|
|
#152
10-25-2007, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And again, the OP ends up being a $2000 bet into a $460 pot. You really think, by the description, the player had any intent of making that size bet? [/ QUOTE ] I'm sure he would if he knew his opponent would call. [/ QUOTE ] And he only "knows" his opponent will call by knowing his buddy the Floor will back him with a horrible ruling. Get real. Do you bet $2000 by grabbing $400 first and then cutting off $100 piles? 
|
|
#153
10-25-2007, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And again, the OP ends up being a $2000 bet into a $460 pot. You really think, by the description, the player had any intent of making that size bet? [/ QUOTE ] I'm sure he would if he knew his opponent would call. [/ QUOTE ] And he only "knows" his opponent will call by knowing his buddy the Floor will back him with a horrible ruling. Get real. Do you bet $2000 by grabbing $400 first and then cutting off $100 piles? [/ QUOTE ] 'horrible' ruling? get real, this is standard. [ QUOTE ] And again, the OP ends up being a $2000 bet into a $460 pot. You really think, by the description, the player had any intent of making that size bet? [/ QUOTE ] Well when your opponent lets you know that he's calling any bet that you make, before you even make it, out of turn, the intent changes doesn't it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'd intend to go all in. Like I said, this has happened to me twice. It was an obvious angle shoot both times, trying to get a cheap showdown. If you play by the rules you don't have to worry about this kind of thing.
|
|
#154
10-25-2007, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
Someone mentioned this earlier, but Player 1 was probably only going to bet 400 based on the information that he had at the time. Then, Player 2 gave him additional information by attempting to shoot an angle and declaring a call. Player 1 now has more information about his opponents hand and can act on that information by increasing his bet size.
That information was gained in a split second and Player 1 was experienced enough to act on it.
|
|
#155
10-25-2007, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
I think original intent is beside the point. If someone acts out of turn I believe my intent can legitimately be changed given the new information, having not yet completed any action. Trying to get reads on people is part of poker although I would not necessarily advocate deliberately disguising bet size in order to do this. Whether that would be an angleshot or not is a matter of debate. People often move to get their chips in 2nd position in order to deter a bet, and I see this early call situation as usually being just a worse variety of exactly the same thing. The guy is heated, he's NO INTENTION of laying the hand down WHATEVER the bet, but he scared and DOESN'T want to put any more money in. Essentially he's trying to get the pot for cheap. This quick call on the river is almost always an angle shoot in my opinion, and worse for some players it is HABITUAL because they GET AWAY WITH IT SO OFTEN. Time for them to start ponying up the $2000 ALL IN.
|
|
#156
10-25-2007, 12:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
Someone mentioned this earlier, but Player 1 was probably only going to bet 400 based on the information that he had at the time. Then, Player 2 gave him additional information by attempting to shoot an angle and declaring a call. Player 1 now has more information about his opponents hand and can act on that information by increasing his bet size. That information was gained in a split second and Player 1 was experienced enough to act on it. [/ QUOTE ] This is correct.
|
|
#157
10-25-2007, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
It was an obvious angle shoot both times, trying to get a cheap showdown. If you play by the rules you don't have to worry about this kind of thing. [/ QUOTE ] Or if the room was willing to take action against known angle shooters this wouldn't a be a problem.
|
|
#158
10-25-2007, 07:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He calls out of turn, and whatever I bet stays in the pot. Now he gets the option to fold if I add more? Meaning cheap showdown for him if I'm bluffing. That's stupid. I edited the post above this one, so please re-read it and give me your opinion. [/ QUOTE ] It's only a cheap showdown if you don't want to increase the size of your bluff-bet. [/ QUOTE ] You don't play no-limit. I know you don't. You can't. A NL player would recognize the flaws in this statement, and know that there are equity downsides to it. If I'm bluffing, I can't just keep throwing money in the pot because in a LOT of situations it is VERY unprofitable. For instance, I bluff into a calling station to fold him off of bottom pair/high-card. He calls me prematurely, and I know he could have anything from middle pair to top pair, or even two pair, small flushes, and various other hands. His range is HUGE, and I can't just throw money out there to try and push him off of it because I'm liable to get called (this is NL and in a lot of situations you don't raise the river with what you would in limit). The thing is people catch on and start doing this crap with tons of hands they want to see a showdown with, and it just makes my decision on the river that much more difficult. In NL people value bet stronger hands generally, and bluff more. I know your intelligent enough to see what I'm getting at here. [/ QUOTE ] I think he's intelligent enough to see that you don't have a point. Please provide us with one argument why player 2 should have to call; that does not include you don't play nl
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
