Action is on Player A. He grabs six chips. In one motion, he comes forward with all six chips, places three on the table, and then takes the other three and tosses them slightly forward and to the right. During this sequence of actions, his hand holding the chips never stops moving.

Player B demands that the dealer enforce the string bet rule. He claims that this sequence of actions is considered a string bet in most card rooms where he has played, and at Foxwoods in particular.

Comments?

Hard betting line rooms-not a string bet
Forward motion rooms-not a string bet
Chips dropped rooms(not sure what the name if this rule really is, but it is the rule where the bet is what you drop in the middle)-not a string bet

I have not ever played in a room or heard of a room where this would be ruled a string bet.

Dealer in Casino X does not enforce Foxwoods rules.
Dealer in Casino X does not enforce rules from Casino Y or Casino Z.

Dealer in Casino X (should) enforce the applicable rules for Casino X.

99 out of 100 casinos might follow Rule A, but if you are in that other casino, expect them to follow Rule B.

In this case make it 9999 of 10000 follow rule A, but there could be a Rule B out there somewhere.

The only slightly open door here would be if there was a pause before the tossing of the '2nd' batch of 3 chips ... as if they were trying to get a read on an opponent's reaction to the '1st' batch of 3 chips. OP indicates constant motion ...

Lots of players will cut out chips and then toss (normally flick) an equal amount of chips forward to make it easier to discern the bet. GL

Pretty much what happened. However, Player B claimed that the bet was finished when the first stack of chips was cut out and placed on the table and that subsequent flicking action with the remaining chips permitted Player A to get a read on him before completing the bet. He was insistent that this sequence is considered a string bet "almost everywhere," but especially at Foxwoods and the Borgata, too.

It may be. But it's irrelevant.

The relevant question is whether it's considered a string bet at the casino in question. That would have been the first misconception I cleared up - even if I planned to rule it as a string bet in this casino too.

He is either ignorant or spinning things he does know to his advantage. The only place I have ever played (which includes Borgata but not FW) that MIGHT consider the OP case a string bet is on a cruise ship. There if you brought out 6 facing a bet of 3 and did what OP they would force it to be a call and say it was a string IF the chips were dropped. But if the chips (whole stack) touched the felt as in a normal cut out then it is a raise. But even there, as described (not facing a bet) as soon as the stack in his hand touched the felt it was a bet of the full stack. They (ship casino staff) would also say their rule is normal. But to base anything on the word or procedures a ship pit dealer is horribad as their procedures are horrible. They also change rulings on a whim often from dealer to dealer and the Pit bosses are just as bad.

He (the protesting villain) is also ignorant of the intent of the string bet rule. It is not about preventing bettor from getting a "read". It is about a clear, consistent rule for when player's action is complete so subsequent players know when they can and should act. There are even (in some, generally older) rule sets where if a raise or a bet is verbally declared with no specific value, the bettor can back and forth from his stack to the "bet" as many times as he wishes as long as the motions are "continuous". His action closed the first time the motion stops after starting. Bettor can use one or both hands, as long as motion is continuous w/o breaks. (note that for a raise the first group of chips out must match the value of the bet being faced (a $25 chip facing a $20 bet would not qualify as matching the bet and would then limit the raise to a min raise if raiser verbally announced raise with no attached value.)

If it went down exactly as described, I doubt many places would rule it a string bet.

However, I’ve seen a situation where the player dropped calling chips, paused and looked up to the dealer to announce raise and then drop the rest of the chips from his hand. That was considered a string raise.

I've never seen that sort of action called as a string bet. As noted, it is quite common in a lot of places to see a player set down a stack of chips and then spread the final stack (of the same size) to help others SEE the bet.

Granted, verbalizing the bet makes things easier for all and avoids such issues but...absent a room-specific rule here, this is not a string bet as described.

I will confirm that it is NOT a string bet in foxwoods...dude was lying or had no idea what he was talkign about

I've never seen it ruled as a string bet by a floor, but I see it called a string bet by players all the time.

It's possible that players have convinced / cajoled / harrassed floors into ruling in their favor. Like if a few annoying regs keep a big game afloat, they may get special rules.

I have had this called as a string bet on me at FW in a 20/40 LHE game.

I took out raising chips, cut out 8 red chips, hesitated, then dropped the other 8 red chips in my hand.

I was stunned that this was ruled a string bet because I had brought out all 16 chips and never went back for chips, but apparently the hesitation was the reason.

I think that anytime, in a room that allows you to bring as many chips as you want and then drop less than all of them, that you hesitate after dropping some of the chips and then decide to bet/raise more, you open yourself up to a string bet challenge.

I want to be clear that I don't call string bets anymore. I just wait for people to be finished with their action. But there are people who do.

And I also have seen numerous players at FW bring out chips, place the call down and then flick a raise in a different direction. Mostly with a slight hesitation. And this isn't called a string bet. But the reason it isn't called a string bet is that Dealers almost never call string bets at FW and most players could give a crap about the slight hesitation. But if you are playing against an angle shooter and you hesitate in this spot, they may very well attempt to hold you to a call if it is to their advantage.

Wow, I guess I just never saw it. Thankfully haven't run into too many angelshooters at foxwoods. Usually only in manhattan...where I play only in legitimate home games of course

When I was a floor and I heard "but Foxwoods" it was always very difficult not to roll my eyes. The vast majority of the time the player would be incorrect about Foxwoods procedures and the times they weren't it was very specific and terrible Foxwoods only rulings.

Seems like a good thread for this story, since it happened at Foxwoods.

Back in about 2000, we were playing a NLH game, which at that time was very uncommon, only happening like 2-3 times per month. A player is facing a bet of 2 chips. He comes forward with about 7 chips in his hand, drops the 2 chips first, has a long hesitation, then drops the rest of the chips as a raise. Opponent says it's a string-raise, floor is called. Given the long hesitation, I can see this ruling going either way, and it is ruled a string-raise. Floor says you can't hesitate that long.

About 30 minutes go by, and basically the same thing happens. Different player, but basically the same physical action occurs. String-raise, call the floor. We see a different floor approaching. Guy on my Right (GOMR) turns to the Guy on his Right (GOHR) and says I'll bet you $100 that this floor rules the other way. Seems like a fair bet to me, they make the bet, this time it is ruled not a strong-raise, with the 2nd floor saying it is not a string-raise since he came forward with all the chips at once.

About 45 minutes go by, and again, the same thing happens. Facing a 2-chip bet, player comes forward with more chips, and hesitates before dropping the raise. String-raise, call the floor! Now a 3rd floor is walking over. GOMR turns to GOHR and says 5 to 1, give me 500 to my 100, and I'll bet you that this floor makes a different ruling. GOHR says what, you mean he'll reverse to the same ruling as the first floor? GOMR says no, he will rule different than either of them.

I'm thinking I want in on this bet. I mean, what other ruling is there? It's either a string-raise, or it isn't. The bet is made. 3rd floor says well, he did come forward with all the chips at once, but it really isn't proper to hesitate so long. So, he rules that the player can raise, but since it was a suspicious raise, he can only raise the minimum!

Don't ask me how this floor found a 3rd ruling. I'm still amazed to this day.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Not string bet at Foxwoods

I do not doubt this for a second. But I think it's probably an example of a bad/inconsistent FW ruling, rather than the normal rule. We both have 1000's of hours in play at FW, and I have never seen this called as a string bet (as long as the bet was made in more or less one motion, as in OP).

Such a great story.

Love that the guy was only asking for 5 to 1. Obviously a FW reg.

What's the reasoning for people saying this isn't a string bet? What makes OP's example not a string bet versus what we might consider a string bet to be? How much time is allowed between the two stacks of 3 chips hitting the felt before the bet turns into a string bet?

I would never call a string bet as long as the activity of putting chips in the middle was still going on.

How many grains of sand does it take to make a pile?

Putting a time on it is stupid. It's not like something which takes 0.99 seconds is clear as day and something which takes 1.01 seconds is completely and utterly confusing.

It's a string bet when a reasonable person would have already concluded that the betting was completed before new betting started. Not the most hypersensitive, triggerhappy individual, but a reasonable person. If a single person needs to be designated because there are so many unreasonable people that nobody can agree what a reasonable person is, then the dealer.

If someone puts three chips down and then waves his hands in the air like a magician and bets more, it's more likely a string than someone who puts three chips down and the fourth and fifth are stuck together so he shakes them loose - even if they take the exact same amount of time to put in the same chips.

It's not about time. It's about clarity.

I haven't laughed that hard in a while. And I didn't even finish the story yet.

If the chips are hidden and/or there was a hesitation, it might get called a string.

Seems like another example of the rules being whatever the floor says they are for a particular situation. Fossilmans example is is about as clear on this as is possible.

To me, there a two factors that make it a legal bet.

There’s no deception involved; the player grabs 6 chips and brings them forward. If he puts those 6 chips down and then throws another chip that was hidden in his hand, I think that should be ruled a string bet. Especially if it’s a larger denomination chip.

The second one is the “one motion” thing where we just have to believe the situation went down as described in OP. I think it’s silly to put a time limit on things like that, but the quicker you do it, the lower the risk of getting a ruling against you.

FWIW, that Foxwoods story almost made me spit out my coffee. The crazy thing is that if the post was about a different well known card room, people might question if the story was made up. But with Foxwoods, everybody is like “yep, sounds about right. Classic FW.”

Love the story Fossilman!

If there's no hesitation, it's a good bet. If there is hesitation, it's string. And that's why a dealer has to pay attention because he/she is the only impartial person in the case. From what is sounds like, it was all in one motion so with those facts it shouldn't be a string.