Would this be angle shooting or cheating?

[kailua]

Executed intentionally, scenario two is not only cheating but an attempt to literally commit theft.

Just as if a player to your side attempted unsuccessfully to snag a stack of your checks while you were preoccupied and then tried to excuse his action by claiming he mistakenly thought they were his.

Forget angles and work on making correct plays.

[pococurante]

Cmon, someone answer scenario 1, I'm curious about it. Seems like people aren't understanding it completely (player C? there are only two players).

Player1 bets, Player2 is thinking, Player1 says "all in". If Player2 raises, is Player1 forced to go all in?

Or is it not verbally binding because he acted out of turn, and then there was a raise?

[choogle]

[ QUOTE ]
Cmon, someone answer scenario 1, I'm curious about it. Seems like people aren't understanding it completely (player C? there are only two players).

Player1 bets, Player2 is thinking, Player1 says "all in". If Player2 raises, is Player1 forced to go all in?

Or is it not verbally binding because he acted out of turn, and then there was a raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

In AC rooms that I've played in it is verbally binding I believe if Player2 just calls then Player1 must go all-in. Therefore I guess player2 can reverse-angle shoot if he has a great hand then he can just call, forcing Player1 to go all-in and then calling that.

[DrewOnTilt]

where I play:

#1 the allin is binding
#2 your hand is dead and you lose the pot

[PAUL-IN]

There's a name for angle #2, and it's kneecapping, and yes, it's unethical. Ethics aside however, that move won't work against anyone but real bad and novice players.

#1 is only slightly less dirty. like the first responder said, just play some goddamned poker.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
Cmon, someone answer scenario 1, I'm curious about it. Seems like people aren't understanding it completely (player C? there are only two players).

Player1 bets, Player2 is thinking, Player1 says "all in". If Player2 raises, is Player1 forced to go all in?

Or is it not verbally binding because he acted out of turn, and then there was a raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did respond. Those other examples were to help explain it. It's binding, that player will be all in.

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]
Both are CHEATING, not angles...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that if the rule says "intentionally miscalling your hand" then #2 is cheating. But since you can't prove intentions, #2 is better classified as an angle shoot. The angler can always claim he misread his hand.

[MrFizzbin]

Lets see, you have 1000+ posts on 2+2 and you're asking this question as if someone here would say "Yeah thats ok".... Hmmmm.... Seriously ?

I'm thinking Ban.....

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
But since you can't prove intentions, #2 is better classified as an angle shoot.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can prove intnet sufficiently to establish criminal convictions I believe we can surely prove them sufficiently to establish cheating in a poker game.

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But since you can't prove intentions, #2 is better classified as an angle shoot.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can prove intnet sufficiently to establish criminal convictions I believe we can surely prove them sufficiently to establish cheating in a poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

-if we had a poker system comprable to criminal courts.