20-40 limit holdem game in a NJ casino this past weekend.

Keep in mind, this is not a room where i don't see many 'angle' arguments or string bet calls. If a newbie string raised most regs would warn and let it go. If a reg did a flagrant string it would get called.

Unknown player on the turn faces a bet (8 redbirds). He grabs chips and starts destacking in piles of 4 on the 'betting line' 4-4-3 he had 11 in his hand. He doesn't say anything but immediately goes back and grabs 5 more to complete a raise.

The 'professor' a player no longer in the hand (but someone that has plenty of comments about everyone's play) immediately calls string bet. Stating that there was no verbal action and the person only put out less than half a raise.

The floor was called. Action demonstrated by dealer. Floor rules Raise.

Explanation 'his intention was to raise'. Note the dealer or player never stated their interpretation of an intention. The dealer demonstrated the action.

I was no longer in the hand and didn't say anything. Was surprised by the ruling though as technically i thought the professor was correct and was surprised that the floor would interpret and rule on intentions rather than a technical rule.

In this game where there are many chips flying around people often put out too many chips and take them back. If as i destack i realize i didn't grab enough for a raise i will always verbalize before releasing (which i normally but don't always do). If he had only grabbed 8 chips this is clearly a string bet. I would hate to think people could start grabbing 9 or 10 or 11 chips (when that doesn't force a raise) and then go back and grab more for a raise without verbal declaration. Intentions are really hard to know correctly.

Correct ruling?

Room rules trump. As described, by the letter of RRoP, probably just a call. From your description it sounds like he obviously meant to raise, I'm fine with the ruling. Professor gets scolded by the table as well for tapping the glass.

If he put out more than 50% of a legal raise, by RRoP Limit rules, it must be completed to a raise. Otherwise it's a call.

Your math is off.

I hit post before I finished correcting it.

He put out <50%, it's a call.

Floor people with brains, sounds like a good ruling to me. I will always be on the side of intention rather than letter of the law in cases like this.

Does the line play? He put it ON the betting line?

According to a strict interpretation of the rules, it's a call.

I am greatly in favor of giving the dealer or floor leeway to interpret player intent. It is always obvious if a player is angling with the placement of chips (Almost never. I can't remember the last time I've seen this, dealing 4 or 5 days a week for 6 years).

I would be in favor of abolishing this nitty **** calling string bets in limit games when the intention is clear. Players not in the hand calling string bets? Give me a break.

Professor gets scolded for trying to protect the integrity of the game?

Professor has no cards and should shut his hole.
Also calling string bets in limit is so unbelievably laughable.

Guy obviously meant to raise, good ruling by floor. What purpose could the third cut have other than to raise? If he's skilled enough with chips to cut into fours then he'd also be skilled enough to bring back the remaining 3 without placing them on the felt.

So if I see people giving hand signals, or obviously colluding/working as a team, I should not speak up unless I'm in the hand?

Cheating is cheating. Whether it's a string raise, or colluding. If you see something that goes against the rules/integrity of the game, you as a player is obligated to speak up.

I'm in no way saying a string raise and colluding are anything close to each other, but they are both prohibited by RRoP.

Do you feel that the dealer should call string raises?

Obviously I'm speaking in reference to the OP. Players not in the hand should let the players IN the hand bet in any way they want and let the players with cards and the dealer worry about the consequences.

Do you honestly believe that I think people without cards shouldn't speak up about real errors taking place? Get a grip man.

Yes. Am I mistaken?