clearly unethical, but should I complain?

[ArtVandelay]

The following happened to me years ago. Was I reasonable?

Playing 5/5 PLH in an NYC club (ah, those were the days), it was heads-up on the river and I had position. "Joe" checked, and I bet pot. Joe thought a long time, during which he counted out the chips to call. He then took the chips in his hands and moved them forward (past his cards) but quickly took them back. I, being a novice, jerked my hands towards my cards because I was excited to flip them over (i.e. fairly certain I had the best hand). He noticed this and prompty tossed his cards towards the dealer. I stopped the dealer from mucking the cards and called for the floor, because I believed moving chips past his cards was binding action. The floor ruled in my favor (we kept both hands face down the whole time), and Joe put in the chips to call. I showed my hand and it was good. Should I have called the floor or not said anything?

Some facts which may or may not be relevant:
- I disliked Joe; he was very unpleasant to be around and was an angle-shooter.
- Joe was a terrible player, one of the bigger donators in the game.
- The amount of money I was "owed" was significant to me at the time.

[tom10167]

Umm...... this is 100% a move, and he was 100% angle shooting.

[James Boston]

I may be reading this wrong so correct me if I am. This is the sequence of events?

1) Joe moved chips forward
2) Joe moved chips back all in one motion
3) You reach for cards to table the hand, but don't table it.
4) Joe then mucks
5) Only after Joe mucks do you call the floor

If you want to call the floor to make his chip motion a binding action, you should have said something when he moved the chips, not after he mucked. Waiting until he has mucked his cards now gives you unfair information (it's now much more likely you have the better hand considering he chose to fold), and requesting that his call becomes binding is somewhat of an angle on your part, IMO.

[ArtVandelay]

[ QUOTE ]
I may be reading this wrong so correct me if I am. This is the sequence of events?

1) Joe moved chips forward
2) Joe moved chips back all in one motion
3) You reach for cards to table the hand, but don't table it.
4) Joe then mucks
5) Only after Joe mucks do you call the floor

If you want to call the floor to make his chip motion a binding action, you should have said something when he moved the chips, not after he mucked. Waiting until he has mucked his cards now gives you unfair information (it's now much more likely you have the better hand considering he chose to fold), and requesting that his call becomes binding is somewhat of an angle on your part, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's an interesting point. I sort of remember events 1-4 happening is less than a second, so I didn't have an opportunity to call the floor until he had already mucked, but I could easily be remebering wrong. But I think that's mostly irrelevant.

Suppose it's heads up no limit and someone bets by putting out 4 collections of chips in succession. Technically, you can call string and have only the first collection count. Is it a move to intentionally not call it if you intended to come over the top? This is maybe a bad example, because string is usually a mistake and not a move. But suppose in the hand I had air and actually wanted him to fold? Would it have been a move to jerk my hand consciously? Whether or not I should, why would I ever force him to call if I don't want him to.

To my way of thinking, it's like football. Is it unethical to accept or decline a penalty based on strategic considerations? Certainly not in the ethics of that game, and I don't think poker should be any different.

I understand your point that delaying the decision is perhaps taking unfair advantage of the rules, but that I think is much more of a gray area.

[James Boston]

Poker is a game of where someone else's mistakes are what make you money. Whether the mistake is cold-calling a raise in EP with 72o, or moving to call a bet to quickly after it looks like someone "might" bet thus giving that person reason to not bet because you gave your hand away. There's alot of gray area, but I don't think you're being unethical until you knowingly exploit the rules.

I obviously wasn't present for the event you've described. But if you had an opportunity to request that his action be binding and didn't take it, and then chose to take it only after you knew he didn't want to call, that sounds a little shady. Of course, "Joe" could also be making a move by trying to see your reaction to his "bet."

[ArtVandelay]

The fact that he is folding is not useful information; I could only enforce the binding action if he decided to fold, so my whole decision of whether or not to call the floor is based on the assumption that he does want to fold. If he decides to call anyway, then there's no reason to waste the floor's time. Arguably, waiting to call is in fact better because it has no strategic significance and saves time in some situations.

[Rottersod]

Interesting responses so far. The one's who think you should have called the floor after he pushed the chips forward but before he mucked must only play online because they don't understand how quickly that sequence takes. There wouldn't be any way you could have called out between the time you eagerly went to turn over your cards and when he went to muck. My feeling is that if you knew you had the best hand then you call the floor and let him decide. If you are unsure that your hand is the best then you let him get away with it. He was obviously trying to get information from you (and he succeeded).