Angleshoot

[simo_8ball 0]

Full Tilt Poker Game #2957162563: Table Date (deep 6) - $0.40/$0.80 - No Limit Hold'em - 18:39:01 ET - 2007/07/15Seat 1: dazor23 ($215.15)Seat 2: JJProdigys Gran ($160)Seat 3: CashGameDonk ($160)Seat 4: Titleist432 ($150.60)Seat 5: bantam222 ($436.15)Seat 6: The 559 Guy ($76.10)JJProdigys Gran posts the small blind of $0.40CashGameDonk posts the big blind of $0.80The button is in seat #1*** HOLE CARDS ***Dealt to JJProdigys Gran [As Kc]Titleist432 foldsbantam222: title you have only play like 400 hadns with me thats not alotTitleist432 adds $9.40bantam222 raises to $2.80The 559 Guy calls $2.80dazor23 foldsJJProdigys Gran raises to $12Titleist432: other table degens?CashGameDonk has 15 seconds left to actCashGameDonk raises to $55bantam222 foldsThe 559 Guy foldsCashGameDonk: crapJJProdigys Gran has 15 seconds left to actbantam222: and u are down $315CashGameDonk: that was misclickCashGameDonk: let me just have this potCashGameDonk: ill give u ur 12Titleist432: move inJJProdigys Gran adds $12JJProdigys Gran foldsUncalled bet of $43 returned to CashGameDonkCashGameDonk mucksCashGameDonk wins the pot ($29.60)

[zimmer4141 0]

Something like this happened to me the other day.I have AK, big pot flop was KQx. I bet, 2 callers. Turn 9, Shorty openshoves for like $56, I call, other guy minraises, immediately says "$(*$ Misclick!"I fold, he turns up JT for the nuts. The worst thing is that he was a 2/4NL regular and not just some random donk.

[Bizzle 0]

The bet amount makes this an easy fold. How the hell would you misclick 55 into your bet box and then misclick the button?Zimmer's is tougher because of the minraise.

[simo_8ball 0]

I'm more interested in whether it is grounds for being reported.

[Mercury69 3]

I got played like this in a tourney once. I think I had a flush or something, board had paired, when a 4th of the suit came on the river, my remaining opponent says "Oh, crap. Not a good card" or something like that and probe bets. I had 2nd nut flush or I might have boated, i don't recall, but I shoved over top of him. He insta-called with quads and eliminated me.Frankly, although I don't engage in this BS myself (I think it's closer to cheating than not), I still think I'll need to learn to process it better, as a lot of people do it.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Yeah. Not an "angle shot", but still annoying as hell. No different than any other table talk to get you to drop your guard.

[CrazyJoe 0]

I got played like this in a tourney once. I think I had a flush or something, board had paired, when a 4th of the suit came on the river, my remaining opponent says "Oh, crap. Not a good card" or something like that and probe bets. I had 2nd nut flush or I might have boated, i don't recall, but I shoved over top of him. He insta-called with quads and eliminated me.Frankly, although I don't engage in this BS myself (I think it's closer to cheating than not), I still think I'll need to learn to process it better, as a lot of people do it.

not even in the same ballpark

[Mercury69 3]

not even in the same ballpark

I dunno. Maybe we see things differently, but the fact is the guy purposely SAID something to influence the hand. My mistake was to actually pay more attention to what he said than to pay attention to the hand itself and how it had played out. I felt he said what he did to represent weakness when, if fact, it was rather ambiguous and could have meant strength and he was complaining he wouldn't get any action.Personally, my stance is that people in the hand should not speak unless spoken to by the person on whom the action is. The person whose turn it is to bet may speak and may solicit questions, similar to DN's style. When the action is not on you and you start yapping, you should have your teeth knocked out.

[CrazyJoe 0]

I dunno. Maybe we see things differently, but the fact is the guy purposely SAID something to influence the hand. My mistake was to actually pay more attention to what he said than to pay attention to the hand itself and how it had played out. I felt he said what he did to represent weakness when, if fact, it was rather ambiguous and could have meant strength and he was complaining he wouldn't get any action.Personally, my stance is that people in the hand should not speak unless spoken to by the person on whom the action is. The person whose turn it is to bet may speak and may solicit questions, similar to DN's style. When the action is not on you and you start yapping, you should have your teeth knocked out.

if a pot is heads up in a cash game you should be allowed to say pretty much whatever you want. Online saying OH CRAP MISCLICK is different I think, maybe its just my opinion. That being said if you reraise someone who says they misclicked you got it coming to you.OP, did he ship or give back the $12? he shouldve shipped 17.60 i think, he shouldnt get the profit

[Mercury69 3]

if a pot is heads up in a cash game you should be allowed to say pretty much whatever you want. Online saying OH CRAP MISCLICK is different I think, maybe its just my opinion. That being said if you reraise someone who says they misclicked you got it coming to you.OP, did he ship or give back the $12? he shouldve shipped 17.60 i think, he shouldnt get the profit

There's certainly a difference between online and live. All I'm saying is that there should be some form of etiquette with regard to when people talk and what they say. I realise that probably won't happen and I'm being an idealistic huggy bear, but that's just me.

[Jennings7 0]

I dunno. Maybe we see things differently, but the fact is the guy purposely SAID something to influence the hand. My mistake was to actually pay more attention to what he said than to pay attention to the hand itself and how it had played out. I felt he said what he did to represent weakness when, if fact, it was rather ambiguous and could have meant strength and he was complaining he wouldn't get any action.Personally, my stance is that people in the hand should not speak unless spoken to by the person on whom the action is. The person whose turn it is to bet may speak and may solicit questions, similar to DN's style. When the action is not on you and you start yapping, you should have your teeth knocked out.

Thats poker pal. What he did is not only within the rules, but very smart actually. You don't think DN would say something like that?

[RyanPriceDotCA 0]

Personally, my stance is that people in the hand should not speak unless spoken to by the person on whom the action is. The person whose turn it is to bet may speak and may solicit questions, similar to DN's style. When the action is not on you and you start yapping, you should have your teeth knocked out.

So you think Nguyen was wrong saying "You call here and its all over baby"?I think the table talk is a part of the game. You have to learn to deal with it.

[Mercury69 3]

Thats poker pal. What he did is not only within the rules, but very smart actually. You don't think DN would say something like that?

No, I don't.

So you think Nguyen was wrong saying "You call here and its all over baby"?I think the table talk is a part of the game. You have to learn to deal with it.

Yes, I know. Doesn't mean I have to like it, though.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I dunno. Maybe we see things differently, but the fact is the guy purposely SAID something to influence the hand. My mistake was to actually pay more attention to what he said than to pay attention to the hand itself and how it had played out. I felt he said what he did to represent weakness when, if fact, it was rather ambiguous and could have meant strength and he was complaining he wouldn't get any action.Personally, my stance is that people in the hand should not speak unless spoken to by the person on whom the action is. The person whose turn it is to bet may speak and may solicit questions, similar to DN's style. When the action is not on you and you start yapping, you should have your teeth knocked out.

That is silly.Speak only when spoken to? You gotta be kidding me. If I am in a hand I may not be able to speculate, but speak only if spoken to? You need to learn to focus a little there, Francis.

[simo_8ball 0]

No, Hero did not get his $12 back (it was a friend's hand and he was asking me if what villain did was reportable).I said it probably wasn't strictly against the rules, and it reminded me somewhat of this:http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthre...6641&page=0

I have no idea if any of this is true or not or if it's only partly accurate. Found it to be an interesting story.It was told to me by some guy at the table at 2/5 NL in Tunica. He had supposedly just come back from a trip to LA/LV.Seemed a decent player as best I could tell. Might be a 2+2'er for all I know.Perhaps somebody can verify the story, clarify some of the stuff I might have gotten wrong, or tell me that this story is total B.S. for whatever reason.Here's his story he was telling the table:He's rail-birding 100/200 NL at the Commerce (didn't know they spread THAT high. He said it was because of the tourneys they were running).Some guy bets $2k on the river. 20 chips of $100.Phil Laak reaches to a stack at the back of his chips and grabs 20 chips of $5k each.After pretending like he was 'calling' the 20 chips bet the dealer tells him that Laak just bet $100k.Laak says that he only meant to call $2k and that it was an accident. Dealer won't let him take his bet back because his chips were already out there and he never said "call."The other guy thinks it over and calls with a fairly inferior hand and is all-in for his remaining $70k.Phil Laak turns over the nuts (had AJ for broadway or something).I've never played in Calif.Evidently, the $100 chips look nothing like the $5k chips.The $5k chips are also supposed to be a little bit larger.And, since he had the nuts, there was pretty much no chance that Laak would only call in that spot anyway so there is pretty much a 0% chance that Laak didn't know that he was really betting $100k.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

No, Hero did not get his $12 back (it was a friend's hand and he was asking me if what villain did was reportable).

Seems about as smart as giving a stake to someone you don't know and then being shocked when you never see your money back. If you're gonna fall for stuff like that, you are a fish that deserves to be fried.

[simo_8ball 0]

Seems about as smart as giving a stake to someone you don't know and then being shocked when you never see your money back. If you're gonna fall for stuff like that, you are a fish that deserves to be fried.

He didn't expect to get it back, and was 99.9% sure it was an angleshoot with AA. If he thought villain actually misclicked he'd have instashoved. He just wondered if what he said was against the rules.

[James D 0]

I don't think you have grounds to report him, online.If they start coming down on this, they'd have to sanction everybody who says 'call, call!!', or 'fold, I'll show', which happen ALL the time.Just part of the psychology of the game, imo. They have a chat box... it therefore will be used sometimes to get people to do things they don't wanna do. It's not collusion (which should be punishable), it's just mind games.You could try it though, if you want, see what happens. I predict their response would be vague and unhelpful though, and probably include something to do with turning off player chat.

[No_Neck 0]

Didn't PMjackson have a issue like this with a heads up SNG and the guy wanted to chop it and he said in the chatbox that he would ship back half the money but never did. So he emailed Pokerstars and they said that any agreements made in the chat box were binding?

[BDPoolie 0]

Didn't PMjackson have a issue like this with a heads up SNG and the guy wanted to chop it and he said in the chatbox that he would ship back half the money but never did. So he emailed Pokerstars and they said that any agreements made in the chat box were binding?

The guy was an idiot then. A true "chop" should be handled by PokerStars staff, not just an agreement made between two players.

[CrazyJoe 0]

No, Hero did not get his $12 back (it was a friend's hand and he was asking me if what villain did was reportable).I said it probably wasn't strictly against the rules, and it reminded me somewhat of this:http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthre...6641&page=0

Laak has said that he did it in a joking matter and they player knew that he meant to raise, says it was blatantly a joke that he meant to "call"

[Mercury69 3]

That is silly.Speak only when spoken to? You gotta be kidding me. If I am in a hand I may not be able to speculate, but speak only if spoken to? You need to learn to focus a little there, Francis.

You don't have to take it so literally. Chatting is fine, etc. I'll be a little more clear about what I mean:Say you are in a hand at a 9 player table. Say it's your turn to bet. the turn just dropped and made things messy. You need to recall how the betting went, check your position, count your outs, put your opponent on a range, calclate his outs, factor in his/her history at the table and define any number of other features of this situation. Do you REALLY want some jackass yapping AT YOU while it's your turn to bet? Do ya? And try and sift through the disinformation and other BS spewing from the loudmouth? Along with all the other chatter and noise that's going on? No. I thought not. All i'm talking about is having a little respect for your opponent and giving them some space and time to think about their situation.I'm talking about people who won't shut up, not people who say one or two relatively innocuous things.

[rogerwilco 0]

Thats poker pal. What he did is not only within the rules, but very smart actually. You don't think DN would say something like that?

I disagree on the "smart" and "DN would do it" part. I think it is pretty stupid because it gives away information and bad style too - I can't see Daniel doing something like that.I don't think it is against the rules though.

[GoCryWolfe 0]

The guy was an idiot then. A true "chop" should be handled by PokerStars staff, not just an agreement made between two players.

The same result happened, PokerStars enforced the agreement.... just like the post you quoted said.

[vbnautilus 48]

I think the posts about table talk are missing the point of the OP. The way I see it, both in the Phil Laak case and the purported misclick the villain is trying to nullify the intent of his bet by pretending there was an error in its implementation. A clear-cut angle shoot in my opinion. Whether there is a specificrule online to prevent this, I doubt, but I would think it's worth a report -- what has he got to lose?