1/3 cash game at the local poker room. Button is the one seat, an older reg that has been having some health issues. UTG raises to $13. Five seat is short stacked and shoves for $72. Folds around to the button. He looks at the dealer and says, "I raise". He then reaches across the line with a stack of reds and starts cutting four $10 stacks. He goes back for more chips and cuts out three more red $10 stacks then throws two whites in. Then he says, "a hundred on top of that". Dealer calls the floor, explains what he did exactly and the floor rules since he made multiple trips across the line but verbally announced raise, he was bound to a min raise of $59 more.

A string bet is a way for a player to get information from their opponents. This guy wasn't shooting an angle, he just can't cut chips well. If he would have put the $72 in in one motion after saying "raise", then said his raise amount, it would have been fine. If he would have just said call he could put in one chip at a time until there was enough for a call. Yes, he did make multiple trips across the line, but only until he put in enough for the call, then verbalized the raise amount. Should he be penalized for his physical inability to cut chips? What do you guys think?

Lump

It sounds like during the second trip across the line, he had only enough chips in his hands to bring the total to the call amount of 72. If that's correct, than I would say that his raise to 100 should stand. I'd say it would be different if he had more than the 72 when he crossed the line for the second time. Then I could see how the floor would come up with the min raise ruling.

But if he only put out the call amount, whether in 1 or two trips, then IMO he's entitled to make his raise to whatever amount he wants.

I generally hate the idea that 'string' bets are against the rules. It is almost never the case that the string bettor is angling for data, rather it is a 'gotcha' used by the more experienced player to force the weaker player to take an action different from what he/she wants to take. I can not see how the rule it is good for the game as it is applied.

Yes, I know there are infrequent times we need/want the rule in play. It is too bad the implementation of the rule ends up making matters worse so often.

DrStrange

This is perfectly legal. Since the player verbalised raise, he can take as many actions as needed to place the $72 into the pot first. He then gets one action from that point to make his raise (unless he verbalized as is the case here).

This method has fallen by the wayside, as the younger generations haven't played enough with the old timers to pick it up, and you certainly don't need it on the internet.

I would expect that it stems from old PL games. Announce "raise" or "pot", place your call out there, then count the bets to see what the legal raise amount may be.

He announced raise, if he wanted to he could make ten trips across the line to put the call in, but after putting the call in he has one trip across the line for raising chips. If he puts less than the minimum raise in with that trip, he must and can only raise the minimum. If he puts more than the minimum raise in and then tries to make another trip, whatever he put in is the raise amount. If he would have announced the raise amount then if he wanted to he could make another ten trips across the line to put those chips in.

Its a raise of $100.00. simple. easy decision, inept floor.

Agree with everyone above. It's not uncommon for someone to say raise then put out the amount of a call before putting out the actual raise. The fact that it took him more than 1 trip to get that 72 in the pot should make no differnece. Before moving any of his raising chips into the pot he clearly stated he wanted to make it 100 more. Raise should be 100

No, not a string raise. Raise is 100.

Not a string bet, and even if it were, the dealer should not be calling string bets (at most places anyway, and it's a better rule for it to be up to players to call string).

not a string bet. he put in the exact calling chips first. he could string bet AFTER this.

Agree with everyone else, that ruling makes no sense by even the broadest interpretations of a string bet.

Not a string.

If he says "raise" he can put the $72 in $1 at a time.

The bet should be $172. Bad floor call