String bet or not?

Without a verbal declaration of "pot,", I would rule the $100 is a legal bet, and that's where the action stands. Assuming the action described correctly, I can't imagine what the floor is ruling on.

Agree, how can requesting pot size then making a valid bet via actions, make the intent obvious? Maybe the intent was to know the exact pot odds. Or make the callers aware of the precise pot odds. I can’t say intensions are clear at all.

IMO poor ruling by floor. It seems so clear cut to be 100 bet that I can only surmise there is something floor knows or was told that I am not privy to.

By that logic if a player asks “how much is in the pot” that means they have to bet pot?

Nah, that’s obviously a string bet and intent is overridden by clear action.

The way it was described it sounds like a string bet, but the tone of voice could have made it clear that they intended to bet pot. Like if they said declaratively, "How much is in there," as they were reaching for chips. If it was clear that they intended to bet pot then it seems like the ruling could be correct even if they worded it weird. But if it was a question and then they put out 100 the bet would be 100.

^^^^ Is never correct.

Yeah I don't understand GreatWhite's comment at all. What are you going to do when they insist that they didn't intend to bet pot while everyone else claims to have heard a "declarative" statement that made their intent clear? Or when someone who is used to normal rules uses a "declarative" tone not knowing that it binds him to a pot-sized bet? Good luck to your players!

just to be clear:
i also thought i was clearly a string bet, and the floor ruling was bad.
just wanted to hear what the majority thinks in here before i give my take on it.

one of many bad rulings i've seen during the summer, main reason imo is that they are "stressed" and don't take any time to think about anything, often don't even hear the full story from the dealer, they just rush in, try to rule as quickly as possible and then leave again.

By definition of the rules, this is a string bet. I can see circumstances where enforcing this rule is not in everyone's long term best interest. If the floor wanted to rule this way, it would have been better to let the player know the actual rule and let the player know next time it was going to be enforced.

I've seen a million different odd ways of wording "pot" or all in, and usually if the intent is clear before any chips are put out the floor will rule that the bet is pot or all in.

90% of communication is nonverbal (or some **** like that).

My point is the wording is always open to the floor's interpretation.

The problem is a lot of PLO players, especially low limit, will argue endlessly that it's fine and to just let them pile money in. And they'll never learn their lesson and be more clear. I guess it's a combination of it being a splashy game and the game requiring more brain power. Having to think about proper phrasing takes attention away from the game.

So, many dealers and floors have learned to just let things slide if it doesn't seem to be an angle and nobody has acted on the bet. I don't really like it either, but it's how it is.

It could also be the floor is getting told "what happened" by several different people, all at the same time, and (of course), at the top of their lungs.

Don't be that guy. Let the dealer (and the dealer only) explain the situation to the floor. Then, and only then, players should speak up if they feel there are important details that were missing.

How is the floor who was not present going to read the non-verbal communication cues? More specifically going back to your original reply, what tone was floor going to hear after the fact? Your ‘solution’ is literally impossible.

Was an obvious string bet as described. Only if there are FACTS not relayed can I understand floor decision.

They typically rely on what the dealer says, and to a lesser extent what the players say.

Chill out people. I'm just saying the English language is often vague and open to interpretation. If the verbal statement, no matter how vague, is interpreted to have meant "pot," it came before the chip and would take precedence.

Probably was a string bet but not necessarily.

Not that I disagree at all and also think it’s a string bet but fwiw that game is really 5/5/10/20

This happens all the time in plo and as a player I just wait for other players to finish their action and don't fuss about it.

Should be a string bet, though.

If I'm a player in the hand I make sure to ask the dealer the bet amount after a string bet as well. They probably think I'm ******ed but I want them to clarify that we all agree the amount I'm about to make a decision about.

In my opinion, 90% of US players are string betting every single hand, regardless of game format. Shouldn't really be that difficult to put out the entire stack you want to bet in one motion.

(but I realize this is a habit that people have just picked up from watching others, and that it originates from Limit Hold'em betting. So I am fighting a losing battle here)

This was a string bet. The Floor's ruling was based on what the player intended, which is not usually done. The technicality usually rules.

Mostly string bets are mistakes where a player just doesn't realize they are not betting the amount they want to and also don't realize they could just say the amount and then put out the chips in several motions.

The one interesting thing about these type of string bets is that they also can be angles. If a player wants to make it look like they have a big hand but instead really want to make a blocking size bet, this can convince people that they are up against a big hand. So there is fold equity when there shouldn't be and it is less likely to get raised than if they hadn't been pretending to make it more.

The title of this thread could just as easily be "One of the Floors at 'X' Casino Made a Bad Ruling".

Every floorperson has made a dumb ruling at some point in his/her career. Every casino has one or more floors who make bad rulings more often than is acceptable.