if theres a string bet should a player who folded say anything

Generally, no. Unless you think the guy is shooting angles, or needs to learn procedures. Either way, I default to no.

if player string bets and seems like doesnt know rule should a player who folded say anything during hand

During hand, no. Dealer's job.
After hand, sure.

I've played in a (popular) room where only the affected player(s) can call a string bet. Not even the dealer is allowed to call it, let alone a player not in a hand. That rule is generally well-received by everyone.

For almost every other rule, it is appropriate for any observer to offer a correction. You picked a debatable rule for this topic.

if dealer or player not in hand call it and no affected player calls it are affected players allowed to let bet stand

The rule is whatever the rule in your room is. There is no universal standard here.

If you forced me to answer that question, I would say that if someone not in the hand calls it out, and if there's no rule that specifically says only players in the hand can call it out, then assuming there is no argument about whether it was a string bet, then the action must be corrected, and players do not have the option to let it stand.

If the dealer calls a string bet (and is allowed to do so) the bet shouldn't stand. I don't want for dealers or other players to call out a string bet, but if they do and there isn't a rule against it, the bet shouldn't be allowed to stand.

Let' say player A puts out a stack of reds, waits a couple of seconds and then puts out another stack of reds. That's a clear string bet. Dealer calls it and announces the bet is $100. Should player B be allowed to decide that the bet should be $200?
That example is pretty much the same as player A announcing "one hundred" and a second later "nevermind, make it $200".

In the aforementioned rooms, it's (supposed to be) treated the same as if the dealer announced what he had for lunch. In practice, I have seen players go along with the dealer's judgement. That was at the smallest stakes in the room.

If it is a valid, allowed "call out", then it is a rule infraction and rule needs to be enforced. Generally, this would preclude allowing affected players to ignore it.

If it in not a valid "call out" (IE dealer or non-active players can't call a string bet), then like albedoa says, no different than announcing ones lunch or saying his nose itches.

Allowing players to make "decisions" on rule violations including allowing ignoring rules will eventually lead to bad things and definitely inconsistency.

Overall I have seen a player keep a stack in his hand and bang his hand full of chips to check causing the next player to muck when she thought he was raising (limit game). This resulted in a verbal confrontation that lasted for several hands. He would check over the bet line with a stack in his hand but did it consistently so I never had a problem with it. I have seen a player make a two hand move called as a string bet because he didn't move together (limit game). I thought that was a rotten call. He started his move all at the same time but because the chips didn't all cross the bet line at the same time it was ruled a string bet based on a player that was angle shooting the entire time I was at the table with her. I was called on a string bet trying to move two stacks with one hand and only got one in (no limit). Someone wanted an advantage based on information of my bet size and that was my mistake. Now I call my raises to avoid this so I can take my time to move the chips in.

For me, if it looks like a mistake then I don't care. If it is an angle shoot from someone that does it consistently then it is up to the dealer or players in the hand to call it but notify the floor manager if you think it is a problem so the player gets a warning or a kick.

I am more concerned about players cheating/colluding, on or off table, than I am about something like a string bet. If it happens once then ok, mistake. If it happens repeatedly then I would say it warrants a complaint above the table, not at the table.

After all, in the the movies and TV shows all we see is "I see your faw bits (chips in) and I raise you faw bits (chips in)". "Full House", "Faw Aces", "Ya'll Cheat!" (guns out, Bang!, Bang!, Bang!).

I very much dislike the rule at some places where dealers cannot call a string bet. Sure, sometimes maybe one of the other players wishes it hadn't been called, but relying on players to call it out (or to decide not to do so) can easily reveal their hand strength.

Actually, I kind of like the idea of a player not in the hand calling it out, but it's risky as there is a very good chance he will win the enmity of at least one of the involved players.

This is why I generally hate any procedure (or dealer not following procedure) which puts the burden on a player to lead rule enforcement. I don't like rule that dealer can't call a string bet.

I don't like it when a dealer sees A show cards to B and then muck but 'let's it go' unless C speaks up. Dealer knows the rule (or should) just consistently enforce it and amazingly A will stop showing B and C won't have to be a rule nit.

Same for borderline but over the line table talk, Etc.

Interesting line to think about. Each Player should be 'very' interested in the integrity of the game. IMO a Player not speaking up leaves a door open for this behavior to get out of hand going forward. "Well so and so did it!" A Player may certainly not understand why they are being called out in the 2nd hand when it was 'just fine' in the 1st.

IMO a Player should speak up about something that affects the 'operation' of the hand. So we don't speak up about string bets, but we should speak up if the Dealer is about to pre-expose a card or if a Player has been skipped in the middle?

As we've discussed in the exposed card scenarios, we want those to error on the side of caution since the information can 'easily' be incorrect. I really don't think there's 50 options in a string bet spot. It's either yes they did or no they didn't.

I don't get this auto drop in 'interest' a Player should partake in just because they mucked their cards. "Well officer, it wasn't MY bank getting robbed so I didn't really care." I'm not saying that a Player is require to keep observing the hand, but I do think that if they do see something they should speak up. Hidden chips would be another situation where a Player should speak up if an amount is grossly over/under stated by the parties involved, including the Dealer.

Why in the world would a room handcuff the facilitator of the game? Amazing to me, but perhaps the room wants the Dealers left out of the confrontations? GL


PS .. Interesting that I read this thread today. Yesterday an known angle shooter was first to act and did his classic slow motion pump-fake checking motion, but never contacted the table. This caused the next Player to act to put out a bet. 2-3 Players (at least one remained in the hand) indicated that the first Player hadn't acted yet. The Player vehemently starts to insist that they had checked and the Dealer ruled that the motion was 'good enough' for the check even though it didn't contact the table .. and the bet of the 2nd Player would stand.

You already know what happens next .. The angle shooter raises all-in with the nut full house and gets called by an under-boat. While the 2nd Player thought about the all-in I was ready to blurt out "HE HAS THE NUTS >> DON"T CALL"

As it turns out it actually was to my benefit as I stacked the angle shooter within the orbit.

Not only of the involved players.

99% of the time a string bet is a victimless crime. Just from personal experience, the only times I call a string bet is if I want to face a smaller bet. I don't remember a single situation where that string bet actually hurt me in any way.

Sounds like you're shooting your own angle, only calling someone on a mistake if you benefit from it.

I'd like to see a player who sits there with the nuts and points out that a red chip had been released across the line a millisecond before "all in" was announced.

You lost me. But that's OK, I see stuff like this all the time. This is why I like professional dealers that run the game and enforce rules. It ultimately makes the game run smoother and faster.

That's why it shouldn't have to be up to you.

He saying no one with the nuts is going to call a string bet on someone else trying to go all in.

He shifted what he was talking about, mid conversation.

It’s not an angle if it’s explicitly allowed and encouraged by the rules. The point of only players involved in the hand calling out string bets is that they are the ones directly effected by it.

OK, fair enough. Only he said he would only do it if he wanted to face a smaller bet.

I will admit that I am bewildered by this thread. It think anyone who sees a rule being broken should speak up. I get that the only person affected is the other player(s) with cards but that still doesn't make sense to me. With any broken rule, the only players affected at the players left with cards (except in a tournament obviously). So should players out of the hand ignore when a player who still has cards hasn't acted when the dealer taps the table? No. They should speak up.

I am lost. Why are string bets ok?

I do believe you just described the infamous Table Captain. The guy that has been ridiculed for years, told not to be such a Know It All trying to boss everyone else around.

There is also the fact that, since we were 4-5 years old, we watched a Tattle Tale get shunned. That has a lasting effect on the adult psyche.

Then there are the people that just aren't sure what they saw, or heard, and if it was right, or wrong.