This isn't an angle shoot. Krish gave him a free roll for like $350k or whatever the river bet was. Because Krish exposed his cards too, the kid could make a perfect decision. It's really silly to call this an angle.
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Hand Analysis - $100/$200/$400 NLHE Home Game (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Windwalker
- Start date
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Maybe it's allowed in the game (on an ad hoc basis - even worse), but Krish specifically targeted a player because of his inexperience. He's not a rube who fell off the back of a turnip truck, but you knew you could gain the information you didn't yet have by exploiting him. Krish hadn't decided his action yet and acknowledged he most likely would have folded if the other player didn't take his offer.
I think targeting a new player is neither good for the game, nor decent/honorable. But that's a different discussion from whether it's allowed in this home game.
Krish could have called, like Laliberte did and then before his opponent's cards were exposed, Krish could've have offered him his river bet back and taken what's in the middle. He didn't. He was still deciding his action. Not eerily similar at all. In fact, fundamentally different.
So congrats to you, Krish, on a well-played hand, even if it meant exploiting the inexperience of a new player to make your decision and win the pot.
I don’t think it’s silly at all. It’s certainly debatable. The action was on Krish after an all in. Under normal poker rules, Krish had two choices. Call or fold. Instead, Krish decided to turn the tables on villain and try to force an action or at least get some information. He proposed a deal to the kid, and once the guy asked the host whether that deal was binding/enforceable, his bluff was over. Yes, a mitigating factor is that Krish showed the kid his hand, but I’m never saying a word if I’m villain in that scenario, whether I’m bluffing or not.
Apparently these things are acceptable in this game, and I likely wouldn’t play in it.
Bottom line, some people think Krish was giving the kid a break. That’s certainly possible, but I think there’s a good chance Krish did it for his own advantage. He was able to win the pot without risking his stack. Not allowed in many houses, but apparently it was in this one. Call it whatever you want.
I don’t care one way or the other about the angle, and I do find the hand entertaining. I get that at that level, large home game, drinks flying, next level degen gambling - no one cares.
Advantage to V - seeing hero’s hand and getting to make a decision. Great if he is behind.
Advantage to H (the possible angle)- if V after seeing the hand and then turns down the offer, the all in remains. H would likely fold because of the V’s decision to not accept the offer.
If it mattered. If H called and then posed that offer no one would have said anything.
Advantage to V - seeing hero’s hand and getting to make a decision. Great if he is behind.
Advantage to H (the possible angle)- if V after seeing the hand and then turns down the offer, the all in remains. H would likely fold because of the V’s decision to not accept the offer.
If it mattered. If H called and then posed that offer no one would have said anything.
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
I call.....AND I raise motherfuckers!
TheDuke
Full House
Lol. Silly? I'm sure you'd have a different take if you were on the receiving end.
Granted, OP has noted this is a regular part of this particular game afterwards (as usual). So it was actually fair play... for this particular situation.
But in a typical hand of poker, the kid already acted and action wasn't on him. So this idea he had perfect info to make a decision is dumb. It was OP who had to make a decision. He admitted he was ready to fold if the kid reacted differently. This was an exploit.
I've played in games where speech play is encouraged and a major part of the game. But everyone knows it's angling and no one is under the delusion it's anything but angling.
It's like you guys live in OP's reality distortion field.
I see your point and agree it's debatable. It's certainly the kind of play you'd only see in a high stakes home game and in a casino would be a different story.
The reason I don't consider it angle is that I don't see how Krish gained any advantage here. Primary reasons for that are that the offer was binding and he showed his cards.
I think Most of us just have a different definition of angling.
Making fake moves with your chip stack. Saying something real deceiving like “top top”. Lying about your hand. That’s angling.
This just sounds like fun poker banter to me. Apparently it’s coined “speech play?”.
Last edited:
I'd be okay having a $350k bluff returned.
I don't really see what advantage he is gaining. I'm trying to. The only scenario I can come up with is where Krish was actually intending to fold to the bluff. Any other scenario he is losing money.
The only information he didn't have is whether Krish was actually going to call.
I assure you I do not.
Speech play is part of the game guys. Learn it or get exploited by it. I am not a talker but I am happy to have people talk to me and give free info on their hands.
Putting aside the “was it an angle” question, I think the advantage for Krish is clear. He was able to win a significant pot without risking anything at all on the river. In a normal game, if he wanted to call the bluff, Krish would’ve had to risk his stack.
When the host said the Krish’s offer was “binding,” it meant only that the villain could accept it and it would be enforced. If the villain refused the offer, Krish would have folded (even though he told the villain he would call). So essentially at that point, once the villain reacted to Krish’s offer, Krish couldn’t lose any money in his stack, and he could win what was already in the middle (which is what happened).
Kentucky
Two Pair
Love it.
This _is_ the plot for Rounders 2 though…
Young Kid enters a high stakes game. After some time, a juicy pot builds. A seasoned pro folds. The kids battles on, chasing his outs on a board so connected Hollywood wouldn’t write it this way. So much comes in that our Hero tries an all-in bluff on the river. The gnarled opponent gruffly says:
“Son, this is a man’s game of cards. Don’t think you can bluff me with that pair of 5s they don’t beat these Queens. Do you want to take your money back?”
How does he do these stone cold reads? The kid leaves with his money, but without his pride. His girlfriend leaves - she can’t be with this empty shell. He wanders alone through an existential wilderness. Opportunities come and go - a crypto fin-tech app shows promise but his heart isn’t in it.
Eventually he returns to that shady game. The grizzled opponent is there, munching on everyone’s favorite cookie.
Has the kid grown up? Does he now belong in the “man’s” game? Things start well when the kid takes down a massive pot with complete 72o air… Cookies get thrown at the wall, the grizzled veteran rebuys. The tension builds…
I have to say, Act 3 doesn’t look good for you Windwalker…
This _is_ the plot for Rounders 2 though…
Young Kid enters a high stakes game. After some time, a juicy pot builds. A seasoned pro folds. The kids battles on, chasing his outs on a board so connected Hollywood wouldn’t write it this way. So much comes in that our Hero tries an all-in bluff on the river. The gnarled opponent gruffly says:
“Son, this is a man’s game of cards. Don’t think you can bluff me with that pair of 5s they don’t beat these Queens. Do you want to take your money back?”
How does he do these stone cold reads? The kid leaves with his money, but without his pride. His girlfriend leaves - she can’t be with this empty shell. He wanders alone through an existential wilderness. Opportunities come and go - a crypto fin-tech app shows promise but his heart isn’t in it.
Eventually he returns to that shady game. The grizzled opponent is there, munching on everyone’s favorite cookie.
Has the kid grown up? Does he now belong in the “man’s” game? Things start well when the kid takes down a massive pot with complete 72o air… Cookies get thrown at the wall, the grizzled veteran rebuys. The tension builds…
I have to say, Act 3 doesn’t look good for you Windwalker…
bergs
Royal Flush
I would’ve been ok with it as a player. I would’ve sat there like a stone and not said a fucking thing and let Krish figure out his shit for himself.
As a host - I think after the hand I would’ve said that I didn’t want to see this again. In my old home game, you could call HU and if both were all in, then do business (example - say “I call” and then ask if the other player wanted to chop the pot or take some back). At that point, there are no more poker decisions to be made (call / fold / bet / etc). Now 2 players HU are just making decisions about the pot and the relative (private, no cards exposed) strength of their hands.
Why’d we do this? Because the games had 6 card hands and 6 card board and a ton of variance and we played 2000+bb deep in some situations.
Also, it’s important to note that when this happened, everyone knew each other and had been playing together for years. I wasn’t concerned as a host about scaring off new players.
This didn’t happen often - maybe once every 3 sessions - it wasn’t a common thing and wasn’t the least bit collusiony. It was always very very large pots that it came up….but the key for me is that it was negotiated after all players in the pot had already made their poker decisions.
Right…
He had near perfect info…he didn’t know what Krish would really do if he just sat there or refused the deal.
I don’t see speech as angling - it’s an attempt to get info.
Again, as a host, I wouldn’t like that he exposed his cards and put the decision back in the original bettor. That’s just how I feel as a host - pot business is fine HU after all poker decisions and have been made.
It’s like you and some other people are out to get him. I’m not defending him - I wouldn’t allow what he did in my home game - but I just don’t see this as an angleshoot at a home game playing that deep with players all familiar with one another.
The context in which these events occur is important. In a casino, with unknowns, it probably is somewhat of an angleshoot but a) the casino typically won’t allow the bets to come back or a chop - tho some casinos do have different rules for big deep games, and b) everyone seems to be forgetting that the kid could’ve basically told Krish to go fuck himself by just sitting there like a stone, waiting for Krish to fold, and then showing A5 and telling him to suck it.
EDIT: to further clarify, I’d only allow players to do business with the pot after all decisions were made AND they were HU to start the street. I don’t like the player 1 bets player 2 jams player 3 calls player 1 folds and 2 & 3 do business aspect because it could make people think they virtually colluded to push 1 out if the pot.
Last edited:
first day on the internet, krish?
Frankly, I don’t understand why it’s an angle in public cardrooms either. I get that it is, I just don’t think it should be.
I understand why they’ve taken speech play out of tournaments (I’m not sure I agree with it, but I understand it.). But i think somewhere along the line, people got themselves all confused, and started applying those rules to cash games as well. But best guess is that floors don’t want to be called over every ten minutes to field complaints about speech play - it’s just easier to outlaw it entirely. But there’s nothing unfair about what happened in this hand.
I bet a casino at these stakes probably would even allow it…
Yes. You see stuff like this on high stakes steams and shows, and those are usually in a casino. From what I’ve heard, at those highest stakes casino tables, in all practical ways, the players are running the game, not the house.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Krish was probably going to call. And if the other player declined his offer he was probably going to fold. How can you possibly say Krish didn't get any information?
The offer was binding, not his action.
TheDuke
Full House
Lol. Serious?
You were steamed for a month because a dealer at a home game peeked at the river, feigned excitement for 2 seconds, and turned over a brick?
But a player taking advantage over a new guy is an element of a game that has to be part of the game otherwise you don't want to attend.
That seems oddly incongruous to me.
OP
OP
Lots of health debate, and I see all sides. I think part of this comes from very few on this board playing the stakes I do.
If speech play were an issue, Perrson would have been kicked off HSP within the first few hands. It’s just part and parcel of how high stakes games work, and most players who play them understand it.
If you don’t want to allow it in your own home game, great. I remember a hand I played against Justin K. and Rick S. in the private salon at Resorts World, with a floor, and under casino regulations. Justin had been losing heavily for the night, down almost $700k. We were 3-handed to the river, with $1.85MM in the pot. The board was JsJq10s9s. Justin was first to act, and bet $650k into the pot. The turn had completed all sorts of draws, and I reluctantly folded 67s, even though I had a gut-shot straight flush draw.
Rick smoothcalls. The river is the 8s. Justin checks. Rick goes all in for another $1.2mm. Justin goes in the tank. He finally says, “look — I think you have AKs, but the pot’s big enough. I have quads, and he shows his hand. But there’s a risk that you have the Qs, so I’ll make you a deal. Wanna split the pot in the middle 75-25 and take your $1.2mm back?”
Rick sits stone cold. Doesn’t say a word. So, Justin calls. And Rick shows AKs.
I think that in my scenario, the ONLY time the villain asks the host if it’s binding is if he felt like he made a really stupid bluff and didn’t want to lose his money. Yes, my thinking was that if he didn’t say anything or refused, I most likely would have folded. But there’s a lot to read even in how people react to speech play. I had rivered a straight flush draw, but I didn’t give a shit that the deal was being offered.
If your game doesn’t allow it, cool. Ours do. My big game does as well. It’s probably a game culture thing.
This was supposed to be just a fun look into how we play our games. That’s all
If speech play were an issue, Perrson would have been kicked off HSP within the first few hands. It’s just part and parcel of how high stakes games work, and most players who play them understand it.
If you don’t want to allow it in your own home game, great. I remember a hand I played against Justin K. and Rick S. in the private salon at Resorts World, with a floor, and under casino regulations. Justin had been losing heavily for the night, down almost $700k. We were 3-handed to the river, with $1.85MM in the pot. The board was JsJq10s9s. Justin was first to act, and bet $650k into the pot. The turn had completed all sorts of draws, and I reluctantly folded 67s, even though I had a gut-shot straight flush draw.
Rick smoothcalls. The river is the 8s. Justin checks. Rick goes all in for another $1.2mm. Justin goes in the tank. He finally says, “look — I think you have AKs, but the pot’s big enough. I have quads, and he shows his hand. But there’s a risk that you have the Qs, so I’ll make you a deal. Wanna split the pot in the middle 75-25 and take your $1.2mm back?”
Rick sits stone cold. Doesn’t say a word. So, Justin calls. And Rick shows AKs.
I think that in my scenario, the ONLY time the villain asks the host if it’s binding is if he felt like he made a really stupid bluff and didn’t want to lose his money. Yes, my thinking was that if he didn’t say anything or refused, I most likely would have folded. But there’s a lot to read even in how people react to speech play. I had rivered a straight flush draw, but I didn’t give a shit that the deal was being offered.
If your game doesn’t allow it, cool. Ours do. My big game does as well. It’s probably a game culture thing.
This was supposed to be just a fun look into how we play our games. That’s all
I dunno, but it's pretty annoying to me when people try to talk during a hand and dealers won't let them - it feels like home games are the last refuge. But no, I guess I'm exaggerating when I say to leave me off your list - I'd still like to play in a good game, even if people aren't allowed to talk during hands.
My story has nothing to do with any of this, and even though "steamed for a month" may have been my actual words, using them against me is silly. Yeah, it annoys me when I think about it, but it isn't keeping me up nights.
RainmanTrail
Straight Flush
I think speech play should be allowed in all poker games. Is what someone said another bluff? Are they trying to get information out of me? If so, what? This should all be part of the game. The fact that it's not, in any game, is ridiculous.
The type of angle shooting I care about is when someone cheats to try to gain an advantage. Like hiding their cards to make it look like they're not in the hand, or miscalling what they have on the river to try to get someone else to file, or splashing the pot with a short bet, etc. But showing your cards at any point while heads up should always be allowed in poker. Saying, "I'll let you take your money back if you fold" is a proposition. It's no more of an "angle shoot" than feigning weakness when you're strong or strength when you're weak. If someone pulled that move against me, I'd continue my bluff by letting the bet stand, because the QQ is almost certainly folding if I do. This is part of poker, in my opinion. Real poker. Not the abomination that the WSOP has tried to turn poker into with their flurry of completely nonsensical bullshit rules.
The type of angle shooting I care about is when someone cheats to try to gain an advantage. Like hiding their cards to make it look like they're not in the hand, or miscalling what they have on the river to try to get someone else to file, or splashing the pot with a short bet, etc. But showing your cards at any point while heads up should always be allowed in poker. Saying, "I'll let you take your money back if you fold" is a proposition. It's no more of an "angle shoot" than feigning weakness when you're strong or strength when you're weak. If someone pulled that move against me, I'd continue my bluff by letting the bet stand, because the QQ is almost certainly folding if I do. This is part of poker, in my opinion. Real poker. Not the abomination that the WSOP has tried to turn poker into with their flurry of completely nonsensical bullshit rules.
Krish,
The speech is fine. Against a new player, no matter how rich, it displeases me, but not out of bounds.
But if you were going to fold if the kid sat like a stone like Solomon or said "my bet stands," then it is an angle.
Justin in your example put the money in. You were fortunate not to be put in the spot. Size of the game has nothing to do with it.
R
The speech is fine. Against a new player, no matter how rich, it displeases me, but not out of bounds.
But if you were going to fold if the kid sat like a stone like Solomon or said "my bet stands," then it is an angle.
Justin in your example put the money in. You were fortunate not to be put in the spot. Size of the game has nothing to do with it.
R
OP
OP
Point taken. But heads-up, at least in our games, there’s a lot of showing cards to get information, see where you stand, etc. If he sat like stone, but he seemed visibly nervous, I think it’s all about the read in the moment. I do believe that if he said “‘o deal”, I might have folded, but it’s truly hard to tell until you read the person and what their reactions are.
I can honestly say that in years of playing at a casino, I’ve never once been accused of angle shooting, and even on things like HSP or livestreams, I’m usually a pretty calm, easy player.
Every game is different, and this one has a culture one adapts to!
Huh? What’s the point? Speech play is allowed as long as it’s the truth? We can’t lie at the poker table?
Don’t take that point.
OP
OP
I meant the point that it displeases him. Not everyone has to like the action I took, but I think everyone is making a mountain out of a molehill. I was playing around and digging for info. In the end, I think the kid was glad I offered the deal, since without the speech play, I was leaning towards a call. If you don’t believe that, watch some of the ridiculous calls I’ve made with worse holdings on live streams.
It’s not the speech. I think the multiple posts back and forth explaining the issue are pretty clear about what the concerns are. And, as Krish explained, the games he plays in allow this kind of behavior. I think several of us who host would not allow it.
You make is sound like it’s obvious, but either it isn’t obvious or I’m not too bright. Or I just don’t agree that it’s problematic. I just went back and reread everything everybody’s said and I don’t see anything problematic. Help me out. If it’s not the speech, what is it?
Krish tabling his hand?
The kid maybe being inexperienced?
The fact that the kid reacted?
That you can’t normally take back a bet?
Krish was lying?
Thanks for (hopefully) answering. I’m beginning to think this is just a situation where some people see unfairness where other people just see poker. Like check raises. That doesn’t make something an angle. But maybe I can’t argue with “problematic.”
OP
OP
I think in the strictest of games run by people here (and more power to how they run their games), the following would have happened:
- V goes all in.
- I tank, then table my hand
- I say my speech.
- Host immediately steps in before V has a chance to respond and says “sorry, I don’t allow that in my game, you have to either call or fold.”
- I then make a decision, one way or the other.
- Fin.
I think Krish explained it well, except I would take issue with the characterization of my games as “the strictest.” We just generally with a few exceptions try to follow the same rules that apply at the casinos and card rooms here, and with which we all are familiar.
I have no issue with Krish exposing his cards or talking to try to get a read. What concerns me is the offer of a deal when all the action is complete, when the kid was relatively new to the game and obviously not very familiar with the house rules. By asking whether the deal is enforceable, the kid has given away the strength (weakness) of his hand. This is a situation where not knowing the house rules truly disadvantaged the kid. And Krish took advantage of the relative inexperience to win the hand without risking the amount of the last bet.
If it’s a bunch of drunk degenerates playing in the game, and that’s how they want to play, it’s fine by me.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
