Angle shoot, thoughts? (2 Viewers)

[Mojo1312]

This is the part on which we agree, player three was not harmed and if anything stood to benefit greatly if there was an actual exposure.

But I say it again, the only reason we know player two was not harmed is because we know player one had the nuts. In any other circumstance there is potential for harming player two and that warrants a warning, at least imo.

We do know, as did player two, which makes his actions meaningless. There could not have been any other outcome except a split pot.

Frankly, I have found myself in the same situation, minus his witty declaration, which isn't in violation of the rules. Both times I knew I had the hand, so I certainly wasn't trying to impact the integrity of the game in any way, shape or form.

We are giving the benefit of doubt to player three and are assuming the worst about player one. Scapegoating isn't against the rules, but if this is the case, then we are wrongly holding player one accountable for influencing a hand.

 

[BGinGA]

Consider this scenario:

3 live hands: Player 1 = 10k, Player 2 = 8k, Player 3 = 5K.
River card makes three diamonds under 10 on the non-paired board.
Player 1 moves all-in.
Player 2 tanks, eventually calls.
Player 1 starts to reveal his cards, gets stopped before anything shows, and sheepishly says, "Sorry, I always get excited with the nuts."
Player 3 tanks, eventually folds.

Player A turns over JT of diamonds for the flush.
Player B turns over A2 of diamonds for the nut flush.
Player C reveals he folded a Q-high flush because he thought Player A had the nuts, but would have called if nothing had been said.

Just like the previous scenario, Player A talked about his holdings while there was still action in a three-way pot. And just like the previous scenario, he lied about his hand. And, just like the previous scenario, his improper action influenced the decision of a player. And it impacted Player 2 big-time, costing him 5K and a bust-out of Player C.

And that's why it's improper, and against the rules. Players cannot attempt to influence action in a multi-way pot with their actions or speech, because of the potential harm to other players.

 

[Gobbs]

Shenanigans!
You could clear everything up by citing what rule(s) player one violated.

If using TDA rules, he clearly violates rule 67 regarding disclosure. He discussed the contents of his hand - that's not allowed. It's that simple. The fact that he was wrong, right, telling the truth, lying, trying to influence, not trying to influence, etc. doesn't matter. He discussed the contents of his hand while it was live. In addition, by the timing of him saying "I was going to show a losing hand", he is not protecting Player 2 who made the decision with less information than Player 3 now has.

67: No Disclosure
Players must protect other players in the tournament at all times. Therefore players, whether in the
hand or not, must not:
1. Discuss contents of live or mucked hands,
2. Advise or criticize play at any time,
3. Read a hand that hasn't been tabled.
One-player-to-a-hand is in effect. Among other things, this rule prohibits showing a hand to or discussing strategy with another player, advisor, or spectator.

If using RRoP he violates this rule: Showing cards from a live hand during the action injures the rights of other players still competing in an event, who wish to see contestants eliminated. A player may not show any cards during a deal (unless the event has only two remaining players). If a player deliberately shows a card, the player may be penalized (but his hand will not be ruled dead). Verbally stating one’s hand during the play may be penalized.

One could argue that he didn't discuss his hand (although, it would be a pretty hollow argument). So, he also violated this rule: The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator ... Making statements or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play, whether or not the offender is involved in the pot. Obviously, discussing your hand before action is complete can unfairly influence the course of play, especially when done after one player acts and another is yet to act.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I think this falls into the 'slightly bad etiquette' category but doesn't qualify as an angle shoot which is basically cheating.

If it were my game, I'd let it go. It's kind of an etiquette breach to talk about your hand in a multi-way showdown when there's still action pending (a rule I've never agreed with), but aside from that, your guy just used table talk and a little gamesmanship to induce a bad call from his opponent.

Poker is about getting your opponent to take the least optimal course of action.

 

[Mojo1312]

I think this falls into the 'slightly bad etiquette' category but doesn't qualify as an angle shoot which is basically cheating.

If it were my game, I'd let it go. It's kind of an etiquette breach to talk about your hand in a multi-way showdown when there's still action pending (a rule I've never agreed with), but aside from that, your guy just used table talk and a little gamesmanship to induce a bad call from his opponent.

Poker is about getting your opponent to take the least optimal course of action.

My sentiments exactly. There was no substantive action left. Player three had a binary choice.

Then I pulled up the 2017 TDA rules and noticed the following change of wording from 2016 under etiquette & penalties:

68: No Disclosure

Players must protect other players in the tournament at all times. Therefore players, whether in the hand or not, must not:

1. Discuss (in place of reveal) contents of non-tabled live or mucked hands.

So basically, the rules have clearly shifted in this respect and we are on the losing side of the argument. I was waiting for someone to point out how player one's remark gave him a 3 to 1 chip advantage over the other players at the table. No one made that case. The focus was entirely on the bad player and how his action (allegedly influenced by player 1) could have potentially impacted the outcome for player two.

 

[Moxie Mike]

My sentiments exactly. There was no substantive action left. Player three had a binary choice.

Then I pulled up the 2017 TDA rules and noticed the following change of wording from 2016 under etiquette & penalties:

68: No Disclosure

Yeah man - if those are the rules by which the tournament is governed then this could be a violation. I think rules like this are against the spirit of the contest - what makes poker such a great game is that it's so much more than a card catching contest - it's mental warfare.

That said, what the villian said according to the OP was "I was going to show a losing hand". I'm not sure this qualifies as discussing his hand - how could he know he he didn't have a winning hand?

Not to hijack, but recall a hand from a long time ago where a first-to-show player at showdown announced 'full-house' on an unpaired board. Upon hearing this, his opponent swiftly flung his cards into the muck. A couple seconds later as player 1 raked his pot (with a smirk), an uninvolved player in the hand pointed out that a full-house wasn't possible. After some debate (and anger), it was decided that the cards speak, and since player 2 mucked...

The reason I bring this up is because this discussion and that situation have similarities. So I'm going to stick with my opinion that this a breach of etiquette and maybe a little borderline but not an outright rules violation.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Not to hijack, but recall a hand from a long time ago where a first-to-show player at showdown announced 'full-house' on an unpaired board. Upon hearing this, his opponent swiftly flung his cards into the muck. A couple seconds later as player 1 raked his pot (with a smirk), an uninvolved player in the hand pointed out that a full-house wasn't possible. After some debate (and anger), it was decided that the cards speak, and since player 2 mucked...

This situation is an example of why this rule was created by the TDA:

14: Live Cards at Showdown

Discarding non-tabled cards face down does not automatically kill them; a player may change her mind and table her cards if they remain 100% identifiable and retrievable. Cards are killed by the dealer when pushed into the muck or otherwise rendered irretrievable and unidentifiable.

 

[Moxie Mike]

This situation is an example of why this rule was created by the TDA:

14: Live Cards at Showdown

Discarding non-tabled cards face down does not automatically kill them; a player may change her mind and table her cards if they remain 100% identifiable and retrievable. Cards are killed by the dealer when pushed into the muck or otherwise rendered irretrievable and unidentifiable.

In this situation, the mucked cards went into the pile (player 2 was the dealer I think) - but it's a good rule in general. It's also worth noting player 1 in this situation wasn't shooting an angle... he was just being facetious. He was a regular in the game and he would routinely say things like 'pocket aces again?' as he would much his preflop unplayables. Player 2 didn't know him very well and (obviously) wasn't a skillful player.

 

[Gobbs]

If it were my game, I'd let it go. It's kind of an etiquette breach to talk about your hand in a multi-way showdown when there's still action pending (a rule I've never agreed with), but aside from that, your guy just used table talk and a little gamesmanship ...

If “etiquette breach” means blatant violation of rules, then yes.

You can adjust your home game rules any way you like, but simply because you disagree with a rule doesn’t change the severity of the violation in other people’s games.

 

[Moxie Mike]

If “etiquette breach” means blatant violation of rules, then yes.

You can adjust your home game rules any way you like, but simply because you disagree with a rule doesn’t change the severity of the violation in other people’s games.

The degree to which this is flagrant is subjective. My opinion is that this situation - while one that presents as a clear violation of the rule as stated - is on the lower end of the spectrum. Feel free to disagree - it's just one person's opinion

 

[Gobbs]

The degree to which this is flagrant is subjective. My opinion is that this situation - while one that presents as a clear violation of the rule as stated - is on the lower end of the spectrum. Feel free to disagree - it's just one person's opinion

I don’t disagree. While I think it’s a clear and flagrant violation, it is only worthy of a warning on the first offense and doesn’t rise to the level of more serious violations.

 

[CamoCladWarrior]

I might say something lol. Pretty slimmy

 

[Anthony Martino]

I think in most poker rooms it's a warning and he wins the pot. It may also incur an "x" round penalty where they are forced to sit out a certain amount of hands.

If I'm hosting, meh, I enjoy banter and the psychological aspect of the game so I approve of such shenanigans. If everyone just sat there with headphones, a backpack with their capri sun and gogurt and a hoody never interacting because of oppressive rules the game wouldn't be much fun imho.

 

[Mojo1312]

I might say something lol. Pretty slimmy

Slimmy?? As in Slim Shady?

 

[CamoCladWarrior]

Yes very slim shady like lol

 

[Gobbs]

... I enjoy banter and the psychological aspect of the game so I approve of such shenanigans. If everyone just sat there with headphones, a backpack with their capri sun and gogurt and a hoody never interacting because of oppressive rules the game wouldn't be much fun imho.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. There can be a very good psychological aspect of the game, banter, etc. without breaking rules. The rule certainly doesn't mean players have to be robots, either. The rule is enforced very well in our games (well, it used to be...now it doesn't need to be because players know) and I've never eaten gogurt in my life.

 

[Mojo1312]

Interesting thread.

Are everyone's views the same?

 

[JustinInMN]

Interesting thread.

Are everyone's views the same?

Yup !

 

[Mojo1312]

Saw this thread and immediately thought of Kassouf.

 

[BGinGA]

Saw mention of Kassouf and immediately barfed. Fuck that asshole.