what would the ruling be?
 

Playing a friendly 3 table tourney in a local pub.
Player A checks.
Player B bets.
Player A check-raises all-in.
Player B ponders and ponders and shows one of his cards to player A, hoping to get a reaction.

All hell breaks loose at the table cause some claim the hand is now dead.

What would the floorman's ruling be in a B&M? Isn't this the same sort of tactic as string-betting that is not allowed?

Re: what would the ruling be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Playing a friendly 3 table tourney in a local pub.
Player A checks.
Player B bets.
Player A check-raises all-in.
Player B ponders and ponders and shows one of his cards to player A, hoping to get a reaction.

All hell breaks loose at the table cause some claim the hand is now dead.

What would the floorman's ruling be in a B&M? Isn't this the same sort of tactic as string-betting that is not allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to prohibot this action in this case, but if you werere playing with TDA rules the hand would not be dead, but the player who exposed his card could be subject to a penalty (time away from the table).

Though there always seem to be a large number of people screaming that the hand is dead, I have never played in a casino that would kill the hand for that.

Re: what would the ruling be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Though there always seem to be a large number of people screaming that the hand is dead, I have never played in a casino that would kill the hand for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prior to the TDA being formed it was split between rooms that killed the hand and rooms that gave a penalty.

Re: what would the ruling be?
 

...It appears inconsistant to me that this would be allowed, and a string-bet wouldn't ?

Re: what would the ruling be?
 

[ QUOTE ]
...It appears inconsistant to me that this would be allowed, and a string-bet wouldn't ?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't allowed, and I don't see the connection to a string bet/raise. The reason you can't make a string bet is once you make a legal bet it isn't your turn anymore; the action is on the next player.

Note: This isn't meant as a technical answer, one of my pet peave is when a dealer tells a player "you can't raise, that is a string bet" if they had any idea what a string bet is they wouldn't have done it. It is much clearer if you explain it as "when you put the chips in to call you called and now it is the next player's turn, i fyou would like to raise tell the dealer before you put anything in or put it all out at once.

Re: what would the ruling be?
 

[ QUOTE ]


It isn't allowed, and I don't see the connection to a string bet/raise. The reason you can't make a string bet is once you make a legal bet it isn't your turn anymore; the action is on the next player.

Note: This isn't meant as a technical answer, one of my pet peave is when a dealer tells a player "you can't raise, that is a string bet" if they had any idea what a string bet is they wouldn't have done it. It is much clearer if you explain it as "when you put the chips in to call you called and now it is the next player's turn, i fyou would like to raise tell the dealer before you put anything in or put it all out at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Players who know what a string bet is still make them, for a range of reasons.

2. The connection between a string raise and exposing your hand is that both can be done for the purpose of getting a response from other players before making/completeing your action.

3. It does not seem to be a universal rule as to whether exposing your cards in a cash game is "illegal". And the threat of a "penalty" in a tournament relegates the move to the class of an F-bomb, and not an illegal play.

4. If a string raise is illegal for the reason you stated, why is the inforcement "optional"? "Optional" in the sense that (in many places) the dealer does not enforce the rule unless a player objects to the string raise (and, before there is action behind the raise). If the "call" part of the string raise ends the player's turn, why should I have to say anything to keep him from raising? Why can't I let everybody fold back to me and then force him to take the raise out? My understanding was that it was illegal/wrong because it could be used to judge the reactions of those yet to act and so either raise/call based on those reactions.

Re: what would the ruling be?
 

That was an explanation for rooms where it is dealer enforced. Games where it is player enforced is another matter entirely. I doubt many players playing in a pub are making string raises to try to gain info.

String raise enforcement is an area of the rules that I am not happy with. The intent of it is to prevent angle shooting, but the majority of the time it is used to prevent someone from making the action they want to.

Re: what would the ruling be?
 

You may also check this thread as well since it is mentioned in Super System as a tactic that can be used.