String Betting - A Worldwide standardised ruling??

Ste05

Do people prefer the US ruling or the rules we have in place over here, should there be a Worldwide Standard??

I just found it interesting when I first read about the difference in a recent thread. Possibly Marq who explained the difference? - i.e. being that in the US that you can bet with what ever is in your hand, you can take back money you put over the line, but you can't go back to your stack for more. Do I have this correct??

What I was wondering was: Do people think that the US String Bet rule or the Ruling as we have it over here is better??

Daithio

Yeah, you can bet whatever you have in your hand, but you can't go back for more. You can't take back money that has left your hand from over the line though AFAIK. So you could pick up ten pink five hundreds, count out two stacks of four, over the line, and then take back the remaining two. I prefer this rule, I think the Irish one is a bit over the top.

Mr. Flibble

What's the Irish rule?

Pokerevents

This string bet rule is doing my head here in Ireland. Not only are the dealers extremely dogmatic but players are jumping down each others throat calling a illegal bet when a player places chips over the line in more than 1 clean motion.
I believe the rule has validity and should be enforced only by the dealer and only when the player is delibertly trying to get a reaction out of a opponent by dropping chips in a staggered fashion or announing different size bets as he/she counts out their chips.
IMO once a player announces raise or bet he/she is entitled to stack the chips in any way they like as long as they go dont back to stack to increase the bet.
If they announce raise and and bring several chips over the line but only drop some of them I think that is fine also.
also I've noticed a player make a clean bet and dealer rule it is only a call because he/she did'nt say raise. This is BS, it is obvious that the guys intention is to raise, and if it is by placing chips over the line in one clean motion then fine. However if it is only one chip then it should be deemed a call, as it is unclear the intention, and since they did'nt announce raise then tough.

Ste05

Ye these were basically my thoughts too, I think the US ruling is a much better rule than the Irish one (or is it European wide??).

But I assume there's nothing can be done about it now, as these rules have been in place for decades by now.

Is Pokerevents going to take the lead in this??

Daithio

Ste05 wrote:

Ye these were basically my thoughts too, I think the US ruling is a much better rule than the Irish one (or is it European wide??).

But I assume there's nothing can be done about it now, as these rules have been in place for decades by now.

Is Pokerevents going to take the lead in this??

I think that it's just Ireland, everywhere else I've played seems to have it the right way.

Pokerevents

Ste05 wrote:

Ye these were basically my thoughts too, I think the US ruling is a much better rule than the Irish one (or is it European wide??).

But I assume there's nothing can be done about it now, as these rules have been in place for decades by now.

Is Pokerevents going to take the lead in this??

Like everything else the, Irish over do things. A set of rules is badly needed and I know Thomas Kremser and Nic Szerameta are working on a rulebook as we speak. However if the book is not published in the near future I'd be big into listing a complete set of tournament rules and documenting so players know exactly what to expect. Interesting hand from Vienna and a ruling that I'd completely disagree with, please comment
The hand was in the Vienna Open.

Three players.– Blinds were 2000 / 4000.. Antes 200.
Player A is all in for 300
Player B has raised to 12k and has been Called by Player C
Everyone else folds…
Then the dealer flops four cards instead of three.
Disaster
The flop is A 10 3 7 rainbow [It’s the Ace and Ten that are important here.]
Thomas is called over to give a ruling.
His ruling is that because we cannot know which card should not have been dealt that all of the cards have to go back into the deck of live cards and the deck is re-shuffled and dealt out again. The original burn card remains.
This time a 2 3 and 7 all black come off…
Player B and C check – Neither player happy about Thomas’s decision – as will become clear.
A red 3 comes on the turn.
Then another brick on the river…
Player B throws over pocket tens…
Player C – Somewhat relieved now - A 10….
Player B with 10 10 takes main pot…
Player C who was all in for 300 throws over 3 2 and takes down the main pot with a Full House.
The game then continues.

fixer

how would you have ruled any differently?

Pokerevents

fixer wrote:

how would you have ruled any differently?

The four cards in question should be shuffled and flop done again remaining card is burn card before the turn. This way you will get it right (the way it should have being) more than 3/4 of the time.
The other way you have a completely new flop with little to no chance of it being what it should have being in the first place.

delanec8

Pokerevents wrote:

The four cards in question should be shuffled and flop done again remaining card is burn card before the turn. This way you will get it right (the way it should have being) more than 3/4 of the time.
The other way you have a completely new flop with little to no chance of it being what it should have being in the first place.

This seems pretty fair. I dont see how the dealer wouldnt have known which of the four wasnt supposed to be out there though

phantom_lord

Pokerevents wrote:

This string bet rule is doing my head here in Ireland. Not only are the dealers extremely dogmatic but players are jumping down each others throat calling a illegal bet when a player places chips over the line in more than 1 clean motion.
I believe the rule has validity and should be enforced only by the dealer and only when the player is delibertly trying to get a reaction out of a opponent by dropping chips in a staggered fashion or announing different size bets as he/she counts out their chips.

That happened me the other day, preflop I grabbed my two stacks of chips (one in each hand)to raise all-in, and placed them over the line, because there was a fraction of a sec between the two stacks hitting the table a player jumped on me for a string bet... The dealer reluctantly agreed with him.

Player C – Somewhat relieved now - A 10….
Player C who was all in for 300 throws over 3 2 and takes down the main pot with a Full House.
The game then continues.

I'm guessing you meant player a at the end...

Pokerevents

phantom_lord wrote:

That happened me the other day, preflop I grabbed my two stacks of chips (one in each hand)to raise all-in, and placed them over the line, because there was a fraction of a sec between the two stacks hitting the table a player jumped on me for a string bet... The dealer reluctantly agreed with him.





I'm guessing you meant player a at the end...

Yes the player All in took the pot, player A.