I guess I am the only one who agrees with OP. In fact, there is a rule that if a player announces raise and takes 'an excessively long time' to state what that raise is he will be held to a minimum raise.

Whether it is 'angleshooting' or not, I don't know. But consider the extreme example where a player announces raise, then takes the time to carefully scrutinize all the players left in the hand to see how they are going to react before deciding how much to raise based on his read.

I suppose you could wait a couple of minutes and call time if it was bothering you. Maybe I don't find it much of an angle when it is virtually ineffectual. The point of announcing a raise would be to see the opponent's immediate reaction, not to try to read their soul 1 minute later. Anybody who thought they were getting useful information at that point would be pretty bad.

i think OP has just been played too many hours with droolers and is getting frustrated with all the various ways shoddy players slow things down.
is there a way to calculate when getting many fewer hands per hour is outweighed by the likelihood of you eventually getting the slowass drooler's entire stack? and his next buyin? and the one after that?

i really disagree that the period of time between saying raise and acting on it gives anyone an edge. how can this be ruled? with a clock?
you've been up too long.
i'd hate to see a rule for every little quirk and detail of the game.
i get irritated as hell just like everybody else by obviously misapplied, time wasting behavior. but i accept it's my mistake to let it get to me.

You win the fishes money that night but he never comes back due or plays against your ever again. Then it becomes -EV.

If you have to resort to these type of manuvers to win money, I think poker is a losing propistion for you.

When we play more hands in an hour, I have a bigger edge.

I have to agree.

We don't need a rule for EVERY conceivable situation. This a social game and social norms apply. Next we'll have explicit rules for how to align our navels with cup holders to define personal space at the table.

In fact over legislation can actually lead to more angleshooting as people take advantage of loopholes, grey areas, legalese, and endless pages of rules designed for every obscure situation.

Right now there are very few rules governing our game. Every player can be expected to learn most of them prior to sitting at the table. The Floor has reasonable discretion in application.

Source?

No such rule. If someone calls time on the player and they fail to act, their hand is dead. If no one calls time, they can take as long as they want and raise any amount they want, subject to normal table etiquette.

Krieger and Bykofsky
The Rules of Poker

Does anyone else think that we need to get away from the whole 'etiquette' bs argument and have someone formulate a set of RULES for the game.

Poker is no longer a game played in the back room of bars etc. And as such we need to ensure that we all feel safe going from casino to casino and from city to city.

While there are certain things that can be left open to the heading 'etiquette' , just like in life we need more concrete rules to protect the individuals who are often playing for very large sums of money.

Reasonable period of time? What is that?

I won't hijack the thread but maybe if the big shots in poker stop organizing Poker golf tournaments and actually sit down and deal with these issues we would be a lot better off.

BTW You lot need to play live some more

This is why RRoP were originally invented. Bob's noble (yet futile) attempt to standardize the industry. Go Bob tho, it's as close to the gold standard as there is for the industry. The morons playing golf will likely never realize it tho, given the location of their heads (which is obviously up their ... ).

al

Precisely. The point is that the next player should know exactly when you have stopped acting.

So If you say raise, put out a call and then think for a while before putting out the raise, while you may think that you can get a tell from your opponent, your opponent knows it is not his turn to act and therefore will not act until you have completed your action.

So what *is* the reason for the string bet rule, then?

part of me wants to laugh, but mostly these comments sadden me greatly.
if it's not working for you now, more rules probably won't help.

but maybe you're right! let's get the "big shots" together to stop the madness! Back to the Hall of Justice everyone! Big meeting! the poker world is adrift in lawlessness! let's get more rules! an armed supervisor at every table! and more cameras, just like the UK!

then, instead of people gradually losing interest in poker, all this nitty
impatience and enforcement of rules will have people RUSHING to the tables,
right? it will be so much FUN! and OP won't have to develop any patience for human nature! how about you just press a button and cool, above it all players just scoop pots! How about a rule that says "I'm the King,
and you all do what I say"? How about you never grow up?

please, kids

As has been discussed elsewhere, more often than not it seems as though the person calling a string bet is most likely the person shooting an angle. So rarely does the offender actually try to get some sort of read on his opponent (e.g. Will he call if I just flat, or will he...) as he most often just doesn't have the mechanics down of putting 8 or 12 or more chips into the pot in a fluid motion.

...but it's still WHY the rule exists. It exists because poker rooms have to take all-comers, and you need a rule that cuts both ways. "Make your actions clear." ...and if they aren't clear, we'll restrict your action to the one least likely to be interpreted as fishy. Can't be clear about your chip-putting-in-thing... ...he calls.

The same people calling string bets are the ones trapping the chips of poor souls in the pot when they go to cut out a call with too many chips in their hand, or forcing single chips to be calls instead of clarifying action, or doing a million other things while playing GOTCHA! instead of Poker.

...but to the matter at hand: The person in the OPs example is being clear: He intends to raise. You know it. He knows it. If he wants to put on a show while he's doing it, bully for him. When he's done, he (and the dealer) will let you know. THEN you can act.

You'd think so, but the people that were pointing out the true origins of IWTSTH were the guys who have been playing in cardrooms for many decades.

The problem is not too many rules. It is too many unclear rules. When situations are unclear they seem to be unfair. A more clearly defined, uniformed set of rules works better for everyone, especially the casual player.

Why can't I do it here? They do it like that at my home casino.

Nobody wants more rules. We want standards. There are none right now. I play all over the world (I am quite grown up, btw) and while I quickly adapt to the 'rules' in each different casino in each different city/country I go, my wife usually decides not to play because of the confusion.

She is the epitome of the casual player.

I agree, I might angle a bit in this way, but I never drag it out (10-30 sec), that does suck.

I have no source for this, only going by experience and deductive reasoning, but it seems to me the string bet rule is a Fixed Limit device, used to help aid the smooth flow of the game. Same as the forward motion rule.

FL moves at a much faster clip than NL.

Wear a mask and a oversized hoody if you are paranoid about this

I think to be flat out honest, people who can't handle what you're talking about have no business playing poker whatsoever. You can't possibly be good at live poker if for some reason you can't manage to deal with someone saying the word raise and then performing physical motions which are completely within the rules of the game.

If this is such a magically effective tactic, why don't you even things out and begin doing it yourself?

OP mentioned 10, 15, or 20 seconds. Not only does even this amount of time rarely if ever happen to begin with when someone announces a raise and cuts out the call, but, how can 10-20 seconds be considered "an excessively long time" anyway?

It's far worse of an angleshoot when someone has a big stack in his hand and watches his opponent as he cuts out the chips across the betting line and is usually even allowed to take some off if he's put too much. Usually it's not an angle-shoot but I can easily see where it could be. But yeah the stuff described in the OP is not angling and it's fine.

The purpose is so that we know when the players turn to act has ended. Whether you use a single motion rule, or a continuous motion rule doesn't matter as long a sthere is a rule. Otherwise i would simply wait until the player behind me acted and say hey wait I wasn't done.

It's like if you'd ask casinos to bann sunglasses simply because you don't use this "advantage". Just start saying raise yourself, and look at the reaction...

I do this some times, I say raise and not sure how much I want to raise the time it take me to cut out my call chips gives me a chance to think while letting the other players know my basic intentions. I guess to keep the OP happy I should say nothing do my mental calculations, count out my chips for the call in my personal space then figure out how many chips I have left then announce my raise size and then put my chips out. The later takes more time and keeps players wondering longer what I plan on doing. WTF.....
I'm with who ever said if you can't handle this maybe you need to play Uno or something other than live Poker.