Maybe I'm obtuse because I don't understand how all three can't be allowed under the same consistent rulebook.

In the first case, he accidentally threw out 3 chips and immediately pulled one back. If he left it out there for a while, it's obviously a raise under every ruleset.

In the second, it's raise because it's a raise and the rules back it.

In the third, the intent of the player is made clear and the integrity of the game upheld. The only time someone's going to force him to raise is if s/he's trying to angle a limp/3-bet. But if he was trying to raise anyway, he can do so under everybody's rules.

I should note that none of this is string betting. The title lies.

You might not be aware that generally string raises are permitted unless a player calls it. In general a player makes his action through his chips. If he make his intention clear in some other manner he should be held to his clear intention.

Here is a a hand that happened many years ago, I won't mention who the players were but there are probably some people around that remember the discussion that took place after the hand (I believe it happened in 2001). In a limit tournament the limit had just gone up from 200-400 to 300-600. The big blind incorrectly posted 200. UTG placed 400 in the pot without comment. While this is going on there is discussion that the big blind is short. The dealer stops the action and makes the big blind correct the blind. Now a well "less than ethical person" states that UTG has only called because to put in more chips would be a string raise. The floor is called and correctly rules that UTG has indicated he wants to raise and not only can he raise, he must raise. This is a case where a player's intent was clear but some floorstaffs that apply overly rigid rules in an attempt to be consistent might get it wrong. When you have overly rigid rules you have to look at the management of the room. You will find from the manager on down they lack real poker experience and their experience is limited to blindly applying rules that may or may not be applicable to the situation at hand.

All 3 are the same? Your world is way to "Gray" for me. And maybe that's my problem.
Do yourself a favor and don't ever be in charge of a poker room...because you have to have clear cut rules in stone....and then let the floor/dealers make educated rulings using the rules as a guidline. (I understand that part...spirit of the rule)
But if you don't even see the difference between these 3....you just don't get it. You can set up the rules for a home game...not a casino.

The string raise rule has an explicit purpose and an implicit purpose. The explicit purpose is to prevent the particular angle-shot of observing people's reactions to a call before deciding whether or not to raise.

The implicit purpose is to serve as one of the shibboleths of cardroom poker, how we distinguish the established members of our community from strangers and newcomers. The "nits" who call string on the n00bs are enforcing not just an arbitrary rule but the social norms of our community.

Believe it or not, there's more to poker than winning or losing money.

I'd like to state again that none of this has anything to do with string raising. This has to do with allowing somebody to bet how he intended, and is what many would term "string calling".

No, all three are not the same, which is why there were three different responses. My methods are incredibly consistent and repeatable. If you don't like the gray, then view each as its own situation with its own specific black & white solution. I'm not trying to fight you or embarrass you, I just like to discuss the minutiae of rules. So, please, if you disagree with what I view as a very clear-cut and logical way to handle three unique situations, then address that. This kind of disparaging career advice is counter-productive to discussion.

To me, the intent of the player should be paramount. In this case, it seems clear the player intended to raise.

Of course people tend to call string raises when they don't want to play for one more bet, and not call them when they do (or they want to 3-bet). Their primary purpose for playing poker is to make $.

The only time I'll call a string bet is when a player is clearly shooting an angle.

In most card rooms, if a player puts in 1/2 or more of the raise, it stands as a raise, so if that rule is in effect in this particular room, the raise should have stood.

Just as a note (because they don't spread really bad structures like 10-20 where you play): it usually needs to be half or more to be a raise and be more than one chip more than a raise so throwing out 3 chips when facing a 2 chip bet is a call.

Your right. Sorry.

I mentioned in an earlier post a guy relatively new to the game I usually play at who does this with his drawing hands.

Oh it's a scumbag move for sure....but still get's props for originality.

I stand corrected on this point, then. Good to know.

It's funny, I just read this thread today, went straight to CasinoAZ, and was playing some 6-12 when a man drops five blue chips out preflop, then reaches back to get the last chip for his raise. A woman who limped before him immediately calls string, dealer goes to enforce, man protests, dealer tells him it's a string, man demands floor, dealer calls floor and says hmm they just changed this rule, floor comes over, listens to dealer explain and says "what?????? You called me for this? If it's over a half bet, it's a raise." and walks away. I laugh...

Only time I have ever had string called on me was when I was playing 4/8 early last year with a half kill pot and I wasn't paying attention on this hand. Dealer didnt announce that it was a kill pot but it was still my own fault for not paying attention. Didn't know it was a kill. I look down at KK like 2nd in and put out 8 chips to raise. Guy on my imm right imm calls string on me. I don't protest and pull it back like it was no big deal. So this pot was playing 6/12 cause of the half kill on. So it is 6 chips to call & 12 chips to raise. I put out 8 chips with a raise intention. If I had protested what should the ruling have been?

frond,

in your 8 chips in a kill pot situation, i would like for that to be a raise. i understand your intent and your action would normally be a valid raise, except that this happens to be a kill pot.

however, there are probably some angles available if we go by my ruling. an angle shooter could throw in 8 chips and gauge some reactions. if they are favorable, he declares that he meant to raise. if they are not, he says, "oops" and picks up the extra 2 chips. for this reason (and probably many others), i have a hard time arguing against someone who wants your 8 chips to only make a call.

i can only recall a floor ruling on this situation once (which is weird considering how much 4/8 half kill i have played), and it was a mediocre to poor floorman. anyway he ruled that the player had called.