String Bet Poker

• A wager made using more than one statement about the wager or using multiple motions to put chips into the pot. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Many cardrooms forbid string bets. One reason for this is that opponents' reactions to the first portion of the wager may impact a player's decision on whether to increase it.
• This is a discussion on String Betting within the online poker forums, in the General Poker section; Hey guys. So I'm at my local casino playing low limit stakes ($1/$2) and I'm sat on the button.

• Poker String Bet Rules

A street is another term for a dealt card or betting round. String bet A call with one motion and a later raise with another, or a reach for more chips without stating the intended amount. String bets are prohibited in public cardroom rules. Compare with forward motion structured. As mentioned before, one key way to avoid putting string bets in poker is to verbally declare the amount or the number of chips you want to bet or raise. By doing so, your opponents will know the amount of your bet and this in turn will eliminate any possibility of putting a. Definition of string bet. A string bet in poker is an illegal bet. It is the act of betting in several steps. Imagine a virtual line that you cross when you make your bets. If you want to bet €600 for example, you won't be able to take a €100 chip, bet it, wait to see your opponent's face, add another €100 chip, assess his reaction again.

In live poker, a “string bet” refers to when a player doesn’t make their bet in one forward motion and also doesn’t verbally announce the size of their bet.

Casinos and live card rooms typically have a house rule against string bets to prevent players from trying to gauge the reaction of his opponent during the motion of moving the chips and adjusting the amount they bet based upon their opponent’s reaction.

Players must declare the amount they want to bet, or make the bet in a single motion across the bet line. Novice poker players are frequently string betting without knowing they’re doing it. For example, “I’ll call your 1,000, and raise you 10,000.”

Why is this not allowed? Well, both those bets are made up of two separate movements.

Related terms on PokerDictionary.net

Comments

Poker String Bet Rules

• If it was an innocent mistake in a friendly, low stakes game. I have no problem with it at all. More inexperienced players will do this with no clue that it is often used as a cheap tactic by more 'devious' players.
  If it was a huge game for big money, and someone was using this weak manoeuver to try and gleen information off of another player, then that is a problem.
  And we all know that at many poker tables, there will always be a wanna-be tough guy that likes to talk smack, and try and bully dealers and other players, even if he has clearly messed up...
  The general rule is to declare any calls, or raises verbally, before acting. In most casino's, string bets are strictly prohibited, although most will have a line that you can freely stack as much chips in front of before pushing them in...
• In no-limit, I think you've got to allow quite a bit more leeway when it comes to what is a string bet.
  What 'George' seems to have attempted, stacking up and/or counting out chips before making a bet, is pretty typical in no-limit. This should generally be allowed IMO.
  The easiest thing to do, and the only real way to remove this kind of ambiguity (apart from verbal declarations), is to have a betting line on your table. George has a valid point about this, and is probably not talking about whether or not your table is made from non-virtual raw materials.
  Setting out the rules of what is and isn't a string bet at the start of a session (especially when there are new players) is a fantastic idea simply because there are so many variations of the string bet rule, *especially* in no-limit.
  ScottyZ

• In no-limit, I think you've got to allow quite a bit more leeway when it comes to what is a string bet.
  What 'George' seems to have attempted, stacking up and/or counting out chips before making a bet, is pretty typical in no-limit. This should generally be allowed IMO.
  The easiest thing to do, and the only real way to remove this kind of ambiguity (apart from verbal declarations), is to have a betting line on your table. George has a valid point about this, and is probably not talking about whether or not your table is made from non-virtual raw materials.
  Setting out the rules of what is and isn't a string bet at the start of a session (especially when there are new players) is a fantastic idea simply because there are so many variations of the string bet rule, *especially* in no-limit.
  ScottyZ

  
  I agree with Scotty. If the action was as you described, this is not a string bet.
  I also agree that tables should have betting lines. They changed the felt at all the tables at Brantford, and now none of the tables have betting lines. I asked why they got rid of the lines. I was told that the lines were only there to 'help people learn', that 'they were never meant to be permanent' and that (get this) 'they were removed to make things less confusing'.
  I am not sure exactly WHAT is made less confusing by the lack of a betting line, but it sure as hell is not poker. Every time I go to Brantford, I end up leaving with just a little bit less faith in the people who run that place. It's a nice room and all (clean, nice TVs, and all that) but I am starting to think that the people who make the decisions don't have a clue.
  Which brings me back to the string betting thing. It seems that every supervisor at that room has a different interpretation of the string bet rule. I have been told (by dealers, supervisors, and pit bosses) that if you don't say 'raise', you MUST drop all your chips at the same time.
  I have also been told (by dealers, supervisors, and pit bosses) that so long as you have all your chips in your hand, and don't move your hanbd back to your stack to get more chips, that you can drop the chips in one at a time if you want, and that your action is not complete until you pull your hand back. Once, I was discussing this with a supervisor, during a non-busy time. She told me that it was ok (no string bet) so long as you don't bring your hand back. She then came back about 15 minutes later, and told me that she had asked a professional player who was a regular there, and she told him that it should be a string bet if you don't drop all the chips at the same time, so 'I guess that's what the rule is'.
  It would be nice if:
  (1) They would agree on a rule and tell all the dealers, supervisors, and pit bosses what it is, and
  (2) if the supervisors actually KNEW the rules, and didn't have to ask the players what they were. A supervisor who does not know the rules is essentially just taking up space and serves no real purpose.
  Keith

• I also agree that tables should have betting lines. They changed the felt at all the tables at Brantford, and now none of the tables have betting lines. I asked why they got rid of the lines. I was told that the lines were only there to 'help people learn', that 'they were never meant to be permanent' and that (get this) 'they were removed to make things less confusing'.
  I am not sure exactly WHAT is made less confusing by the lack of a betting line, but it sure as hell is not poker.
  Keith

  
  I may be giving them too much credit, but what if the point of removing the line is to drill it in to each player to actually say what they are doing. That way the string bet goes away completely, no matter what your interpretation of 'string bet' is?
  I plan on putting a betting line on my table though... looks cool. 8)

• I may be giving them too much credit, but what if the point of removing the line is to drill it in to each player to actually say what they are doing. That way the string bet goes away completely, no matter what your interpretation of 'string bet' is?

  
  But, you don't have to say what you are doing if you don't want to. Verbal declarations are binding but NOT mandatory. The problem with no betting line is that the bets don't get tossed out far enough, so the dealers have to ask people to push in their bets so they can reach them. All that is accomplished is that the game is slowed down.
  

  I plan on putting a betting line on my table though... looks cool. 8)

  
  Definitely a good idea. It gets rid of confusion and eliminates arguments.
  Keith.
• Agreed. I also think that verbal declarations should always be binding, but not mandatory.
  In addition to what you've said already, another nice thing about having a betting line is to allow some precision in rulings. A player has put a chip (or chips) into the pot if they have gone across the line. A player has mucked his hand if his cards go across the line. With no line on your table, you are going to create a lot of unnecessary arguments. With a line, a dealer can typically resolve the sitatuation in a few seconds by simply saying something like, 'That bet was across the line.'
  

  I asked why they got rid of the lines [at Brantford]... 'they were removed to make things less confusing'.

  
  That doesn't make a lick of sense.
  That very statement negates itself by being so confusing. It confused me in the sense of: 'Who could have possibly ever thought that one up? What could they have been thinking?'
  ScottyZ
• Sorry guys, I couldn't get past MiamiKeith saying this:
  
  I almost fell out of my chair. I'm still shaking.
  Regards,
  all_aces

• Sorry guys, I couldn't get past MiamiKeith saying this:
  
  I almost fell out of my chair. I'm still shaking.
  Regards,
  all_aces

  
  It's like the song...
  'In good times. In bad times. I'll be on your siiiiide for-eeee-ver mo-ooo-oo-oo-o-o-re, yeah.'
  Maybe this was one of the good times?
  ScottyZ
• Scotty, are you aware that you just quoted the song 'That's What Friends are For' by Dionne Warwick? And that this forum isn't a wedding, or a mall, or a bad lite rock radio station? Or a high-school prom dance like 15 years ago?
  Just checking...
  
  Lol maybe it was. What would the sweet be without the sour?
  Regards,
  all_aces

• Scotty, are you aware that you just quoted the song 'That's What Friends are For' by Dionne Warwick? And that this forum isn't a wedding, or a mall, or a bad lite rock radio station? Or a high-school prom dance like 15 years ago?

  
  and you immediately knew what song he was talking about!
  'I saw goody all_aces floating above my bed!'

• Scotty, are you aware that you just quoted the song 'That's What Friends are For' by Dionne Warwick?

  
  Hang on a minute... let me go check. I thought it was quoting Gwar.
  ScottyZ

• Scotty, are you aware that you just quoted the song 'That's What Friends are For' by Dionne Warwick? And that this forum isn't a wedding, or a mall, or a bad lite rock radio station? Or a high-school prom dance like 15 years ago?

  
  and you immediately knew what song he was talking about!
  'I saw goody all_aces floating above my bed!'

  
  Lol, yes I did, but I have an excuse. I used to work at Canadian Tire when I was a teenager. The songs on the old CT roster were relentless, and I had no choice but to get to know them!
  I swear!
  Regards,
  all_aces

• Scotty, are you aware that you just quoted the song 'That's What Friends are For' by Dionne Warwick? And that this forum isn't a wedding, or a mall, or a bad lite rock radio station? Or a high-school prom dance like 15 years ago?

  
  1. I REALLY hope that you had to look that up.
  2. I thought that Dionne Warwick was the psychic friends lady?
  Keith

• Scotty, are you aware that you just quoted the song 'That's What Friends are For' by Dionne Warwick?

  
  Hang on a minute... let me go check. I thought it was quoting Gwar.
  ScottyZ

  
  Okay, the song I really had in mind went something like:
  'I kill you and I watch you die
  Destroying everything you cherish, masturbating as you perish
  Crush, kill, destroy, crush, kill, destroy, destroy!'
  In the end, however, both songs will have about the same effect on people in terms of influencing their respective audiences to kill each other. I mean, think about it. Which song are you more likely to hear during a Quentin Tarantino slow-motion, multiple-kill scene?
  'Keep smilin'. Keep shinin'.'
  :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
  ScottyZ
• Yeah I wouldn't really have a problem with the guy going back and getting more chips. Betting line would have helped in this situation...
  That song is just :twisted: