There may be hesitation simply because people are bad at math. You really want to keep calling string bets on those people?

If there's ambiguity about whether a bet is completed, just hold on for a few seconds and wait for the ambiguity to dissipate. Stop blowing your wad immediately. Think about baseball or Helen Mirren in a bikini.

And if people inject ambiguity regularly and/or intentionally, you can call it out, sure. But at least half of the time I see string bets called, it's because the string bet caller couldn't help himself and showed immediate and obvious displeasure.

This is spot on and exactly what Player B was doing here. I forget the exact action preflop (it might have been limped around), but it was a multiway pot.

The flop came out T-high with two spades. Player A checked, Player B bet, and everyone folded back to Player A, who called.

The turn brought a third spade, and that is when Player A bet into Player B. Player B immediately complained about the "string bet," and after several exchanges with the dealer and Player A about what had just happened, said disgustedly, "fine... I call."

The river was a blank. Player B won the hand with AT, including the Ace of spades. In retrospect, Player B was clearly annoyed that Player A had bluffed the turn and forced him to decide whether to call the bet to pursue a re-draw to the nut flush. Player B clearly thought he was behind on the turn and was trying to minimize what it was going to cost him to get to the river.

Yes. If you're struggling with the math, do it behind the line or by your stack or wherever it doesn't mean a bet.

Or of course you can verbalize. But who are we kidding?

AT - Why the hard line on string bets? What's it to you?

OR DO IT AT HOME WHERE YOU DON'T SLOW DOWN THE VERY SERIOUS POKER PLAYERS



Anyone who grabs chips in their hand with the intention of dropping them one by one until the pile feels big enough is welcome to play with me any time.

I will be there, patiently, because I have already decided what I'm going to do (or decided the biggest bet I would call), and I'm willing to spend an extra two seconds waiting for the action to be unambiguous before claiming my prize.

Or I might have a smirk on my face, as I watch them glance at me in between every chip. I'm trying to imagine the string of bad decisions that led to some guy dropping his hard earned money onto the table based on how long it's been since I trimmed my nose hairs and consequently how itchy my nose is.

Counting on the dealer to be attentive enough to discern the action and not just capitulate to the nit screaming about facing a string bet because he knows his hand is no good but isn't good enough to fold, is the reason I don't ever utilize this motion.

While I doubt I've totaled as many hours as several people here, in all my years playing live poker, I've probably see at least 1 "ruled" string bet every couple hours or so. I don't think I've ever seen a single attempted string bet angle. It's usually just the dealer politely correcting a newb or honest mistake, and/or a rules nit throwing a fit for the reasons mentioned above.

What's it to me? I thought this was a question on a message board looking for opinions. All I did was give mine. The first 15 posts or so seemed to agree.

The first 15 posts of this thread?

With the idea that in the OP, there was no hesitation, all one motion, and therefore not a string bet. I was agreeing with that in my comment. Sounds like some things were flipped.

Well, I was asking for a more in depth opinion. In a no limit game, why is any hesitation worthy of interrupting the flow of the game and a raisers clear intent by calling a string bet? I'd be interested in others' opinions as well.

I think there are two factors that come to mind fairly quickly for me ...

1) I think most Players are paranoid in general, which creates an atmosphere where play is scrutinized more so than other areas of life. No one wants anyone else to 'pull one over' or gain an unfair advantage (that they don't get as well).

2) The rules are set up to eliminate the need to surmise 'intent' ... including protecting the moderator (Dealer) from doing so as well.

I'm certainly not opposed to allowing Players to (possibly) bring out more chips than necessary to complete their action. But just as we have in the judicial system, sometimes not all of the jury has the same opinion of 'clear intent' ... and by choosing the 'more risky' method of betting one would have to expect that these spots will come up from time to time.

There are some that would say that 'any' hesitation must be treated the same as 'the worst' hesitation since we aren't supposed to be in the 'intent' business when playing poker. GL

The only angle involved in a string get ruling is the one that the guy screaming “string bet” is pulling.

FW is the place for weird rulings...

Earlier this year playing 2-5plo...

There was a flop bet and a raise by Player A, Player B calls the initial bet and then attempts to take it back.

Player A is a rules stickler and proceeds to call floor and say player B should have to leave those chips in.

Now things get strange... instead of the simple ruling of player B has the right to fold , has the right to fold but leave initial bet in pot, or player b has option to call the full bet...

The floor allows player B any option.. but the initial bet must stay

Player B is visiably upset and takes 4th option to jam all in

Player A snap calls

Player B is drawing dead

LOL FW

Allowing any option including the raise is standard in many older rule sets. The under call must stay is the new part. Limiting the choices to call or fold only would be the nonstandard ruling. And bad in my opinion.