ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

so I'm playing a lot more live b/c a lot of online sux now. tonight I go in with 800 and play 1-2 b/c the 2-5 has a huge list. the 1-2 plays as big as a quiet 2-5, b/c they mainly use red chips. standard pf raises are 15 to 30. (though the 2-5 does play very big sometimes with average 1,500 stack. and to give a sense of the room, one not unusual hand in the 2-5 was fold, raise to 35, raise to 100, 6 callers. so you can imagine how the 1-2 is.)

back to 1-2. I get down around around 450, 350 left. table breaks and I change tables. Hyper Agressive Asian Gambler is on my left. (he reloads for 500 with 500-chips 3 times over half an hour.) more background: my second hand is six limpers to me in BB with AKo. I make it 25. HAAG makes it 100. I shove for 350 ("let's play for all of it"). He calls with ATo. Sweet, I'm almost even. He reloads 500.

2 or 3 hands later I have JcTc. 3 or so limpers to me in LP. I make it 15. He says "25" and tosses a green chip. he thinks it was limped to him. discussion with dealer ensues. everyone's confused about what a raise can be. I mistakenly say, doesn't it have to be 30? dealer correctly says, No you didn't raise 15, you raised 13. Now I've spent my ammo. When I say, Okay doesn't it have to be 28, no one's listening to me anymore.

Dealer says to HAAG, It has to be 28, 3 more. At this point I could say, String bet! (I've learned, after string betting twice, that idiots love calling string bets more than anything. more than winning pots, it seems. and generally the dealers call them here immediately.) so, I don't want to argue against his raise too vehemently b/c it gives away about my hand. And I don't want to call string bet b/c I think it's obnoxious and stupid. but I really thought the dealer was going to call string bet.

question: Is "25", after 15, a sufficient action to allow a min raise? (or is it a string bet to make it 28? or was betting still open to make it 100??)

Re: ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

i think its a call

Re: ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

I don't know what the official ruling would be, but philosophically if you follow the line of thinking that the "no-string bet rule" is to prevent people from angle-shooting by making their actions unclear on purpose to evaluate other player's reactions, then it's a raise, whereas if it's an excuse for rules-lawyers to cancel other people's raises on a technicality, it's a call.

Re: ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

CLIFF'S NOTES TO OP: $1-2 NLHE. Pre-flop, I make it $15 to go. Next player announces "Raise to $25". We presume that he didn't see the raise in front of him. Dealer properly declares a mini-re-raise of $13 more, to $28. Can/should I call string bet here?

MY ANSWER: Call the $13 and STFU. Gee whiz, leave the nitting to the nits. If $13 is gonna cause you this much angst, go find a seat in a $2-4 limit game.

Re: ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

When someone tries to reraise for less than the min reraise, if they have 50% or more of the needed amount it does count, but they must complete to the minimum reraise. You upped it by 13, he upped it ten more, so that's more than half. Thus he must complete to 28. It's not a string raise when this happens (unless he tries to go higher than 28).

Re: ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

Saying 25 effectively translated in this case to saying "raise" as he threw a 25 chip out. No, that wasn't enough to raise, but he now has to complete it to a legal minraise to 28.

Re: ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

1. This is not a string raise. If a dealer says put in more money into the pot, how can a player be held accountable for that? Besides, the ruling for a string raise is that the extra chips you are trying to put in are not allowed but you still have to at least make a minimum raise.

2. In NL cash games, players are given leeway regarding how they put their chips into the pot when raising (i.e. string raises). This is not true in NL tourneys and all raises must be verbally stated exactly with an amount or all chips must move in at the same time.

3. If this player had been unaware of the raise in front of him, he could be allowed to take back his $25 and reconsider his action.

4. If the dealer asks the player if he was aware of the raise in front of him and he says yes, then he must complete the raise to minimum legal which is to add another $3.

Re: ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

I think that the important point to remember here is that the HAAG announced his intention to raise. He in that case should be held to that verbal action and forced to make a min raise. this is definately not a string raise.

Re: ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

[ QUOTE ]

3. If this player had been unaware of the raise in front of him, he could be allowed to take back his $25 and reconsider his action.

4. If the dealer asks the player if he was aware of the raise in front of him and he says yes, then he must complete the raise to minimum legal which is to add another $3.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have seen this interpretation used and I think it's horrible. If a floor were to rule this way every time, it would be an angle shooters dream.

For example:
Scenario 1: Raise to $15... oh look i have TT, let me see where I'm at, "make it $25"....sir you can't do that. did you see there was a raise in front of you...(thinks hmm...I don't think he likes that I reraised) "Yes, I was trying to reraise"...Ok the minimum raise is $28, so the bet is $28.
scenario 2: Raise to $15... oh look i have TT, let me see where I'm at, "make it $25"....sir you can't do that. did you see there was a raise in front of you...(thinks hmm...Original raiser is creaming in his pants and wants this to be a raise) "No, I didn't see that raise, I'll just call" (thinks, let me hit a set and stack this bitch)

Re: ruling question (with anecdotes)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the important point to remember here is that the HAAG announced his intention to raise. He in that case should be held to that verbal action and forced to make a min raise. this is definately not a string raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my recent trip to Vegas, this situation came up twice in one day (not me involved though). Tourney at Caesars', Blinds 200/400. UTG is in seat 1 and raises to 1200, fold to seat 8 (SB) who says raise and puts in 1200+200 for 1400 total. Dealer says there was a UTG raise to 1200. SB says, I didn't hear or see that and takes back his 1200 and folds, dealer agrees. Some players aren't happy with this especially UTG. UTG calls over TD who upholds dealer's decision.

Later that night playing 3/6 limit. Early player raises, folds to LP who says "raise" and puts in $6. Dealer says it was raised to you, player says can I just call then, dealer says yes.


This also happens a lot at drunk 1/2 NL cash tables. Preflop a guy in late position will say call and toss in $2 without noticing it has been raised in front of him. He is not held to his call and can reconsider.

The one caveat to all this is that the action must be stopped at that player. If someone acts behind, the player's verbal statement is binding.