The Dreaded String Bet
Ok... last Saturday night i'm sitting at my table (N/L, blinds 2/5), minding my own business, and folding my cards like a good boy when all hell breaks loose.
Pre-flop(2 limpers), late pos George (names changed to protect the innocent... um... ignorant... plus I didn't really catch his name) reaches out and stacks 4 red chips in front of his cards on the table... then he grabs another stack of reds and starts to stack them beside the previous pile when the shouting starts!
"Whoa whoa whoa!!", "You can't do that!!", "String bet!! String bet!!" I am jolted from my blissful slumber.
The insuing argument is heated... George claiming that he hasn't pushed his chips out yet and is simply stacking them up in front of his cards and plans to push them out all together!
Now I know most of the players at this table... but George and a friend are from out of town... and they insist that there is nothing wrong with this action and that a "real" table has a line that the chips are pushed over before they are considered in play.
Up until this point I have held my tongue... but it's too good too pass up. I calmly pat the table and exclaim "Feels like a real table!!" I decide to visit the little boys room until this is sorted out. A ruling is called for and it's quick and decisive... "$20 to go, sir. No string bets allowed."
The point is 'argued' for the next hour during play and many wonderful lines are exchanged. I leave later that night feeling thoroughly entertained!!
Pre-flop(2 limpers), late pos George (names changed to protect the innocent... um... ignorant... plus I didn't really catch his name) reaches out and stacks 4 red chips in front of his cards on the table... then he grabs another stack of reds and starts to stack them beside the previous pile when the shouting starts!
"Whoa whoa whoa!!", "You can't do that!!", "String bet!! String bet!!" I am jolted from my blissful slumber.
The insuing argument is heated... George claiming that he hasn't pushed his chips out yet and is simply stacking them up in front of his cards and plans to push them out all together!
Now I know most of the players at this table... but George and a friend are from out of town... and they insist that there is nothing wrong with this action and that a "real" table has a line that the chips are pushed over before they are considered in play.
Up until this point I have held my tongue... but it's too good too pass up. I calmly pat the table and exclaim "Feels like a real table!!" I decide to visit the little boys room until this is sorted out. A ruling is called for and it's quick and decisive... "$20 to go, sir. No string bets allowed."
The point is 'argued' for the next hour during play and many wonderful lines are exchanged. I leave later that night feeling thoroughly entertained!!
Comments
If it was a huge game for big money, and someone was using this weak manoeuver to try and gleen information off of another player, then that is a problem.
And we all know that at many poker tables, there will always be a wanna-be tough guy that likes to talk smack, and try and bully dealers and other players, even if he has clearly messed up...
The general rule is to declare any calls, or raises verbally, before acting. In most casino's, string bets are strictly prohibited, although most will have a line that you can freely stack as much chips in front of before pushing them in...
What "George" seems to have attempted, stacking up and/or counting out chips before making a bet, is pretty typical in no-limit. This should generally be allowed IMO.
The easiest thing to do, and the only real way to remove this kind of ambiguity (apart from verbal declarations), is to have a betting line on your table. George has a valid point about this, and is probably not talking about whether or not your table is made from non-virtual raw materials.
Setting out the rules of what is and isn't a string bet at the start of a session (especially when there are new players) is a fantastic idea simply because there are so many variations of the string bet rule, *especially* in no-limit.
ScottyZ
I agree with Scotty. If the action was as you described, this is not a string bet.
I also agree that tables should have betting lines. They changed the felt at all the tables at Brantford, and now none of the tables have betting lines. I asked why they got rid of the lines. I was told that the lines were only there to "help people learn", that "they were never meant to be permanent" and that (get this) "they were removed to make things less confusing".
I am not sure exactly WHAT is made less confusing by the lack of a betting line, but it sure as hell is not poker. Every time I go to Brantford, I end up leaving with just a little bit less faith in the people who run that place. It's a nice room and all (clean, nice TVs, and all that) but I am starting to think that the people who make the decisions don't have a clue.
Which brings me back to the string betting thing. It seems that every supervisor at that room has a different interpretation of the string bet rule. I have been told (by dealers, supervisors, and pit bosses) that if you don't say "raise", you MUST drop all your chips at the same time.
I have also been told (by dealers, supervisors, and pit bosses) that so long as you have all your chips in your hand, and don't move your hanbd back to your stack to get more chips, that you can drop the chips in one at a time if you want, and that your action is not complete until you pull your hand back. Once, I was discussing this with a supervisor, during a non-busy time. She told me that it was ok (no string bet) so long as you don't bring your hand back. She then came back about 15 minutes later, and told me that she had asked a professional player who was a regular there, and she told him that it should be a string bet if you don't drop all the chips at the same time, so "I guess that's what the rule is".
It would be nice if:
(1) They would agree on a rule and tell all the dealers, supervisors, and pit bosses what it is, and
(2) if the supervisors actually KNEW the rules, and didn't have to ask the players what they were. A supervisor who does not know the rules is essentially just taking up space and serves no real purpose.
Keith
I may be giving them too much credit, but what if the point of removing the line is to drill it in to each player to actually say what they are doing. That way the string bet goes away completely, no matter what your interpretation of 'string bet' is?
I plan on putting a betting line on my table though... looks cool. 8)
But, you don't have to say what you are doing if you don't want to. Verbal declarations are binding but NOT mandatory. The problem with no betting line is that the bets don't get tossed out far enough, so the dealers have to ask people to push in their bets so they can reach them. All that is accomplished is that the game is slowed down.
Definitely a good idea. It gets rid of confusion and eliminates arguments.
Keith.
In addition to what you've said already, another nice thing about having a betting line is to allow some precision in rulings. A player has put a chip (or chips) into the pot if they have gone across the line. A player has mucked his hand if his cards go across the line. With no line on your table, you are going to create a lot of unnecessary arguments. With a line, a dealer can typically resolve the sitatuation in a few seconds by simply saying something like, "That bet was across the line."
That doesn't make a lick of sense.
That very statement negates itself by being so confusing.
ScottyZ
I almost fell out of my chair. I'm still shaking.
Regards,
all_aces
It's like the song...
"In good times. In bad times. I'll be on your siiiiide for-eeee-ver mo-ooo-oo-oo-o-o-re, yeah."
Maybe this was one of the good times?
ScottyZ
Just checking...
Lol maybe it was. What would the sweet be without the sour?
Regards,
all_aces
and you immediately knew what song he was talking about!
"I saw goody all_aces floating above my bed!"
Hang on a minute... let me go check. I thought it was quoting Gwar.
ScottyZ
Lol, yes I did, but I have an excuse. I used to work at Canadian Tire when I was a teenager. The songs on the old CT roster were relentless, and I had no choice but to get to know them!
I swear!
Regards,
all_aces
1. I REALLY hope that you had to look that up.
2. I thought that Dionne Warwick was the psychic friends lady?
Keith
Okay, the song I really had in mind went something like:
"I kill you and I watch you die
Destroying everything you cherish, masturbating as you perish
Crush, kill, destroy, crush, kill, destroy, destroy!"
In the end, however, both songs will have about the same effect on people in terms of influencing their respective audiences to kill each other. I mean, think about it. Which song are you more likely to hear during a Quentin Tarantino slow-motion, multiple-kill scene?
"Keep smilin'. Keep shinin'."
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
ScottyZ
That song is just :twisted: