View: angle shooting

[markksman]

I think your example makes the guy a major tool.

You deserve what you get if you fall for it, but it doesn't make the guy who did it any less of a tool.

That is clearly an unethical move. I don't know how you could see it otherwise. There is no need to do that. If you did not play good enough to get them to lay down before the showdown, or you did not have a winning hand, tough.

Have some respect for yourself and for other people.

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your example makes the guy a major tool.

You deserve what you get if you fall for it, but it doesn't make the guy who did it any less of a tool.

That is clearly an unethical move. I don't know how you could see it otherwise. There is no need to do that. If you did not play good enough to get them to lay down before the showdown, or you did not have a winning hand, tough.

Have some respect for yourself and for other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it comes down to respect any more than a check-raise is unfairly representing the strength of your hand.

Not that I'm entirely sold on my own argument, but i suppose what i'm getting at why isn't the check-out-of-turn-then-raise-after-he-bets any less of a "poker strategy" than a standard bluff all in? Because it's not in a 2+2 book?

Or is it just because the people who fall for it claim its not poker, in the same way people who used to (back in the day) fall for a check-raise claimed its not poker?

I don't know, I just find that so much of our law is based on people getting [censored] on and calling it unfair. Then the law changes to reflect whoever whines the loudest, regardless of whether it's really "right" to change it.

I'm in law school, and that thought paradigm i suppose has shifted to my views on poker. We're tought very early when arguing not to think in terms of right vs. wrong, but in terms of legal vs. illegal. Ethics are important, but legal arguments aren't based ethics.

[/OT rant]

[john voight]

i just wait in the parking lot w/ a 9mm

[btmagnetw]

does executing a check-raise distinguish you as a poker player? what about the "i have a full house" play? do you see a difference?

[Poopy_Pants]

[ QUOTE ]
does executing a check-raise distinguish you as a poker player? what about the "i have a full house" play? do you see a difference?

[/ QUOTE ]
wtf?

[highsteptd]

The "I have a full house" play is a blatant lie to steal someone's chips.

Of course, bluffing is a part of the game, and a bluff, by definition, is a lie. But at least when you bluff, there is something on the line, something you're giving up. If someone calls you on the bluff, you lose. As for the "I have a full house" angle shot, there's nothing on the line for the shooter, and he is just abusing the fact that action is over and players have given up. That, imo, is unethical.

[DLizzle]

even if it's part of the game and its perfectly within the rules to do it, it's still unethical and it is reasonable to look down on people who do it. To do it or not is just a personal choice, some people are willing to disregard ethics and their reputation for money. Some are not.

[highsteptd]

There's not going to be a right or wrong answer...but just because something is not against the rules does not make it ethical.

Plenty of things are illegal but ethical. Like Germans hiding the Jews from Nazi or the Rwandan hotels providing safe harbors for Tutsis.

On the flip side, there are things that are legal but unethical. Slavery at one point was legal, but clearly unethical (if you disagree, racist ban).

Just because angle shooting isn't illegal per se, doesn't mean that it's a slam-dunk ethical move.