Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
ExampleL years ago I was playing in a small tournament. I raise before the flop and get headsup with a player who is behind me. On the flop I miss but I make a continuation bet. She calls me. The yurn comes and I bet out again. She now makes an extrememly blatant string raise. The dealer says nothing and no other player says a word.


[/ QUOTE ]

The string raise issue definitely cuts both ways. I was at a 2/5 game one night where the donkey attempted a raise on the river with a board of K K 7 7 Q. Player A led out 125. The donkey attempted to raise to some amount but screwed up the procedure and thus attempted a string raise. Would be do-gooder who wasn't in the hand spoke up and the attempted raise was disallowed. Player A had K Q and donkey had K whatever. Effect stack was about 1000.

As far as doing good vs. doing not good, it cuts both ways.

What I find interesting re: the string raise mistake specifically is what is the best rule for combating it. There are 3 main choices.

1) Dealer should be always active. Anytime a string raise is made the dealer should disallow it and explain the rule if necessary.

2) Dealer should be active only when the pot is not head-up. The thinking here is that though the string raise may actually benefit a would be offended player, there is a 3rd party involved, and thus the dealer should actively correct the mistake to protect the 3rd party.

3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

I imagine in a perfect world, the rule used by a house would depend on the size of the game. Entry level games would use #1 or 2, while larger games would use #3. I'm not sure if this is practical to do within a given house given the crop of dealers at the casinos I frequent (prolly 1/2 would be able to do it no prob; the other 1/2, it would be a disaster.)

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
In story 2 there's nothing you can do to make them bet, but after the hand I'd explain in a non-aggressive manner that what they did wasn't really okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is important. I would not do as I believe OP did and just talk to the floor discretely. After the hand was over, I would say something out loud to the two players (and the table, if they are listening) about it not being cool to agree to check it down when someone is all in. No reason to be over-agressive. Indeed, it often takes some explaining about why it is different to check it down when it is truly heads up versus when a third party is all in, but it is a conversation worth having. If the conversation gets heated or players disagree with you about the rule, ask the floor to clarify.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

Situation 1: same thing happened the other day at TS, player A bets 50, player B goes all in for 63, player c calls and player A tries to re-raise. At least 3 players spoke up (me included) and none were in the hand. Have to correct the action if necessary. Player A didn't understand the rule, dealer called the floor, floor made the right decision, player A could not re-raise.

Situation 2: I could never understand checking it down in a cash game, I'll bet into an all-in pot any day if I have a chance of winning it or a side pot. I'm there to earn cash after all.

BC

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info.

Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info.

Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most commonly used rule in higher limits (and all of California form what I have observed). It is a tradeoff, you can accept the action or you can reveal the weakness of your hand but save the bet.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. I was really just trying to save space: those who were interested in the general topic could click over to read the details, others could move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was able to find your blog on google searching for the text of the stories you posted. I have no idea why TT finds posting that link objectionable. There's nothing commercial about it. Anyway, there should be space in your personal info for a "Homepage." Link your blog there, if you want.

Story 1: Tough call. Generally, I like to let players still in the hand call stuff like this -- and string raises, for example -- because Player C could have wanted all of Player A's chips in the middle. Given that C is inexperienced, I can see an argument for speaking up to protect him, but I think I keep quiet.

Hand 2: I don't say anything at the time unless the discussion continues further -- if one player doesn't understand why the other wants to check it down and they start discussing it, for example. You are right; the damage has been done.

After the hand, however, I would probably say something. The key is to do it in a friendly way that isn't confrontational, and if the discussion gets heated, to get an "official" word from the dealer and/or floor.

-McGee

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info.

Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most commonly used rule in higher limits (and all of California form what I have observed). It is a tradeoff, you can accept the action or you can reveal the weakness of your hand but save the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, okay. I guess it's fair in the sense of everyone is held to the same standard. I still don't like it, but I am a low-stakes player in addition to being kind of a rules nit.

Are there ever issues with players abusing the rule somehow?

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info.

Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most commonly used rule in higher limits (and all of California form what I have observed). It is a tradeoff, you can accept the action or you can reveal the weakness of your hand but save the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, okay. I guess it's fair in the sense of everyone is held to the same standard. I still don't like it, but I am a low-stakes player in addition to being kind of a rules nit.

Are there ever issues with players abusing the rule somehow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I have seen. There is the potential for someone to string bet to see if their opponent wants to call a string bet, but it comes at the cost of having to pay the extra bet (or even face a reraise) if the player wants to accept the action. What happens in practice if a newbie makes a string bet is everyone lets it in and then someone explains to them after the hand how to bet properly.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Story 1: Tough call. Generally, I like to let players still in the hand call stuff like this -- and string raises, for example -- because Player C could have wanted all of Player A's chips in the middle. Given that C is inexperienced, I can see an argument for speaking up to protect him, but I think I keep quiet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If C were experienced, he would know (or be expected to know) that A cannot raise and thus that he cannot get all of A's chips in on this street by just calling. Therefore that is not a valid defense, and C shouldn't expect to be allowed to call.
If C is not experienced, he has the right to be protected from illegal moves that he may not know are illegal. Thus, C should not be forced to call.