a discussion of dealers calling string bets

[thedustbustr]

I had a conversation with Pokey via PMs which I thought are interesting enough to warrant a thread. There is an old thread on this issue but it sucks -- it doesn't really address the issue.

Some casinos/dealers disallow string bets as soon as they happen, and other casinos only disallow string bets if a player in the hand objects.

This thread is not necessarily about actual rules and rulings, just a theoretical discussion of which way is better.

--
thedustbustr:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BUT, I'm a live game noob and the dealer calls me on a string bet lol.

[/ QUOTE ]
i [censored] hate this, HUUUGE pet peeve of mine. if the other player doesn't call me on the string bet, shut the [censored] up and deal the damn cards. ... if you don't have vested interest in the hand, keep your damn mouth shut, dealers included. the whole point of disallowing string bets is to prevent someone from calling, getting a read, then changing their mind. this is virtually never the case in modern string bet rulings. sorry, hijack over, feel free to rebute via pm if you care strongly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pokey:
[ QUOTE ]
I actually disagree. I think it should be the dealer's responsibility to call a string bet, and the dealer should call it every time without fail. My reasoning is that if it is not enforced this way, a few bad things happen:

1. Angle shooters get away with it far more often, since ignorant novices won't know to call the string.

2. Knowledgeable players will give away a tell if they prevent a player from making a string bet -- it shows some weakness. Sure, you can fake 'em out with this, but in general it's a lose-lose situation for the smart player.

It's just way too easy to exploit for this not to be prevented every time, and given that it will always be prevented, it should be the dealer calling it.

Just my opinion, though....

[/ QUOTE ]

thedustbustr:
[ QUOTE ]
Most importantly, #2: the action of calling a string bet in this instance is itself an angle shoot. If the newbie meant to raise, not "call and raise", calling string so that we only have to call one bet is itself an angle shoot, and a fairly obvious one.

This is why it should be left up to the player to decide - if the "string bettor" is angle shooting, we may use our descretion to identify this and call string. If the string bettor is not angle shooting, and the string caller calls string (thus angle shooting themselves), the caller gives off information. In this fashion the rule seems to balance itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pokey:[ QUOTE ]

I think you're absolutely right IF both players are equally well-informed about the rules. However, about the only time I've ever seen a string bet called by a player was when the caller knew what he was doing and wanted to avoid a raise, whereas the string bettor had no idea what was going on and just wanted to put money into the pot. It seems to me that when two well-informed players spar, the "angle-shooting" aspect is eliminated (as you correctly point out), but when one player knows what he is doing and the other is uninformed, then angle-shooting goes unpunished unless calling a string bet is held to be the job of the dealer. Since this sleazy tactic would usually work to the benefit of a well-informed angle-shooter at the expense of an innocent novice, I'd prefer to see the casinos protecting the novices from angle-shooting. That way, they can preserve their stacks long enough to give them to my superior play.

Angle-shooting only works when it is targetted at a less-knowledgeable player; therefore, forcing the players to call the rules exploits the ignorance of the less knowledgeable players and provides a 6benefit to the near-cheating of the angle-shooter. I don't like it when that happens.

That all having been said, I haven't made up my mind for 100% certain. If you disagree with my line of reasoning, I'm still quite open to hearing your thoughts on the subject. Also, I'd agree completely that among equally-knowledgeable players (e.g., a 2+2 game or a regular home game) letting the players call string bets would work just fine; I'm mostly concerned with B&M casinos that are frequented by both novice fish and experienced (and potentially exploitive) sharks.

[/ QUOTE ]

thedustbustr:
[ QUOTE ]
Consider two scenarios between an ignorant novice and a knowlegable player willing to selectively call string.

A) Dealer calls string on novice: novice is always hurt, because he is unable to perform the intended action. Knowlegable player may or may not benefit from this.

B) Dealer does not call string. Novice is sometimes hurt, and the knowlegable player sometimes benefits.

and of course the unrealistic, but 'perfect world' scenario,

C) Dealer does not call string, and knowlegable player is actually honest and doesn't call string even though it is poker-correct to.

Between options A and B, I propose that B is a better alternative, because the novice's intention is preserved half of the time, whereas in option A, the novice's intent is never preserved.

[/ QUOTE ]

[steamboatin]

d)Some Poker rooms specifically forbid the dealer from calling string bets.
e) Some poker rooms require the dealer to call string bets.
f) NITS are everywhere and love to catch string betters just because it makes them feel superior.
g) I would submit for your consideration, it is NEVER an angleshoot to make sure the rules are enforced. An experienced player can save a bet or two or gain a bet or two by speaking up or remaining silent but it is never an angleshoot to speak up and make sure the rule is enforced. If there is an angleshoot, it is remaining silent and letting a rule be broken when it is to your benefit.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
There is an old thread on this issue but it sucks -- it doesn't really address the issue.


[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is dealt with in detail in the old thread.