zombie]

As BG's examples point out, tossing in chips while declaring a bet is a sloppy practice, and becomes open to interpretation.

• Were your chips hitting the felt when you spoke?
• Were they released from your hand when you spoke?
• Were they across the line when you spoke?
• Can you throw a the challenge flag and have the TD go to instant replay to see which came first?

It is the player's responsibility to make their actions clear. If you do not make the intent clear you are subject to house/Dealer/Floor rule, which may not be as you intended. Then what do you do, argue your intent?

"Look, I know I violated the rule #2, but I want my action to be something else"

You may as well argue after the flop that you didn't want to fold preflop. Get sloppy, take your chances.

 

[MatB]

I hate the string-bet rule. Enough so that I warn new players that string bet rules almost never will be enforced in my games especially vs less experienced players.

I have played poker for decades and have yet to see the mythical string bet where the result allowed the string bettor to gain an advantage. The only people burned by a string bet ruling were folks who wanted to make a raise ( or a bigger raise ) but got tripped up by semantics or failure to follow proper technique.

I can be provoked to enforce a string-bet restriction but the normal practice is to warn the offender that their action wasn't proper, explain what they should have done and let the bet / raise stand they way they intended.

It is terrible for the game to use the letter of the law to further disadvantage the weakest / newest players. Yes, yes, I know rules are rules and generally must be followed. However Rule Number One trumps all - do what is in the best interest of fairness and the game.

I dont think string betters are necessarily angle shooting, but i can see where Player 1 puts out small stack of chips, then pulls his hand back to his stack to retrieve more chips and in that moment the next player to act (player 2) says "Call" thinking the betting was over as Player 1 had not made verbal declaration of amount.

I think the string bet rule eliminates this problem.

Rules like this are not necessarily to prevent scamming but more to make the game run smooth without confusion or conflict.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I don't think most string-betters are angle shooting, but without the rule it would be really easy to get a read off an inexperienced opponent if string betting were allowed. If they were permitted, you would see a lot more string bets, creating confusion and conflict.

 

[MatB]

I don't think most string-betters are angle shooting, but without the rule it would be really easy to get a read off an inexperienced opponent if string betting were allowed. If they were permitted, you would see a lot more string bets, creating confusion and conflict.

I agree most are not, actually without the rule it opens up the opportunity for the next player to angle shoot, by doing exactly what i posted previously. Player 1 puts out $20 reaches back for more chips, Player 2 knows Player 1 is still betting but says "call" to stop Player 1 from adding chips.

Also lets hypothesize that string betting is allowed. What now? how many more rules are needed to manage the string bet?
is there a time limit on the string bet?

I think the string bet rule commits players to an action. Its a good rule to enforce. My tourney crowd are mixed levels from zero experience to some experience, we don't go ballistic on them when they string bet but just remind them its not allowed.

 

[Blaster]

We once had a "kitchen table poker" type casual player at one of our tournaments, & he kept trying to raise light ..
( Bet is $50, Player B raises to 375 , Kitchen table guy says "raise", & tries to make it, say, $450 total ..)
He really just couldn't wrap his head around "why" in his turn, he couldn't just raise anything he wanted , ... & what the raise needed to be ... which also opened a can of worms when he would then no longer "want" to actually raise, if he now had to put in at least $775 instead of 450.... Friendy single table game of mixed players, no major problem he was given slack , but geesh ..

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think the string bet rule commits players to an action. Its a good rule to enforce. My tourney crowd are mixed levels from zero experience to some experience, we don't go ballistic on them when they string bet but just remind them its not allowed

I have a similar group. I'd like to see this "Ballistic" or "Jump all over" for myself. In my game, it could be perceived as such, but it's just quick reaction of multiple table players pointing out a rule infraction before anything else happens. The result being something similar to the below...

Charlie rechecked his cards, and the flop. He cracked half a grin, and pulled a few chips from his stack. "I see your 30," Charlie said tossing the chips into the pot. Then he started to grab another stack of chips and continued "and I raise you..."

Bob, Sue, and Jim all spoke at once "You cannot do that", and "String bet!" it was a sudden shock to Charlie, who was thought he was playing it "cowboy smooth". The sudden commotion sounded like a 2 year old was about to wander into a busy street. The urgency was there, of course. Not life or death, but they were able to stop Charlie from making an illegal string bet, and by acting quickly, they protected Charlie from giving away the strength of the raise he was considering.

Dave of course, said nothing, waiting until the initial din settled. Once the situation was settled, Dave finally chimed in.

"Also, don't splash the pot."

 

[detroitdad]

played at @Marc Hedrick house last night. He had two players that are once a year type players (honestly shouldn't play that much). They constantly were splashing the pot and unintentionally string betting. Wasn't my house so I wasn't saying anything. One of the other guests that knows these two better were politely enforcing the rules. It was nice going to a game and not having to do anything but play cards and have a good time.

 

[BGinGA]

I have a similar group. I'd like to see this "Ballistic" or "Jump all over" for myself. In my game, it could be perceived as such, but it's just quick reaction of multiple table players pointing out a rule infraction before anything else happens. The result being something similar to the below...

Charlie rechecked his cards, and the flop. He cracked half a grin, and pulled a few chips from his stack. "I see your 30," Charlie said tossing the chips into the pot. Then he started to grab another stack of chips and continued "and I raise you..."

Bob, Sue, and Jim all spoke at once "You cannot do that", and "String bet!" it was a sudden shock to Charlie, who was thought he was playing it "cowboy smooth". The sudden commotion sounded like a 2 year old was about to wander into a busy street. The urgency was there, of course. Not life or death, but they were able to stop Charlie from making an illegal string bet, and by acting quickly, they protected Charlie from giving away the strength of the raise he was considering.

Dave of course, said nothing, waiting until the initial din settled. Once the situation was settled, Dave finally chimed in.

"Also, don't splash the pot."

Yeah, that Dave guy is a bit of a rules Nazi.

 

[detroitdad]

Yeah, that Dave guy is a bit of a rules Nazi.

I got called that last night Andy, one of our friends that plays/drinks/loud, but mostly fun always over bets in the PLO games. I am the one usually correcting him. Last night he starts his betting out with "Hey Daddy, can I pot it to 24 bucks". It was a touch creepy lol. The answer was no btw. He was over by 6 bucks.

 

[BGinGA]

Thanks for the future meetup tilt ammo, Daddy.

 

[johnnycnote]

..... Also, a secondary way of looking at it, is it's also Not Fair to the game players that know the rules ...
For example, I know that if the bet is 150, & I toss out a 500, & forget for some reason or another to say raise that time, it's a call.
It shouldn't be "sometimes not a call" if the player over in seat 8 does it ..
Likewise with string bets, if player A knows he can't go back for more chips, even if he meant to bet more ...
"Finster" over in seat 8 shouldn't "get to string bet" when he tries, when others at the table can't & wouldn't even try ...

We all know that when Blaster tosses out a 500 it's really 248.31

 

[MatB]

Yeah, i've been called "rule nazi" "chip nazi" etc. etc. Only by my tourney group.

At more experienced home games, i'm just "donkey" or "fish"

 

[BGinGA]

At more experienced home games and online, i'm just "donkey" or "fish" or "luckbox"

FYP.