A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling

[dankhank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This kind of commonsense fairness is fine when an honest error is made, or a one-time aberration due to frustration. But angle-shooting regulars just don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt, because if they do they will just keep taking advantage of the non-angle-shooting players again and again. I think this was handled perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real problem is that the term "angle-shooting regulars" should not be allowed to exist. If you remove the angle shooters the room will be more pleasant for everyone involved. It is generally a bad business practice to allow someone that shoots angles to chase away the honest players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've talked to several people who were in the game at the time and none of them felt like it was an 'angle-shoot' by Player 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

-the "angle-shooting regular" in this example is player 2.

-i'm not sure how anyone can say player 1 isn't shooting an angle here, when he grabs $400 in chips, and then ends up verbally declaring "$2000". the debate is whether it's an angle that the floor should allow to stand. if observing players don't even consider it an angle-shoot, then i would say the term "angle-shooting regulars" is not just a notion, but a clear reality.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry if this has been mentioned already, but how is Player 2 shooting an angle by saying call prematurely?

[/ QUOTE ]

He knows Player 1 is going to be between $100 and $400. He says "call" before all the chips are down, meaning he is going to call whatever Player 1 is going to bet. If he thinks Player 1 is weak, then Player 1 now knows there is no chance Player 2 will fold. He was probably going to bet $400, but if there was any chance he was bluffing, Player 2 gets (on long term average) a cheaper showdown, based on the probability that Player 1 might stop short and only put down $100 or $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it ensures that he wins only $100 or $200 when his opponent is bluffing and pays at least $400(possibly more as we see in this story) when his opponent is not bluffing.

Explain to me again how exactly that is beneficial.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really can't figure it out I'm not going to spend much more time on it. Quick example. You are going to bet. Your opponent wants a cheap showdown, so he starts stacking his chips. This is often a tell that says "don't try to bluff much, I'm calling."

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry if this has been mentioned already, but how is Player 2 shooting an angle by saying call prematurely?

[/ QUOTE ]

He knows Player 1 is going to be between $100 and $400. He says "call" before all the chips are down, meaning he is going to call whatever Player 1 is going to bet. If he thinks Player 1 is weak, then Player 1 now knows there is no chance Player 2 will fold. He was probably going to bet $400, but if there was any chance he was bluffing, Player 2 gets (on long term average) a cheaper showdown, based on the probability that Player 1 might stop short and only put down $100 or $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it ensures that he wins only $100 or $200 when his opponent is bluffing and pays at least $400(possibly more as we see in this story) when his opponent is not bluffing.

Explain to me again how exactly that is beneficial.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really can't figure it out I'm not going to spend much more time on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
this sort of condescension isn't helpful, especially when you've failed to explain the issue adequately in the first place.

in one respect, assani is absolutely correct that player 2's "angle" is utterly useless, and that is if player 1 has "nuts or nothing": if player 1 has a big hand (not necessarily the dead nuts, but simply a strong hand that he instantly realizes must be best when player 2 just calls) then he can extract the maximum given the "angle"; on the other hand, if player 1 is on a pure bluff then he can cut short his bet and lose the minimum. in the nuts-or-nothing scenario, the angle doesn't help player 2 AT ALL.

however, the angle CAN give player 2 an advantage, and that is when player 1 is value-betting somewhat thin: perhaps top-pair/not-great-kicker, middle-pair/top-kicker, or something like 99 on a ten-high board. in this situation, player 2's angle can often get him a cheaper showdown.

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This kind of commonsense fairness is fine when an honest error is made, or a one-time aberration due to frustration. But angle-shooting regulars just don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt, because if they do they will just keep taking advantage of the non-angle-shooting players again and again. I think this was handled perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real problem is that the term "angle-shooting regulars" should not be allowed to exist. If you remove the angle shooters the room will be more pleasant for everyone involved. It is generally a bad business practice to allow someone that shoots angles to chase away the honest players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've talked to several people who were in the game at the time and none of them felt like it was an 'angle-shoot' by Player 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

they all felt like Player 1 was going to bet $2000??

[El Diablo]

Tx,

Great post.

Seems pretty clear that Player 2 was shooting another angle, and Player 1 returned the favor. I'm with everyone else in saying "good for him."

However, flip the story to this:

Player 2 is a super nice guy, relatively new player, always gives everyone the benefit of the doubt, just an A-plus guy all around.

Player 1 is a Bellagio regular and you've seen him shoot angles from time to time.

$500 or so in the middle. Player 1 grabs a stack of $400 and cuts out three stacks of $100. As he puts down the fourth stack, while his hand is still on the chips, Player 2 says "call." Immediately, without releasing his hand from the chips, Player 1 says "Two thousand" and goes back for more chips.

Based on the ruling in your hand, Player 2 would be forced to pay up $2000, but I bet everyone would want to string up Player 1.

[MicroBob]

I really don't understand how he increase the bet-size that much having already started his act of betting.

Can I reach forward with $50 in chips and drop them one at a time until I get to $35 or $40 and then say, "$2000" and reach back for the rest of my bet?

I thought if I was going to bet $2000 I either needed to say so before I started the physical motion forward OR I needed to have that many chips with me in my motion forward because I'm not allowed to go back to my stack.

Someone clarify this aspect of it for me please. I'm not talking at all about someone interrupting in the middle and saying "call."
I'm just talking about holding $50 of chips in your hand when you reach forward, cutting out a few of those chips, and then saying "$2000"

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand how he increase the bet-size that much having already started his act of betting.

Can I reach forward with $50 in chips and drop them one at a time until I get to $35 or $40 and then say, "$2000" and reach back for the rest of my bet?

I thought if I was going to bet $2000 I either needed to say so before I started the physical motion forward OR I needed to have that many chips with me in my motion forward because I'm not allowed to go back to my stack.

Someone clarify this aspect of it for me please. I'm not talking at all about someone interrupting in the middle and saying "call."
I'm just talking about holding $50 of chips in your hand when you reach forward, cutting out a few of those chips, and then saying "$2000"

[/ QUOTE ]
your question was addressed earlier in the thread, don't know how you missed it. the answer is that it appears to be perfectly fine in the bellagio 10-20 game:

"quite often a player will grab a stack of chips, start to cut them past the betting line, then realize that they didn't grab as many chips as they wanted to bet, and declare an amount before they finish cutting.

this practice has always been acceptable in this game as far as i've seen"

i added that i've never seen such a large verbal increase as was described in the op, but in principle i suppose there's really no difference between 400-->600 and 400-->2k.

[AngusThermopyle]

So, if it is a "legal" bet of $2000, shouldn't the rule about "calling when there is a clear misunderstanding of the size of the bet" take effect?

Second player 'called' when it looked like a $400 bet.

400->600 is not much of a misunderstanding.
400->2000 is.

[jsmith5]

[ QUOTE ]


Can I reach forward with $50 in chips and drop them one at a time until I get to $35 or $40 and then say, "$2000" and reach back for the rest of my bet?

I'm just talking about holding $50 of chips in your hand when you reach forward, cutting out a few of those chips, and then saying "$2000"

[/ QUOTE ]

OP explained that as long as it's in the "cutting chips" motion it's ok to announce and the verbal is binding. If you drop a chip/chips out of your hand and they hit the felt before you say anything, that chip/chips stand as the bet.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if it is a "legal" bet of $2000, shouldn't the rule about "calling when there is a clear misunderstanding of the size of the bet" take effect?

Second player 'called' when it looked like a $400 bet.

400->600 is not much of a misunderstanding.
400->2000 is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.