[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
So was Robert Williamson really scamming or just did'nt hear zee?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not hearing Zee isn't an angle-shoot. Telling the floor that you already exposed your hand when you actually had not *is*. In fact, it is more dishonest than just an angle shoot. The only way that Williamson doesn't have to put chips in the pot is if the action went like this:

1) ZeeJustin doesn't call out "bet"
2) Williamson exposes hand BEFORE
3) Justin now says that he said "bet"

Apparently a number of people at the table agree that #1 is not met -- Justin did say "bet." In my opinion, if the floor believes that he said "bet", Williamson should have to pay regardless of the truth of #2.

Justin alleged that #2 didn't happen until after #3 and further that Williamson lied about the sequence of events to the floor. If that is true, Williamson was seriously out of line.

If Williamson didn't lie about #2, then he isn't really shooting an angle so much as just got a lucky floor ruling. It could be that Justin said #3 at about the same time as Williamson rolled his cards and then it isn't a lie, but just a debate about the facts. If Williamson lied about #2, he's a jerk.

Based on Daniel's comment, it looks like the first floor ruled in Justin's favor and the second floor ruled the other way. Welcome to live poker.