Four Dogs
Legend
Silver Level
String Bet called back by dealer after an all-in
This hand happened at a $1/$3nlh game the Potawatomi Casino in Milwaukee. The hand folded around to the button who raised to $12. The SB folded and the BB without verbalizing his bet moved two $25 stacks across the betting line in 2 separate motions. It wasn't an angle shoot but it was a clear string bet. The Button immediately announced all-in and the SB immediately folded. The dealer then pushed only one of the $25 stacks to the winner and returned the other to the loser which of course the winner strongly objected to. The dealer said that because the second $25 was a string bet that it wasn't included in the pot. The winner of the hand thought that because the dealer never announced the string bet that it should stand. The dealer maintained that his declaration of all-in was immediate and left her no time to announce the string bet, which may have been true, but she followed up by stating that it's a players responsibility to recognize a string bet and that dealers are not obligated to do so. What do you think? Given that the shove left little or no time for the dealer to announce the string bet should the additional $25 stand? If it's not the duty of the dealer to announce this, how could this be abused? It seems unlikely that the buttons actions would have changed based on the bet size but the argument could be made that the SB's large 3 bet made the button more confident that an all-in would be called, and that a weaker SB min bet might have provoked a more restrained raise from the Button instead of an all-in.
This hand happened at a $1/$3nlh game the Potawatomi Casino in Milwaukee. The hand folded around to the button who raised to $12. The SB folded and the BB without verbalizing his bet moved two $25 stacks across the betting line in 2 separate motions. It wasn't an angle shoot but it was a clear string bet. The Button immediately announced all-in and the SB immediately folded. The dealer then pushed only one of the $25 stacks to the winner and returned the other to the loser which of course the winner strongly objected to. The dealer said that because the second $25 was a string bet that it wasn't included in the pot. The winner of the hand thought that because the dealer never announced the string bet that it should stand. The dealer maintained that his declaration of all-in was immediate and left her no time to announce the string bet, which may have been true, but she followed up by stating that it's a players responsibility to recognize a string bet and that dealers are not obligated to do so. What do you think? Given that the shove left little or no time for the dealer to announce the string bet should the additional $25 stand? If it's not the duty of the dealer to announce this, how could this be abused? It seems unlikely that the buttons actions would have changed based on the bet size but the argument could be made that the SB's large 3 bet made the button more confident that an all-in would be called, and that a weaker SB min bet might have provoked a more restrained raise from the Button instead of an all-in.
Last edited: