Can she do this?

I say no.

But this wasn't a phrase muttered to oneself while thinking about the action. This was a phrase announced to the table as action.

I'm not convinced that this player even initially intended to raise. I think it's very possible she intended to call when she started and changed her mind mid action (not as an angle, as a change of mind)

I'm not suggesting this is a run of the mill raise. I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry if a ruling didn't go their way.

And if there is anything resembling forward motion it's a call 100%.

But if it went like this.
I would let her raise.

I'd rule it as if she never said here's your 10. If she said raise before putting the 10 in it's a raise, if she put the ten in first it's a call. Since when does "here's your" equate to call?

Like I said you’re starting to make decisions on context and not phrases which in itself is dangerous and I would never like to do this as rulings are subjective then. I still consider the phrase itself ambiguous. It has no action verb.... I see your $10 and I call your $10 all have a verb that denotes action. Usually in movies people are putting in the chips at the same time as they say this which depending on how many chips they put in would be ruled a call or raise IMO but op seems to say this happened specifically after the phrase was complete she just had them in her hand during the monologue.

I'm not starting to make decisions based on context .... I've ALWAYS said context is important. It's important in all communication not just poker.

Wasn’t a personal you as in you flipped your position was more like a metaphorical you as in that’s what you believe. Some people rule on context and/or intention. I think those people’s rulings have the capacity to be better that way and this is a situation where it probably would be better to make it a call as this is very confusing action from the lady and allowing her to raise is opening up angles galore and unfair situations for the other player but I’ve seen some atrocious even illegal rulings cause floormen have tried to judge context and intention and warped a situation horribly so personal preference I just prefer to have rulings based on what phrases and actions are always denoting. Raise is always raise. Here’s your x is just a stupid thing to say that can be interpreted a lot of different ways.

Raise is always raise?

How about these scenarios?

Player 1 bets
Player 2 calls
Player 3 says very clearly "did he raise?"

Or

Player 1 bets.
Player 2 is trying to get a look at Player 1's stack and says "would you raise your hands?"

Or

Player 1 bets
Player 2 is having a conversation with player 3 and says to player 3 "it's my dream to move to the country and raise alpacas."

Now I certainly agree players should avoid these situations due to the possibility of being misunderstood (and in the third scenario unnecessarily slowing the game) but I don't see how any good would come from ruling the player has committed to a raise.

It's $10, please let her raise after explaining to her how to do it next time.

What is the $ cutoff that rules apply?

What if it's not just about her raise. Suppose 3 players in the hand. Player 1 bets, player 2 calls, then she does this ... You allow it because it's just $10 but player 1 reraises to $100. Player 2vis now facing $90 because you let her string bet go because it's just $10.



If the player is known to be an experienced player who knows what a string bet is do we still explain to her how to do it next time? Nothing in op suggests this player is new ... Just that she is a nitty limit player.

Context, voice inflection, speed of speech, room precedence ... Plenty of factors to consider here. Everyone here knows how the industry would typically rule here.

The most valid point IMO is that the phrase was 'complete' before any forward motion took place. In the movies you would typically see the 'caller' toss out the calling chips (and typically splash the pot) before they move on to the "and I raise you ... " part of the scene.

If I were involved I would want this to be a raise most of the time. I would want my Dealer to evaluate the spot and if met with gruff then call the Floor. My guess is that most Floors, not being there for the spot, will rule a string bet. My hope would be that it doesn't come to that and the raise stands.

We are assuming an experienced Player is involved here, in the early morning hours, and if that Player opens the door for a 'technical' ruling then it's on them if the ruling goes the other way. GL

So would I. With a suggestion that she doesn't do that anymore because it's confusing and pointless.

I don't know why people get so worked up about string raises in NL. Just wait until someone is done and then act. If they are getting a reaction out of you by doing this then you have bigger problems.

When can I act?

If I'm supposed to wait for them to be done .... What defines when they are done?

There are lots of possible rules to designate when I can say they are done acting. Some are better than others .... But there must be a rule of some sort and therefore there will always be something that is a "string bet"

valid raise. here's your ten is not explicit enough to be considered a call; OTOH raise you ten is pretty clear and precedes putting out the $10.

Just because there is a rule doesn't mean the players should dogmatically ask for it to be enforced.

The floor should have a very clear set of guidelines on whether this is a call or raise.

But the floor should not be called. This is a case where someone clearly has watched way more TV poker than played poker. And her behavior is very easily corrected with a polite request.

People need to stop nitting up the entry level games with pro level enforcement of the rules.

"But but but what if" everyone always asks on this forum. And it's right to an extent, maybe she's not new to poker at all and secretly a shark trying to angleshoot. Maybe she's so expert that she's tossing in a chip and midair gauging your reaction and recalculating ranges and decision trees on the fly.

Or maybe like most of us she learned poker from Star Trek The Next Generation and thinks "I see your 500 and raise you 100" is totally normal.

Nope, but then I don't know why you consider the intelligible phrase "this is worth $100" to be gibberish:

How many sticks make a pile? It's about the tiny amount of money and the general context.

I agree that this possibility is a reason to not to let it go if there are multiple players in the hand. If I'm player 2 facing this possibility though, me personally, I'd still be on the side of letting her raise.

While all this is true, it entirely misses the point.

All most all NL string bet questions are about a technical violation of the string bet rule because "they might get a read off of me!!" or "I don't want to call a raise". People should just chill on this kind of situation.

I understand that Limit games are more fast paced and "I call... and raise" can screw up things because five people could have already acted. You know that NL doesn't play the same way.

Why isn't this a legitimate reason to call a string raise?
And if I have the nuts I'll keep my mouth shut?

I thought the question presented was "is this a string bet?" Yet the question many want to address is "should I be upset by this string bet?". All of my poker experience has been in places where dealers call string bets, so I understand that some people from other places might see these two questions as similar, to me they are not the same.

And yet even in No Limit games we still see lots of cases of callers beating the bettor into the pot.

So clearly this person is new to poker or NL. You give them one warning, tell them to correct way to do it in the future, then let them do their pidly $10 raise.

If they do the exact same error later on in the day its a call. Then they can learn by error. Eventually they will either keep making the error, which is fine its just a call, or they learn how to play properly due to constantly being held to call.

This just makes too much sense! Thanks! Of course it's a string bet and in the particular situation in the OP why would anybody give a **** about a $10 raise at 1-3 ,at 5 AM, with the table about to break any minute?

I don't understand anyone's incentive to press this issue. If the dealer says, "I'm sorry ma'am, that's a string bet," she's SOL. But if the raise stands, you'd be trying to force her to do something against her clear intent.

If a "super nitty woman limit player" from a 3/6 game with no other read minraises you, what does it matter anyway? Maybe you just want a showdown for info so I'll save you the trouble by telling you what you get to see at showdown.




Yes, that. I can't imagine ever seeing the absurd "I see your $10...... [waiting].... [waiting].... and raise you $80 more!" that the rule really is intended to address. Must have been effective at snuffing that out!