Cash Game Angle or No Angle? (1 Viewer)

[Hornet]

So other than just saying, “I know it when I see it,” I’m trying to figure out some sort of objective standard on when someone is shooting an angle. Both examples below are at the casino.

Example 1:
Player A notices Player B reload for more than the table max, but doesn’t say anything. Player A still has Player B covered. An orbit is played without Player B’s stack changing much. The two players get it all in, and when Player A loses, he calls the floor over to complain that Player B bought in for more than the max and that he should only have to pay the table max. Obviously Player A would’ve taken all Player B’s money had Player A won.

Example 2:
Player A offers and Player B accepts a prop bet during the entire session where if a J,7,or 2 come on the flop, Player A wins, otherwise Player B wins. It’s about a 55/45 edge for Player A, and Player B clearly has no clue about the odds and is just in the room to have a good time. Player A is a seasoned, good reg.

So everyone in my home game agrees that Example 1 was clearly an angle, is unethical, frowned upon, etc.

There seemed to be mixed reactions to what Player A did in Example 2 (that Player A actually plays in our home game). It’s like making a bet on a coin flip and saying if it’s heads I’ll give you $5 and if it’s tails you pay me $10. And we have to flip the coin 100 times. An angle? Maybe not, but there’s clearly something unfair.

So what’s the difference between the two examples? Is it that in example 1, Player A is essentially unfairly freerolling Player B by withholding information until it suits him. And in example 2, the bet is unfair, but no facts are hidden and everyone is free to calculate the odds and enter the bet or not. So the key difference is some sort of deception?

I ask only because I hear “angle” thrown around a lot and everyone seems to have a different standard about what it means. What is unacceptable in a cash game at the casino?

 

[Rhodeman77]

Example 1 is an angle shoot for sure.

Example 2 isn’t. If he is willing to take a bet without knowing the odds he deserves to lose his money.

 

[Kyle]

Example 1. You only care and conveniently decide to inform the floor over when you actually lose to player B. That is an angle in itself in my opinion. I assume floor cannot do anything because you failed to inform them when he actually reloaded.

Example 2. People can decide if they want to accept a prop side bet or not. If you know the odds and your opponent does not yet still accepts then that is on him. Doing this at a home game with friends would be a dick move though.

 

[pltrgyst]

There's nothing "unfair" about example 2. It's not an even bet, but that doesn't make it unfair.

 

[Shaggy]

Example 1 is an angle (and not Example 2) because Player A has set himself up for a free roll. If the outcome is favorable, he wins a pot bigger than he should. If the outcome is unfavorable, he can bemoan the too big of a re-buy.

I would venture to guess... If you list all the types of angles... the theme of the angle shooter setting himself up for a free roll will be a commonality.

 

[Saoliver]

I had example 1 happen to me in a casino once. I was player A (kind of). My table broke and I got the last seat at another table. I brought over 3x the max buy-in ($500), so they made me pocket the extra $1000.

An hour or so later, another player from my former table came in. I am up $400 more at this point. We get all-in preflop on his first hand and I lose. I assume that he was only in for the $500, so I put that out. Dealer says that I am all-in, and the new player has me covered. He came in with $1,200! I call the floor over, and the floor sides with the villain because he sat down with the $1,200 and got dealt a hand. Floor chides the dealer for letting it happen, but says that I should have paid more attention.

This was my regular spot at a large poker room in the area. Most of the dealers and floor knew me by name. I got up from the table and never went back.

 

[Hornet]

That really blows, although the floor ruling doesn’t completely surprise me. The local casino here is pretty much the only game in town, so they usually don’t give a crap who their rulings piss off.

 

[timinater]

Example 1: sounds like the worst attempt at an angle I've seen in a while.
Example 2: That's a hustle.

 

[Gobbs]

Example A is clearly an angle shoot and the floor made the right call to let the action stand. When you notice a mistake, speak immediately or forever hold your peace. Once there is action, the mistake stands. If it ends up hurting you, regardless of whether or not you knew it, it’s your responsibility to know the chip stacks or ask.

Example B is not an angle shoot. It’s not even poker-related. It’s just a side bet.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I had example 1 happen to me in a casino once. I was player A (kind of). My table broke and I got the last seat at another table. I brought over 3x the max buy-in ($500), so they made me pocket the extra $1000.

An hour or so later, another player from my former table came in. I am up $400 more at this point. We get all-in preflop on his first hand and I lose. I assume that he was only in for the $500, so I put that out. Dealer says that I am all-in, and the new player has me covered. He came in with $1,200! I call the floor over, and the floor sides with the villain because he sat down with the $1,200 and got dealt a hand. Floor chides the dealer for letting it happen, but says that I should have paid more attention.

This was my regular spot at a large poker room in the area. Most of the dealers and floor knew me by name. I got up from the table and never went back.

That is a strange rule that you have to go down to the table max when a table breaks. I understand if you ask for a table change or a game change having to go down, but never when a table breaks.

 

[Kyle]

That is a strange rule that you have to go down to the table max when a table breaks. I understand if you ask for a table change or a game change having to go down, but never when a table breaks.

I think they do this in the Texas Card Clubs also. But yeah a strange rule.

 

[Saoliver]

That is a strange rule that you have to go down to the table max when a table breaks. I understand if you ask for a table change or a game change having to go down, but never when a table breaks.

It was the only room in the area that I knew of with this rule.

 

[JustinInMN]

An orbit is played without Player B’s stack changing much. The two players get it all in, and when Player A loses, he calls the floor over to complain that Player B bought in for more than the max and that he should only have to pay the table max. Obviously Player A would’ve taken all Player B’s money had Player A won.

Agree with the others. It may be strong to call this an "angle," as I reserve that word more egregious acts. (False chip movements, peekong at cards, etc...) But he really isn't entitled to any recourse. He doesn't understand the importance of calling out all irregularities as they happen. If you don't say it when it happens, most will rule it didn't happen.

Player A offers and Player B accepts a prop bet during the entire session where if a J,7,or 2 come on the flop, Player A wins, otherwise Player B wins. It’s about a 55/45 edge for Player A, and Player B clearly has no clue about the odds and is just in the room to have a good time. Player A is a seasoned, good reg.

Not an angle at all. But I guess I would lend some importance to whether or not the player can quit the bet.

A lot of places don't allow such props. I got in trouble for playing red and black on flops with a player next to me.

 

[BSteck]

Player A offers and Player B accepts a prop bet during the entire session where if a J,7,or 2 come on the flop, Player A wins, otherwise Player B wins. It’s about a 55/45 edge for Player A

Can someone show their work with the maff on this. I come up with a different answer for the odds edge.

 

[74suited]

Can someone show their work with the maff on this

Total flops possible with a 52 card deck: c(52,3) = 22,100
Flops that don't contain any of the 2 cards in Js, 7s, 2s: c(40, 3) = 9880 (45%)
Flops that do: 22,100 - 9880 = 12,220 (55%)

 

[Kain8]

Fuck Player A and everything he does.

 

[QuiQuog]

The first example reminds me of the pine tar incident between the Royals and Yankees. You can look at it two ways though. One is an angle shoot, the other is a player who assumes the other guy has no more than the max buy in. In either case, I think the ruling should be that the person with the over stack doesn't gain from his overage. In the example Saoliver gives, he was right to think that he was playing into a $500 stack against his $900. I think that he got a raw deal. If he knew and was angle shooting, shame on him, but they guy who sat down with $800 over the max was also angle shooting.

 

[WedgeRock]

Situation 1 isn't an angle perbse, but it's shitty. That said, how are you going to enforce it if Player A claims that he only realized it when Player B had more than the max limit after little movement in the previous orbit?

Can someone show their work with the maff on this. I come up with a different answer for the odds edge.

I think the three cards have 55.29% equity (40/52 x 39/51 x 38/50) advantage. I'm guessing OP told the story wrong.

But it's a hustle, not an angle, as @timinater said.

 

[Gobbs]

...but they guy who sat down with $800 over the max was also angle shooting.

That’s making a very big assumption. How do you even know he was aware of the house rule?

 

[Hornet]

I think the three cards have 55.29% equity (40/52 x 39/51 x 38/50) advantage. I'm guessing OP told the story wrong.

I think that’s exactly what the OP said ... the three cards have a 55/45 edge.

 

[WedgeRock]

I think that’s exactly what the OP said ... the three cards have a 55/45 edge.

RIF.

 

[DoubleEagle]

The first example reminds me of the pine tar incident between the Royals and Yankees. You can look at it two ways though. One is an angle shoot, the other is a player who assumes the other guy has no more than the max buy in. In either case, I think the ruling should be that the person with the over stack doesn't gain from his overage. In the example Saoliver gives, he was right to think that he was playing into a $500 stack against his $900. I think that he got a raw deal. If he knew and was angle shooting, shame on him, but they guy who sat down with $800 over the max was also angle shooting.

Don’t mess with my Royals,