Hand Analysis - $100/$200/$400 NLHE Home Game (3 Viewers)

[upNdown]

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.

Hmm. I see. So what if the kid meant is ALL of the offer enforceable? Including the part about Krish calling. Because if he thought Krish HAD to call at that point (after saying he was calling) then he has no choice but to pull back his bet and give up the pot.
I’ve changed my vote! This is an angle.

Edit: just reread it - Krish said he told the kid he was most likely calling. I change my vote again. Not an angle.

But I see why some people think it’s problematic, I don’t think taking advantage of an inexperienced kid is cool, but I also don’t think it’s an angle.

 

[bergs]

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.

Or you call and do business before anyone tables their hand…

 

[RainmanTrail]

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.

I'm curious if, as the host, you'd allow a player to wait until the river, after his opponent has shoved all in, to ask if they can run it twice if he calls?

 

[swana]

Hmm. I see. So what if the kid meant is ALL of the offer enforceable? Including the part about Krish calling. Because if he thought Krish HAD to call at that point (after saying he was calling) then he has no choice but to pull back his bet and give up the pot.
I’ve changed my vote! This is an angle.

Edit: just reread it - Krish said he told the kid he was most likely calling. I change my vote again. Not an angle.

But I see why some people think it’s problematic, I don’t think taking advantage of an inexperienced kid is cool, but I also don’t think it’s an angle.

But because you’re new to the game, I’ll give you one option - you can take it or leave it. You can take your all-in bet back, and I take the current pot. Or, I call, and you lose $380k. Your choice, but you have to decide now.”

Villain looks at me, and asks the host if that’s a binding offer. Host says that’s allowed. He accepts the offer, and mucks his hand.

I dont know if this is an exact quote of what was said at the game but to me based on the offer as outlined, if I was the villian, took the offer and tabled the winning hand, I would expect that the call in the offer be enforced as per the host's confirmation. The offer was for him to surrender the pot or be called.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I dont know if this is an exact quote of what was said at the game but to me based on the offer as outlined, if I was the villian, took the offer and tabled the winning hand, I would expect that the call in the offer be enforced as per the host's confirmation. The offer was for him to surrender the pot or be called.

No it wasn't. Saying, "I'm probably going to call", or, "I'm most likely going to call" is not a call.

 

[upNdown]

I dont know if this is an exact quote of what was said at the game but to me based on the offer as outlined, if I was the villian, took the offer and tabled the winning hand, I would expect that the call in the offer be enforced as per the host's confirmation. The offer was for him to surrender the pot or be called.

No it wasn't. Saying, "I'm probably going to call", or, "I'm most likely going to call" is not a call.

I think the exact language matters a lot here. We probably don't have it, so it probably isn't worth arguing over.

 

[Hornet]

I'm curious if, as the host, you'd allow a player to wait until the river, after his opponent has shoved all in, to ask if they can run it twice if he calls?

I’m absolutely fine with that … but since we all play together all the time, if someone starts asking that question repeatedly seeking information instead of really wanting to know the answer, it won’t be long before people stop answering. And it’s pretty clear in our game who runs it twice (and under what circumstances) and who doesn’t.

 

[swana]

I think the exact language matters a lot too, hence why I prefaced my comment that way... I quoted WW statement on the thread and that would have lead me to believe if I tabled the winning hand the call would be binding.

 

[upNdown]

I think the exact language matters a lot too, hence why I prefaced my comment that way... I quoted WW statement on the thread and that would have lead me to believe if I tabled the winning hand the call would be binding.

Yeah I see what you're saying. it sure sounds binding, the way he typed it here.
I guess that also raises the question, if you allow table talk, do you give more flexibility around words that are normally controlling and binding, like "call," "fold," and "all in." And I'm not sure if it even matters here:

"You can take your all-in bet back, and I take the current pot. Or, I call, and you lose $380k. "

By that language, only two things can happen - villain takes back his bet and surrenders, or Krish calls. Now, my first response would be that Krish doesn't have the power to reduce the hand to those two options only, so his language shouldn't be binding. But on the other hand, since he is giving the guy the power to pull back his bet, which normally isn't legal, I think there's a fair argument that if that was the exact language and the guy didn't pull back his bet, Krish has to call.
This is fascinating.

 

[swana]

Exactly! So when the villian asks if the proposition is binding, he could really be asking is "is hero's call binding"?

 

[bergs]

Reread the hand history and actually, this is worth noting…

“Or, I call, and you lose $380k”

He’s kinda committing himself to a call here. He’s not saying “if I call” or “you might lose”, he’s making 2 definitive declarations, with the first being the most significant.

I didn’t think it was an angle based on the kid being able to sit there like a stone and not say anything and put the decision back on Krish.

But let’s say he held the nuts and said “no deal” and Krish found a fold.

I’d be like “whoa hold the fuck up, he gave me an option to take the jam back, “Or, I call, and you lose $380k”. The call is binding.

You’re putting the host in a really fucking shitty spot. If it were me and I had the nuts I might’ve said “no deal”, tabled my hand, and waited for Krish’s stack to get pushed to me.

The thing about speech play is that you gotta keep it really really simple or it gets ambiguous and that’s horrible for any game at any stakes…and you gotta realize that when you try to exploit players with speech play, if you say the wrong thing, they can turn that shit around on you right quick.

Krish - if he said no deal and tables T9 were you ready to push him the 380K plus the middle?

EDIT: just saw the other posts along the same lines - I think Krish oughta clarify his exact language if he wants feedback…

 

[Anthony Martino]

Krish - if he said no deal and tables T9 were you ready to push him the 380K plus the middle?

IT WAS A JOKE BET!

 

[upNdown]

IT WAS A JOKE BET!

YES!

 

[TheDuke]

Krish - if he said no deal and tables T9 were you ready to push him the 380K plus the middle?

What were you going to do if he didn’t say a word or said “my bet stands”?

Fold, of course. (Most likely.)

Angle.

 

[onerand]

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!

Krish,

We've played together. I have no doubt you had no ill intent. But had you folded the result would have been a pure angle. You need to be aware of this. More so now that you are somewhat well known in high stakes and here.

Speech play is fine. Talk before a guy bets, fine. Talk to get a read ater he bets, fine. The, "I don't think you have much and I don't know what to do so I raise" classic nut line, fine. The result of what you said was give yourself a freeroll.

Having said what you did, you must call. Alternative is to throw calling chips in a few words into the same speech. Let the kid save face and you look like a magnanimous baller.

If this happened on stream against anyone and you folded, you would have been cut to pieces. In home game you risk being banned.

R

 

[bergs]

Angle.

Still don’t think it was an angle but he may well have screwed himself into having called the $380K if the kid didn’t take the deal or immediately tabled a winning hand.

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

“You can take your all-in bet back, and I take the current pot. Or, I call, and you lose $380k. Your choice, but you have to decide now.”

Villain looks at me, and asks the host if that’s a binding offer. Host says that’s allowed. He accepts the offer, and mucks his hand.”

He asked the host if the offer is binding and they said it is, or they said it’s allowed? The wording matters here.

Because based on what you wrote the literal reading would be that you are committing to a call, but giving him the option to take his bet back if he happens to be bluffing.

If he lets his bet stand and you choose to fold its just inconsistent with your statement. And if the floor affirmed that your offer is binding it’s not really that folding would be an angle, you just wouldn’t be able to do it.

 

[AWenger]

I think you guys are missing this is a HIGH STAKES HOME GAME and oftentimes they have their own set of rules based on the playerbase, which includes deals like this.

I've seen it in private games at legit poker rooms where the players essentially run the game and rules mostly, so a home game is going to be moreso.

I think this post bears repeating.

I've played in some 'home game' cash games that are way less in stakes, but say around $2-5 to $5-10 NL blinds, where deals or propositions similar to this have been allowed in heads up play. Although it does make a difference when it gets to heads up. For example, if there was a third player in the hand either on the turn or on the river, any deal or proposition like this would likely be not allowed. Otherwise, it could read as two players colluding, either intentionally or unintentionally, and betting to force the third player out, just to get to the river heads up to make a deal. But since the hand as described it was heads-up play on the turn and on the river, in most games like this, a deal or offer like this would likely have been acceptable to all parties (both players in the hand; anyone else in the hand earlier, and the house/floor), then I don't see the big deal in the proposition.

I really don't think this is an "angle" either, regardless of the wording of the second part of the proposition. But if the exact wording of the offer was more along the lines of 'I'll allow you to take back your bet, or I'll most likely call.' As long as both parties in the hand are OK with the outcome, I don't think the host or anyone else needs to officiate it differently for this type of game.

I really liked the peek into a unique situation that this thread presented.

 

[CrazyEddie]

I just can’t see angle shoot though. He tabled his cards and gave his opponent near-perfect information and a choice. There was no effort to deceive.

Of course there was an effort to deceive. Krish was being dishonest about his intentions. He wanted his opponent to believe that if The Kid didn't take his bet back then Krish would call (he said "You can take your all-in bet back, and I take the current pot. Or, I call, and you lose $380k."). Of course, if The Kid didn't take his bet back then Krish would know he was beat and would fold instead of calling.

There's nothing wrong with this, though, in my opinion. Poker is a game of deception.

It's a little confusing because The Kid asked "Is that binding?" and the Host said "That's allowed" but it's not clear what either The Kid's question nor the Host's answer means here. Does that mean that if The Kid said "Go ahead and call" that Krish would have been bound to his verbal statement - i.e. he would have been required to call since The Kid didn't take back his bet? I have no idea what Krish, The Kid, or the Host thought was "binding" about what was going down at that moment, which IMHO created an extremely bad situation where multiple people might have thought they were playing by different rules. Fortunately that potentially disastrous misunderstanding didn't come into play.

 

[CrazyEddie]

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.

The action wasn't on The Kid; he didn't have a decision to make. The action was on Krish.

Krish gave him a decision to make, but it was a false decision, engineered not to give The Kid an opportunity but instead to get him to divulge information (i.e. if he doesn't take Krish's refund offer than he's got the goods and Krish should fold). It cost Krish one river bet vs. just calling if he's good, but saved him one river bet vs. just calling if he's bad. A great hedge in an uncertain situation, and one made possible by pretending to offer him a decision.

 

[Anthony Martino]

The action wasn't on The Kid; he didn't have a decision to make. The action was on Krish.

Krish gave him a decision to make, but it was a false decision, engineered not to give The Kid an opportunity but instead to get him to divulge information (i.e. if he doesn't take Krish's refund offer than he's got the goods and Krish should fold). It cost Krish one river bet vs. just calling if he's good, but saved him one river bet vs. just calling if he's bad. A great hedge in an uncertain situation, and one made possible by pretending to offer him a decision.

THE CAKE IS A LIE!

 

[AWenger]

Hey @Anthony Martino, I was just thinking about this hand further, and @Windwalker just may be the first person to successfully achieve your line of "If I show, will you fold?" (Although with added threat of a call and a $340k rebate offer attached to the fold, too.) lol

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

"I really don't think this is an "angle" either, regardless of the wording of the second part of the proposition. But if the exact wording of the offer was more along the lines of 'I'll allow you to take back your bet, or I'll most likely call.'"

in his words,

“You can take your all-in bet back, and I take the current pot. Or, I call, and you lose $380k. Your choice, but you have to decide now."

there've been a few iterations about the wording so i dont know exactly what happened but the wording matters a lot.
adding in "ill likely" makes a huge difference.

"It's a little confusing because The Kid asked "Is that binding?" and the Host said "That's allowed" but it's not clear what either The Kid's question nor the Host's answer means here."

the agreement is allowed, yes. is it binding? well, the card room can't enforce it, but they can enter into their own agreements / side bets if they so please since no other parties are affected.

and the fact that he asked if it was binding strongly suggests that the wording, at that time, was not "i'll likely call" - but that it was worded as krish said in the post quoted above.


deception is part of the game but making an agreement like that in game and reneging is pretty close to just welching on a prop bet even if that wasn't his intent.

 

[Windwalker]

Hi all, sorry for the delay. I was waiting for both the host and the player to call me back so I could verify exactly what was said. Both verified the following. @onerand and others were right, about what would have happened if he left his money in.


From Villain: "You took a long time, and said something like 'I really don't believe you have it, I should be calling.' You waited some more and then finally said, 'I'll make you a one-time offer. I think you missed your pocket 5 draw, and you overbet to take it down.' You showed me your queens. You then said, 'I don't think you can beat this. I should probably call, but if I'm right, you'll lose $380k. If I'm wrong, good for you. But if you want to take your all-in bet back, and give me the pot in the middle, I won't call.' I asked [host name] if that offer was binding, and I could take my money back. [Host name] said 'yeah, that's allowed.' So, I took my money back because it was an impulse bluff. I missed my draw."

From Host: "What I remember is that you offered him a post bet deal to take his money back and give you the money in the middle in exchange for you not calling, we do those kinds of deals all the time. Because he asked me about it, it exposed the strength of his hand, so if he decided to keep his money in, I would have insisted that you make the call of his all-in. But he folded right away, so I didn't have to do that."

 

[swana]

That all makes sense. Thanks for sharing the additional context.

 

[CrazyEddie]

the agreement is allowed, yes. is it binding? well, the card room can't enforce it, but they can enter into their own agreements / side bets if they so please since no other parties are affected.

My point, which I didn't make clear, is that there are at least two different things that "is that binding" could be referring to:

a) Is his offer to let me take back my bet binding? I.e. if I agree to his terms and give him the pot, will he be required to give me back my bet rather than just laughing and keeping the whole thing?

OR

b) Is his verbal statement of his intentions binding, meaning that if I don't "take back my bet" (which isn't actually a thing that normally a player would be allowed to do according to the rules of poker) is he required to call?

It's not clear from Krish's description - nor, I believe, even possible to know given how things went down - what The Kid thought he was asking, nor what the Host thought he was answering.

By strict poker rules none of this could have happened, since it was on Krish to either call or fold, but neither of those two things happened; instead, both players abandoned the hand, and the Host agreed to divide the pot between the two players as per the players' agreement at their mutual request. Some poker rooms might allow this i.e. chopping the pot rather than playing it out, but many would not. Obviously the Host can run the game any way he likes, and it seems to suit both him and his players to do so.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Hi all, sorry for the delay. I was waiting for both the host and the player to call me back so I could verify exactly what was said. Both verified the following. @onerand and others were right, about what would have happened if he left his money in.


From Villain: "You took a long time, and said something like 'I really don't believe you have it, I should be calling.' You waited some more and then finally said, 'I'll make you a one-time offer. I think you missed your pocket 5 draw, and you overbet to take it down.' You showed me your queens. You then said, 'I don't think you can beat this. I should probably call, but if I'm right, you'll lose $380k. If I'm wrong, good for you. But if you want to take your all-in bet back, and give me the pot in the middle, I won't call.' I asked [host name] if that offer was binding, and I could take my money back. [Host name] said 'yeah, that's allowed.' So, I took my money back because it was an impulse bluff. I missed my draw."

From Host: "What I remember is that you offered him a post bet deal to take his money back and give you the money in the middle in exchange for you not calling, we do those kinds of deals all the time. Because he asked me about it, it exposed the strength of his hand, so if he decided to keep his money in, I would have insisted that you make the call of his all-in. But he folded right away, so I didn't have to do that."

Krish, thanks for providing this level of detail. And please pass our appreciation along to the other parties for their willingness to discuss the matter and to let you share it with us.

If I'm reading this correctly - the misunderstanding that I was concerned might have existed did in fact exist. Villain thought he was asking about whether your offer to let him take his money back was binding (and got what he thought was an answer in the affirmative), but Host thought Villain was asking about whether your statement that you "should probably call" was a binding decision to call if Villain didn't take his bet back (and Host gave what he thought was an answer in the affirmative). And obviously your understanding of the issue was different from the Host's intention, even after the host gave his answer.

It turned out not to matter - but it could have mattered, and would have been a pretty big problem.

 

[TheDuke]

Hi all, sorry for the delay. I was waiting for both the host and the player to call me back so I could verify exactly what was said. Both verified the following. @onerand and others were right, about what would have happened if he left his money in.


From Villain: "You took a long time, and said something like 'I really don't believe you have it, I should be calling.' You waited some more and then finally said, 'I'll make you a one-time offer. I think you missed your pocket 5 draw, and you overbet to take it down.' You showed me your queens. You then said, 'I don't think you can beat this. I should probably call, but if I'm right, you'll lose $380k. If I'm wrong, good for you. But if you want to take your all-in bet back, and give me the pot in the middle, I won't call.' I asked [host name] if that offer was binding, and I could take my money back. [Host name] said 'yeah, that's allowed.' So, I took my money back because it was an impulse bluff. I missed my draw."

From Host: "What I remember is that you offered him a post bet deal to take his money back and give you the money in the middle in exchange for you not calling, we do those kinds of deals all the time. Because he asked me about it, it exposed the strength of his hand, so if he decided to keep his money in, I would have insisted that you make the call of his all-in. But he folded right away, so I didn't have to do that."

So you're saying you would have called if the kid had the winning hand? This is different than what you wrote earlier (post 61). Or you would have tried folding but the host would have forced you to commit the chips?

 

[Windwalker]

Krish, thanks for providing this level of detail. And please pass our appreciation along to the other parties for their willingness to discuss the matter and to let you share it with us.

If I'm reading this correctly - the misunderstanding that I was concerned might have existed did in fact exist. Villain thought he was asking about whether your offer to let him take his money back was binding (and got what he thought was an answer in the affirmative), but Host thought Villain was asking about whether your statement that you "should probably call" was a binding decision to call if Villain didn't take his bet back (and Host gave what he thought was an answer in the affirmative). And obviously your understanding of the issue was different from the Host's intention, even after the host gave his answer.

It turned out not to matter - but it could have mattered, and would have been a pretty big problem.

That is correct. The host told me that if the villain hadn't asked him anything and simply said "I accept the deal, let's do it," it would have just ended with that. But, after villain asked host to clarify if it was binding, it gave me enough information to fold, which he wouldn't have allowed. He said that typically, people usually don't say a word when deals like that are proffered, but as you said, it all worked out.

For the record, if the host told me that I was required to call, I would have. The game is fun, friendly and drama-free.

 

[Senzrock]

This was an interesting debate and it made me think more than I was anticipating. After reading through the initial 1+ pages of the comments on here, I was pretty sure in my opinion that this was not an angle, just strong speech play by the hero (I try to incorporate speech play into my game, I personally love the psychological aspect of the game, and think it can be employed in a perfectly friendly way etc). Because in the home games that I play, there are often all kinds of deals proposed and done, both preflop and on later streets, my bias leans toward this being fairly standard.

A few comments did make me question my position however:

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.

I think even if we all agree that Krish did not attempt to angle or do anything malicious, there is no question that Krish's "proposal" caught the player offguard and put him in a disadvantageous position. It also put the host in a more complicated spot than maybe they even understood in the moment. The host might well have had the same reaction I did "Oh this happens all the time, of course it's cool." But just because something is the norm, doesn't mean that it doesn't increase the edge for some over others (regulars over newcomers for example). In these kind of split second decisions, people like the villain aren't always able to process the various aspects of such a proposal in a way that ensures no loss of equity (thinking through *exactly* what his own response to the host might giveaway about his hand). I myself didn't even realize the implications until several people pointed it out to me on this thread.

I guess a lot of it comes down to this: do you think, given the norms in certain games, that it is OK if more experienced players, through speech play in this case, exert whatever psychological pressure that they want on their opponents (even in a joking/friendly manor)? I think in game, in those few seconds immediately following Krish's proposal, it feels like just part of the game. Upon further reflection, it does raise important points about the broader ethics in our local poker eco-systems. If I were the host, and had some time to think about it, I think it might lead me to create a few additional rules for future games, just to clarify bounderies of what is acceptable and what isn't. These situations are cool to zoom in on and discuss!