Ruling question, string bet or no?

[emartin762]

about a week ago there was a hand in a 2/5 NL casino game where a player bet on the flop, then another player said "raise" and nothing else, went to his stack put a stack of 100 out and went back and put another stack of 100 out. The original raiser was complaining that it was a string bet, called the floor, where one floorman said he can keep going back to his stack as much as he wants, then another floor said he needs to announce his raise amount verbally. Of course both floor rulings contradicted eachother but they ended up letting the re-raise stand at 200. Now was this a string bet or is it a legal raise?

[Bulbarainey]

as far as i understand its a legal raise, as long as you announce you can keep going back and adding chips, but it may change at different rooms.

[kyleb]

That is a legal raise. He announced "raise" and then can go into his stack as many times as he wants until he is finished, at which point he either announces the total raise, the amount he is raising the original bet, or motions to the dealer and/or player that he's done raising.

[ScottD]

I am almost positive that this is NOT a valid raise. If the player had announced "raise to $200," then he could go back to his stack as many times as he wanted. With no verbal indication of a raise amount, you must put all the raising chips out at once.

The idea that a player "can go into his stack as many times as he wants until he is finished, at which point he either announces the total raise, the amount he is raising the original bet, or motions to the dealer and/or player that he's done raising" is silly. Are you saying that for EVERY SINGLE raise in a NL game, a player needs to verbally or physically "motion" to the dealer that he is finished raising? This would slow the game down, allow for numerous angles, etc. Also, what is the standard "motion" to the dealer that you are finished raising?

For example, I say "raise," put out $100 chips and then sit motionless and wait for action to go around the table. Then I raise some more. <-- This cannot be allowed.

My view is that, without a verbal declaration of a raise amount, a raise is completed and action moves to the next player when the raiser places chips in the "betting area" and moves his hand away from the chips he just raised. Otherwise, how does the next player ever know that the action is on them?

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
With no verbal indication of a raise amount, you must put all the raising chips out at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common misinterpretation. In limit poker you must raise in a single motion. With the recent explosion in NL poker many people (players and staff alike) are unfamiliar with NL rules and apply limit rules to the game. The traditional rule in NL poker is you must bet in a continuous motion (you may go back to your stack as many times as you want). Note that touranments are slightly different as most poeple playing when the TDA made theri rules were more familiar with limit than NL so they made a rule that looks more like the limit rule.

[ScottD]

I stand corrected. It seems that this was a valid raise, as long as it was done in a sontinuous motion. I see the following rule in Robert's Rules of Poker:

"At non-tournament play, a player who says 'raise' is allowed to continue putting chips into the pot with more than one move; the wager is assumed complete when the player’s hands come to rest outside the pot area. (This rule is used because no-limit play may require a large number of chips be put into the pot.) In tournament play, the TDA rules require that the player either use a verbal statement giving the amount of the raise or put the chips into the pot in a single motion, to avoid making a string-bet."

My post was based on an incorrect (?) assumption that the player said raise, put out $100, waited, then put out more chips. According to my interpretation of Robert's Rules of Poker, this was a valid raise if it was done in a continuous motion.

However, it seems that the "spirit" of the rule is such that very large bets (that cannot be reasonably made in a single motion) can be placed without verbalizing your bet. In this case, the player only wanted to bet $200, which, unless he's playing with $1 chips, is a pretty easy bet to make in a single motion. However, there is no qualification in the rules of a "minimum bet size for multiple moves," so it appears to be a valid raise.

In any case, I still believe that the idea that a player "can go into his stack as many times as he wants until he is finished, at which point he either announces the total raise, the amount he is raising the original bet, or motions to the dealer and/or player that he's done raising" is incorrect. A player may not say "raise" then take as long as he wants to raise more chips (in multiple
moves from his stack) until he verbalizes the end of the bet or motions to the dealer and/or player. This would cause endless confusion, because no one would ever be sure who the action was on.

[Phil2]

[ QUOTE ]
floorman said he can keep going back to his stack as much as he wants, then another floor said he needs to announce his raise amount verbally.

[/ QUOTE ]

What casino was this? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

I am very slow this morning; only finished about 1 cup of coffee. Help me out here - If you announce "raise," you must raise at least the ammount of the bet. If you announce "raise $400," you can go back and forth to your stack until you finish puting in $400 more. So if the bet is $80, you just say "raise," push a stack of $150 PAST YOUR CARDS, the dealer will tell you you can only put in $10 more. No?

[SheridanCat]

That is a string raise. If he announces the amount of the raise, he can go back as much as he wants. If he does not announce the amount, he must put all the chips out in one motion.

It's clear that the actions you saw were a string raise. An angle shooter could just keep sliding stacks out until he sees a reaction he likes and then take action based on that reaction. That's what the string raise/bet rule is meant to stop.

The floor ruling was correct, in the end - he was allowed the minumum raise.

Regards,

T

Big Edit: I read Randy's post. I stand corrected. It seems lame and ripe for angle shooting. Can anyone explain why it wouldn't be?

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems lame and ripe for angle shooting. Can anyone explain why it wouldn't be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Until very recently NL was played by more experienced players and the pace of the game was much slower (I only play online these days, so I can't tell you much about the pace of the NL games that have been popping up). In NL a player sometimes wants to put in so many chips that he needs to return to his stack. Normally NL players sit and wait until the the player in front of them is finished.

I think that the caveat that "This rule is used because no-limit play may require a large number of chips be put into the pot" is essential here.

For example, if a player says "raise" and then puts 1 $100 chip in the pot and then goes back to his stack for another single $100 chip, then he is not abiding by the spirit of the rule.

On the other hand, if he puts in a full stack of chips and then goes back immediately for another full stack of chips, then that would make sense.