I just sent this mail to Bob Ciaffone. Please jump in with your opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
I witnessed a heated debate at Binion's regarding string raises in a no-limit hold'em cash game at a nearby table. I would be very interested in your comments.
One player attempted to make a string raise. A second player (who was not in the hand) pointed out the infraction. The dealer then enforced the rule and trimmed the raise down to the amount in the first motion. A third player (who was facing the raise) objected, saying that the dealer should enforce the rule against string raises only if a player in the hand requested it.
The dealer felt it was her responsibility to enforce the rule any time she observed a problem. The floor disagreed and instructed the dealer to wait for an involved player to object before enforcing the rule against string bets.
I think it's an unfair to put the burden on the players, who are then revealing their desire to avoid a large bet. The objecting player in this scenario felt that a third party interfered with the string bettor's attempt to give him money. What's your view?
Thanks.
David Nicoson
Indianapolis, IN
Full Version: String Raises
I can't believe the floor said that. It is against the rules whether a player in the hand points it out or not. Dealers call it out all the time at the casinos I go to before players say anything.
Always enforce.
My compromise is one time. I will let you do it once with the exception of you looking around the table before you string your raise. If you "call" then look around the table (to look for weakness) and pump your bet, I'm going to call bullshit right there.
Any other circumstance, in home games, in casinos etc, you get one warning from me EVER. I don't care whose house it is, if you don't like me enforcing that rule I'll gladly take my buy-in back and leave.
Any other circumstance, in home games, in casinos etc, you get one warning from me EVER. I don't care whose house it is, if you don't like me enforcing that rule I'll gladly take my buy-in back and leave.
Bob Ciaffone wrote:
The subject of your letter is one that is often debated or discussed. My opinion is the dealer has the obligation to enforce all the obvious infractions of the rules. As you point out, if the dealer does not enforce the rules, the player gives away info about his hand when he assumes the burden that should have been borne by the dealer. Another example of this in the same vein is when there is an overbet of the pot size at pot-limit play. furthermore, a violator is often a rookie player, who needs to learn what the rules are ASAP, and it is not good for the game for him to have an opponent given a choice of accepting or rejecting the wager. Sometimes the "infraction" on string bets is not clearcut, and in that case I think the dealer can let it go unless the player complains and wants a ruling.
The subject of your letter is one that is often debated or discussed. My opinion is the dealer has the obligation to enforce all the obvious infractions of the rules. As you point out, if the dealer does not enforce the rules, the player gives away info about his hand when he assumes the burden that should have been borne by the dealer. Another example of this in the same vein is when there is an overbet of the pot size at pot-limit play. furthermore, a violator is often a rookie player, who needs to learn what the rules are ASAP, and it is not good for the game for him to have an opponent given a choice of accepting or rejecting the wager. Sometimes the "infraction" on string bets is not clearcut, and in that case I think the dealer can let it go unless the player complains and wants a ruling.
Many people get annoyed at string raises (I call your bet... and raise 10 more), but very few are upset with string folds (I call you bet... and fold). I think that's hypocritical.
QUOTE (David_Nicoson @ Friday, March 17th, 2006, 3:38 PM) 
Bob Ciaffone wrote:
The subject of your letter is one that is often debated or discussed. My opinion is the dealer has the obligation to enforce all the obvious infractions of the rules. As you point out, if the dealer does not enforce the rules, the player gives away info about his hand when he assumes the burden that should have been borne by the dealer. Another example of this in the same vein is when there is an overbet of the pot size at pot-limit play. furthermore, a violator is often a rookie player, who needs to learn what the rules are ASAP, and it is not good for the game for him to have an opponent given a choice of accepting or rejecting the wager. Sometimes the "infraction" on string bets is not clearcut, and in that case I think the dealer can let it go unless the player complains and wants a ruling.
The subject of your letter is one that is often debated or discussed. My opinion is the dealer has the obligation to enforce all the obvious infractions of the rules. As you point out, if the dealer does not enforce the rules, the player gives away info about his hand when he assumes the burden that should have been borne by the dealer. Another example of this in the same vein is when there is an overbet of the pot size at pot-limit play. furthermore, a violator is often a rookie player, who needs to learn what the rules are ASAP, and it is not good for the game for him to have an opponent given a choice of accepting or rejecting the wager. Sometimes the "infraction" on string bets is not clearcut, and in that case I think the dealer can let it go unless the player complains and wants a ruling.
at lower limits the terminology of " i call your 12 and raise you $20 happens so often i think it goes overlooked, although im not sure if its better or worse for the game. in my home games i try to point out the different between a bet and a raise, but most people dont get it/give a crap, so its all moot in the end.
QUOTE
Many people get annoyed at string raises (I call your bet... and raise 10 more), but very few are upset with string folds (I call you bet... and fold). I think that's hypocritical.
Can you explain what a string fold is?
Why would you call and then fold?
QUOTE (Theraflu @ Saturday, March 18th, 2006, 2:57 AM)
at lower limits the terminology of " i call your 12 and raise you $20 happens so often i think it goes overlooked, although im not sure if its better or worse for the game. in my home games i try to point out the different between a bet and a raise, but most people dont get it/give a crap, so its all moot in the end.
I think each time someone does this, someone should explain why this language can be be a problem. But personally I don't think it's a good idea to stop the person from making the raise unless there's been actual confusion. I think we should make an effort to find the intent of the player and honor that. If there is confusion, the person creating it doesn't have a recourse.
For instance, if a player says, "I call and . . ." and then another player reveals his hand, the first player has lost his right to raise. On the othe hand, revealing your hand intentionally to take advantage of his poor verbal technique is border-line angle shooting.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.