When you say "the problem," what exactly do you mean? What is the downside?

I know what you'll say, that it can cause confusion. And you'd be right except that nobody is actually confused. And if she's been doing this every day for 20 years, it doesn't seem like the end of the world to let her do it for another 20.

And I know that you'll say confusion slows down the game, which I agree with - except that nobody is entitled to a speedy game. Losing players have incentive to slow down the game.

There are a whole bunch of ambiguous things that people do that are simply so popular / ingrained that it's not worth fighting over, even if you're technically correct. When people silently point to their neighbor, is that a check? Or as someone pointed out above, does "raise 600" mean raise to 600 or raise 600 on top? And enforcing any applicable rules is not just a qiestion of whether a rule was broken but what the cost-benefit is.

To be clear, if you've done a cost-benefit and this is something you want to go to the mat for, I don't think it's an obvious mistake. But I just don't see evidence that you realize there is a cost to strictly enforcing the rules.

And while this next paragraph isn't super relevant to the other readers, I'll point out that one of the reasons that thr Oaks 15/30 died is because of a core group of nits who basically made the game super unpleasant to play in, both by openly bumhunting and by repeatedly asking for strict enforcement. The 30/60 core was way more laissez faire and in part that's why the game was (and as I hear still is) both still running and still fun. Some of the worst angleshooters regularly play in that game but everyone quickly learns that you just don't act until ___ has pulled his hand back (because he checks with chips in his hand) or you wait for ___ to put chips in the pot because he knows exactly what is verbally binding and what isn't. It's not ideal, but if your livelihood depends on the game running, you have to make some compromises.

That's a really circular argument. If her poor procedure matters, it matters. If it doesn't, then teaching her a lesson so it doesn't happen again is not a good way to approach it.

I think it matters. I agree that it should be not punished if it's some combination of the smallest game in the house and a player who is brand new and hasn't had the chance to learn proper procedures. This was neither.

I would say that it is binding.

Action words that I consider binding:

1) any stated bet size (including a dollar amount, "pot" and "all in")
2) call
3) raise (i would include "cap" in FL games)
4) fold
5) bet
6) check

context obviously matters with these words, but players need to be very careful when one of these words falls out of their mouth.

I've stated earlier, I think it's fine for the dealer to stop action and clarify with the player... ask her what she is intending to do.

Beyond that, if I were a floorperson and called over to referee this play, then I would say she is bound to some action in the amount of $10 (because she said a specific bet amount when she said "ten") and also that her $10 action is limited to the call that she placed into the pot before reaching back to her stack.

Somebody ping dinesh to this thread, i'm curious what he says.

Well, there's a middle ground between "strict enforcement" and "let these guys do whatever they want", and it is exactly what you say-- "causes confusion".

For instance, if I were a regular in a no limit game where players routinely hid their large chips, repeatedly causing confusion as they then brought them out to put in a bigger raise when they had a big hand, I wouldn't give a hoot about "culture" or about destroying the game. I would insist on enforcement.

So, for instance, checking with chips in your hand? Not a big deal, even though it's stupid. I agree. Similarly, there are players who deliberately count out eight chips in their hand, move out, and bet 4. Fine. Nobody's confused.

But every once in awhile there's a player who likes to check by moving his pinky finger. Again, fine, except that the player also likes to occasionally say "I never checked" after moving his pinky finger ever so slightly and seeing action behind him. And in that case, I call for the rule to be enforced. Again, I don't care that it might "destroy the game". People are being confused, the rule has to be enforced.

And every once in awhile there's a player who takes the "counting 8 chips out and pulling back 4" beyond that, to counting out 8 chips, moving them forward, making two piles of four chips, and then picking up the second pile and moving back. And sometimes that induces action behind. And in that case, I call for the rule to be enforced.

Honestly, I think just about every poker game would run more smoothly if people would follow the "causing confusion" standard for all enforcement. For instance, most string bets are no big deal. If it doesn't induce anyone to act behind, who cares if the person moves the bet out in one motion or two? And yet poker players are extremely quick to call string bets for no reason other than to prevent the person who wanted to raise from raising.

Meanwhile, some players do egregious things that really do sow confusion, and they get away with them.

I have done this too sometimes, and have found it just starts arguments.

Other than a few complete newbies, the vast majority of players who repeatedly violate rules (1) know the rules, (2) WANT to violate them, and (3) will lie like crazy and start a flame war when someone points out the violation.

They either have some sort of misguided strategy ("I will deter people from raising behind me by looking like I am raising and then pulling my chips back to call") or some sort of misguided sense of humor ("deliberately miscalling my hand is funny"). Either way, it's what they want to do-- the last thing they want to do is just play the game according the rules.

The problem is that it opens the door to angling.

How exactly can someone angle by uttering a single sentence that clearly contains their intention to raise before they move chips into the pot, then move in chips in the amount of the raise they said they were going to make?

First, you have the action wrong. She had $10 in her hand when she made her statement and placed the ten into the pot before reaching back for the additional ten.

How can someone angle? I hate to turn this thread into a primer for angling, but in this case the angler could say "here's your ten..." while watching for a reaction from you and/or other players still to act.

Black Aces had the sequence just as you say, but omitted the detail from the OP that she had ten in her hand (which could mean a lot of things). The OP seems to indicate the verbal declaration preceded the action as Black Aces said.

My position has always been that she made two verbal declarations (clearly separated by the conjunction 'and'). We can assume the meaning of her first declaration, but we don't really know it. However, once she places $10 into the pot then it's done because we must take that action to be the intended meaning behind her declaration.

But, I prefer the dealer stop action and clarify her intent.

I think we are all just repeating ourselves at this point. :-)

Maybe this thread just highlights that rules, as with humans, are imperfect things.

Right, someone could do that, and in that case would lose the benefit of the doubt. Here it was all one declaration without the pause.

And who cares what chips she has in her hand or cut to the side? That doesn't impact that. I can cut out calling chips and then raise if I don't put the calling chips in before announcing raise.

And I can announce raise, put the call in, then put the raise in in one additional motion. That's what she did.

Is it really a problem if you get angled?

Let's say your opponent does exactly what you say, calls and then optionally tacks on a raise depending on your reaction.

First of all, it's readily defeated by not reacting.

Second, you don't care whether villain calls or raises the top part of his range (the part that beats you whether he calls or you fold).

Third, you do care whether villain calls or raises the bottom part of his range, but unless you fall into the trap, him angling means he ends up calling more than he would if he knew you weren't falling for the angle (and folded rather than attempt an angle).

Fourth, the raise is a minraise and it's 10, presumably USD. This is not a mastermind criminal working a nefarious plot here.

Maybe there just shouldn't be any rules? 😜

Yes.

Yes, it's a problem if we allow angle shooting in our games.

Maybe you haven't noticed that poker rules are heterogeneous, unclear, and sometimes incomplete?

I've used this example a lot but here we go again: think about speeding. Is there a law? Yes. Is that law strictly enforced? No. Does the world come grinding to a halt because there's ambiguity as to whether you can drive 75 mph in a 65 mph zone? No.

This isn't about a binary "either you enforce every rule every time" vs "no rules total anarchy" Highlander-style there-can-only-be-one winner-take-all death match.

Sometimes you should let some minor **** slide.

This is minor ****.

The speeding laws are heavily enforced in certain parts of the country in certain areas on people who meet a particular physical description. They are also much more heavily enforced against males than against females who can cry or flirt with the mostly male offenders. I don't think the arbitrary / biased enforcement of traffic laws is something that should be emulated at the poker table.


I already stated the circumstances in which I agree that the string raise rule could be relaxed. This example does not meet my criteria. I guess you have a different opinion about this particular incident, which is fine, but that doesn't mean that anyone who thinks it should be enforced here is a rules nazi.

In the NFL , pass interference is a judgement call by the referee , But it is still a rule. String betting is a rule , but in this case , a judgement call was made by the floor , and it seems appropriate to me and some others. You don't think so , however, and your judgement call would be to not allow the raise. If you were in authority THAT would stand. So it is simply a matter of your opinion on this particular situation vs some others , and that's cool.

I didn't say the traffic laws were to be emulated. I asked if the world fell apart because a flawed, ambiguous, incomplete law was selectively and randomly enforced.

The answer is no.

This dispels all the "if we allow X, then 10*X will happen" arguments.

It does, in the sense that all the arguments against letting her raise rely on technicalities.

"She intended to raise."
"But she used the word 'ten' first."

"You knew she intended to raise."
"But what if she didn't and this was an angle?"

"It's ten dollars."
"But it's not the smallest game in the house."

"We can bend the rules."
"BUT IT COULD LEAD TO OPEN MURDER AT THE TABLES."

The two sides here can be summed up as such: 1. People who prioritize letting people do what they want (rules secondary), with narrow exceptions. 2. People who prioritize following the rules (intent secondary), with narrow exceptions.

I accept that people may legitimately be in the second group, but it's not evident in any of the arguments. Like people still question her intent even though the OP states it. People are really looking hard for reasons to deny this raise.

String bet, by all means. Either way, she hits a set 9/10 times there, so you've got as much info as you needed on that particular hand.

Pretty simple. Let's say the bet is a little bigger. Say someone is facing a $100 bet with both players effectively pretty deep. The person facing the bet can say "here's your $100" pause for a few seconds to get a reaction from the bettor, and if it appears that player doesn't like the call he can add "and raise you $500."

Sure but that's not what happened here. That's like saying if I stick out two stacks of red to bet $200 that's a string bet and an angle because what if instead I had stuck out one stack, waited for a reaction, and then stuck the other one in.

If she had paused, or put the $10 out when she said here's your ten instead of after declaring raise, those are problems.

Maybe if you can't wait a full second before jumping out of your seat and blurting out "WAT???" you really can't be surprised of being angled.

You don't even have to not react. You just don't have to react in the time it takes in between words in a sentence.

Especially when the words aren't even an explicit action. Does anyone really think if someone bets $10 and I roll my eyes and say "here's your ten" and muck my cards, I should be bound to put $10 in the pot? That's idiotic.

Also the word "ten" when the bet is already ten isn't a binding call. You bet ten, I say "ten? How about $100" and stick $100 in, that's a raise.

I suppose the inflection in the voice might make this sound like a reluctant call. "OK here's your 100."
But without the other player insta-tabling their hand or some forward motion, I'm not forcing the call.

I'm picturing someone taunting the player saying "Here's your 100." while holding or pointing at chips.

IMO with no forward motion he hasn't acted yet.