View: angle shooting

[Gamblor]

First: I am the farthest thing from an angle shooter (as far as I know). I generally play ABC when it comes to anything but the cards and my action. I sit, i play the hands i'm dealt, make reads, and bet/raise/fold/check/whatever else you can do.

The point: Why are angle-shooters looked down on? Isn't angle shooting part of poker? Isn't that the point? To hustle and not be outhustled?

It's up to the players to a) take whatever shots they can get, and b) not let anyone take angles against them.

The gist: The guy who says full house, and you muck, and then shows king high, has deservedly won the hand because he convinced you to be an idiot and muck your cards before showing them. He is not an unethical player.

Anyone think otherwise?

Does this qualify as a "View" on poker or should this be elsewhere?

[corpseartist]

This qualifies as a view in my opinion. I also agree with everything you said. I play poker to make as much money as I can. That means I will do whatever it takes to get your money within the rules of the game. There is no rule saying I cant tell you I filled up on the river.

You said it best, hustle or get hustled. I don't think too many people look down on angle shooting around here, I remember one Townsend blog where he wrote something similar to "I always wanted to try a fake misclick on Ivey and today I did."

[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

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are angle-shooters looked down on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly because there are a lot of us who would like to play live poker without having to cut every bet correctly, make sure there is never any ambiguity about our action, check that no one's hiding their cards behind their chips, sit there twiddling our thumbs for 10 minutes during an argument arising from some pathetic angle, and so on and so on. But we have to do these things because live games are full of pathetic [censored] who can't beat them but still want to play, and instead of sucking up their losses or dropping down like men they just try to weasel their way around it.

Or we can just play on the Internet, yay !

[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?

[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.

[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.