I agree with you on this Madlex. My situation wasn't like the one above though. One hand had $100 in it (my left) the other had $50 (my right) both were simultaneously going toward the felt and across the line. Not at any time did I go back for additional chips or hesitate. It was one fluid motion.

It just seems like in all of the hours I've played I would have done something similar especially when you are raising more than 1 stack of any denomination chip and have never been warned or advised it was a string bet. I was trying to make the dealers life easier cutting out the $50 (call) and the raise amount $100 in a separate stack.

The second stack crossing the line one second after the first, does not describe one fluid motion.

I meant with both stacks going toward the betting line. I was saying that one may have been a tad behind as my hands may not have been perfectly even.

If this is the case, then imagine a player moving two stacks of chips with one lagging slightly behind. In the scenario described, is there sufficient lag to allow the bettor to push the $100 stack forward and pull back the $50 stack if he detects something he didn't like, so that the bet is only $100 total?

Cut your chips out, and use one hand, or just say all-in as the case may be.

madlex4prez

It does not preclude one fluid motion. If both hands start moving forward the fact that one hand is ahead of the other doesn't mean you can't describe this as one motion.

Part of the problem here is that OP describes the time period as a half a second to a second later. Some people like myself focus on two hands moving forward and call it one motion. Others focus on the time period. The reality is that if it was one motion it is unlikely that it was a full second time difference unless he has a disability that affects one side more than the other.

I read this and tend to think his description of time is bad because most people's description of time is bad. So I tend to give him the benefit of assuming the motion was as described but not the time. Others apparently are more likely to assume the time is as described but not the motion.

My problem with this kind of ruling is that if we don't treat two hands moving forward at the same time as a single motion because one hand crossed the line first we are susceptible to making rulings based on the slightest of perceived lags. If a player takes a chip in each hand and tosses them both forward should we judge whether they crossed the line simultaneously?

On the other hand there is also the possibility that OP made two motions, and honestly believes he was moving both hands simultaneously, while the dealer honestly believes that the second hand didn't start moving until later.

My prefered rule is that if the player still has a hand in the betting area he has not finished his action and I would let him go back and forth all day with the other hand. Because if you have one hand still in the betting your opponents have a pretty good visual cue that you aren't done. And the point of the string bet rule is to let the dealer/next player know you have finished so that the game can advance.

I don't know how it is out west but in the east both stacks need to cross the line at the same time.

whether or not that is how it gets ruled.... you see how two hands moving forward simultaneously can fairly be described as a single motion? I'm not saying you couldn't also describe it as multiple motions. But almost any motion we make can be broken down into smaller components.....


If both stacks must cross the line at the same time .... why not apply that to a single hand...... Suppose I take two stacks of chips in one hand such that one stack is in front of the other and move it out over the line. One stack crossed the line first..... why not call that a string raise? I have had players make that very argument btw .... not even all that infrequently.

"One fifty."

Problem solved.

Yet another reason hard betting lines are a bad idea.

Perhaps, but most experienced players (east or west) wouldn't dream of calling a string bet if both stacks are moving forward together but it's not quite a photo finish. You are more likely to see this called in a low-stakes game than in higher stakes.
The modern mania for calling string bets for the slightest hesitation or irregularity is really ridiculous, IMO. I really wish people would play poker instead of Gotcha.
FWIW, most players who do bet with two hands this way aren't very experienced, and their mechanics aren't too good, but they're never angling, and are totally unaware of any problem. Seems silly to try to embarrass/trap them this way. Better to let them bet what they want to, and then (after the hand) to politely and quietly explain to them that there's a better way to do it.

That is ridiculous. It may be true in some rooms, or with some dealers or floors, but it is certainly not true "in [all] the east".

I don't mean it needs to be like a photo finish in a horse race and one stack wins by a nose. If your pushing two or more stacks in your hand that are together and one crosses first, that is not what I meant.

If you feel it was one clear forward motion, I'd probably have to side with you. Maybe having fifty in one hand and a hundred in the other threw off your motion though, and one hand clearly moved forward first.

I agree with the last two sentences but not the first one.

Some experienced players do it and absolutely a few do it to angleshoot. But the cost of being a dick to the 99% who are not actively angleshooting outweighs the benefit of catching that last 1%.

It's not the end of the world if someone angleshoots you. If it happens once, go home and cry yourself to sleep, and then put his name on your **** list. Just don't let him angleshoot you a second time.

And if they're inexperienced, just let them know there's a better way and they'll probably apologize and buy you a beer.

if its a heads up pot the dealer shouldnt call a string bet as its between the two players. and most times a dealer shouldnt be making those decisions unless its blatant

but as in any cardroom you play, learn the house rules or you are making your own future..

Every place I have worked in Vegas the procedure is clear that dealers are supposed to call string bets. Even heads up.

If it is the last round of betting and its heads up between experienced players and a player string bets I will look to the opponent and will let it gi as a no call when its clear the opponent doeesn't care about it.

And I have had players object to the string bet and then turn around raise.... so its pretty hard to tell what is going on in some players heads.

yea heads up is should be between the two players. if the second player doesnt care or wants to accept the bet that should be fine. that also prevents someone from making an obvious string bet to get someone to fold and be able to get it back possibly.

this applies to bigger games with more experienced players. in small games the dealer has to protect the players more

But I feel like it shuld matter whether its the last round of action.

If its heads up after the flop and a player string bets his opponent should not have to reveal that he would prefer to not call the larger bet. This issue goes away on the river or when the string bet is all in.

RRoP Section 14, Rule 6 says "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."

Seems like two hands moving forward nearly simultaneously with chips satisfies the spirit and letter of this rule, no?

That part of the rule is pretty outdated. It's been left out of the majority of recent rulesets.

It's not outdated (it's been recently revised to include that aside about the TDA rules, for example), but in practice almost no rooms follow that rule.

The most recent I have been able to find is version 11. Is there a more recent one?

Judging by the comments in this thread, it appears that not only is that rule not followed, the TDA rule has supplanted it in practice.

No, that is the most recent one I believe.
Most rooms have used that version of the rule for a long time, long preceding the TDA ruleset. It's probably been at least 15-20 years since any major room used the RRoP version of the rule. The TDA ruleset just finally captured what was already being done in practice.